h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Winter isn’t coming. Summer is here. Stay tuned for updates.
==============
It’s cooling folks For how long???????
Probably ~20 years. Then PDO flips and we get 1976-998 type warming for ~30 years. Then flat again, etc.
Nah, don’t ya know that the Sun has NO effect on our climate. That’s what ‘experts’ tell us.
Cite please, otherwise you’re just a troll.
Per AGhazi, quoted above –
“We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …”
Plus whole armadas, serious shedloads, and absolute bag-loads of correctness!
We truly do not understand weather – let alone climate.
Short term weather, yes, we have a loose handle on [more or less].
Climate –
Aren’t there several variables? WUWT – I think – did a big page of them . . . . . . . .
Auto – snuggling up tonight!
Warm I can cope with (May not like) ; cold I need to snuggle up!
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The text quoted in the article above is part of the introduction to the paper, not the abstract. The abstract actually reads:
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Bevan.
Interesting. They are suggesting the negative forcing may be significant over that region. It reminds me of some of the Professor Lockwood research.
Ah! Mike Lockwood was one of the authors. Ignore my comment about him.
Looks as though David Evans may have been right all along.
Now, be reasonable. The Notch ‘theory’ was Dead-on-Arrival as its premise is plainly wrong. Educate yourself a bit, and pay attention to the facts, e.g.to the actual variation of TSI:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-to-Now.png
The Notch-Delay theory doesn’t rely on TSI variations.
Go educate yourself. TSI was the starting point for the whole thing [“the big news”].
The tiny changes in TSI are only a proxy for an amplification factor.
My hypothesis provides a possible candidate.
Unfortunately you increasingly mix disinformation in amongst your factual comments.
It is the sun stupid. The maple seeds around my home are anemic. The endosperms are 10% of normal size. I still have to run the heating system. WTF?
No amount of adjusting the temperature record can account for a quiet, low output sun.
“No amount of adjusting the temperature record can account for a quiet, low output sun.”
Oh, you will be surprised.
🙂
Interestingly, they say that whilst reduction in solar activity will make little difference, associated reduction in UV will:
‘Abstract.
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.’
Even if the alarmists accept this paper, it is unlikely to counter the hysteria that is bring whipped up for the Paris beanfeast.
Old’un
I will go one step further. I think the Met Office may have softly encouraged the publication of this paper, with it’s defects, just so that they can say, AT PARIS, we looked at the solar radiance issue and it is just not a serious effort. Planned condemnation by faint praise. Yes, I think the Machiavellian bastards would do such a thing. Seed the realm with infertile weeds so to speak.
Paul Westhaver: I like that: “Seed the realm with infertile weeds” It bears on something I keep banging on about: that when it comes to Paris they (the scientivists) need to cover all the bases. On the one hand, if the climate cools, and it’s a Maunder on the way, they need to be able to say it’s a very minor thing and AGW will transcend it; OTOH, if the Maunder is bigger than they are saying right now they will claim that the cooling is all down to the mitigation, carbon taxes, solar farms, wind farms and FF disinvestment that they advocated. A win/win for them. (‘winwin’ is Serbo-Mongolian slang for ‘lying toe-rags’) [grin]
Hi Harry Passfield,
You are bang on! Those lying toe-rag scientivists can thus pick and chose their issue du jour from the endless crop of annual infertile weeds. Dandelions are really just yellow flowers. doncha know.
It’s all part of the long row back. They are preparing an exit strategy.
Note that 0.8C is total warming over of 20th c. , so what they are saying here ( ever so quietely ) is that a large proportion of the warming of the last century may be due to the high solar activity. You can’t have it both ways.
Oh, you will be surprised.
Always. But never amazed.
Paul…I like your post on what may be behind the MET publishing the paper – IMO, everything generated for public digestion by our government has a behind the scenes reason, and that reason is good for the gov’t but negative for citizens.
I apply the same logic to any agency funded by gov’t.
Scientists… pishaw! Scientists are agenda driven creatures with a whole toolbox of axes to grind, just like the rest of the world. For the past 8-10 years that I have been frequenting WUWT, my consistent complaint is that scientists carping “science” as an inoculation against criticism that they are humans and given to their prejudices, are full of cr@p. They sell out for cheap too. The Met Office is a political office decorated with goofy nerds who will authenticate the propaganda du jour.
Paul. For the sake of correctness, you may like to modify the article text. The organism you refer to is the UK Meteorological Office, the Met Office for short ( capital M,O ), Not the MET. The term “the Met” usually refers to the Metropolitain Police Force ( the force that covers London ).
Mike,
Duly noted. My truncation was of my own creation and since I am 5000 miles away from the UK, I concede ignorance on my part.
The Met here is The Metropolitan Opera in NYC. So I am doubly wrong.!
“Scientists” are fully capable of agendas that even the government doesn’t care about. Just look at where the cosmologists have taken us with their “Big Bang” theory: dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, expanding space, n-dimensions, …… not terribly useful.
All because they assume gravity is the operative “thing” out there, when even satellites are telling us that space is ELECTRIC.
the question is how is this being coordinated, because coordinated it is. Some group somewhere is making sure all the bases are covered, this isnt just an organic process, this is a concerted and controlled propaganda machine, certain papers are produced at intervals (more recently leading up to Paris) to cover all the issues, the Pope, EPA, Obama, UN,and scientific organisations all seem to be working together without being linked. It is a masterful scenario written and controlled by someone, all we need is a chink in the armour, one dissenting voice from the inside and it will all fall down. If they can maintain security then all is lost because not even the truth and facts can fight this kind of organisation. I know I sound like a conspiricy theorist but i am just calling it as I see it, the big picture is that the message is being controlled and just recently as the earth doesnt seem to be cooperating with the script, thay are adding a few variations to cover the continuity of the story.
The Nature paper is about BOTH solar UV output and the AMO (Atlantic ocean currents). Significant changes in total solar irradiance is not predicted, only a couple watts per meter-squared. It is known that UV absorbs in the high atmosphere, and recent analyses suggest that energy input can propagate down into the AMO. (I have no idea how, but papers have been published on this.) It the AMO that is predicted to produce cooling in Europe and eastern north America, a few degrees over many decades, and global cooling, about 0.12 deg. Thus they compare it to the Maunder Minimum of a few hundred years ago, when possibly similar things occurred.
Isn’t odd that a scientist five years ago was illoried by colleagues for suggesting the sun was the problem. Yet here we are predicting significant effects of just that same celestial body.
Not odd. It is a gradual move into admission that natural factors are quite important for global temperature. Most are not quite there yet. So they point some effect of a natural factor, but then say something like “but human-produced CO2 is still active in causing warming”. It will be a slow process, over the past couple years there are obvious changes in perspective of some.
My Creps are not blooming!!
My heat pump only needs to cool mid afternoon!!
My pecan trees put on fuzz but never made a pecan, poor squirrels!!
Yesterday I saw a really bright spot in the sky and thought it was the sun behind a little tiny cloud with a rainbow next to it. But the sun was about 30degrees away from it. It was there about 10 minutes and then dissappeared. Wierd…
Of course, any warming will only be “temporary”. Have the alarmist climate “scientists” redefined the meaning of words now as they have redefined “science” and natural law?
Everything is temporary.
CO2 fines won’t be.
The paper states: “Due to intellectual property right restrictions, we cannot provide either the source code or the documentation papers for HadGEM2”
That excludes the paper from serious consideration.
But Leif, It must be a good study because,…..well because it is from the MET Office.
And everyone knows that Met Office forecasts are always spot on.
anyone in the uk that has had cause to follow met forecasts for the last 30 years will be well aware the increased use of modeling has resulted in a marked decrease in accuracy. so much so most people involved in serious marine activities completely ignore them these days.
Absolutely.
Bit chilly:
” …the increased use of modeling has resulted in a marked decrease in accuracy” is the exact opposite of the truth. I know because i worked with their NWP models for 22 of those “last 30 years”.
Back 30 years ago NWP models still made the forecasts and this is the development of Supercomputers in that time …..
“This pattern of advancing technology and increasingly complex models continued, with the Met Office buying successively quicker computers every five to ten years. By 1982, our CDC Cyber 205 could do 200 million calculations a second, but by 1997 a Cray T3E was doing more than a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) a second.
We are now using an IBM supercomputer which can do more than 1000 trillion calculations a second. Its power allows it to take in hundreds of thousands of weather observations from all over the world which it then takes as a starting point for running an atmospheric model containing more than a million lines of code.
This is the improvement in forecast accuracy in that time….
http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/School+Members+Area/Ask+the+experts/Meteorological+forecasting.htm
“The graph shows how many days into a forecast period this average error is reached compared to a baseline in 1980. This graph shows that a three-day forecast today is more accurate than a one-day forecast in 1980.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who/accuracy/forecasts
So was this paper privately produced, so as to have private intellectual property rights associated with it, or is it a product of the publicly funded MET office? Something doesn’t fit here.
Leif, is this still on target for the 1st?
http://www.sidc.be/silso/
As far as I know, yes. But should there be a small delay, I wouldn’t complain.
Climate Science article – intellectual property rights? Surely there has to be some intellectual content for there to be intellectual property right?
I think CRU and/or the Met Office used the same lame excuse to evade FOIA requests by David Holland or Steve McIntyre. Good enough to use for justifying IPCC spiel, but a bit too good to let us plebs actually see it.
There are now entities in the education research arena that have developed a matrix used to accept or reject research for review on the efficacy of educational treatments (programs, curriculum, strategies, etc). The matrix is publicly available so researchers will know from the outset if their design meets strict criteria. Researchers are still free to publish their work in whatever journal accepts it, but if that research does not meet the criteria for inclusion, well, it just isn’t considered worthy of review. Now I wonder why someone thought it was necessary to create an entity that would serve as a public-accessible review to see if the treatment they are using actually has a chance in hell of working?
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Publications_Reviews.aspx?f=All%20Publication%20and%20Product%20Types,5;#pubsearch
I think climate science should have such a matrix. Why? Because the public consumer often does not know good research from bad, and that is especially true in the climate science arena. The evidence is often displayed here on all sides of this debate.
Any such matrix will be quickly tampered with by warmists, then used to block publication of contrarian papers.
Ms. Gray,
Great links. I’d like your opinion. Reading the links, my initial take away was: is the “What Works” content a process to lift average or below average teachers or, do you think it’s a process to make good teachers great?
Thank you,
Neither. It’s main endeavor is meant to improve educational research design, a notoriously low hanging fruit endeavor with notable exceptions. Sadly, the educational journals and curriculum producers fill 100’s of journals with sub-par research. This helps screen out that copious amount of chaff. If used by school districts, it can result in better spent limited budgets for curriculum and training as they focus better on a good bet instead of hype.
Elitist progressives who can’t get past their arrogant self importance controlling our knowledge. No thanks! That’s why we need open debate on blogs, less the FCC and executive orders.
Did you read their manual on what constitutes statistically valid research methods? Apparently not. Of if you did, you did not understand it. If you would endeavor to understand it, my thinking is that you would wish climate researchers used such standards.
The manual does not say anything at all about the outcome of research. It does however clearly set forth what constitutes reliable research methods.
I am not for any governance in publishing. Publishers are the messenger, if one does not agree with sloppy science, then do not subscribe to the hypothesis. As I have said, Svensmark, Landshceidt and others were initially castigated by the so called elitist leadership in science. AGW was accepted by many who today see the untruths in its’ hypocracy. Let the chips fall where they may, I see no need to allow a selection committee to dictate publishing guidelines. Like APA, it is a guideline, but really does not seem to stick. Example is all the acronyms and lack of citations. Many papers expect the readers to be as well read as the writer. So no wonder people give up on reading something beyond their understanding. It is the responsibility of the writer communicate the message; rather than turn around and be snarly at the perceived ignorance of readers.
Leif
Spot on. Nail hammer hammer nail commence
There is something interesting going on here. This paper claims regional skill. That could well be worth a fortune if the claim is correct.
And kids, a paper with a mechanism to explain cooling? How much treasure be there?
==============
Agreed Leif, but the paper does have entertainment value… 🙂
as do most of the comments here.
Perhaps they should develop their own intellectual property rights with their own money.
lsvalgaard.
“That excludes the paper from serious consideration.”
Why do you say that?
Anecdotally, judging by the reaction, the paper is getting a lot of serious consideration.
I would not consider the attention it is getting here as ‘serious’, but perhaps my bar for what is worthwhile is [much] higher than yours.
lsvalgaard.
“I would not consider the attention it is getting here as ‘serious’, but perhaps my bar for what is worthwhile is [much] higher than yours.”
Not just from WUWT.
I probably should not have added that second question, I did mean why do you say “That excludes the paper from serious consideration.” I do not see someone not releasing details an issue if IP considerations apply.
The self-correcting nature of science relies on replication and checking what goes into a paper. If that is not possible because of IP consideration, self-correcting science is not possible.
lsvalgaard.
I do agree that a paper needs to describes how they arrived at a result in sufficient details, but I don’t agree it also means they have to hand over all their data and computer source code.
It would be a bit like asking to hand over all your lab equipment after you had done an experiment so other can perform the same experiment using the same equipment.
I guess as a professional courtesy someone might make their data and source code available to other researchers. I interpreted that comment by the researches as meaning they could not make available the HadGEM2 source code and documentation as it was the Intellectual Property of the Hadley Centre – you had to ask the Hadley Centre for it.
It would be a bit like asking to hand over all your lab equipment after you had done an experiment so other can perform the same experiment using the same equipment.
No, that is not what scientific repeatability is about. It is about finding the same result with different equipment. The code contains the assumptions and shortcuts in the analysis and the data is, of course, what is important.
Remember where this comes from who it is intended for. Its intent is social,political not scientific.Its Machiavellian.A serious discussion should rather be of what its goal is and how effective it is in achiving it goal.
Again the purpose of this paper is to infuence the masses
I’m done.Sigh.. ready aim fire.
michael
lsvalgaard
So your turning into a proper climate snob now that you have joined the exclusive club of (solar) climate editors
Clearly the ever-increasing CO2 levels are causing solar activity to decrease ….
I do not normally believe anything the Met Office has to say. If I want to know what the weather is doing I check my £25 weather station and look out of the window rather than their misinterpretations of what their £60,000,000 computer says. In this case I will listen for the following reasons:
1) It is based on sound scientific principles with an accurate historical correlation.
2) It could be that they have found their get-out clause from CO2 warming, that they have defended with such vigour. They certainly need something to get them out of the 18.5 year hole they have dug themselves into.
First, lets get this out of the way:
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. ”
Now we can focus on the real science…
Funny how many “scientific” articles include that disclaimer isn’t it? Sort of like Copernicus where you have to engage the party line then you can to get published and not executed. “Here is all my science but I could be wrong and probably am so don’t kill me” 🙂
You must show respect to the Church of Global Warming.
If they admit that there hasn’t even been any warming for nearly two decades they run the risk of losing their funding.
Copernicus’ “out” was “this is just mathematics.”
Yep, it’s a well recognized fact that the sun has nothing to do with the global mean near-surface temperature of the Earth.
The statement “Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.” would still apply if the sun were to vanish from the sky.
Hey, who turned out the lights???
And it is cold! 🙂
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
More evidence we are on the cusp of the Next Grand Minimum
CYA time for the MET? I smell fear that they know they are wrong and are planting the seeds of reality just so they can claim to have predicted it when it hits. Low solar, PDO in negative phase for a decade now, AMO peaked and on the way down. They may be a conniving bunch of money grubbing, sell your scientific soul for 30 pieces of silver climeunists but they know how this is going to end.
Or they are just lining up a conveyor belt of excuses for a global temperature pause with emerging signs of decline. They need to be ready for CYA beyond volcanoes and ocean cycles, in addition to the various things that never happened in the story lines.
Julia Slingo (who is the Chief Scientist at the Met Office) more than a year ago made a comment to the effect that there may be no resumption to warming before 2030.
This comment was made when discussing ocean cycles, and it implicitly recognised the existence of the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ and recognises the role of natural variation.
If she is right, it will mean that ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ will be about 40 years in length (as it will tend to lengthen at both ends).
one can already see that warmists require a lot of negative natural variation (negative ocean cycles, low solar activity etc), if they are to maintain any legitimacy behind claims of high CO2 sensitivity.
The next few years will prove crucial. The warmists are probably right that Paris is the last chance to ‘save’ the world, since there is every prospect that in the run up to AR6 there will be no resumption of warming, the ‘pause’/’hiatus’/’plateau’ will have continued, and if cooling begins to onset not only will all the models be well outside their 95% confidence bounds, the public will smell a rat.
There is nothing like a bit of cold frigid winter weather to waken the senses.
So, in the 90 years between 1940 and 2030 there will have been 22 years of warming, I am convinced, we are all going to fry.
As I have pointed out over at Bishop Hill, they are claiming that the Sun is going to do something they have insisted it cannot do, & also by their UNIPCC colleagues, the Sun is going to have a significant affect upon the Earth’s climate, which they have all insisted it doesn’t have! So, it’s a case of, “Can I have my cake & eat it, please?”
that is absolutely on the money.
I think it is interesting that the Met Office is saying that solar activity might cause temperatures to drop but solar activity does not cause temperatures to rise.
But Leif claims that low solar activity has all but insignificant impact on climate/temperatures down here on planet Earth.
What, either way? Does he?
“scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals” – Translation: “the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.”
In my opinion its a real possibility. Keith Briffa (CRU) also mentioned pressure to conform to a narrative which oversold the certainty – perhaps this pressure was a response to political demands for “stronger signals”.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4872.txt
… I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. …
“the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.”
I think that with climate “science” it is the sneakiest wheel that gets the grease.
Apologies that this is on an unrelated topic, but I am just listening to a couple of witnesses on the radio describing the Karachi heat-wave.
First witness, “we have never had temperatures like this”.
Yes, you have “9 June 1938 47.8 °C (118.0 °F) Karachi Sindh”. source wikipedia.
The second witness is explaining that the situation has been worsened by the prolonged power-cuts, causing air-conditioning to fail, the poor and unreliable privately owned water supply system AND importantly, the fact that it is currently Ramadan, and people are therefore attempting to fast from water intake.
I just thought that I would mention these points before we are told that the deaths result from the dreaded 0.8degree C rise in 140 years of NOAA records.
Meanwhile, in Holland three judges have today decided that the entire population must be consigned to an exercise in theatrical unilateral economic idiocy.
This is clearly an unprecedented level of bullcrap. And possibly a significant game changer.
Since now some of the most imbecilic and scientifically illiterate members of society (i.e. judges) can potentially carry us into their dreamworld dystopian future of carbon leakage, punishing energy costs and dependence on Putin’s gas. Very bad news for everyone, really.
I’m sure that both these topics are lined up for discussion on WUWT later today, but here’s a heads up:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
An apparent inability (or sensibility) to alter local dress codes may have something to do with it:
http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/5ff1225/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fbd%2F2fddbf756ab9f6a2acdbfdbfeeb54e%2Fmedia%3A35931d15c4814e70bff77668b65386c3PakistanHeatstroke.JPEG
It is Ramadam, and some people will not drink even water during the hours of daylight! No surprise that this causes serious dehydration and sunstroke etc.
Not nice to see these people suffering, even if some of it appears to be slightly self induced. They do need the monsoon to come.
I imagine a decently insulated abode with AC would suit them just fine until the Monsoon shows.
The big problem is that politicians have been doing one thing in public and another in private. Playing to the green gallery by promising massive reductions in CO2 whilst at the same time putting up coal fired power stations and generally ignoring CO2 as a non-problem.
Now judges are in effect saying: “the rhetoric must match reality”.
So do they
1. Pander to a few green voters by putting up taxes, destroying their economy and basically telling everyone else to get stuffed.
2. Do the sensible thing and stop pandering to the greens.
indefatigablefrog at 7:49 am
“Professor Pier Vellinga, Urgenda’s chairman and the originator of the 2C target in 1989 said that the breakthrough judgement would have a massive impact. “The ruling is of enormous significance, and beyond our expectations,” he said. …. The court also ordered the government to pay all of Urgenda’s costs.”
*********************************************************************************************************
A name to remember as the EU slowly but surely collapses.
a.k.a Professor Useful Idiot.
Mr Putin says thanks.
And Putin also wants to say thanks to the fracking protestors who brought about a cut in the output of the main dutch gas field from a target of 39.4 billion cubic meters to 13.5 billion cubic meters.
I did phone the Kremlin and ask to speak to Putin to congratulate him on all this.
But the receptionist told me – “no, I am sorry. Mr Putin cannot speak to you right now. He is busy dancing and laughing with joy”.
Armenia is getting a full dose of Russia’s iron fist over reliable energy.
They should drag Josh Fox off to The Hague and place him under an international tribunal for all the winter deaths looming in Eastern Europe.
Maybe the Dutch Government should refer the judges to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram 1971.
The brainwashing has progressed that far that even our judges have no idea about the content of the issue.
Should be simple for the Dutch government to painlessly meet their emissions targets. The Ministry of Truth just needs to take a page from climate science and give the emissions data a brisk little massage and – voila!
“three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.” I thought the Dutch were a sensible people but clearly they’re barking mad allowing judges to rule on climate change. Judges! My jaw keeps dropping in disbelief.
Oh well, when brutally cold winters keep coming maybe they’ll have a re-think.
Naturally, nobody was taking exact measurements until relatively lately. The folks at the Met Office are relying on proxies. Generally speaking, proxies tend to smooth out changes. ie. A proxy will (more often than not) make a very rapid change look like a slower change. Just on general principles, I’m not sure I trust the headline.
I had the same thought – they’re talking about heliogenic isotope ratios as the historical proxy for solar activity? How, pray tell, does one get any kind of decent resolution out of such a measurement?
Demonstrate that you can account for each and every atom in a kilogram of seawater, then get back to me with your supposed precision measurements of isotope ratios in a soil or rock sample of known age.
Quite right, but high-frequency hysteria seems to be a theme of our times.
Frequency and pitch.
I guess consumers will be the big losers in the end much like they are the last to know a lot of things like war and unintended policy effects. They will be misled about a possible threat because the political policy line of warming is stronger than the science of indicated cooling. The farm sector will have higher prices from crop shortages and the MET office will continue to have no cost predictions and excuses. The pattern is already set with bad prediction records and budget increases for higher speed computers. In fact it will lead to larger computer systems purchased, if the delivery trucks can get through the snow drifts.
This is politics, to desensitise the UK Public from IPCC CO2 pseudoscience which has dominated the Hadley Centre since Houghton gave up Science in favour of propaganda. About 18 months ago, they apparently substituted about half the warming in the 80s and 90s by solar effects, diluting CO2 claims. In time that will be reduced still further. The reason for this change appears to be that the real scientists were sick and tired of having to push the fake CO2 warming when it fouled up future predictions – models ‘running too hot’.
It’ll take time to remove the science from political control because none of the staff dare admit that the CO2 méme is a busted flush, but this solar projection is mainstream now. I have made it clear that there will probably have to be inshore icebreakers in UK Northern Ports come the winter of 2020, at which time the excess winter death toll from cold and the rolling power cuts will approach the key level of c. 100,000/year, a political minefield at the end of the present government. It has reacted by stopping subsidies for onshore windmills in favour of another approach.
” the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years ”
Nine thousand years ago … where have I heard that number before? Oh yeah! that was when an up tick in CO2 ended the Wisconsin Glacial Episode. There was an article about that on Wattsupwiththat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/23/a-shift-in-climate-forcing-led-to-demise-of-laurentide-ice-sheet-9000-years-ago/
“when an up tick in CO2 ended the Wisconsin Glacial Episode”
Do we know that to be true? Or could it be that CO2 ticked up when the Wisconsin Glacial Episode ended?
Yes, that “9,300 years ago” also rang a bell with me – didn’t we experience the Younger Dryas about then??
No – Younger Dryas were between 12,800 and 11,500 years BP.
It would have been nice to read the article but with the auto play ads continuously adjusting the screen it was impossible…..
Install Adblock and it will fix your problem.
Adblock, noScript, and install a custom host.txt file from mvps.org, and turn on pop-up blocker.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Unless you like ads, in which case, ignore this comment.
Paul…could you be more specific with a direct link to the host.txt
Here it is in zip form… last time I checked there was 16-20 thousand urls redirected to the 127 home url.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
I have downloaded it within the past year and extracted the text.
much of it ads, trackers and p0rn.. I don’t need any of those links thank-you.
🙂
I’m confused. You quote an abstract, but it’s not the one at http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html. That one, an article about a simulation, says:
Did people make a last minute swap of the abstract?
Its in the Introduction not the Abstract.
Oh, there it is, it’s in the introduction, I was searching for |9300| instead of |9,300|.
I also see in http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html text that shows the “new” estimate isn’t so new, but perhaps the Nature paper is the first reference in peer reviewed literature:
Remember the statement “But don’t expect a little ice age.” It is just asking to go down in the list of famous last words.
Ric: the quotation you refer to was from the ‘Introduction’ section of the paper. It was not the Abstract as claimed.
I provided a read more link – sorry if it was unclear what I was quoting.
Climate scientists so often use language that makes it difficult to keep in mind that a computer model (eg the typical “climate models”) are simply an algorithmic expression of a theory and that running the model produces “data” that quantify the predictions of the model, but do not confirm or refute the model.
Only “real world” measurements, eg readings from a thermometer, produce data that can confirm or refute a model. Yet these guys use language such as “Both Experiments Show…..” as if something about the real world has been revealed.
All the major IPCC-accepted models from the 1980’s and 90’s have been falsified by the actual temperatures measured since the models predicted incipient catastrophic global warming. Until models are created and confirmed by successful predictions, all articles such as the above are as likely to be misleading as useful.
Alarmists Really don’t help themselves…..
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/28/willie-soon-s-climate-denial-wasn-t-ever-credible-climate-scientists
At least your link got it right: Willie Soon’s ‘work’ is widely discredited [for good reasons].
So is yours [for good reasons]
See what I did there ?
Desmogblog is still in operation? I honestly thought they were defunct. I haven’t seen a link to them in a while, even on the lukewarmer boards.
This article reminds me of “Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age” (.pdf, Habibullo Abdussamatov. November 25, 2013), at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
And that paper was junk too.
What this paper is to you is not junk ,but rather one that does not agree with your positions.
that is an unsubstantiated supposition. On what do you base that?
As are all your comments and reply’s.
Mr Svalgaard is unquestionably right on the point that the refusal of the authors to make their code and data fully available for falsification renders this paper valueless, scientifically.
It is good that we can agree on something.
Their refusal is also a slap in the face of the public who after all has paid for this ‘research’.
PeterK has it spot on. Leif may well be correct, in that it is unacceptable that this paper cannot be verified, but it is equally unacceptable to make a drive-by comment that a paper is “junk, too” without a very brief explanation as to why that opinion is held. It makes the comment completely worthless. And I have to say that, despite his evident knowledge, the vast majority of Leif’s comments are completely worthless – being merely sharp remarks (stabs) with no substance. He may well be a very busy man – so don’t bother making any comment at all!
Must agree with Leif and Monckton on this one. Although the conclusions may appear helpful to my position, the refusal to provide code (or pseudo code/algorithm) and data excludes it from being useful scientifically.
This issue was discussed at length on CA years ago. There are almost no good reasons for a scientist to protect IP instead of advancing science. Given that, I would suspect that the purpose here is to establish a negative or decreasing baseline. That would enable them to claim that global warming is happening even though temperatures are flat or decreasing.
It seems preposterous that one could predict solar climate 100 years out.
So what happens if solar activity plunges to Maunder-like levels and global temperature holds steady instead of also taking a deep plunge?
Those linking Solar activity to Earth’s temperature will have to admit they were wrong, or invent a very good excuse, or move the goal posts.
Belief trumps data. Their very good excuse will be as awful as the twisted “mechanism” guesses often profferred by solar-climate adherents.
Lets also not forget Earth’s weakening magnetic field at play here too.
Easy answer Donald, those who believe in a solar /climate relationship will be wrong.
On the other hand if the temperature response is down we will be correct.
No, the second part does not follow, as there could be other reasons.
Yeah, Lief, the dog ate my research … SDP and LS really should go out for supper some time and make a post on what you agree on (if anything) and where you disagree and why. I could read your past and ongoing discussions, but I am betting you have a lot of areas of agreement that would show up after a nice dinner – perhaps Chinese so there are no knives on the table. (and yes, I read all your discussion on Allan MacRae’s post and I will read your discussion below. Still you guys could collaborate and make a great post on your differing views, putting it all in one place.)
You are both extremely intelligent, I enjoy both your posts, but I really don’t understand the low level vitriol.
But I am just an interested reader, no scientist, so “Carry On”. Are you old enough to remember the “Carry On” movies? Carry On.
No if the global temperatures go down when prolonged solar minimum conditions are present this time I will be correct. This will tie together all of my findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.
No, Sal, that doesn’t follow. There could be other reasons, or you may be correct for the wrong reason. e.g.: I flip a coin. My theory is that if heads come up I win a million dollars. Tails came up and I didn’t win the money, but that does not prove that my head = money theory was correct.
It never fails to amaze me that Salvatore continues to make the same mistake over and over again. It is essential that investigators leave no stone unturned in determining that the null hypothesis remains in first place (in fact it’s still in first place when the research result is a tie). Bias increases exponentially when investigators do not engage in required null hypothesis due diligence. Rejecting the null hypothesis requires a rock steady desire to actually NOT reject the null hypothesis. It should be evident to every reader here that Sal has already rejected the null hypothesis without the least bit of research into the null hypothesis (and I must add that many CO2 researchers have made the same error).
you may be correct for the wrong reason
==============
either someone is correct for the right reason or they are correct for the wrong reason. which is it?
Salvatore said, “This will tie together all of my findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.”
======================
It would take a careful examination of all these thoughts and observation to determine if the conclusion is likely correct Pamela and Leif’s dismissal simply based on “other potential reasons” always has generic validity, but then it also always lacks specific validity, which must be compared against what “all of the findings and thoughts about the present as well as the past as far as the climate is concerned.” entails.
therefore take the “correlation is not causation” dismissal here as without basis short of detailed critique.
I am pointing out a failure in Sal’s investigative technique. He has not done due diligence in first ruling out natural intrinsic drivers, by proper literature review and the application of knowledge pertaining to Earth’s fluid and thermo dynamics within its oceans and atmosphere, before arriving at his conjecture as to the cause of Earth’s temperature trends. AGW scientists make the same mistake.
If that’s the case, then February 2015 (which was the coldest month ever on record for Buffalo) is a taste of what’s to come … and the taste it left with me was truly foul.
Of course, it’ll be even rougher for our neighbors to the north if they’ll be faced with shorter and shorter (and weaker) summers. Move south dear Canadians.
I think February was rather warm in British Columbia. Certainly warmer than the northeast US and nearby provinces. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/08/1934-2015-a-tale-of-two-februaries/
BTW, western NY as a whole only had the second coldest February – 1934 is #1.
Exceptional, but not necessarily a taste of what’s to come. Definitely a taste of what we had.
Ric Werne at 8:19 am
BC is getting fried by the Eastern Pacific “BLOB”. My left coast friends will say this confirms global warming while across the Rockies we have had both above normal and below normal weather – temperature, rain, wind, hail snow …. everything as usual. We’ll see what the next hundred years brings. Well, some of you will …
Meanwhile, here in Southwest Florida we had a mild winter, the Gulf temps remained comfortable and we had an early start to typical summertime thunderstorms which kept May from being too dry as is usual.
It is pleasantly tropically hot right now (around 90F) and I have just come inside after about 2 hrs of yard work. I enjoy the heat but I must say that it is a lot easier to tolerate when I able to cool down, rehydrate, shower and then sit comfortably at my computer in a room cooled to a cozy 82F. And that is made possible because of the wonderful electricity produced by coal fired power plants and delivered over a well maintained grid. And yet I keep reading stories about how we must rid ourselves of these awful coal fired power plants or we will perish. Makes no sense to me.
CO2 is like the Uncle Remus Tar Baby. The climatologists have embraced the Tar Baby and can’t let go so they have to make excuses. And yes, we will be saddled with a very sad outcome as the Paris coup will take over all energy systems and force us to do stupid things while we freeze to death.
This will not be comical, it will be brutal and revolts will definitely rise due to this. It is one thing to be somewhat warm, freezing to death is much nastier and more likely and will motivate people to storm Bastilles.
I’m already stacking next winter’s firewood in my Bastille!
As am I. Four cords of dry hardwood have been delivered and half is presently stacked. The rest will be taken care of this coming weekend.
It’s never too early to put in next winter’s heating supply!
Watch Professor Murry Salby on U-tube give his lecture on Atmospheric CO2. the lecture was delivered in Westminster London on 15 March this year. His textbook on Atmospheric physics and climate change published by Cambridge University Press is used by most postgraduate physics students in UK universities who are studying atmospheric CO2. It is THE book on this subject and is in much demand.
I downloaded a free pdf copy from:
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
Don’t know the book, but his lecture on atmospheric CO2 contains a lot of errors, which make that his result (the integration of temperature causes the whole CO2 increase) is completely wrong…
Only your opinion Ferd. Why dont you get a copy of Salby’s book do all the exercises and then come back here so we can take you more seriously.
FrankKarrv,
I was in London last year where he did speak in the Parliament buildings and watched his speaches in Sidney, Hamburg and the recent one in London. What he said (but didn’t repeat in London this time) about CO2 migration in ice cores is physically impossible (a 10-15 fold peak shaving), as that implies that during glacial periods the CO2 levels were far too low to sustain most (C3-type) plants (thus life) and even negative…
“The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity.”
They obviously haven’t been reading your papers, Leif!
or worse: haven’t paid attention to what the Sun have actually been doing.
I am going to die laughing.
Do you guys also believe the last three years are the ‘warmest years evah’ too?
The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data. See Fig 15 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The key question in climate forecasting however is where we are with regard to the quasi – millennial solar cycle which is also plainly apparent in the temperatures. see Fig 5 (From Humlum ) at the link above.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JRFF7ZFvgKw/U81X0SC899I/AAAAAAAAAS8/PIcfIxO3QUQ/s1600/GISP2%2520TemperatureSince10700%2520BP%2520with%2520CO2%2520from%2520EPICA%2520DomeC.GIF
(The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore end here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO2)
Looking at the decline in solar activity discussed in recent papers and seen in Figs 13 and 14 since 1991
it is reasonable to suggest that we are now 24 years past the peak in the solar activity cycle; The corresponding temperature peak ( with a 12 year lag time ) may well turn out to be the peak in the RSS temperature trend data in 2003 since when we have a 12 year cooling trend.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JVvSFvACeJY/VYS8i51Cs1I/AAAAAAAAAWw/g-B0x8ouSJg/s1600/may2015trendrss.png
So, here is the first of our recurrent peddlers tooting his horn, watch for more to come.
There is no evidence that there is a 1000-yr period with predictive capability and that it has just peaked.
I’m with Leif on this. It’s the quality of evidence that you have to examine and do so with a very cynical attitude
The linked blog also provides estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling.
I am also willing to predict that Leif will finally be willing to recognize the obvious in about 2123 after two more 60 year cycles.
If you are correct, I’ll buy you a beer in 2123. BTW, there very likely is a 60-yr cycle in climate, but not in solar activity, so there is little to concede. Your 1000-yr cycle is just a cyclomania-symptom and need not be taken seriously.
The key is ‘are predictions coming true?’ So far, global warming predictions are failing fast. Global cooling predictions are increasingly accurate. One can have all sorts of theories about stuff but proof is in the pudding.
This is why the temperature data tampering is such a huge issue. It is all about manufacturing ‘hottest years evah!’ all the time when this is not happening.
Leif . Glad to see we are in agreement re 60 year temperature cycle. That’s a start. Do you have any opinion on whether the temperature in 2063 is likely to be warmer or cooler than in 2003?
Do you think earth will cool until 2033?
Well, the 60-yr cycle is not your invention, so you cannot take credit for that. And it is not a true cycle, so it has limited predictability. I don’t think anybody can with confidence predict 2063. If they claim they can, they are fraudsters. Do you make such a claim?
And BTW, I don’t agree with you in particular. The 60-yr cycle is well known, Norman Page or not.
Leif. The original comment didn’t claim any special responsibility for discovering the 60 year cycle .I said
“The establishment academics, amazingly , seem finally to have noticed that the sun has some influence on the climate and are even paying attention to the 60 year temperature cycle which any high school graduate can plainly see in the temperature data.”
I notice you didn’t respond to the questions.I assume that ,as usual,you don’t care to speculate.
I do science, not mindless speculation.
Leif The IPCC claim 95% certainty for their range of temperature forecasts .Apparently this certainty was achieved by about 20 guys sitting round a table and voting their expert opinions .Is this fraudulent? Only if some of the persons involved really didn’t believe the numbers they approved but just went along for the ride to form an acceptable consensus. How can anyone apart from the individual persons involved know that?
Similarly if I or anybody else chooses to make a forecast for any time in the future and makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent , it may well be wrong but why on earth do you think it is necessarily fraudulent.?
makes the methods, arguments and data base transparent
Transparency is not enough, it also has to be credible and plausible, and there you fail. Then to claim that you are nevertheless to be believed, that is the fraud sneaks in.
Careful Leif, if computer scientists are right about the technological singularity, you might have to buy that beer 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Eric We already have a fine example of such a singularity in the growing explosion of stupidity seen in the successive IPCC reports. The problem of such complex computer programs and their untestable outputs is that masses of people who should know better adopt these outputs as a basis for their CAGW religion.
Leif My approach is to present links to the data and state clearly the assumptions used in any forecast and let readers judge for themselves. Obviously I fail to convince you personally.- but I find that unsurprising since credibility and plausibility is a judgment made by the reader and your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
As to what I claim re belief in my forecasts this is what actually say
“The chief uncertainties relate to the exact timing of the current millennial solar activity peak and to the regionally variable lag time between the solar activity peak and its appearance as a peak in land temperatures and global SST and the RSS data A +/- 12 year lag between the neutron count and the RSS data has been used here following Fig3 in Usoskin et al:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
Other investigators have suggested lags between 12 and 20 years. We will see.
How confident should one be in the predictions in this post? The pattern and quasi-periodicity method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However, statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and, in relation to an ensemble of IPCC climate models, are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in, as some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure (say 65/35) for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly.
Your Usoskin link is dead [incomplete]
your views on sun and climate are well known and pretty much set in stone.
That is complete nonsense. Nothing is set in stone. I’ll change my view if compelling evidence is brought forward. So far, you have not presented any.
Sorry this should work.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
did you try it yourself by clicking on the wordpress formatted page?
No. it works from my blog but for some reason doesn’t post to WUWT correctly. I’ll see what I can do.
I know the paper, of course, so do it for others
The Usoskin 2005 paper does not reflect recent thinking on solar activity. e.g. uses the faulty old Group Sunspot Number. Here is a modern version of the realtionship between 14C and the GSN:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
Leif if you have the time and inclination to follow this up go to
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Scroll rapidly to Section 4 and click on the link there. See Fig 3 showing delay between solar activity and temperature.
I know that paper. [I know all relevant literature – that is my job to do] and as I said it is based on incorrect solar data.
Dr. Page, I agree with the notion that those in the warmist camp generally seem to think that the sun cannot cause warming when it’s more active, but now suddenly can certainly cause cooling when it’s activity wanes. That general bias can be seen from one article and discussion after another over the years. I believe such a bias even has something to do with the very poor accuracy of the models also.
Being a simple mechanic and truck driver I try to equate the suns heating of the earth more in the terms of industrial heating. With a gas IR heating unit being the much larger component than a forced draft unit. A gas IR unit heats the objects in the building while a forced draft unit heats the air it blows out and that in turn heats the objects in the building. As a rule a gas IR unit will make a person feel warmer faster but once the IR unit does heat of the contents of the building it goes much much longer before it has to kick on again and the heat is much more even.
Since water is our greatest heat reservoir on the planet I then ask, which unit would heat a large swimming pool that took up maybe, lets say, 71% of the floor space in the building quicker and more efficiently?
If I understand it, the orthodox position is that only solar irradiance can effect surface temperature. They deny that changes in the solar wind can have much effect on climate. If the theory that changes in the solar wind modulate cloudiness is correct, then we should see evidence of it in the next few years.
Not to mention the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field as well.
There is evidence for it in the Dalton Minimum, particularly through the colder run of years in Europe from 1807-1817, with a dearth of Aurora sightings. Page 11:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
CET:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The solar wind must have a direct effect on polar air pressure, that is where the solar wind couples with the atmosphere. At least by means of Joule heating and ozone destruction.
This paper is confirming what Lockwood has suggested which is this present decline in solar activity is very rapid. They are also correct in suggesting solar variability does indeed impact the climate, which is true and can be shown through the historical climatic record (not manipulated) when contrasted to solar variability especially when solar variability is shown in the context of Milankovitch Cycles and the phase of the PDO/AMO,ENSO and volcanic activity.
In addition the strength of the earth’s magnetic field has to be taking into account, for when this field is weak it will enhance given solar variability, while when strong it will moderate given solar variability. Presently the earth’s magnetic field like solar is in a rapid decline, however it still has a way to go on the down side before we can say the field is so weak that a magnetic excursion is likely to take place.
Weak solar and geomagnetic fields equate to a cooler climate.
However one last note on this article is they still cling to AGW theory which they think (wrongly) is going to somehow prevent global cooling. They are wrong on that score but the fact that they acknowledge solar variability and it’s impact on the climatic system is a step in the right direction.
The recent solar lull 2008-2010 shows that solar activity post 2005 is on a rapid decline, solar variability is indeed present (all one has to do is contrast the recent solar lull to solar activity 1950-2000 to confirm this), and that my low average value solar parameters (which I feel will cause a significant climatic impact) are attainable as is shown through the solar data in that time period.
The reason why the recent solar lull did not have a big impact on the climate in 2008-2010 is twofold. First the duration of the lull was not long enough and secondly not enough years of sub solar activity proceeded it.
If this recent solar lull has had the duration of the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum ,a decline in global temperatures would have been the result but this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed. I expect soon after the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends which is right around the corner a global temperature decline will take place along with a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern as will be evidenced by a negative AO,NAO and an expanded but weaker polar vortex in the N.H.
Sea surface temperatures will also start to show a more pronounced cooling trend in response to weaker solar irradiance.
A faster earth rotation (-LOD) is correlated with low solar activity which in turn is correlated to the ACI (atmospheric circulation index) becoming more meridional which in turn is correlated to lower global temperatures.
An increase in geological activity in association with prolonged minimum solar periods as shown by data (space and science center headed by Dr. Casey ) is also a big secondary effect associated with prolonged minimum solar periods of time which contributes to global cooling when solar activity is in this minimum phase.
MY CRITERIA FOR SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR COOLING:
I will send those in my next post.
Here is the next peddler. Sal, we don’t need to see your speculations, again, and again, and again, and again, and …
You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites, is this one going to start punishing people for arguing?
Repeating the same old, tired, speculations is not arguing.
I present a very clear cut speculation if one wants to call it that which is I say the global temperature response will be down if my low average value solar parameters are meant or even approached.
If the resultant global temperature trend does not respond the way I suggest the theory or speculation will be wrong.
It is quite simple and to the point and I do not have any vague statements and or if and buts about it like so many in this field always do when presenting a climate forecast. My approach is clear cut and concise.
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
emsnews said:
>You really don’t like disputes, do you? (clearing my throat) Um, we all complain about one sided web sites,
We all complain about repetitious web sites too! I do sort of like this comment:
> this decline in global temperatures as a result of solar activity on the decline has jut been delayed not postponed.
I had thought that the decline had been postponed, not delayed.
Quite right, Lord Kelvin.
Yes, and…fast drop in solar output of various sorts means the effects are delayed thanks to oceans still being warmer. Once the earth adjusts to the new energy levels which are lower, the oceans will become colder and this means inevitably a colder climate which will impact the Northern Hemisphere the most.
Just like heating water. If you suddenly turn off the heat, the water doesn’t immediately get cold, it cools down slowly.
Your analogy is ridiculously ill-matched to the well-known and calculable change in solar radiance (includes all frequencies which themselves can be calculated in terms of potential change in W/m2 here on Earth by band width). Yes there is a calculable affect on temperature. Buried deep in Earth’s own natural intrinsic climate and weather pattern variation noise.
What keeps our oceans warm? Eh? Magic?
The sun heats the oceans. The water absorbs energy from this particular star. Minus that, our planet would be totally frozen.
Ergo: this star determines exactly how much energy is added to our oceans. No other force is as great and tiny changes in solar energy levels translates into big climate changes on the planet.
Your climate sensitivity is getting so small due to your various amplification guesses that you might as well accept that CO2 is equally capable of warming or cooling the planet.
You are conflating two different issues. Yes the Sun’s energy is absorbed by the oceans and if we had no Sun the oceans would turn cold nearly instantly all other things being equal (quite like a fantasy movie because lots of things would go south if the Sun went away). But we are not talking about that process, we are talking about anomalous regime shifts. And there are natural intrinsic Earth entities that can way out-do the Sun in terms of solar insolation change (described as the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface).
CO2 has no where near the residence time of SW solar radiation. Residence time of energy input (which is what determines heat capacity) is what determines how much energy flux an equal watt per sq meter input generates. We simply do not have an accurate record of surface insolation (especial disparate w/l and the residence time of disparate w/L) into the oceans where residence time can vary from hours to centuries.
The pot on a flame analogy is very much potentially valid, until this surface insolation flux and WL specific variation and residence time is known over a fairly long time scale. Until then the null hypothesis is that the sun drives the ENSO cycles.
David, I believe you are incorrect. When an observation is made (as in box plots set on the ground), whatever effects are observed must first be determined to have a cause within that box. The null hypothesis is what is in the box.
In terms of Earth’s temperature variations, the null hypothesis must be within the confines of Earth (its oceans, atmosphere, rotation and orbit). That said, there are observed effects that were investigated, such as the tides, that were determined to have a connection to extrinsic factors, but even in that case, it is the rotation of the Earth that causes the major component of the tides (IE the null hypothesis is kept), while the extent of tides has an external factor (IE the null hypothesis is rejected).
I know that there are other definitions of the null hypothesis, with some believing it is whatever you say it is. I disagree only because I prefer a straight forward approach to scientific investigation. Drivers are within the “box” of effects. That even extends to the idea that Earth is the center of the Universe. In that case, the null hypothesis has been rejected.
The bottom line, it is up to the investigator to thoroughly show us that the null hypothesis in terms of Earth’s intrinsic (inside the box) factors can be questioned and that there is a decent chance of them being rejected. Sal cannot just ignore Earth’s intrinsic factors. That he chooses to leaves his thesis without a supporting base, thus can be ignored. Which is also why I ignore catastrophic anthropogenic warming research.
Thank you Pamela. I have not examined his work closely, but my impression is that I see difference’s between Salvatore’s “the sun done it”, and CAGW. One of many fatal problems with CAGW theory (theory is perhaps generous) is that there is extensive observable evidence that CAGW is simply wrong, whereas, as my post reflects, there is much information MISSING regarding solar influences on climate beyond simple TSI.
Because so much observational evidence is lacking, I find disparate speculative hypothesis to be grounds for real research, except for the fact that, alas, CAGW sucks the research field dry. However none should claim more then a hypothesis.
Oh, and also CAGW is , IMV, quite clearly corrupt at this point. It is difficult for anyone, let alone impossible for politicians to spend billions, and keep the dark side of human nature from manifesting. Salvatore is asking for no political change from me, nor is he asking to fundamentally change the principles on which the US were founded, nor is he claiming the sky is falling if we do not accept his thoughts. However I agree, at this point we simply lack the knowledge we need to truly understand climate.
Also, BTW Pamela, I would add what is within the box, is well, who defines the box. I suppose you are defining the earths atmosphere, land and oceans as the box. However, all the energy within the box has a complex source outside the box, and is highly interactive daily within the box, I would not discount it as outside the null. There is no doubt that insolation drives ENSO, and there is great mystery as to what drives cloud changes, surface insolation flux, atmospheric changes in jet streams etc. We simply do not know, and much information is MIA. Perhaps the Null should be “we do not know” but it does change. I would not have the hubris to say that many dozens of PHD scientists searching for and finding some evidence for solar influences well above TSI flux are not doing science. .
Posting time after time that everyone else is wrong and you are right gets real old also. It is an indicator of something. Something not good.
Agree mark, it does get old after a while. Perhaps we shoud ignore it and see the good in life, while enjoying scientists stating their findings.
Hey Pamela,
How about cloud cover changes over time.
It does. A climate regime that emphasizes El Nino-like conditions (did you know that the Atlantic also has an El Nino?) will necessarily produce clouds from evaporation. Those clouds tend to be the cumulonimbus type which do a bang up job of reflecting solar radiation away from the ocean surface.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general (10 years) which commenced in year 2005. This part has been satisfied.
If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
We shall see in the very near future since the very weak maximum of solar cycle 24 is just about history.
Thank you for posting this morning’s correspondence from the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, entitled “Met Office: Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase”.
Quelle surprise! On September 1, 2002, the Calgary Herald published my article that stated:
“If [as I believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
My predictive rack record is excellent to date. I really do NOT want to be correct about our 2002 global cooling prediction. A continuation of “the Pause” would be just fine.
More people will die premature deaths if climate turns colder, especially since politicians have degraded our energy systems with “green energy” schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy.
Also, I’m getting old and hate the cold.
Best regards to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1968600
To be even more clear Ferdinand, I sincerely hope that your hypo is correct.
As I said above, atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low.
If you are correct, then humanity can, in theory, maintain atmospheric CO2 above dangerously low concentrations for a long time, perhaps even in perpetuity.
If CO2 is largely driven by natural causes including temperature, then one of the next major global cooling periods (ice ages) will be the end of carbon-based terrestrial life on Earth, and this will happen “in the blink of an eye” in geologic time.
As a member of this fascinating group of carbon-based terrestrial life forms, I feel that I have an obligation to encourage our survival on this beautiful blue-water planet, at least for a little while.
Best personal regards, Allan
Post script:
In 2002 I (we) predicted global cooling to commence by 2020-2030. I am now leaning towards 2020 or sooner. I expect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to moderate as temperatures decline. How CO2 behaves will depend largely on the amount of cooling, of which I have no opinion at this time. Again, I hope to be wrong about this prediction – I can live with being wrong, much more than we all can live in even a slightly cooler world.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
Not to worry because the lead scientist said, rather like two Irishman comparing the mystic properties of Tea, AGW will overwhelm anything our star can do because…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136780/You-need-wrap-UK-set-plunge-mini-ice-age-Met-Office-warns-one-five-chance-temperatures-drop-leaves-seen-17th-century.html
Exit strategies come in a lot of forms. This one has the advantage of letting everything change but not the theory. You will now see a host of the usual suspects follow this lead and we will have a seamless, meaningless shift in climate without risk to the 100,000s of practitioners that have been attracted into the ‘discipline’ and ‘educated’ and will need jobs monitoring the progress of the coeval cooling/warming.
What happened to the ‘barbeque summer’ the MET Office predicted for 2009?
It missed the UK completely… that summer was wet, windy and totally forgettable.
The MET Office record of forecasting/predicting/guessing is likely to mean that sun-spot activity will soon rapidly increase. We must prepare, we have been warned – the wise ones have spoken. (sarc off)
Don’t forget their predictions of mild winters either before we had really cold ones instead. But these predictions were all based on the output of the computer models – what else. Maybe now they have done some actual observations/genuine studies and have got a “little” concerned that things are going t**s up.
Perhaps it has finally begun to dawn that all those who poured scorn and derision on the MET Office may have had a valid point.
Relying on ‘computer models’ is increasingly being shown up as fools’ gold – it’s not the real thing.
MET Office staff should get outside a lot more; they might just learn from Nature in the raw: That it’s wet, windy, unpredictable and not warming. Do proper research, ask intelligent questions then you might start to learn about that weird thing called climate…
atmospheric physicists at Imperial College London analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA’s SORCE satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun’s activity declined — warming the Earth’s surface.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
Leif has stated his position and his reasons for his positions which is fine, and others like myself have stated our positions.
Time(I hope) should tell who is and who is not correct. This is in a wait and see situation for now. Actually all of the diverse opinions about climate change are in a wait and see situation.
I hope the prolonged solar minimum will be as severe as is possible and at the same time CO2 concentrations go up as much as possible so we can see how the global temperature will react. Maybe this will finally bring some clarity to the situation.
My bottom line is I want to know one way or the other, and all I have done in the meantime is taken a position and put forth my reasons why ,on this matter. It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning.
Do I repeat my position yes I do ,but so does everybody else.
It is hard to have a position on something if you can not back it up with reasoning
But you have not done that at all.
I have back it up with reasoning by looking into the past and seeing what took place.
I guess I don’t understand what’s Leif’s position is regarding the connection between solar activity (in its many forms) and global mean surface temperature. Can some (preferably Leif) summarize it?
There is no compelling enough evidence to convince me that the solar influence is a major driver. It is clear that there is a 0.1 degree solar effect, but that drowns in the noise.
Thanks. And I agree, we lack evidence.
Not to worry, evidence is on its way!
Few Interglacials last much longer than our lovely moment in the meaningless sun.
So, does this mean the global warming model outputs are just a small step from being invalidated? What temperature changes can we expect by 2100 now: plus or minus 6.6C?These global warming proponents are very good at seeing which way the wind blows and placing bets both ways. Just when the global warming gravy train appears to be about to fly off the rails, thank the Green Gods that the great high priests have the foresight (or lack of integrity) to fling themselves forward to quickly patch the broken rails.
On the contrary, if we slip into an extended period of cooling, the vindication of CAGW will be chiseled in stone by the warmist crowd. Their textbooks will say, “By 2015, CAGW theory had been robustly confirmed. However, as solar activity continued to decline in the following years, overhwhelming the effects of mandade GHGs,….”
As far as I am concerned:
NO Archived Data, and/or
NO Detailed Description of Methods, and/or
NO Complete Computer Code, and/or
NO Reproducibility =
NO SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE!
Hiding behind a “non-disclosure” agreement or “intellectual property right restrictions” is cause for derision; such attempts should not be accepted for publishing or consideration in a scientific venue.
Your comments are misleading. I have just been reading the fulltext , via the link in the posting and there is a detailed section on methods and about 60 refs .
To give other readers an indication of how detailed the info is , here is just one part of the methods section :
”
Methods
The control model. We use the Met Office Hadley Centre general circulation
model, HadGEM2-CC (carbon cycle)55, with historical and future forcings
specified according to the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)
as used in HadGEM2-ES (Earth System)30. This version of HadGEM2 is a ‘high
top’ model with 60 vertical levels and an upper boundary at 84 km, so is capable of
resolving relevant stratospheric processes56–58. The horizontal resolution is 1.875
longitude by 1.25 latitude. The ocean resolution is 11, increasing in the
tropics to 0.3, with 40 vertical levels. The TSI is partitioned across six shortwave
spectral bands (0.2–10 mm) with spectral changes associated with changing TSI
accounted for. For the historical period, the TSI and spectrally resolved irradiance
(SSI) used is that recommended by CMIP5 (Lean, Calculations of solar irradiance,
http://sparcsolaris.gfz-potsdam.de/cmip5.php, accessed 2 June 2009 from the
earlier fuberlin site), with a repeating 11-year cycle, based on the period 1998–2008,
imposed for future scenarios. Time-varying ozone distributions include a
component related to solar variability30.”
There is much more .
The comment about copyright is also misleading . The authors make it clear that the Met Office Unified model used is available under licence , like most computer programs , and as a UK taxpayer , if the Met Office can pick up a bit of money for the work their employees do , then it lessens the burden on me.
However the main complaint about your dismissive comments is that it might discourage readers from learning from some of the refs ( if they can get through the paywalls) , eg the refs on the Maunder min on climate as seen by different workers :
42. Cubasch, U. et al. Simulation of the role of solar and orbital forcing on climate.
Adv. Space Res. 37, 1629–1634 (2006).
43. Gray, L. J. et al. Solar influences on climate. Rev. Geophys. 48, RG4001 (2010).
44. Eddy, J. A. The Maunder Minimum. Science 192, 1189–1202 (1976).
45. Luterbacher, J. et al. The late Maunder Minimum (1675-1715) – A key period
for studying decadal scale climatic change in Europe. Clim. Change 49, 441–462
(2001).
It is a common complaint by some of the professionals, like Lief, that the quality of scientific understanding on this website is disappointingly low. Well it is not going to improve if people like you discourage education by reading from professional scientists just because you disapprove of an article.
ITSS.
Come on guys.
Let’s hear for Pope. From his encyclical to God’s eyes, the order goes forth: dial the sun down. The sun goes down!
Fling funds to 800. lov. Papa.
Smile please.
Well… we still call it sun “rise” and sun “set” or sun “down” and NOT “Earth Turned Away” and “Earth Turned Towards”, the sun…. in English anyway.
Even amongst the science types, for example:
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/
Maybe the only thing that can dismantle this climate change thing is actual climate change.
Leif says I say
You say that if the sun does this or that, then the climate will do that or this, but you fail to demonstrate that that follows from your assumptions and also fail to forecast what the Sun will do, so your forecast has no value.
MY REPLY- is I have shown through the record of past historical temperature data that at times of prolonged deep solar minimum periods the sustained global temperature trend has been lower and at times of prolonged solar maximum periods the sustained global temperature has been up, and that the recent solar lull of 2008-2010 shows that my low average value solar parameters are attainable.
Further it does not take much of a leap forward to say during the recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton ,had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010 and the corresponding global temperature trend according to all of the data(not manipulated yet) has been down. Therefore my assumptions are based on valid reasoning.
As far as what the sun is going to do going forward no one really knows including you Leif, but I do think I know what the climate is going to do if my solar parameters are attained.
recent prolonged solar minimums ,those being the Maunder and Dalton, had solar parameter values which were probably similar to the solar lull of 2008-2010
I will agree with that, but then the temperatures should have been similar and they have not been, end of story.
Nope, this is an error. The temperatures could have been anything; they depend on the past as well as on current solar parameters.
============
I do think I know what the climate is going to do
Perhaps an attack of the DK-syndrome?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif, are you now an expert in psychology too? Too funny.
Good link. I especially like …
As David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
We can quietly ponder which of you is in which category 🙂
Personally, I enjoy your back and forth banter and have learned from both of you.
Crikey Bernard, don’t encourage him he will just get worse.
Here is a great plot:
http://rjh.org/~rjh/canberra/canberra-weather-ll.html
It is updated daily.
When the sun is up, It is hot. When it is night time, it is cold. Hot, cold, hot, cold etc…
Since the earth always is radiating during the day and night, (unless I am wrong about that) then the 20C swing in temperature in 12 hours is due to incident radiation from… the sun no less. That is pretty incredible. Surface temperatures swings with such magnitudes in such a short period of time. Every Day.
That variation in surface temp is due to a variation in nominal solar radiation from say… average to zero in 12 hours. One would think that with this information (20 C delta), a 1% variation in solar output could contribute a surface temperature variation of say 0.2C in 12 hours. Based on simple scaling. So why would not a smaller yet sustained reduction in solar output not yield a reduction in average surface temp? I think it is a rational conjecture to presume that the solar output variation has an effect, when it can be so glaringly observed on a daily basis.
+1
They are preparing the latest excuse for why the earth isn’t warming. The sun did it.
No it is not the end of the story for two reasons. Reason number one is the solar lull’s duration was not near long enough in time and it was not proceeded by enough years of sub- solar activity in general.
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
Here are countless graphs of temperature data which all support my findings.
http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
The lull of 2008-2010 followed very closely countless years of above average solar activity.
So did the Dalton Minimum and the 1900-minimum: http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
hmm…
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
The really hard cold years of the Dalton mimimum came in the middle of the second low cycle. Presumably thermal inertia of the oceans buffers the changes for decade or two.
This is going to hit hardest around 2020-2025.
True, yet we had a very long minimum beginning about 1630. Ocean overturning is in the vicinity of 1,000 years. The entire climate system is full of disparate drivers, all of undetermined influence, some seasonal, some decadal, some on century scales and some on cycles lasting many thousands of years. The timing of how all these interact is ever varying, so perhaps no one should expect to see a consistent similar response in any one factor.
I took a look at the first graph, http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb0846feef970d-pi .
It’s a plot of the last 20 May US temperatures, showing a decline. It makes no mention of the Sun. Shouldn’t there be a mention of the Sun if it supports your findings? Perhaps it supports an inverse relationship between temperature and population. Or temperature and and the performance of the Boston Red Sox so far this year? (They’re both declining.)
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling.” They’ll probably stick with the “hot or cold, it’s all climate change” meme until voters get fed up and threaten to cut climate funding. Then the “settled science” will suddenly change to account for CO2 cooling. One thing’s for sure, they will not want us to use more fossil fuels to try to warm the climate. To them, the ends justify the means, so they will still push for an end to the use of fossil fuels even if it means millions have to freeze to death.
It would still be your fault and you would still be compelled to pay for your sins.
If the climate did enter Maunder Minimum like conditions, how long do you think it would take for alarmists to switch from “we’re all going to die from global warming” to “we’re all going to die from global cooling Won’t happen because there’s no capitalist villain to blame and so there’s no political advantage.
You don’t think they could come up with a “capitalist villain” to explain global cooling? When have they ever let logic or common sense stop them from seeking a political advantage?
Science advances one funeral at a time. So if the average age of climate scientist is 35 and life expectancy is 80. I would expect the consensus to shift 45 years after definitive evidence of falsification is established.
I personally don’t think we are going to enter into a new ice age anytime soon, but I do think we’ll see prolonged cooling for the next few decades.
“even if it means millions have to freeze to death”
As long as it’s not them, of course.
I think they’d be in for a big fat surprise.
The alarmists and their useful idiots are confident that if they align with the pigs and do their bidding, they will be rewarded by being invited to live with them in the luxury and warmth of the farmhouse. Then they won’t have to struggle for survival with the rest of the animals out in the barnyard. So yes, they are definitely in for a big fat surprise.
@Louis Hunt
+10. Well said. The alarmists/useful idiots don’t know what’s coming and how it will end for them if their wishes came true. I wish they did. Seriously.
“….so they will still push for an end to the use of fossil fuels even if it means millions have to freeze to death…”
But of course! The Cult of Gaea crowd is all for reducing mother earth’s population burden to a fraction of what it is today, so that the Great Goddess Earth can restore herself to pristine perfection unhindered by the virus of humanity.
I wouldn’t expect much better from Al Gore or John Holden, but I am surprised that the Pope has signed on to a political scheme to condemn the third world to perpetual hunger and poverty. Instead of “feed the hungry,” the mantra seems to now be, “If you can’t feed them all, kill a billion or so.”
The world might be a better place with a few billion less people, but do we trust the IPCC and the grant-gobbling priesthood of the Church of AGW [and/or various other politically motivated bureaucrats] to decide which of us to eliminate for the greater good of the survivors?
The Watergate figure “Deep Throat” had it right: “Follow the money.”
But you can feed them all, the UN said that $25 billion a year would be needed to end world hunger, so why is the Pope backing spending $100 billion on cutting CO2? he should be pushing for a concerted effort to end world hunger (and maybe the church could chip in a few billion to help). WHY???
Will this Pope go down in Catholic history as the one who worked the miracle of the freezing of the five billion?
I said two fold remember the word duration. The solar lull ‘s duration was not long enough. Only 2 years.
the other minima around 1800 and 1900 also only lasted 2 years or so. What is perhaps more important is what the maxima were.
Leif, let me try to approach it in this manner. Your shortfall when it comes to climate is you are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow you have this opinion that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition you seem not to be able to incorporate lag times into the equation of the climate. You expect instant results from something said to have an effect upon the climate.
I will add, this climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws you off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures for you the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime. That being the crux of your problem when it comes to the solar/climate connection.
This is not astronomy this is the climate which is chaotic and non linear it does not work like clock work astronomy.
Now below is the second part of my answer to your post which keep trying to equate an x climate change to an x solar change and if it does not happen the solar/climate connection is not present.
Those who do not want to accept solar variability as a driver of the climate does not impact my thoughts about the subject in any way.
I am going with what the historical climatic record shows, and what (talking about from the Holocene Optimum -present) correlates best to it, which is Milankovitch Cycles, with Solar Variability superimposed upon that cycle , with a further refinement of the climatic trends when the AMO/PDO phase, ENSO ,and Volcanic activity are further superimposed upon the climatic trends due to the slow moving Milankovitch Cycles and Solar variability.
In addition the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field has to be taken into account which can enhance or moderate solar effects.
That is what the data shows which has not been manipulated.
Salvatore apparently does not understand well-regarded Earth-intrinsic explanations (or chooses to ignore them) of long term and short term weather pattern variations and climate regime shifts. Chaotic complex inter-connected systems cannot be calculated to average out to zero. Salvatore and other solar-enthusiasts, as well as much of the CO2 crowd demonstrate this same lack of understanding, likely due to a low acumen related to Earth’s thermo and fluid dynamic properties intrinsic to a rotating plastic oblate spheroid in an elliptical orbit impinged on by gravitational pulls from its moon and the Sun.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
So, to go chasing after some tiny variation outside the Earth while neglecting the wickedly complex set of larger intrinsic variables that could explain Earth’s climate and weather anomalies stretches credulity.
@Pamela
???
You seem to be replying to Salvatore’s post where he is explaining his point of view that he does understand long and short term weather variations and in fact that they are intrinsic to his theory, saying that he does not. Maybe this is a comment based on previous engagements – I don’t know I have only jumped into this now, but your comment reads as very strange. Cross posting perhaps?
We really just don’t know how much is intrinsic, earth cycles, and how much extrinsic, solar cycles. Gotta be an incredibly complex dance among all of them.
===================
You may be confusing the use of the terms intrinsic versus extrinsic. Intrinsic factors are Earth’s own mechanisms. Extrinsic factors are mechanisms outside of Earth. Can they both be drivers? Sure. Tides have both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers. The main effect is because of Earth’s rotation (an intrinsic driver). The extent of tides has an extrinsic driver.
In terms of Earth’s climate and weather pattern variations, I am of the opinion that intrinsic mechanisms are the null hypothesis.
Heh, I would guess the Sun has more effect on the Earth than the Earth does on the Sun, but they certainly do embrace.
================
Figure 2 is hilarious, cold in Europe and the northeast US takes negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation states, that will warm the Arctic not cool it.
“These questions have been settled by science.” Surgeon General
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties. IPCC doesn’t think the science is settled. There is a huge amount of unknown unknowns.
According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 4% and 196%, i.e. IPCC hasn’t got a clue. IPCC “adjusted” the assumptions, estimates and wags until they got the desired mean.
At 2 W/m^2 CO2’s contribution to the global heat balance is insignificant compared to the heat handling power of the oceans and clouds. CO2’s nothing but a bee fart in a hurricane.
The hiatus/pause/lull (IPPC acknowledges as fact) makes it pretty clear that IPCC’s GCM’s are not credible.
The APS workshop of Jan 2014 concluded the science is not settled.
It has become a cottage industry in climate science to run climate models under different conditions and publish the results. These papers are normally ridiculed by the deniers.
Jamai,
Indeed and the climate model results do not tally with the measured data that’s why they are ridiculed.
Regarding the sun, another CME 2 days ago and maybe more aurora’s tonight.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/another-storm-forecast-wednesday-nightthursday
What is interesting is how few people understand the reality and legit risk of the more powerful(Carrington type) events.
We hear almost daily about the theorized(science is settled) risk from increasing CO2, that life on this planet reacts to convincingly as a beneficial gas………with the exception of humans armed with projections from global computer models loaded with theoretical assumptions.
Yet, very few are aware of the real risk(not theorized) based on actual observations of the sun, that many refer to as another “Carrington” event.
http://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186805-the-solar-storm-of-2012-that-almost-sent-us-back-to-a-post-apocalyptic-stone-age
Hmm,, I believe Dr lsvalgaard did a paper on the Carrington event in 2004 (i may be wrong on the publishing date)
michael
yes: http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20-%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf
It looks like the plasma just missed us. NOAA has downgraded the event and says unlikely we’ll see aurora in NA. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g3-downgraded-g1
Jumped over to the Newsweek site a minute ago, and no mention of the UK Met Office story. If they decide to cover it, hope they assign Zoe Schlanger.
What they call “experiments,” aren’t experiments at all. They are just
runs of an “ocean-atmosphere climate model” (HadGEM2-CC) into which
they feed data generated by the Naval Research Lab Spectral Solar
Irradiance Model output. Consequently, there is nothing at all
empirical about this work, which the word “experiments” suggests.
The model itself exaggerates the CO2 impact while diminishing the
solar impact for starters, e.g., by not taking into account the
Svensmark’s effect, so its predictions as to the impact of the
expected solar minimum are likely to be heavily undercooked in turn,
as has been its failure to predict the lack of warming in the past 20
years for much the same reason.
In other words, if the sun was to enter another Maunder minimum like
period, it would get a lot colder in Europe and in the US than the
authors predict. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, global
temperature rose by about 0.7C–most of it, if not all, due to high
solar activity throughout the whole 20th century. The return of the
activity to Maunder level would then likely erase the whole 0.7C.
This will be fun. It appears (97% certain) we will have a front row seat to watch the most important scientific event in the history of science: A solar cycle interruption. How will the cult of CAGW respond to in your face cooling? How will science change? How will the climate wars end? How much and how rapid will the planet cool?
We truly live interesting times.
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120019.pdf
Summer insolation at 65N is currently the same as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial period. The glacial period could start next week if summer insolation at 65N was the cause of the glacial interglacial cycle.
Summer insolation at 65N is not what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle. The cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle is an abrupt change to the solar cycle (when the solar cycle restarts) at a time when the orbital position of the earth amplifies the effect of the restart of the solar cycle on the geomagnetic field (Remember the burn marks on multiple continents that correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change? The planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold for 1200 years after the Younger Dryas event. Note there are cyclic abrupt climate change events in the paleo record. The massive cyclic temperature changes on the earth correlate with massive changes in cosmogenic isotopes which requires a massive change to the geomagnetic field.).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
And here come peddler number three.
Is there any observational change to the sun or to the earth’s climate that could change your mind? Is it possible for you to change your mind or have you long past the point of time for mind changing? For Lord Kevin the last mind changing occurred in his early twenties. If there is unequivocal planetary cooling and evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted will you issue a public apology? Will you do penance? You need to understand the implications of what is going to happen next. Have you looked at the paleo climatic record? Try to imagine abrupt planetary cooling. Try to imagine the glacial phase for 100,000 years. Can you?
A cult retains a theory when observations have proven it to be incorrect. A scientist looks at observations and adjust standard theory or replaces the standard theory to explain observations. The observations of massive objects does not support the theoretical models of massive collapsed objects. That is a fact.
Scientists do not ignore paradoxes and anomalies. Part of the problem is anomalies and paradoxes are not included in text books. There is no attempt to organize anomalies and paradoxes which would show linkage and common themes, there is no formal effort to develop new competing theories or re-look at old competing theories which explains the astonishing ignorance of specialists concerning paradoxes and the Lord Kevin like attack on competing theories. The entire effort appears to be to try to bend theories to explain anomalies and to ignore paradoxes.
What causes cyclic and cyclic abrupt climate change which we know occurs in the paleo record? Why do interglacial periods start and end abruptly? What caused the burn marks on multiple continents that correlate with an abrupt change to the geomagnetic field and an abrupt climate change event? Why are there cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field that correlate with cyclic abrupt climate change events?
There are dozens of fundamental theories that are all tied together and all incorrect concerning how the sun can change, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, how galaxies form and evolve, what are quasars, what cause cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, what caused the burn marks on the surface of the earth that correlate with massive changes to the geomagnetic field and abrupt climate change, all related to the correct answer to the question and the mechanisms associated with the correct theory: Is the universe eternal or did the universe start 13.7 billion years ago?
Of course the solar cycle can be interrupted if the sun and stars are different than the standard model.
Attached below is a link to a book (second book published by the same senior astronomer, Halton Arp, who has now retired) that provides dozens of in your face paradoxes and anomalies all of which were published in peer reviewed papers over the last 30 years which unequivocally supports the assertion that the stars (including the sun as the sun is of course the nearest star), galaxies, and quasars all are fundamentally different than the standard models.
Arp’s book provides observational evidence and analysis to support the assertion of baby quasar ejection (which explains the discovery of naked quasars which are quasars that do not have a host galaxy), quasar evolution, non velocity redshift, and so on. All of this phenomena are related to the physics of what happens when massive objects collapse and how massive collapsed objects evolve and change with time. Arp’s book is interesting as it provides a detailed explanation of the observations that support his assertions and provides details as to how the observations and paradoxes were initially blocked from publishing and then later ignored by theoreticians.
In the 15 years from the time Arp’s second book was published there are now over a hundred paradoxes and anomalies concerning every logical pillar of the big bang theory. It is comical/sad/astonishing how long a field of science (big bang theory, cosmology) can ignore paradoxes and anomalies that support the assertion the entire theoretical basis for the field in question is incorrect.
The following is a new observational paradox – quasars’ spectrum does not exhibit time dilation, does not change for quasars of higher redshift – that supports Arp’s assertion than the quasar redshift is almost entirely due to non velocity reasons, super high charge imbalance which of course is directly related to what is currently happening to the sun. Super high charge imbalance will cause redshift of emitted spectrum. Super high charge imbalance will gradually dissipate which explains how the redshift of newly formed quasars and companion galaxies changes with time dropping down closer to the redshift of the parent galaxy and the parent galaxy’s quasar.
As everyone is aware, as the universe is expanding, astronomically distant objects are moving rapidly moving away from us. The greater the distance of the object from the earth the greater the velocity difference between the object in question and the earth.
Due to basic physics objects that move away from us very rapidly will all exhibit velocity redshift in their spectrum where the spectrum is shifted due to the velocity which they are moving away from us, to the ‘red’. The phenomena is the same reason why a train whistle sounds lower in pitch when a train is moving away from us and higher in pitch when the train is moving towards us.
It is assumed by astronomers that almost all of the redshift of astronomically distant objects is due to the velocity caused redshift. Measuring the amount of red shift of an object is then used to determine the object’s distance from the earth observer. The subject of Arp’s book is dozens and dozens of observations that support the assertion that a significant portion of the redshift of astronomical objects, (particularly quasars) is due to non velocity reasons.
A second effect of very, very high velocity is time dilation. Time dilation which is a fundamental part of the special relativity theory is the name for the slowing down of physical processes, including atomic processes when an object moves at a very, very, high velocity. People call the phenomena time slowing down or time ‘dilation’, which is confusing as time does not change or ‘dilute’, something physical changes when an object moves at a high velocity which in turn causes physical processes to occur at a slower pace. Time ‘dilation’, is experimentally proved/observed on the earth as the half life of unstable particles is significantly longer when they are moving at very, very high velocities (near the speed of light) in a particle accelerator.
Quasar electromagnetic spectrum is primarily non-thermal, caused by the movement of charged particles in a massive in extent and massive in strength magnetic field. This type of non thermal radiation, synchrotron radiation, follows a power law and is produce on the earth by the movement of charge particles in a strong magnetic field. The very distant quasars’ spectrum should require a very large correction for velocity time dilation (the correction is very large, non trivial), the quasar spectrum should not follow the power law without the significant correction for time dilation directly dependent on the redshift of the quasar in question and hence the very large velocity of the quasar in question is moving away from the earth.
The quasar spectrum even of the most highly redshift quasars follows the power law without correction which is a paradox. The explanation for the quasar does not exhibit time dilation paradox is not that the related calculations have been done incorrectly, there really is a paradox that cannot be explained. The two papers confirming that quasars do not exhibit time dilation (one published in 2001 and the second in 2010) were written by a senior very theoretically conservative quasar researcher. The analysis is not particularly complicate or controversial.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
On time dilation in quasar light curves
This is link to the published 2001 paper.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext/015104.text.html
This is a link to the preprint of the published 2010 paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
This the link to the published 2010 paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract
Is there any observational change to the sun or to the earth’s climate that could change your mind?
Of course, bring them on. So far, I have not seen any. And I have studied this for half a century.
the solar cycle has been interrupted
since you never have defined what you precisely mean by that, the question does not have a meaningful answer.
The rest of your comment is just muddled nonsense.
An example of your muddled nonsense:
Due to basic physics objects that move away from us very rapidly will all exhibit velocity redshift in their spectrum where the spectrum is shifted due to the velocity which they are moving away from us, to the ‘red’.
The red-shift of galaxies is not caused by moving through space at high velocity. The galaxies are effectively sitting still [only moving a little bit in random directions because of gravitational perturbations by neighboring galaxies]. What is happening is that space is expanding and that stretches the light waves which then look redder.
Never mind, good news for the staff at the temperature adjustment departments – “more overtime guys we need to go over the last century again.”
The MET just bought itself a 50 year “pause”. No matter how cold it gets, the story will be that the sun is saving us for now, but in 2065, watch out, we’re all doomed. Unless, of course, we adopt the teachings of Karl Marx.
Yup, was waiting for this comment.
RH said:
“Unless, of course, we adopt the teachings of Karl Marx.”
Actually RH, most of them are Groucho Marxists, plus a few Harpo Marxists.
http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtmlhttp://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtml
A reminder, both to the contributions of amateurs, as well as how short a time we have been gathering some of the data being discussed. There are many factors involve and in is easy to grasp just some of them and jump to conclusions.
This solar minimum may be just a one hit wonder for all we know. best to seperate what one believes from what one knows.
Sigh,, ready aim fire..
michael
http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtml
Oops
Carol Williams says (Climategate Email 0700.txt) .
Cretin. She apparently does not know what S/N ratio is , ie have not even looked at the words. You may accuse someone of LOW S/N ratio and ask for stronger signals, Duh !
If you don’t understand something that basic what the hell are you doing at a meeting discussing Polar Climate Research? Making the tea?
Pamela Gray
June 24, 2015 at 11:44 am
Salvatore apparently does not understand well-regarded Earth-intrinsic explanations (or chooses to ignore them) of long term and short term weather pattern variations and climate regime shifts.
My reply – terrestrial changes are not going to be able to accomplish the drastic and many abrupt climatic changes the historical climatic record shows. It has to be much more involved then just that.
Even with your long list of decision points, taken all together there is not enough change in solar energy across the spectrum, cosmic ray, and magnetic measures to drive a 60 year or greater weather pattern or climate regime shift. Unless of course you have an unnamed amplifier. Funny that. So do the CO2 folks. There are plenty of powerful processes intrinsic to Earth that can out do solar changes.
Here are a few:
Cloudy water
Cloudy skies
Serial volcanic pulses
Overturning and ENSO regimes with long term ups and downs within longer term ups and downs
Oscillating oceanic-atmospheric pressure system cycles outside of ENSO
Pamela that is your opinion. I think all of the items you mention are correct but I also think they are all secondary effects associated with solar variability.
For an example sea surface temperatures must be linked to solar variability since it is the light from the sun that penetrates the skin of the ocean. If so then that in itself would amplify the small change in solar irradiance many times over. This in turn will influence ENSO, and maybe sea ice concentrations.
If not that then there is the data that shows a solar/major geological connection.
If not that then there is the linked between ozone concentrations/distributions which said to be tied to solar activity which there is much evidence, that then changes the atmospheric circulation which then would change ocean currents ,not to mention any changes in solar activity are going to effect the chemistry of the atmosphere.
If not that then there is the potential cosmic ray /cloud correlation.
If not that even Leif admits a change in solar irradiance of .1% does have a .1c to .2c effect on temperature. So it solar irradiance happens to change by .2% there is at least a .2c drop in temperature which is 40% of my .5c drop in temperature even if all the other solar factors are 100% wrong.
If not that then one has to consider the geo magnetic field and how that may enhance (when weak) solar variability or( moderate when strong)given solar variability..
If not that one has to consider galactic cosmic ray concentrations in the vicinity of the earth at the times of solar variability which maybe have given solar variability/cosmic ray correlations giving different outcomes, or maybe a impact form an asteroid or a random super volcanic eruption when super imposed with the slightest of solar variability could push the climate over the threshold, or maybe as you suggest at times they could do it themselves. My problem with that is maybe at times but the multitude of abrupt climatic changes to my way of thinking is to much for those kind of events to be the reason..
If not that one has to consider the state of the climate, the ice dynamic, the land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, the phase of Milankovitch Cycles, the pole to equator temperature gradient, how far the initial state of the climate is from threshold inter glacial-glacial conditions and reconcile those items to given solar variability.
If not that maybe lunar /solar relationships exert an influence on the earth which changes the climate or aids in that change.
There are more but these are the notable ones I can presently think of. Pam, even the Met Office thinks there is something to solar/climate relationships.
This is not simple and in the end I only need to be correct on one of the solar /climate connections when combined with even the smallest decrease in solar irradiance to be correct. Pam even the Met Office thinks there is something to solar /climate relationships which is saying much when coming from a pro AGW source.
Then again you could be correct Pamela, I could be wrong, only time is going to gives us the answer.
Again I have said if my low average solar parameters are met or even come close to being met and the global temperature response is not down I will admit I was wrong. How much clearer could it be.
Let us see what happens. Pamela you do have some good thoughts and much to add to this dialog.
.
happens to change by .2% there
The variation of the solar output is caused by its changing magnetic field. Therefore the Sun’s output cannot fall to less what it is at solar minimum, so a progressively less active sun cannot fall 0.2% under what it was at minimum. The only way you can have a sustained 0.2% change in TSI is to have a much higher level of solar actiivity.
Ocean water cloudiness (turbidity) is such a powerful variable in SST modeling that it is considered a greater source of resultant SST than solar variation. Simple experiments carried out for decades using a variety of measuring techniques demonstrate this clear order of power. Here is just one link. There are many. And they all contend that turbidity (which can be suspended particles or just choppy seas) affects solar heating of oceans far greater than solar radiance changes do. So the ball is in your court with just this one variable. Demonstrate that changes in any one of your parameters, or any combination, is greater than just ocean turbidity. And I haven’t even begun to challenge you on the others I have listed.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2004/kara-jpo-2004.pdf
Is water clarity not also a function of plankton blooms, which are also related to solar insolation?
It’s only weather until the desert or glaciers show up in Michigan.
In the last 2 million years it has been regular long bouts of mile thick ice.
What is all this tripe about the sun not varying??? What on earth not only launches long Ice Ages but also melts the glaciers at regular intervals but only for a short while? There is no mechanism for this wild variation that hammers the Northern Hemisphere.
It has much smaller effects on South America and Africa at the equator, of course.
The MET has now produced a logical inconsistency which it can’t reconcile. It clearly accepts that a “grand solar minimum” would result in a lowering of temperature, all other things being equal. Implicitly, therefore, they accept that an extra active sun, a “grand solar maximum” such as we have experienced over the past half century, would have raised the temperature, etcetera paribus. Now, they appear to say that a one degree drop would be compensated by antropogenic warming, but that implies that the warming due to a grand maximum would be of the same order, that is about one degree, a temperature increase similar to the one seen over the 20th century. But then they can not possibly claim that any warming at all during the last 50 years was due to anything other than solar variation. In other words: they implicitly claim that the purported antropogenic warming of the past century was small compared with the solar influence, if it existed at all! Which invalidates their conjecture that antropogenic global warming will save the day for us for at least a while.
We are doomed, but not in the manner as we knew it!
No, no, no. The solar reduction will only lower local temperatures. CO2 will cause the global temperature to continue soaring as it has for the past 18 years!
/sarc
Isn’t it obvious that since Germany and Great Britain have led the way toward renewables, and are suffering the greatest from their leadership, that they should should get the first benefits of the mitigated heat. Fear not the cold, Europeans, it is your reward!
==============
Ed Zuiderwijk. Excellent remark.
It turns out Met Office is significantly faster than Royal Society.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/16/royal-society-it-will-take-another-50-years-without-warming-before-we-admit-we-were-wrong/
Looks like they slowly catching onto the importance of UV rather than TSI. That means stratospheric cloud cover.
Only over the poles in that hemispheres winter (~ MS85C required) – and that will feedback surface warming with a small GHE.
Also UV is b***er all in terms of W/m^2 and results in a greater prob of a -AO and REGIONAL cold.
“On a regional level, the study found a bigger cooling effect for Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America during winter. For example, for northern Europe it was -0.4C to -0.8C.”
That is NOT global as in GW. Result – maybe 0.1C reduction in AVE global temps as a result of a GM that may lead to a ~1.5 W/m^2 reduction in TSI.
NO Ice Age began on the equator. Indeed, the effect of al Ice Ages on the equator were quite minimal.
These DID begin at Hudson Bay and Scotland, for example. So any weather pattern showing these regions cooling down greatly are definite possible Ice Age indicators.
I rather doubt that. Why? Many oceanic/atmospheric systems teleconnect with one another. Which came first: A stuck negative AO then an El Nino, or a prolonged El Nino then a negative AO? I haven’t figured that one out.
emsnews June 24, 2015 at 4:07 pm says:
Not quite true. The lack of heat at the equator led to less of a thermohaline current and probably smaller Hadley cell heat engine so the equator was maintained in homeostasis but the temperate latitudes and the poles received less heat and probably temperate zone cloudiness increased with latitudinal jetstreams with large looping Rossby waves.
So while the effects would have been seen in the higher latitudes the equator receiving less heat could be the driver.
“A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …”
I thought the science was settled.
Like everything related to climate science the politics are just as important. The Met Office has been heavily criticised for a decade of forecasts based on overheated climate models. Their predictions of BBQ summers became a joke.
Now that solar effects suggest cooling, the Met Office is hedging its bets. Note the caveats about global warming continuing whatever else happens.
The Met Office may be right for once, but they deserve no credit whatsoever. They are just covering all possibilities while reinforcing the global warming scare.
And if the temperature falls more than 1-1,5 degrees what will be the excuse then?
Then there will be no room for a human part in the latest warming
Two alarmists are standing on the Gulf of Mexico northern ice shelf 50 miles South of New Orleans, they are watching the Mississippi glacier calve into the Gulf of Mexico.
Kicking at an ice ridge one alarmist says – “When this ice melts it’s going to get really really hot!”
Put a poncho, a sombrero, and Cheech in that joke.
If we do have significant cooling, I expect the Met Office will claim that (a) it is temporary (b) due to the oceans absorbing heat (c) Evidence of global warming (d) evidence that warming will be devastating when it returns imminently.
All I can say is the MET office has come a long ways. Don’t you all remember this from 2000?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
BTW where the hell is that Bozo now days? Why isn’t he being tared and feathered in the UK press? Oh, I know; Because most of them sold out to that silly crap also!
.2 from the high level mark between 1950-2000 is what I mean.
Dr. Theodore Landscheidt predicted this scenario back in about 2003.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Go to Topic 9.
This material is presented in a confusing manner. The paper says that: “The solar forcing is based on the most rapidly declining Lockwood solar activity SCENARIO (reference 2) and uncertainty in future levels of ultraviolet is explored with two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet spectral irradiance.”
The 1.5 W/m2 reduction is a change in irradiance, not solar forcing. Solar irradiance is about 1367 W/m2 arriving at a disk the diameter of the earth. Forcing is calculated for the surface area of the earth which receives an average 342 W/m2, one-fourth the irradiance. If you want to compare anthropogenic forcing (6.0-8.5 W/m2 by 2100 w/o mitigation, approximately 3 W/m2 now) to solar forcing, the reduced irradiance must be divided by four to produce a solar forcing of about -0.4 W/m2. So the forcing from projected decline in solar activity is about 10% of the forcing for the projected increase in GHG and aerosols.
The future temperature changes in Figure 2 are the reductions in future warming (GMST +4 degC, worst case scenario for RCP 8.5) IF solar activity declines to Lockwood’s estimate of “Maunder Minimum level of solar activity. These modest temperature changes are from a climate model with high climate sensitivity.
Of course, all Wm2 are not created equal. Reductions in UV effect production of ozone and apparently have effects even at the surface despite UV being mostly absorbed in the stratosphere. However the difference between EXPT-A (reduction at all wavelengths) and EXPT-B (all reduction in UV) is still modest.
The biggest value I have seen for the Maunder Minimum is a solar forcing of -1 W/m2 (vs. -0.4 W/m2 in this paper). I have no objection to the idea that changes in solar activity can have a big impact on our climate. However, I can’t understand why forecast of possible future solar changes in TSI of this modest magnitude cause any excitement.
“Winter is coming”
“You know nothing Jon Snow”
All part of a spin cycle leading up to Paris. We will see more of this talk about some minor cooling but the CAGW will be the the big scary thing we have to afraid of.
Leif does believe in Milankovitch Cycles, land ocean arrangements , +.1 c to -.1c drop due to solar irradiance, so he is in a sense not strictly a solar /climate connection denier.
I will ask him this question. I hesitate but here it is. What influence do you think the geo magnetic field has on the climate if any and why ? Do you feel it moderates solar activity ? Thanks. Your opinions do matter to me even though we tend to disagree on solar/climate secondary I emphasize secondary relationships.
Again when it comes to the sun you are among the best and not many would share the knowledge you have on a web-site such as this. hat has to be appreciated. I do appreciate it. I do not care how much we may disagree, your contributions are very good. That is what I have learned if nothing else. I think Leif is real not fake. I hope you are around for many years to come.
so he is in a sense not strictly a solar /climate connection denier.
You are confusing solar activity and earth orientation influence.
What influence do you think the geo magnetic field has on the climate if any and why ?
None, as such. If the cosmic ray hypothesis should turn out to be valid [observations show that it is not] then the geomagnetic field can modulate the number of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere of the Earth.
Do you feel it moderates solar activity ?
I don’t ‘feel’ things like that, but the answer would be ‘no’.
Thanks. I do not see it the same way but still I value your opinion.
lsvalgaard,
What’s your view on what will happen to our climate over the next 20 years or so?
I have no idea.
The one and only possible correct answer…..
Because nobody knows.
I expect two decades of cooling from the concatenation of cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations. If the Cheshire Cat sunspots auger cooling, we may cool for a century or more.
==================
well you’d think all the possibilities are known. It’s either going up, going down, staying the same, or some combination of those in some sort of sequence.
Hey folks. Words matter. It is NOT the last Ice Age. We’re still in an Ice Age. Should be “glaciation”. Makes a lot of difference when you’re debating the warmists and you ask them why they’re against having warmth in the middle of an Ice Age?
Even indoctrinated closed shut eyes react to sunlight.
Most certainly we are in the Ice Ages. And it is obvious statistically that we are nearing the end of this balmy period.
I’d like to experience the Maunder Minimum like event, but me living that long is an extremely unlikely event.
Au contraire littlepeaks – I suggest you would NOT like to experience a Maunder Minimum event.
A multitude of elderly people will NOT survive a major global cooling event like the Maunder.
Even in these balmy days of alleged global warming, Excess Winter Deaths are approximately 10,000 per year in Canada, up to 50,000 per year in the UK and about 100,000 per year in the USA. Cold weather kills many more people than hot weather, even in warm climates.
My friend Joe D’Aleo and I published this paper online on Monday May 25, 2015.
Winters not Summers Increase Mortality and Stress the Economy
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
Joe is a veteran meteorologist and was founding Chief Meteorologist of the Weather Channel.
Joe and his colleagues have correctly long-range-forecasted the last two very cold winters in the eastern two-thirds of North America. Both Environment Canada and the US National Weather Service (NWS) incorrectly predicted warmer-than-average winters two years in a row.
We warned the USA and Canadian governments of this dangerous situation in the Fall of 2014. This past winter, the lower-48 USA (CONUS) required about 8-9% more energy than the NWS forecast predicted. Fortunately, energy supplies were generally adequate.
Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society – it IS that simple.
Best, Allan
Alan I have often stated this, “Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of EVERY economy.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2004/kara-jpo-2004.pdf
Pam, it suggest solar plays a big part in this as well..
No it does not. For the purposes of ocean warming at the depth of solar penetration, a constant solar value suffices because turbidity is the stronger issue.
Turbidity is interesting as it requires something to add the particles to the ocean and something to create the currents that carry the turbid water until it settles. So what causes the turbidity in the first place? I would think that the greatest cause is rain and erosion of soils so severe flooding or monsoon rains on mountains, or even continual rain result in turbid river water carrying the turbidity out into the ocean. But that actually does not go too far.
So the weather causes the turbidity close to the coasts like the Mississippi run off that initially caused the barrier islands but now it is canalized the turbidity from the Mississippi is carried out into the Gulf of Mexico for a few miles where it drops into the deeper waters.
Is there any evidence for turbidity of the top 700m of ocean in the Atlantic or Pacific away from the coasts?
If not then Salvadore wins this round.
Pam, my point is that solar is playing a role in every process you mention to one degree or another . I did not say necessarily the dominate role. Maybe it is just a catalyst that gives that slight difference which winds up making all of the difference due to the chaotic ,random nature of the climate system..
Pam , I would be interested if you were to formulate a comprehensive paper which talks about why and how the climate changes due to earth intrinsic changes in the absence of any input from solar and CO2.
Then you should explain to us what would be the physical mechanisms behind the changes and how would a change which started in a particular direction not only stop going in the same direction once it got started but actually reverse. How did the Younger Dryas start , then lasting period of time of some 1000 years only to have an abrupt ending which ties into solely to earth intrinsic changes? What was the driving mechanism or mechanisms that made this possible?
Also I think you are of the opinion that the climate is going to get cooler going forward. What is the mechanism behind that? Do you think it is just a complete chaotic ,random explanation? If you do I say that is very poor explanation due to the semi cyclic nature the climate exhibits which highly suggest something is regulating it which goes beyond randomness and chaotic happenings.
Also you would need to produce data from the historical climatic record which would show how earth intrinsic changes in the absence of any outside influences correlates to your theory.
All of the above Pam I have accomplished. You may not agree but you can not prove me wrong..
So why don’t you do what I suggest, if it is convincing enough maybe you will change some minds but till then the best theory for why the climate changes is the solar/climate connection argument which the data DOES support.
The salt and just the cresting waves can also cause turbidity. That would involve wind, not particles, and saltier versus less saltier seas.
I am not certain we can more then speculate here. Plankton blooms, aided by initial lack of turbidity allowing insolation through the Epipelagic Zone – from the surface to 200 meters (656 feet), can then limit the solar penetration depth of this zone. However when they die the release their energy. I have seen a five foot deep compost pile get extremely hot. The ocean “snow” falling decomposing organic matter, can become very deep on the ocean floor, and this heat is then ultimately only transported deeper. The turbidity in this zone is in general very low in the deep tropics.
. It is also known as the sunlight zone because this is where most of the visible light exists. With the light come heat. This heat is responsible for the wide range of temperatures that occur in this zone.
Below the epipelagic zone is the mesopelagic zone, extending from 200 meters (656 feet) to 1000 meters (3281 feet). The mesopelagic zone is sometimes referred to as the twilight zone or the midwater zone. The light that penetrates to this depth is extremely faint. It is in this zone that we begin to see the twinkling lights of bioluminescent creatures. A great diversity of strange and bizarre fishes can be found here.
As already mentioned we simply do not know the mean solar insolation flux at this level on any long term historic basis, nor do we know the disparate residence time of different W/L insolation, nor do we know the historic flux of changing solar W/L at the surface. However we do not that the residence time of this energy is very long, hundreds to thousands of times longer then the majority of the atmospheric energy increase due to a change in GHG concentration.
Of course, just as our earth moves tropical atmospheric heat to polar regions, and up and out, so our earth moves ocean heat pole ward. Mechanism for this heat to move to depth do I suppose exist, and certainly the CAGW scientist think so.
Heat is a curious thing. In general it is described as an average on the kinetic energy of a given mass, such as one square meter. But this average, does not define the “energy intensity” of individual molecules or photons which composed said mass. A thought experiment if you will. Take a very large pot filled with water, say 100 square feet in area, and ten feet deep, so 1000 square feet. and super insolated with a concave bottom, thinner in the center.
Now apply two different heat sources to this pot, both of which are say 100 watts per 1 square feet. The first source, example A, is a 100 square foot heating element, 10,000 watts total, with the conducted heat perfectly distributed throughout. From this source, no matter how perfect the insolation of the pot of water, it can only get to the T of the heating element, at which point the net flow between the element and the pot will be equal.
Now apply a very different 100 watts per square foot source; example B. Apply a very small, say 1/4 inch square super heated 10,000 watts total, but still 100 watts per square foot of the pot base. Given time, this greater energy intensity source of equal watts per square foot input to example A, can yet heat the pot of water to far higher Temperature. Under theoretical perfect insolation, the entire pot can reach the T of the source.
Comparing an atmospheric flux in GHG LWIR to the energy intense SW flux striking a SW selective surface like the oceans, is like the example A verses B above. The watts per square meter flux is almost meaningless compared to the greater energy intensity of the SW flux and the thousands of times greater residence time of said SW flux striking the SW selective surface of the oceans, verses the very short residence time change in atmospheric energy due to increased GHG which also are far less energy intensive then the SW radiation penetrating the oceans. (Some of Konrad’s experiments may be useful here)
Due to the very long residence time of SW ocean insolation, and to the relatively higher energy intensity of SW insolation verses LWIR, then a 100 year long flux in SW insolation, can accumulate for every one of those 100 years, whereas the direct affects of a change in GHG LWIR, reaches a radiative balance tomorrow.. Indeed, not all watts are equal.
Time for a lot of folks to admit we have no idea what we are living through, is this (our miniscule period) benign, warm, cool or indifferent, we have no idea we are simply transient learners!
Those that “know” are to me a new and destined to be a short lived species of “home superbus” – arrogant man.
I think based on the history of converting “global cooling” to “global warming” and then to “climate change” and then “climate chaos” – all caused by anthropogenic co2 – it would be quite easy to convert to “global cooling” again. Caused by anthropogenic CO2 of course.
Maybe we could name this “The Pachauri Cycle” or may be the “Mann Cycle”
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
It doesn’t matter what you call it. It doesn’t matter if it gets colder or warmer. It doesn’t matter if it gets wetter or drier. It doesn’t matter if we have more storms or fewer of them. It’s climate change and it’s CO2’s fault. We need taxes, carbon credits, renewals, and ponzi schemes to make the elites even wealthier.
How about the “Piltdown Mann Cycle”?
Whadddya mean we don’t have good climate models yet? Here is the best one: big ball of fire rises in the sky; global warming (well at least 30% or so); big ball of fire goes away, global cooling. The refined model takes that linear model, adds 200 or so first or second order variables, plus a few discreet functions and voila! A perfectly useless model unless equipped with govt grants.
Why is anyone even discussing this? There was no decline in solar activity in the last ice age. Just ask Leif – they’re adjusting those sunspot numbers as we speak.
Phil, if you really wish to mess with “Leif” I suggest you read or at least became familier with his published papers. Also after that, if you still wish to continue, I really, really recommend Sun Tzu -The art of war.
best of luck..
michael
🙂
Hmm,, Has anyone thought of the impact of this Paris Regala in the middle of snow storms & blizzards?
Not perhaps in Paris but across the world, grounding aircraft. “Can’t Get thar from hare” (Mainer talk”)
Perhaps they ran the models with the real truthful imputs: and the computer sputtered, laughted and printed out ” you are sooo sc***ed!” You never know, and urban legends are fun to start. Okay Me Bad
michael
Eric Worral.
“a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.”
Please provide a reference for the “degree or so of cooling” you state in your article. I do not see it myself. I assume you mean Celsius.
Headline:
“UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age”
We have never left the Ice Age, we are in an Interglacial Period of an Ice Age.
old44.
Semantics. You can go look up the correct technical terminology if you like. But is does not change what the UK Met Office said.
If solar activity is plummeting at the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years, then surely this proves that such a change is anthropogenic. How could it possibly happen otherwise? And if anthropogenic, then it must be assumed to be a result of increased CO2. The only thing left for scientists to do is to intuit the exact mechanism by which our carbon pollution or other activity is causing the sun to reduce its activity. The link to CO2 is still a bit tenuous, of course, but other theories include solar despair at man’s folly and the Koch brothers launching a secret space program to dim the sun. Leading scientific journals will no doubt explain in good time.
Won’t the team be able to forever claim that once whatever may cause some cooling shifts diminishes we’ll be screwed because of all the CO2 we pumped into the atmosphere?
It can be any amount of years int eh future and the alarm stays ringing.
it’s all about the net. if Earth had the cloud cover of Venus, it would have an effective emission equivalent to only around 180 Kelvins or less for radiative balance. Earth’s albedo of around 0.3 is mostly due to our cloud cover, not the surface. whatever affects the albedo (mostly clouds) has a serious effect on Earth’s temperature and whatever does not affect the albedo has very little effect.
Yeah, and if the sun controls, it’s probably through manipulation of the albedo.
======
the Sun is rather stable presently, slowly increasing overall insolation intensity. It does have some variation and does manipulate albedo to some extent. The problem is that so does everything else. particulates from volcanoes and just dust blown up into the air along with smoke have direct effects plus they have effects on cloud seeding and the nature of the typical size of cloud droplets. it would also appear that bacteria in the air can have an effect on this. cloud albedo does depend upon these particulates that define the droplet size. whether it will be possible to untangle the giant knot of string that is cloud albedo and identify and measure the individual threads seems impossible. Then there is the contribution of the surface which is also dynamic. LOL. Despite the fact that the physics involved is nice, classical, and deterministic, when placed in Earth’s system of interactions and interdependence, the result is totally chaotic and co2 is purely a bit player whose actual contributions may not be measureable when it comes to effect on temperature.
Earlier this month Nir Shaviv gave a talk in Calgary – his slides are posted here:
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Calgary-Solar-Climate_Cp.pdf
See Slide 35 – essentially Svensmark et al.
I’m impressed by Nir Shaviv and Svensmark and Lindzen.
tnx for the slide ref. will try to read later. i’m sure it’s good.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.
I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
This can be a worse than they think, because only AMO will reduce the temperature by about 0.4 degrees C. In turn PDO in the Pacific is entering a phase positive.
Do we wrote about the cooling of the North Atlantic?
The decrease AMO?
In low sun, it is important magnetic field of the earth, because it modifies the galactic radiation.
“Numerous studies have identified links between past climate and solar variability42, 43. During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), very few sunspots were seen despite regular observations44. If the past relationships between TSI and ultraviolet irradiance and sunspots are the same as are observed for modern solar variability, then a decline in both TSI and ultraviolet for this period can be assumed. The Maunder Minimum coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe32 and many reconstructions45, 46 suggest atmospheric conditions were broadly comparable with the regional effects on European atmospheric circulation found here. Some modelling studies13, 47 also support the idea that similar regional cooling and circulation changes occurred during this period.”
In reply to:
William,
Leif, you are repeating an incorrect urban legend, that asserts incorrectly that there is some mysterious force that is expanding space. That is silly or to use your idiom which I dislike as it distracts from the scientific issues ‘muddled nonsense’.
P.S. There will be significant observational evidence of cooling and of an abrupt change to the sun to discuss. It is helpful in science if you want to be part of a breakthrough to be capable of considering/having more than one theory in your head. Many people in the scientific community cannot even accept the possibility that long held theories can be completely incorrect. As I noted there are currently an astonishing number of astronomical observational and analysis paradoxes that are directly and indirectly related to what is currently happening to the sun. There are paradoxes and anomalies associated with every logic pillar of the big bang theory.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601171v2.pdf
The scientific issue which is different than name calling is there are hundreds of observations that support the assertion that the majority of the redshift of quasars, redshift of some stars, and a portion of the redshift of galaxies is due to non velocity reasons.
The fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation means quasars are not astronomically highly distant objects (less than z=1). The majority of the redshift of quasars is due to massive charge imbalance which explains how the quasar redshift can and does change with time.
There are strings of ejected baby quasars stretching out from the axis of the parent quasar, AGN in both directions. The redshift of the newly ejected baby quasars gets progressively less as they move away from the parent AGN. As the new baby quasars move farther from the AGN they develop into companion galaxies.
There must be and is a physical reason for the non velocity redshift of quasars, galaxies, and some stars and there must be a physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle and cyclic abrupt climate change. The reason is due to the physics of what happens when large bodies collapse. This phenomena affects our star and is the reason for abrupt climate change.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0143v1
Nothing is infinite except the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.
-Albert Einstein
There must be and is a physical reason for the non velocity redshift of quasars, galaxies, and some stars and there must be a physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle and cyclic abrupt climate change. The reason is due to the physics of what happens when large bodies collapse. This phenomena affects our star and is the reason for abrupt climate change
Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
(Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens)
Friedrich von Schiller
Global cooling will probably become obvious within a few years – we’ll see.
If this happens, we can expect that the warmists will move seamlessly to become coolists, and a significant number of the masses will blindly follow them.
George Carlin explained this phenomenon. He said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
All this will happen notwithstanding that the warmists’ global warming hypothesis will be proved wrong, and their predictive track record will be utterly destroyed (even more than it already is quashed by “the Pause”).
Repeating, one’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s scientific competence.
To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.
Regards, Allan
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595v1.pdf
“These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation”
“That these data provide a confirmation of the time dilation factor expected in an expanding universe should be of no surprise. […] The data presented here are unique in that they enable the most direct test of the 1/(1 + z) time-dilation hypothesis over a larger redshift range than has yet been performed. This hypothesis is favored beyond doubt over models that predict no time dilation.”
Yes. Supernova exhibit time dilation, which is the slowing down of processes due to their high velocity. The Super nova are moving at a high velocity as they are at very great distances from the earth observer.
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT
Quasars on the other hand do not exhibit time dilation which is a paradox.
There are piles and piles of anomalies concerning quasars all of which support the assertion that the majority of the quasar redshift is caused by non-velocity reasons and that the quasar redshift changes with time.
The same non velocity cause of redshift is seen for galaxies (portion of the redshift) and for stars (small amount for stars however highly significant as there needs to be a charge imbalance to cause the redshift effect, there needs to be a change in the standard stellar model to create a charge imbalance, and even a small charge imbalance would have a very large effect on the earth)
Super Massive Black Hole Downsizing with Redshift Paradox
Another of the paradoxes of astronomy is the largest super massive black holes 10^9 solar masses in quasars are only found at high redshift. The mass of quasar super massive black hole is only 10^7 solar masses for quasars in the local universe. This is a paradox as there is no mechanism to reduce the mass of a super massive black hole.
The mass of the high redshift super massive black hole is determined by the redshift of the quasar and the measured luminosity at the earth. Due to the assumed super distance of the super high redshift quasars, the super distant quasars are assumed to be emitting more energy than a hundred of the most luminous galaxies in the local universe. This type of super high luminous quasar completely disappears (is not observed) for local quasars, in fact there is an unexplained gradual reduction in quasar luminosity with redshift. There is no mechanism to explain why quasar luminosity should downsize with redshift. This paradox goes away if highly redshift quasars are not super distance objects as their highly redshift spectrum is caused by a massive electrical charge imbalance.
Quasar spectrum does not show evolution of metallicity with redshift
The quasar spectrum of super high redshift quasars contains elements that are only found in old galaxies. There is no evolution of what is called metallicity (metallicity is the name astronomers have given for the amount of heavy elements in the spectrum of stars, galaxies, and quasars). As metallicity (the amount of heavy elements such as iron and oxygen) is known to increase with galaxy age and the most distant galaxies in the universe that contain quasars should be theoretically young, they should if there are truly distant have less heavy elements in the gas of the galaxy that contains the quasar and hence in the quasar spectrum. The super high redshift have more not less heavy elements in their spectrum. The complete lack of evolution of metallicity of quasar spectrum with redshift is a paradox. This paradox goes away if highly redshift quasars are not super distance and highly redshift spectrum is caused by a massive electrical charge imbalance.
Super Luminous Quasars and Quasar Luminosity evolution with redshift
The quasars at high redshift if we assume the redshift is due to velocity must be at very, very, great distance from the earth. The luminiousity of some of the high redshift quasars is hundreds of times more than the largest brightest galaxy in the local universe. There are no super luminous quasars in the local universe. Related to this paradox the quasar luminosity gradually is reduced with redshift. which supports the assertion that the majority of the redshift of quasars is due to non velocity reason.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151v1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1674-4527/12/3/002
The mistake some people make is that the light variations of quasars are intrinsic to the quasars. It is much more likely that they reflect variations on their way to us, e.g. micro lensing.
Quasars are the cores of active galaxies and move [or not] with them. You are totally out of your depth here.
Leif,
that quasar variation is ‘mistakenly’ assumed to be intrinsic in textbooks as well. it is used as the argument for size of the quasar core. gravitational lensing of such things as einstein’s cross showing up in four different places surrounding the ‘lens’ was shown to be one quasar by these intrinsic variations happening to the four different images which have traveled slightly different paths the entire way. how are your microlensing events going to affect the light traveling these different paths on the very short term basis? granted that there are many regions this light travels through as indicated by the lyman alpha forest present on the spectrum but the evidence conflicts with the notion of rapid variation not being intrinsic.
Yes, there is debate and dissent on this. To measure time dilation [or the lack thereof] one needs to know what the intrinsic variation actually is. With supernovae this is known as the variation is the known decay rate of radioactive nickel-56. For quasars there is no known reference.
This paper by Rourke http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/paradigm/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf may cast some light on the matter. Rourke argues that there is no paradox, but a selection effect at work.
Leif,
Astley’s comment “Yes. Supernova exhibit time dilation, which is the slowing down of processes due to their high velocity. The Super nova are moving at a high velocity as they are at very great distances from the earth observer” would seem to imply that due to large distance space expansion velocity would be high. Recession due to expansion of space is not true velocity relative to time dilation as it is not velocity through space but velocity of space expansion and would not cause time dilation per the general theory of relativity. You did not note this or am I misunderstanding something?
Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion [but we are drifting away from the Topic]:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf
Leif,
Thanks, interesting. Not sure what to make of it as there is evidently question about the sample in the paper. Not to be labor this any longer my point was relative to supernovae, not quasars, per Astley’s comment and since recession velocities, per red shift, have been observed in excess of c, expansion velocities are not a measure of velocity through space but of space itself, is still my understanding. Thanks again.
Leif,
looked at that paper briefly. rouke’s refs are only 4 and one is schield – evidently looking for proof of a MECO (didn’t have time to chase that one down). from what I recall – either one can have a MECO or a black hole and while I’ve found schield’s eternally collapsing objects (magnetic or not) to be quite interesting I don’t think they have any significant support currently and even if their paper indicates they’ve found one (MECO), there are probably still alternative explanations available to the status quo. I usually cringe when I see mathematicians doing physics – especially when they comment in their paper about being new to the scene like rourke. While I have not spent the time and effort to fully understand either rourke’s paper or hawkin’s, I get the feeling that one cannot actually determine the information. Energy emissions from a quasar (what is apparently a supermassive black hole actively feeding) are a variety of sources, heating from surrounding material orbiting as it is spiraling, collisions with more infalling material, collisions with ejected beam particles, synchrotron radiation, stuff that can vary from object to object along with the geometry of surrounding material. Of course there are similar things occurring with supernovae that causes variations as well, but the main decay curve beautifully matches nickel to cobalt to iron (all 56) and those decay times are fixed in a lab and subject to time dilation from motion. The if and when some extra blob of stuff decides to fall into a black hole (or at least release some energy to vary the quasar’s intrinsic brightness) may be subject to time dilation effects but not to knowing what that would be. Heck, even that blob in the milky way’s center that was supposed to feed the supermassive BH didn’t work as expected tossing all the observationists and theory folks into a tizzy as to why.
Yeah, the real problem is that there is no reference variation [like the radioactive decay] for quasar variations.
“any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.”
The MET Office needs to read “Fallen Angels”, by Larry Niven and co. It is an excellent read, and accurately forecasts exactly these types of absurdities.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
The Meteorological Office appears to accept the basic essentials of my New Climate Model
Well that can’t be good news for you.
Any publication, any data set, any discussion anywhere is ALWAYS glorious support for Stephen’s Nobel-prize-worthy know-it-all model.
But it would be of some entertainment value to see a link to where MetOffice says that they accept Stephen’s model.
Tom,
It could be good news if they are trying to hedge their bets, as seems likely.
Leif,
Peevish as ever.
You evaded the request. Provide a link where the MetOffice says that they accept your ‘theory’.
I said they ‘appeared’ to accept the basic essentials of my model by which I mean that there is clear similarity between causes and effects.
I certainly don’t expect them to actually say it.
You’ll never get credit; it’s a plain fact of nature, obvious on the face of it.
============
the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years.
really so what was the rate of decline in 200 bc , well no one knows , partly there was hardly any knowledge in this area and no way to measure any decline .
It is basic stuff , you cannot make good value judgements on something that you have idea of its size , theory is fine but in practice that is really guesswork . This ‘better then nothing ‘ approach is typical of climate science , the irony is that it is only required in the first place because far from being ‘settled science’ in the manner it is claimed to be much of it is still based on the ‘better than nothing ‘ framework . Which in turn is why it keeps getting it wrong and hence the latest in a long line of excuses for ‘missing heat ‘
Well you all would have burned in Hell if it wasn’t for the Ice Age so count yourselves lucky this time round deniers!
“UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age”
I know the Met Office ithas been around for quite a long time, but I didn’t know it was that old.
Been reading Leif’s contributions here for years. I have come to the conclusion that he studies the sun so closely because it shines out of his posterior orifice.
One can concentrate so much on one part of our global climate / energy scenario that the rest becomes ephemera, but that doesn’t make it less important, and nor does not understanding the parts you don’t look at. Being dismissive in such a regular manner over the years might make one seem aloof, or should that be a Leif…
Do you not read that he is also a meteorologist. Or is that to be despised as well?
I would suggest, having been an occasional visitor here that most likely “Being dismissive in such a regular manner over the years might ” is because there as so many dismissive and ignorant posts such as yours that have come his way. Just the usual contempt for knowledge that the average postership here has for anyone remotely associated with climate science.
There is never really any excuse for rudeness, and the level of juvenile squabble to which some of these threads descends really puts me off reading many of them, which is a pity because WUWT used to be better than that. People who would be perfectly civil (or perfectly cowardly) face to face seem to lose their manners on-line. We’re supposed to be adults, not schoolkids on Facebook.
AS the worm turns…
This morning’s headlines from the GWPF:
1) US Lawmakers Vote To Block Obama’s Climate Policy – The Hill, 25 June 2015
2) US States To Defy Obama’s Climate Plans – Associated Press, 24 June 2015
3) Germany To Scrap Climate Change Levy On Coal Plants – Financial Times, 25 June 2015
4) EU Plans To Drop Methane Emissions Limits – International Business Times, 23 June 2015
5) Dutch Government Climate Policy Ruled Illegal Under Human Rights Law – Guardian Sustainable Business, 24th June 2015
6) Dutch Government To Appeal Court’s Climate Ruling – De Telegraph, 25 June 2015
I wrote about the structured retreat of global warming alarmists as in 2013 (below) – and possibly earlier.
The latest Met Office announcement is one more step in that structured retreat.
Think of it in military terms – they know they are going to lose the battle, so they form a defensive line, surrender ground slowly, and allow the main part of their forces to escape further harm.
First it was the warmists’ step-down in their estimates of Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (ECS) – the warmists’ ECS estimates are still far too high, but were reduced from previous absurdly high estimates. The magnitude of ECS is the key argument between the “mainstream” skeptics and the warmists and they are still far apart on this point.
Second the warmists conceded that natural climate variation was NOT insignificant, accepting a key component of the skeptics’ position.
Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.
Still, the warmists cling to the standard CO2 nonsense – the mantra of their faith – that increasing atmospheric CO2 is scary and dangerous – while they abandon all the elements that support their failed position.
At what point do we declare a rout?
See below for my proposal on this point.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week/#comment-1501616
Re-stating from 2002:
We knew decades ago that global warming alarmism was wrong. We confidently stated in 2002:
[PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
On global warming:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
On green energy:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
I suggest that our two above statements are now demonstrably true, within reasonable probabilities.
I also wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
On global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I expect that global cooling will be a reality by 2020, and may have already started. The Watermelons have already begun their retreat from global warming hysteria, and have moved on to “climate change” alarmism and “sustainability”, their new mantras to achieve greater political power.
In fact, these disreputable people have discredited true environmentalism with their false alarm. There remain real environmental issues that need to be addressed. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is NOT one of them.
Repeating from 2002:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Regards to all, Allan
I am once again with you Allan 100%.
Thank you Salvatore – my proposal is hung up in moderation.
PROPOSAL – SUE THE WARMISTS IN THE USA UNDER CIVIL RICO
PROPOSAL – SUE THE WARMISTS IN THE USA UNDER CIVIL RICO
I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..
Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.
We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..
The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.
If serious funders are interested, please contact me through http://www.OilsandsExpert.com
Regards, Allan MacRae
Calgary
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm
More data that ties solar activity to the climate.
There is no mention of solar activity in your link.
You have to look deeper into the data which shows a meridional atmospheric circulation,a faster rotation rate of the earth, and lower temperature all correlate to one another and all are present at the same time the sun is in a quiet period of activity , and vice versa.
No, they talk about LOD etc the last 140 years, which some people think are the most active in 12,000 years…
“It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones correspond to the periods of global cooling. I think it is pretty well correlated that Solar activity is responsible for periods of global warming.
oops should have used blockquote instead of p
I think it is pretty well correlated that Solar activity is responsible for periods of global warming
Where is the correlation?
http://www.leif.org/research/dT-ACI-Zonal-GN.png
In reply to Leif,
William,
Why in the world are you plotting sunspot number vs planetary temperature? If one has absolutely no understanding of the mechanisms the analysis goes in circles. You continue to ignore peer reviewed papers that explain in detail how the sun modulates planetary temperature and that shows correlation of the key solar parameter (number of solar wind bursts and interval between solar wind bursts).
The variable to plot is the number of solar wind bursts and time between solar wind bursts: The variable that captures solar wind bursts in Ak, the four hour disturbance of the geomagnetic field. You for some weird reason plot monthly average Ap ignoring the how the mechanism works. i.e. Number of solar wind bursts and interval between solar wind bursts. The cloud changing properties lasts for three to six days after an event. Coronal holes are the principal reason for solar wind bursts and persist for months.
Solar wind bursts primarily caused by persistent coronal holes create a space charge differential in the earth’s ionosphere which in turn causes a movement of electrical charge from the earth’s poles to the equator. Note in the current solar cycle, that there is an abundance of coronal holes (same number of wind bursts as solar cycle 23).
Coronal holes of course have nothing to do with sunspot number. Why coronal holes appear, when coronal holes appear in the solar cycle, and at what latitude coronal holes appear on the sun surface is not known.
The space charge differential removes cloud forming ions in the high latitude regions which causes there to be a reduction in low level clouds and an increase in cirrus clouds. A decrease in low level clouds warms the region in question due to a reduction in short wave radiation that is reflected to space albedo and an increase in the high wispy cirrus clouds causes the region in question to warm due to increased greenhouse effect of the high altitude water.
The return electrical current changes cloud properties in the equator and changes cloud lifetimes in the equator. El Nino events occur when there is large movement of electrical charge.
Recently although the number of sunspots has been dropping there has been a large number of persistent coronal holes on the surface of the sun in low latitude regions. It is these coronal holes that are partially responsible for the lack of significant cooling of the earth due to the astonishing slowdown in the solar cycle.
Offset the anomalous number of coronal holes is a reduction in the solar heliosphere density of 40%. The low density of the solar heliosphere (Solar heliosphere is the name for the tenuous gas and magnetic flux that stretches far past the orbit of Pluto.) reduces the rise time of the magnetic pulse that is caused by solar wind bursts which in turn reduces the effect on the earth ionosphere.
Now finally the size of coronal holes on the surface of sun has started to shrink and the coronal holes have started to move to high latitude regions on the surface of the sun where they no longer affect the earth. Bingo, there will be a significant increase in sea ice in the Arctic and the planet will cool. We are experience the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.
This paper explains the mechanisms. Leif it appears you do not read papers that disprove your assertion that solar cycle changes effect on planetary temperature.
http://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf
The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
When coronal holes were first recognized as important [by the Skylab Mission], NASA convened the now famous Coronal Hole Workshop with the world’s foremost experts on solar phenomena and their effect on the Earth. The results of the Workshop were published in a Monograph edited by Jack Zirker containing chapters on all aspects of coronal holes. I wrote chapter IX http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf . You see, much of our knowledge of this was pioneered by me and I am still a world class expert on this and on geomagnetic indices [such as Ak and Ap]. Your comment is full of misunderstandings and wrong turns and belongs in a landfill.
Not the only people suggesting a solar cooling between now and 2050
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/CV_NScafetta.p
Abdussamatov
(2013)
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
.
J Geol Geosci
2: 113.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/morner-2013a.pdf
Great solar/climate connection theory with data.
Since when is anything on Tallbloke’s blog to be taken seriously? That the planets are controlling solar activity, the geomagnetic field, etc, isway out there on the fringe.
I agree.
I also am not sold on that aspect of things. it was the solar wind speed climate connection that got my attention.
As I have said Leif’s solar predictions I pay attention to.
From the fringes come the comets blazing gloriously.
==============
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e03a.htm#FiguraA
If you view the data you will see how periods of low solar activity and high solar activity fit in with it.
no correlation with anything
I have a theory that I presented by Nils Axel Morner that supports my conclusions on this matter. It is in moderation but I think it will be allowed on the site.
Your theory does not support your conclusions. DATA would provide support.
Not my theory it is Nil’s theory.
Perhaps I misunderstood ‘I have a theory’
Correct.
‘by’, a clue.
=======
This is so ironic. A significant subset of the sun worshipers, who generally (and correctly) spend their time excoriating models of the climate on earth, have jumped on board a solar model … as though the sun were somehow easier to model than the climate …
Now, solar physicists have had mixed success predicting the evolution of the current and past sunspot cycles. Take a look at the many failed predictions of the most recent cycle, often made just a few years in advance of being wrecked by the fickle nature of the sun.
And now, everyone is going bonkers over some stupid solar climate model that claims to be able to simulate the evolution of the sun over the next century? A century? Really? Man, I thought I’d been guilty in the past of confirmation bias, but I’ve never let it overcome my skepticism about computer models of a hundred years from now.
Finally, no, solar activity is NOT “plummeting at the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years”. As near as I can tell, the authors just made up that claim and provide no backing for it. Here is the statement. It does have a citation, viz:
Reference 1 is Reconstruction and Prediction of Variations in the Open Solar Magnetic Flux and Interplanetary Conditions It says nothing about “faster than any other such decline in … 9,300 years”.
Nor do the authors provide any further evidence that I can find for the 9,300 year claim. Near as I can tell, they just toss it in and walk away from it.
I did find it hilarious that Reference 1, the paper that near as I can tell doesn’t say anything about fastest decline in 9,300 years, Reference 1 itself contains citations to no less than nine papers by Leif Svalgaard, the solar physicist that posts here at WUWT, the solar scientist that sun worshipers love to hate …
Me, I put my trust in facts and observations, not complex untested unvalidated unverified iterative computer models. I rate the value of this paper at 0 out of 10, and as such, it is absolutely no surprise that it is published in Nature. Sadly, that once-great mag has sunk into the mire …
w.
Oh, yeah. A “sun worshiper” in my world is someone who believes without evidence that minor variations in the sun affect the climate in some strong and significant manner. If that doesn’t describe you, then please don’t complain about my use of the term, because obviously I’m not referring to you.
w.
Your opinion not mine and many others.
Ah, the certainty of worship.
===========
Hi Willis, as I said previously the paper has more entertainment value than scientific value 🙂
Allan MacRea You say….
“Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.”
Can please explain why it is that this study supports that statement?
From the UKMO:
“Like other studies, they found the global impact from reduced solar output was relatively small – with a cooling effect of around -0.1 °C. This is much smaller than the amount of warming expected due to greenhouse gases, which is several degrees for this experiment.
On a regional level, the study found a bigger cooling effect for northern Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America – particularly during winter. For example, for northern Europe the cooling is in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C.”
There is nothing new about low solar activity, and there has been speculation of a grand solar minimum for some time. We know there is a reduction in TSI of the order of 0.1-0.2% and a greater reduction at UV wavelengths…. this causing the regional response in regard to (some but not all) colder winters in Europe and E USA in particular. Again this is not controversial, as that is the proposed link to the Maunder minimum.
It does not mean “global cooling” at all – and is certainly not an admission of that possibility. A “cooling effect” is NOT global cooling. Just as the preponderance of La Ninas this last 10 years or so was not global cooling but a cyclic, climate effect. CO2 is not cyclic – it is incremental and 0.1C OFF the projected rises due to anthro CO2 is not significant.
Good spin though, unless you know the science – most will go with you.
Thank you Toneb.
What is your real name and what is your predictive track record?
The abstract of the Met study (below) is inconsistent with your comments. Good spin though…
“The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.”
Apart from all that, the statement “The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years” is not supported by the data, e.g. the 400-yr record we have
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
The declines from 1610 to 1630 and from 1780s to 1800 were steeper.
Why do you persist with this? It clearly says in the cosmogenic isotope record. Why give me sunspots?
========
Allan macRae:
You miss my point – your spinning was to claim that ….
“The latest Met Office announcement is one more step in that structured retreat.”
” they know they are going to lose the battle, so they form a defensive line, surrender ground slowly, and allow the main part of their forces to escape further harm.”
“Now the warmist Met Office admits the possibility of global cooling – a major change of their position that only a few skeptics have held in the recent past.”
Followed by the usual blah, blah …
Like I said, a “cooling effect” is NOT “global cooling” which is what you said they said (even as a possibility).
“What is your real name and what is your predictive track record?”
Not that my name has anything to do with calling out the obvious amongst those in the echo-chamber here who do not see it – but I am Tony Banton and I have the same profession (well did – now retired) as Mr Svalgaard – with the UKMO actually – so you could say I have a “predictive record” yes.
And what is your “predictive record” allowing you comment *authoritatively* on climate science, may I ask ?
It is only asserted that the larger effect is only regional; it is not studied.
===========
kim June 25, 2015 at 1:28 pm
Why do you persist with this? It clearly says in the cosmogenic isotope record.
No it doesn’t, it clearly says: “in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data“
Yesterday’s headlines from the GWPF:
1) Met Office Issues Warning That Temperatures Could Plummet As Sun Enters Cooler Phase – Daily Mail, 24 June 2015
2) Climate Modellers Model “Regional Climate Impacts Of A Possible Future Grand Solar Minimum”
Nature Communications, 23 June 2015
3) Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling Ahead – The Daily Caller, 28 May 2015
4) The Sun Is Now Virtually Blank During The Weakest Solar Cycle In More Than A Century – Vencore, Inc. 30 April 2015
5) The Sun Has More Impact On The Climate In Cool Periods – Aarhus University, 27 February 2015
Toneb – I did not “miss your point” – in fact, you changed your point – I suggest that you are dodging and weaving and being dishonest.
I have outlined my predictive track record here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963244
As regards your predictive track record as a member of the UKMO – if this is the same organization as the “Met Office”, they have a dismal predictive track record. They cannot even provide accurate seasonal weather predictions, and their long-term predictions of runaway global warming have been extremist nonsense.
Are you suggesting that the Maunder Solar Minimum was not a global cooling event? That would be news to me, and to the countless millions of people that died from cold and starvation during the Maunder.
I have no opinion on the Met’s claim that this solar decline “is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years”. The fact that the Met is actually acknowledging the possibility of a cooling event is significant, and I suggest this is part of a structured retreat from their extremist position on runaway global warming.
The Met is hedging its bets – a sensible move, especially since the Met has been predicting runaway global warming for the past two decades, and now solar activity is at a 100-year low.
Whatever the technical merits/demerits of the Met’s recent statement, it is primarily a political move – a classic CYA.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-paper-finds-another-solar.html
This is what the data shows and many who do not want to accept a solar/climate connection will either ignore or manipulate the data until it matches the outcome they want not what is.
Salvatore:
To those such a myself, that article is not new and neither does it mean what you think it means.
PJS diffluence and meridional blocking is NOT Global in terms of OVERALL ave temp change. For every meridional push the NH PJS applies S’ward to an Arctic airmass there MUST be a consequent N’ward push of warm air from a more temperate region. It’s just a simple conservation of mass. In order for the Sun to exert global cooling/warming there has to be a sig TSI change. UV levels affecting the Stratospheric Polar night jet (circulating the PV) does NOT do that. It is simply a MOVEMENT of air-masses.
Actually it involves global cloudiness changes which alter the proportion of solar energy able to enter the oceans to drive the climate system
How ignorant to assert how it ‘has’ to be. ‘Twere better you were anonymous.
==============
The article is really not the point of the matter. The point is will the prolonged solar minimum exert a global cooling trend due to primary and associated secondary effects ranging from an increase in geological activity, more clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, a weaker expanded polar vortex due to ozone changes, a drop in sea surface temperatures due to lower visible /long wave UV light waves etc.
And what effect may a weaker geomagnetic field have on all of this.
It is a wait and see game. It looks like we may be lucky enough to experience a full blown prolonged solar minimum event if so it is an opportunity to see if a solar/climate connection is for real or not. My bet is it is, but perhaps we will know for sure.
Call me crazy but what is fascinating about a site like this is that we (including myself) are all so sure we are correct and we keep arguing the same points over and over and over again month after month ,year after year.
Insanity – Doing the same thing (in our case it is saying the same thing) and expecting a different result.
I sincerely hope that some kind of clarification will come going forward so we can at least have some sense on what thoughts are moving in the correct direction.. Of course I want to be correct but that aside I just would like to really know.
Heh, I’m not the least bit certain I’m correct but I do find myself arguing the same points over and over again.
Like the alternating shape of peak cosmic rays from sharp to flat from each sunspot cycle to the next. With two phases each with three peaks, but with each phase predominant alternately in sharp and flat peaks, there is a clockwork mechanism to drive oceanic oscillations of approximately six sunspot cycles each. The clock is there, gears approximately in position, but does the shape of the peaks drive the motive mechanism?
==================
“Of course I want to be correct but that aside I just would like to really know.”
Join the warmists, be certain and cease to be fascinated and no longer crazy then, although I’m not so sure you can avoid the last bit. After all there’d still be the crazies here to cope with, not to mention natural climate variability to keep you on your toes.
I blame all those solar panels. The sun is not an infinite resource and renewables are starting to bleed it dry …
Willis, you appear to not read the scientific comments in this forum concerning solar cycle modulation of planetary temperature.
Please do respond or agree with the name label.
Please support your comments with observations (Also it would be helpful if you could acknowledge there are a set of observations that needed to be explained. You appear to believe isolated analysis of one parameter that is far off in left field will help resolve what will happen next. Have you looked at the Antarctic paleo record? Have you looked at the Greenland temperature record? Close your eyes, try to imagine at glacial phase for 100,000 years. What is your theory as to explain the glacial/interglacial phase that has happened again, again, and again (23 times)) and logic or:
agree that that you are persistent non-logical, cranky comment maker, who ignores holistic (holistic means you need to list all of the observation and explain all of them, there are no magic wands what happened again and again and again had a physical forcing function/mechanism) observational data and logic that requires a physical explanation.
Also it would be helpful if you provide an alternative hypothesis as to the forcing mechanism that causes cyclic abrupt climate change which it is a fact occurs in the paleo record and that has a periodicity of 1500 years plus or minus 400 years and that comes in a small, medium, and super large interglacial terminating size.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
We have been told in this forum again and again that the sun cannot cause significant cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Yet it is a fact before cosmogenic gate solar changes correlated with each and every warming and cooling period in the paleo record. (See the late Gerald Bond’s paper that looked at Be10 in the ocean sediments in the Atlantic ocean. Bond has able to track 23 cycles which have a periodicity of 1500 years plus or minus a beat frequency of 400 years.)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001
William Astley June 25, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Sorry, but I fear you haven’t given enough information to respond to that.
Sorry, but “Either you do ‘A’ or it proves you are ‘B’ ” doesn’t work for me. I reject the underlying logic. Whether or not I respond is independent of whether I agree with the “name label” … which I assume is spelled out below in the OR clause as a “persistent non-logical, cranky comment maker”.
Sure. Glad to.
Congenital Cyclomania Redux
Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…
Cycles Without The Mania
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…
Sunspots and Sea Level
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…
Sunny Spots Along the Parana River
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…
Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots
There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…
Solar Periodicity
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…
The Tip of the Gleissberg
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing”
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
It’s The Evidence, Stupid!
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…
Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature
I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…
Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…
Sorry, but I have no referents for this.
Same problem. Makes no sense without any reference to a single word I’ve actually written.
Since I’ve posted on it several times, I’d guess the answer is yes.
Since I’ve posted on it several times as well, once again I have to say yes.
Not sure what “and logic” means at the end, but actually, nobody really knows the answer to that question. The problem is that there is no ~100,000 year solar cycle of any strength. The ice ages are often presumed to be a result of the Milankovic cycles, which may indeed be the case … but if so the mechanism by which the cycles and the ice ages are linked is not understood. In addition, the recent million years or so that we’ve had ice ages is only a tiny part of the Earth’s history … if Milankovich did it, was he sleeping until a million or so years ago?
Then we get to your above-mentioned “OR” clause, which is that if I don’t perform as you prefer, then automatically I am supposed to:
Actually, that’s not what “holistic” means. Per Webster’s Dictionary:
holistic: relating to or concerned with complete systems rather than with individual parts
And given the total number of observations of the weather made over the centuries up to the present, I haven’t a clue what you mean by “list all of the observation and explain all of them” …
In any case, to your accusations, I’d say that I am indeed persistent. At this point I’ve researched, analyzed, illustrated, and published over five hundred scientific posts, and authored four peer-reviewed articles, over the last decade and a half. Not only that, but I’m a self-taught scientist. So am I persistent?
You’re dern’ tootin’ I am persistent, and my accomplishments demonstrate it.
As to “cranky”, mmm … I’d say that I take very poorly to being called a liar, I don’t respond well when folks accuse me of bad intent or scientific malfeasance, and at times I’m far less magnanimous than I should be. Hey, I’m a work in progress …
Finally, as to being “non-logical”, sorry, I’m not agreeing with that one at all.
In any case, I don’t advise trying that bogus “If you don’t do A to my satisfaction it means you agree with B” stuff on anyone who you want to either impress or convert. It’s not pleasant to be on this end of such an attempted squeeze play.
Regards,
w.
Willis,
You are confusing whether I do or do not ‘like’ about your comments with a request to support your comments about the solar cycle modulation of planetary temperature with observations and logic.
Simple contradiction or creating and destroying straw dogs or general comments such as people who assert that solar cycle changes cause cyclic abrupt climate change are sun lovers is not purposeful scientific discussion. Note cyclic abrupt climate change is not a theoretical issue. The sun has abruptly changed. There is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record.
What caused and causes the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet? What ever caused cyclic warming in the past is still capable and will cause cyclic climate change in the future.
It is a fact that the planet cyclically warms and cools with a fixed period.
As the paper I quoted notes, internal earth processes are chaotic which rules them as the cause of past warming and cooling. The motion of the sun by the large planets causes the sun to change cyclically. The movement of the sun about its barycenter is the explanation for cyclic solar changes. Note cyclic solar changes is different than counting sunspots or how the number of sunspots changes.
The point is the periodicity of cyclic climate change points to the sun as the cause of the change.
My issues with your comment in the solar thread is you appear to not understand the fundamental constraints (which come from observations and logical analysis) of the forcing function that is causing cyclic climate change.
Do you agree it is a fact that something is cyclically forcing planetary temperature?
Following a logical train of thought, picking one hypothesis and then comparing that hypothesis to competing is how scientific problems are solved.
What is the competing hypothesis as to what cause cyclic climate change? What Is the B suspect for the crime?
Something causes cyclic climate change and the something roughly every 10,000 years causes abrupt climate change a climate change forcing that is capable of and does terminate interglacial periods. Interglacial periods end abruptly, not gradually, There are small, medium, and super large climate change events in the paleo record. They all occur on the 1500 year sequence.
I support your assertion that planetary cloud cover and cloud forming time in the tropics regulates planetary temperature resists forcing changes. That explains why there has been almost no warming in the tropics while based on the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space and the fact that atmospheric CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere there should have been the most warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. The point is if the earth resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback), then there is a massive forcing change that can and does cause past cyclic abrupt climate change.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
<blockquoteTiming of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
The paper I quoted explains the planetary temperature correlates closely with the number and time between solar wind bursts. The paper I quote notes the primary cause of solar wind bursts is coronal holes not sunspots. Why then do you provide links to discussions sunspots vs planetary temperature? That is called creating a straw dog which you then destroy asserting that you have somehow proved that solar cycle changes do not cause the majority of cyclic planetary climate change on the earth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
It is a fact that the sun has abruptly changed. It is a fact that there is now observed cooling both poles.
Do you see the connection to the paper quoted above, to the fact that the sun has just abruptly changed and to the fact that there is now cooling both poles? What has changed to suddenly cause there to be the most amount of sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year?
What you are missing is the implications that the sun caused the past abrupt climate changes. If the sun causes cyclic abrupt climate change, then the sun can and does change in manner which we believe is not possible due to the ‘standard’ solar models.
If the sun can and does change in a manner to cause cyclic abrupt climate change the standard solar model are incorrect.
I presented in this thread detailed astronomical observations and analysis that supports the assertion that the stars are different than the standard model.
The fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change on the earth supports the assertion that the solar standard model is not correct.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
If the sun can and does change in a manner to cause cyclic abrupt climate change the standard solar model are incorrect.
More likely it is your understanding of climate change that is incorrect rather than the very successful standard solar model.
Willis this person seems very immature. You have been gracious and civil.
michael
This debate about the big blob of very powerful energy near our planet versus our tiny planet’s ability to suddenly shift temperatures is bizarre.
Look, just as I can flick a fly with my finger, the sun merely has to flick our planet with some extra energy and voila: suddenly it heats up. Ditto with cooling off. Our planet looks large only because psychologically, we see the sun as ‘smaller’ than the earth when we look at it from where we stand.
The geocentric view of the cosmos is very ancient and irresistible. The sun simply has to shift gears very slightly and our planet and Mars feel the effect very strongly. I am pretty certain that Mars heats up when the earth heats up and has ice ages when we have ice ages.
emsnews June 26, 2015 at 3:18 am
emsnews, thanks for your comment. As prelude to my remarks, you gotta understand something important. I started out as a sun worshiper. I believed that Herschel was right about wheat prices and sunspots (he wasn’t). I spent untold hours writing my own spreadsheet to calculate the barycentric motion. I started looking into variations in cosmic rays.
And after some years I started to say, wait a minute, none of these claimed effects are visible in the observational record. I started looking more seriously into the “evidence” that the rather small ~ 11-year variations in the sun have a statistically detectable effect on the climate.
Now, you appear to misunderstand what the debate is about. It is NOT about whether if the sun doubles its output the earth will fry. It will. No one doubts that. The debate is not about whether the sun is very powerful.
The debate is about whether the very small ~11 year cycle of solar activity affects the temperature or other climate variables… and as far as I can tell the answer is no. Nor is that particularly surprising. To take the example of one solar variable, total solar irradiance or “TSI” is the total radiative output of the sun. The variation in TSI is only about one watt per square metre (1 W/m2) peak to peak, out of a total of about 1,360 W/m2 total brightness … that’s less than a tenth of a percent. For that small a variation to be visible there would have to be some strong amplification mechanism involved.
For a while, I thought the amplification mechanism was cosmic rays. But I was unable to find any evidence for that one either. Frustrating! I had truly thought that the relationship
decrease in solar magnetic field –> increase in cosmic rays –> increase in cloudiness –> lower temperatures
was a valid one, and I couldn’t find a scrap of observational evidence to support that theory. Grrrr.
So I decided to cast a wider net. Rather than trying to figure out the exact physical mechanism involved (e.g. variations in extreme UV, or changes in cosmic rays) I reasoned that IF there is such an ~ 11-year sun-climate connection, then regardless of the details of causal mechanisms, it would be reflected as an ~ 11-year cycle in the variable that the sun was affecting.
Here’s the problem.
Despite the undeniable existence of solar variations running on an ~ 11-year cycle, I have not been able to find any significant ~ 11-year cycle in any climate variable that I have analyzed.
And it’s not for lack of looking. I’ve looked at dozens of sea level datasets, and temperature datasets, and lake levels, and river levels, and solar winds, and atmospheric temperatures, and sea surface temperatures … and none of them have shown an ~ 11 year cycle. Nor have any of them have shown a significant correlation with sunspots, the usual measure of the solar variability.
Well, that’s not entirely true. Someone pointed out with great fanfare the study he said was the best evidence for such a sun-climate connection. He said the study found a good fit between solar variations and tree rings. And when I read the study it did indeed find a good fit, a significant correlation between solar variations and tree rings … for one single solitary tree. In Peru. So after I finished laughing at that study I kept looking. I still haven’t found any such ~ 11-year cycle in any dataset that I’ve studied.
Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else … but like I said, I started out as a sun worshiper so I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Now, I do understand that some folks think differently about the sun. But when I’ve looked at their evidence, the claims have not endured statistical analysis. And although there has been a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth at my results, folks have not been able to poke holes in my statistics or my analyses. They don’t like them … but they can’t point out any errors.
But since no one can prove a negative, the debate rages on.
However, we are making some progress in understanding. The very fact that the debate continues indicates that if the ~ 11-year sun-climate effect exists it must be very, very, weak. Otherwise we’d have seen incontrovertible evidence of the effect of the small variations, and the debate would be over.
Now, if you think you have have such incontrovertible evidence, then please send me a link to the dataset in question. I’m happy to take a look at the claimed relationship.
Regards,
w.
Well, Willis, I’m not at all surprised that you and everyone else have failed to find a solar / climate link across the 11 year solar cycle.
The thermal inertia of the oceans is huge and irregular and the system also contains substantial chaotic variability.The 11 year signal is completely swamped.
What does seem clear to many of us is that there is evidence of a solar / climate link across multiple cycles as they become progressively more active or progressively weaker.
As Salvatore asked:
Can anyone point to a run of weak cycles ( I suggest 4 to 6) leading to warming or a run of 4 to 6 active cycles leading to cooling.?
On the contrary.
We see that multiple weak cycles lead to cooling with meridional jets as in the LIA and multiple active cycles lead to warming and zonal jets as in the MWP and in the late 20th century.
That is where the research funds should be directed and I suggest one start with my ozone / stratopause height related hypothesis and work outwards from that.
What does seem clear to many of us is that there is evidence of a solar / climate link across multiple cycles as they become progressively more active or progressively weaker.
Since in each of the last three centuries the same pattern of active and weaker cycles is observed, the climate should follow similar changes if what ‘seems clear’ is actually happening:
http://www.leif.org/research/Fig-35-Estimate-of-Group-Number.png
It seems clear that the climate didn’t get the memo.
That should read ‘tropopause height’.
The evidence suggests that the sun alters the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to allow more (when the sun is weak) meridional movement and more zonal patterns when the sun is active.
The former scenario leads to more clouds than the latter, not because of cosmic rays but because one has longer lines of air mass mixing leading to more clouds.
Willis the data is there but you choose not to look at it differently. Many people do not look at the solar/climate connection data the way you interpret it which is why your conclusions are not the same as some of us when it comes to this matter.
Still Willis, something regulates the climate which gives it a 1470 year semi cyclic nature and I maintain it is a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, Geo Magnetic Changes ,and Land/Ocean Arrangements. Sometimes these factors resulting in a major climatic change while at other times a minor climatic change depending on how these factors relate to one another. .
Until someone could come up with some other explanation that one is the best and this random chaotic intrinsic earth change approach is not going to cut it for may reasons.
1. does not reconcile with the fact, the climate of the earth is semi cyclic in nature.
2. does not explain why the climate of the earth reverts back to it’s mean.
3. If the climate was governed by intrinsic random earth changes the climate once it moved in a given direction would then keep going in the same direction but it DOES NOT, and the reason is because the climate is bound to a regulator or regulators that change it yes, but always sooner or later bring the climate back in a complete cycle. although the ride within a particular cycle could vary dramatically in contrast to other cycles.
Again until an adequate alternative is proposed this is the best one that is out there and the one that fits best to the historical climatic record of data.
Who is talking about an 11 year sunspot cycle versus climatic changes? It sure is not me. I would go further and say the 11 year typical sunspot cycle brings stability to the climate system because the duration of the effects within the cycle almost exactly balance out one another.
This is why I came up with low average value solar parameters that not only need to be realized, but their duration of time has to be sufficient and they (the low average value solar parameters) have to follow x years of sub-solar activity in general to have a climate impact. I would say10 years or so which we now have.
This is what is necessary Willis ,and it does indeed work when one views prolonged minimum solar periods and prolonged solar maximum periods of time versus the global temperature trend.
Willis, you are in denial even the Met Office accepts the Little Ice Age/ prolonged minimum solar relationship and they are by no means solar enthusiast when it comes to climate change.
The Little Ice Age corresponding to minimum solar activity while the modern and Medieval warm periods corresponding to high solar activity. Willis no matter how much you try manipulate the data you can not make it go away.
I will make this prediction, which is when the global temperature trend starts to decline in conjunction with prolonged solar minimum conditions, Willis will still insist that is not the reason.
The reality is it will be the reason as it has been in the past.
Leif this comment is for you.
You ignore the fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record and the periodicity of the cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record (internal earth forcing function are chaotic and are hence not periodic and are not capable of affect both hemispheres) supports the assertion that the sun is causing what is observed.
Please do explain what did cause cyclic abrupt climate change both hemispheres. What is the B suspect that causes cyclic abrupt climate change? As I stated, whatever caused cyclic abrupt climate change in the past will cause cyclic abrupt climate change in the future.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
As every scientist knows there is a physical explanation for everything that happens, there are no magic wands. And as every scientist know observations trump theoretical models.
Please do explain why you told us nothing unusual was happening to the sun? The peer reviewed solar paper I quoted has solar observation item after item which is anomalous.
There is now the highest sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year. There is paleo records of 342 warming and cooling events on the Antarctic paleo record. What caused the past 342 warming and cooling events that have the same periodicity of the warming and cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere?
What changed besides the sun to cause most amount of sea ice in the Antarctic in recorded history for every month of the year?
The sun causes cyclic climate change and causes abrupt cyclic climate change. The sun has abruptly changed and there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for every month of the year.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/8200yrevent.html
Solar cycle 24 is not particularly peculiar. It is just the last in a series of several that have had a progressively deficit of the smallest spots. Presumable the next cycle will continue that trend [but we don’t really know, do we?]
The overwhelming data shows time and time again that there is indeed a solar/climate connection.
I have posed this to Willis many times(below) and never have received an answer.
Something Willis ,is not only causing the climate to change but change in a semi cyclic beat with not only a variance in the intensity of the changes, but in a direction which will always revert to the mean. Meaning the climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from.
If it is not a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability and land ocean arrangements then what is it? If it were a matter of simple random and chaotic happenings the semi cyclic nature of the historical climatic record in that case would not be present, as well as the climate always reverting back to it’s mean. This leads to the conclusion that there has to be climatic factors that exert an influence upon the climate and that these factors have to have a cyclic variability to them. There is no other way to go with this given the historical climatic record of change, this explanation is the one that fits the best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Willis, inherently stable meaning what? Does that include a range in temperature that delineates glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions such as in the data I presented? If so then I agree in principal, but nevertheless even so one can say the climate is stable but the threshold between glacial versus glacial conditions is unstable meaning it only takes a small change of the so called stable climate system to plunge a good portion of the earth from glacial versus non glacial conditions.
So inherently stable I think needs to be specified in so much of what limits of variability does that lend to the climate system and does that meaning incorporate the degree of change the climate can under go from glacial versus interglacial conditions?
Willis does your inherently stable climate reconcile with changes in the climate from a glacial state to a non glacial state?
alvatore Del Prete June 26, 2015 at 8:19 am
One of the oddities of chaotic systems is that what appear to be perfectly regular cycles appear out of nowhere, last for a while, and then disappear. A great example is sea level. There was a period of time that lasted for more than half a century where sea level lined up with sunspots. Excellent correlations.
Unfortunately for the sun worshipers, when we include the periods before and after the time of agreement, the agreement disappears or even reverses.
Now, note that this is over about eight sunspot cycles, which you’d think would be long enough to establish causation … but in truth, such cycles simply appear out of nowhere, stay around for sometimes pushing a century, and then just disappear.
So I agree with you that things change in a “semi-cyclic beat”. The problem is that those beats appear, hang around, and then maddeningly, they disappear and some other “semi-cyclic beat” pops up to take their place. Or not, and we have a period with no beats.
As a result, the existence of such “semi-cyclic beats” is not evidence of anything but the chaotic, complex nature of the climate itself. Remember that it is a system that is not only driven by cyclical phenomena but has a number of subsystems (ocean, atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, etc.) that both have internal resonances but also have periodic cyclical energy interchanges between subsystems. So the existence of mystery waves that appear and stay and disappear is not really a mystery—it is the expected behavior of such a complex, chaotic system as the climate.
In particular, the existence of such “semi-cyclical beats” is NOT evidence that the small ~ 11-year solar variations have a demonstrable effect on the climate. Nor is it evidence that such cycles will “always revert to the mean”.
As to your theory that “climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from”, that assumes that there is some ideal “mean” from which everything is a deviation … a theory which leads to questions like:
What is that “mean” global average surface air temperature to which the Earth’s temperature will eventually revert?
The problem with your theory is that you have assumed what is called “stationarity” of the temperature dataset. “Stationarity” means that the “moments” of the data don’t change over time. The moments of the data are its mean, variance, and skewness (asymmetry). An example of a stationary dataset might be 100,000 spins of a roulette wheel. It wouldn’t matter whether we looked at the first ten thousand spins or the last ten thousand spins—they’d show the same mean, the same variance (or standard deviation), and the same skewness. And you are right that in such a dataset, the results will always revert to the mean.
However, we have no such confidence with the climate. It doesn’t appear to be “reverting” anywhere, whether on the short or the long term.
Regards,
w.
PS—You say you’ve asked me that question many times, and that is quite possible. I hate to say it, but usually I just skip over your comments. The signal to noise ratio is generally too poor, and citations and supporting evidence are in too short a supply, to make your comments worth reading.
I do have to thank you, however for your comment below where you say
I had to laugh, because when I went to the “historical climate data Willis, not manipulated” web site you referenced and I looked at their “historical temperatures” page, I found a graph from one of my own posts …
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/speleothem_temperature_records_adj.jpg
… so you’ve referred me to my own work as being “historical climate data”. Well, at least it’s good to know it’s “not manipulated” …
I did like the site, however, thanks for the tip.
Willis this is what makes a ball game. We all see things differently . Some agree with you some do not as is evidenced by the many postings over this site.
Only time will resolve this . Thanks for your reply.
Willis, let me try to approach it in this manner. Your shortfall when it comes to climate is you are unable to intergrade all the various factors that are involved when it comes to the climate that will not result in a given item (the sun) changing in a given way resulting in an x climate outcome. Somehow you have this opinion that an x change in solar variability has to immediately translate to an x change climatic response. In addition you seem not to be able to incorporate lag times into the equation of the climate. You expect instant results from something said to have an effect upon the climate.
I will add, climate regime change, and natural variation of the climate within a climatic regime are entirely two different things. What throws you off is the natural climatic variations within a particular climatic regime. This is what obscures for you the solar climate connection.
In addition I will go so far to say the climate can not change into another climatic regime without the aid of solar variability but that does not mean it can not fluctuate within a given climate regime. That being the basis of your problem when it comes to the solar/climate connection.
Willis it is these four factors (Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Field Strength ,Land/Ocean Arrangements/Ice Dynamic ) which govern the climate of the earth and give it a beat of 1500 years or so but never as you said in some regular fashion ,that again is due to what I said in the above and what follows.
The factors that govern the big picture when it comes to the climate are Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability, and these last three, the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the Earth , Land /Ocean Arrangements/ Ice Dynamic those last three (geo magnetic field, land/ocean arrangements/ice dynamic) determining how effective Milankovitch Cycles and Solar Variability will be when it comes to impacting the climate.
This explains why the cycle is there but it varies so much over time.
In addition the evidence is mounting that the climate changes in sync in both hemispheres which eliminates a redistribution of energy within the climatic system for the reason why the climate changes ,which is on weak grounds to begin with ,and strengthens the fact that it is only changes in the total energy coming into the climatic system that can change it enough to bring it into another climate regime.
Further I maintain that all Intrinsic Earth Bound climatic factors are limited as to how much they can change the climate due to the total amount of energy in the climatic system they have to work with. Hence, they have the ability to change the climate within a climate regime( maybe plus or minus 1c) but they can not bring the climate from one regime to another regime. They refine the climate.
Then finally Willis, you have the rogue asteroid impact or maybe super nova explosion some where off in space that at times had a big impact on the climate system which would further obscure or even eliminate at times the 1500 year semi cyclic climatic cycle.
I have posed this to Willis many times(below) and never have received an answer.
Something Willis ,is not only causing the climate to change but change in a semi cyclic beat with not only a variance in the intensity of the changes, but in a direction which will always revert to the mean. Meaning the climate never trends in one direction without eventually not only stopping but reverting toward the mean from which it deviated from.
If it is not a combination of Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Variability ,Geo Magnetic Variability and Land Ocean arrangements then what is it? If it were a matter of simple random and chaotic happenings the semi cyclic nature of the historical climatic record in that case would not be present, as well as the climate always reverting back to it’s mean. This leads to the conclusion that there has to be climatic factors that exert an influence upon the climate and that these factors have to have a cyclic variability to them. There is no other way to go with this given the historical climatic record of change, this explanation is the one that fits the best.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Willis, inherently stable meaning what? Does that include a range in temperature that delineates glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions such as in the data I presented? If so then I agree in principal, but nevertheless even so one can say the climate is stable but the threshold between glacial versus glacial conditions is unstable meaning it only takes a small change of the so called stable climate system to plunge a good portion of the earth from glacial versus non glacial conditions.
So inherently stable I think needs to be specified in so much of what limits of variability does that lend to the climate system and does that meaning incorporate the degree of change the climate can under go from glacial versus interglacial conditions?
Willis does your inherently stable climate reconcile with changes in the climate from a glacial state to a non glacial state?
Sorry for my typo of my name when I had first sent this post out.
http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
Here is the historical climatic data Willis, not manipulated.
I challenge you to show me a period of sustained rises in global temperature during a sustained period of prolonged solar minimum activity and vice versus a sustained drop in global temperatures during a period of high prolonged solar activity.
The overall global SUSTAINED temperatures have risen during the Medieval and Modern relatively active solar periods and have fallen during the recently prolonged inactive solar periods the most notable being the Maunder Minimum.
As a result, the existence of such “semi-cyclic beats” is not evidence of anything but the chaotic, complex nature of the climate itself
Willis says, which is wrong.
It appears that to agw crowd if the sun disapeard we would still have global warming.
disappeared excuse my spelling.