First this news: The Ap Index continues to fall. While the January 2009 data is not out yet, the December 2008 data is and is an Ap value of 2 according to SWPC. While this number may be lower than other sources (Leif will fill us in I’m sure), I’m plotting it for consistency since I’ve been following the SWPC data set for well over a year now.
I’ve pointed out several times the incident of the abrupt and sustained lowering of the Ap Index which occurred in October 2005. The sun has been running at a lower plateau of the Ap index after that event and has not recovered. It is an anomaly worth investigating.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little Ap magnetic activity there has been since. Here’s a graph from December 2008 showing the step in October 2005:
Additionally David Archibald writes with a new idea on how to use the Ap Index to predict the maximum amplitude. See below.
In late January, I contributed a post predicting that the Ap Index would have a minimum of 3 in late 2009. There is a good correlation between the aa Index at minimum and the amplitude of the following solar cycle. This also holds for the Ap Index:
The Ap prediction results in a prediction of maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 24 of 25. This would be the lowest result since the late 17th century.
and a side note
Inuk, singular, as in “Charlie Watt, an Inuk from Kuujjuaq” ” or . . . what we used to call “an Eskimo” back in the pre PC days
Inuit, plural, as in “all the Inuit in Canada”
There is no word “Inuits”.
There are Inuit leaders trying to scam big payouts over this AGW thingy, claiming their way of life is being destroyed. All credit if they can guilt out more money from the those who fell guilty about the past.
Kim said
“Right now, satellite temperatures give no indication that we are experiencing either global cooling or global warming. Regional impacts are being felt, of course. So perhaps an emphasis on “global” whatever masks the more important regional effects that actually have the major impact on human society.”
I increasingly believe we have a number of broadly regional climates with more localised climates within them, and then micro climates. These micro climates are substantially distorted by UHI.
The idea that there is some reliable global average temperature or a global climate is as bizarre as the idea of global average sunshine hours or windspeed.
If you examine many national temperature records they do not show the same data as the constantly rising global temperatures. This latter is an artefact based on a tiny number of weather stations in 1850 which have moved randomly, with numbers expanding and decreasing ever since. They tell us nothing other than that climate scientists passionately believe that they know more than they do, when really we are merely at a very early stage in the development of this branch of science.
As Thomas Kuhn put it in The Road Since Structure:
“… – individuals committed to one interpretation or another sometimes defended their viewpoint in ways that violated their professed canons of professional behaviour. I am not thinking primarily of fraud, which was relatively rare. But failure to acknowledge contrary findings, the substitution of personal innuendo for argument, and other techniques of the sort were not. Controversy about scientific matters sometimes looked much like a cat fight.”
Tonyb
Edward (09:17:14) :
Strange how the satellite readings correlate well with meteoroligical stations. I know there is plenty of space junk out there so maybe you can start a campaign to bring awareness of Spacejunk Heat Islands and Temperatures, and how this is affecting readings of global temperatures!
Nice to see you ar looking at the records objectively, or maybe objectionally is more accurate!
If you had bothered to read my earlier comment I said that this was one of the factors, please stop misrepresenting what I am saying just because it goes against your sun worshipping beliefs. The hot conditions evaporated the volatile oils, the drought made the vegatation and soil surface dry and the winds spread the flames. This combined with the planning stupidity of letting people build in this regions without adequate fire breaks and the mindless stupidity of one or two arsonists made this extremely tragic.
Why don’t you go and count some sun spots or something, you may as well go for some extra terrestrial pursuits ’cause you haven’t a clue what happens on this planet.
Responding to:
william (09:26:15) :
Regarding:
“You need to understand something more about the fundamental nature of people to truly understand why the consensus is trying to drub any skeptic into silence. It threatens their livelihood and reputation.”
Sad but true.
The old saying, “Money is the root of all evil” has poisoned our sciences ever since science began helping humanity to a degree that made science profitable.
This has been seen for years in the field of medicine. Back when doctors didn’t make as much, there were snake-oil salesmen, but not to the degree we now see. (Nor were there as many lawsuits.)
In my youth Tim Leary was a darling of the press, and he promoted LSD at Harvard, calling it a drug which would save the world. Those who spoke up against him were laughed at as being square and old-fashioned, and called anti-progress and even evil. As a result some of the most brilliant young minds our nation had were damaged and destroyed. Rather than contributing to society they became derelicts. I knew some personally, and some still wander about Harvard Square asking for spare change.
I’m afraid money attracts slimy people, and most people simply don’t have the time to crusade against them. It is only when enough of the general public are hurt that resistance begins, and reform happens.
Here is another whacko report from the UK, aired tonight on channel 4.
The Mechanical Institute of Engineers, based on computer models suggest,
http://www.channel4.com/news/media/2009/02/day13/climate_change.pdf
Mary Hinge, why do you blog here, you seem totally wedded to AGW cause and appear to have a closed mind to any other opinions.
Mary Hinge “The hot conditions evaporated the volatile oils” Wrong:The boiling point of Eucalyptol is 176°C all this “family” has relatively high boiling points.
“The idea that there is some reliable global average temperature or a global climate is as bizarre as the idea of global average sunshine hours or windspeed.”
Like T sub eff, bizarre as in flying unicorns that speak.
Robc (12:04:26) :Very interesting link…it begins with the words “The heat is on”
The next report will say: “The heat is off”
Good grief, are you for real? Liquids evaporate at temperatures below their boiling point. A very familiar example would be water. In case you don’t know the boiling point of pure water it is 100 degrees centigrade. Have you noticed how, after a rain shower the water magically goes away. Now, the temperature outside doesn’t reach 100 degrees C, and according to your argument it must magic as it becomes invisible! Just so you know what happens, it evaporates at much lower temperatures than it’s boiling point, and the higher the temperature the quicker the evaporation (in constant wind conditions of course).
Now before you say that Eucalyptus oil is different from water (I know it is) and has totally different behaviour (it doesn’t) just think about the smell of eucalyptus, then think about why how you can smell the oils if they aren’t evaporating.
More doom and gloom – with thanks to the BBC reporters, of course http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7887536.stm Fish stocks will dwindle due to… wait for it… climate change. Funny that, there never seems to be a report that something good would come of a rise in temperatures. Funny that.
Mary, you’re evidently on another one. What colour is the sky in yours?
I look at other opinions, and more importantly, reliable scientific evidence. I have seen plenty of opinions, but that’s all they are, opinions. The scientific literature (i.e the reliable sources) do not sem to have too much in the way of convincing evidence that AGW is not happening. The overwhelmingly vast majority point to the fact it is happening.
I visit and contribute to this site to see if any reliable and plausable alternatives to AGW can be demonstrated and tested. So far there has been nothing that can be verified and substantiated but that may change, it’s called science.
DJ (03:04:58) :
Its a prediction based on peer reviewed science, unlike David’s work which avoids peer review.
Lets revisit this in June – even better – let’s have David himself revisit in on this site in June.
DJ,
If the peer review process in climate science is anything like the peer review process in my field, then I’ll have to cast my bet right now that David is more right than you are. Since you haven’t really specified you own prediction, however, that does leave you in the smug power seat, doesn’t it, just where “peer reviewers,” no matter how irrational or egocentric they may be, like to sit. The most interesting thing about your wager, then, given the way that you have wrapped your argument up with the mantle of authority rather than specify a rational argument, is that if you are wrong, it would seem that you will have to admit that the entire peer review process (at least in climate science) is flawed. Will you do that if David’s prediction turns out to be correct? Because, as a reasonably intelligent and increasingly informed outsider to the debate, I see more and more evidence that his prediction may be correct.
Like some other posters, I don’t really look forward to another Maunder, er Gore, minimum. But since I haven’t read any of the unnamed peer reviewed studies that you cite, and obviously don’t have any need to genuflect before the idol of established wisdom, I’ll bet Dave ends up being right, and raise you.
–psi
: Robc (12:08:36) :
Mary Hinge, why do you blog here, you seem totally wedded to AGW cause and appear to have a closed mind to any other opinions.”
Hmmm, isn;t that the compliant that Isee lodged here so frquently about hte AGW crowd, that they allow no differing points of view?
Mary Hinge:”it evaporates at much lower temperatures than it’s boiling point”
Yes indeed, but just a little. The fact behinds is that these high temps in Australia are the current and usual La Nina conditions, and it seems that there will be several Ninas ahead (of course Ninas-girls- are more aggressive than Ninos-boys-) 🙂
Mary UnHinged
The satellite data also does not show “a fingerprint hotspot” of heated predicted by GCM’s so if you are solid with the Satellites you must not put put much stock in the AGW predictions of GCM’s. But who needs that to invalidate the theory, we can can look at where GCM’s assume 90% of the “heat” is being stored, the oceans. Funny thing is, the oceans have been cooling over the last five years. How is that possible with all these years in the 21st century being so close to being the hottest years on record? Don’t take my word for it. Read about it at: http://climatesci.org/2009/02/13/article-by-josh-willis-is-it-me-or-did-the-oceans-cool-a-lesson-on-global-warming-from-my-favorite-denier/
By the way, I absolutely believe in global warming every 1500 years and I absolutely believe that changes in land use such as eliminating forests and paving the grass lands and building cities and changing Hydrological systems absolutely has resulted in some degree in climate change. I don’t believe in CO2, Al Gore and a Greenhouse Venus future for the planet earth even if we burn every hydrocarbon in the ground which is going to happen anyway.
Unfortunately, since there are no sunspots to count, I’ll have to get back to you on your suggestion and I have not heard from the scientific community that the Science is settled as to our understanding of the Sun and all of the potential impacts it has on life and climate on the Earth. Let me know when that consensus is complete.
Tony, maybe it’s best to ask local about what they observe then: Kiribati Islanders Seek Land to Buy as Rising Seas Threaten
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a0kuXMsICBhg&refer=australia
I’m guessing that Mary believes that having eucolyptus oil evaporate during the local summer is a new phenomena.
There is a known problem with eucalyptus and its ability to spontaneously erupt into flame but it doen’t need extreme heat, although it will cause it to burn, just strong continuous sunlight will do the same thing.
I can’t remember the exact temperature of combustion but it is surprisingly low and, of course, once started is self sustaining as long as combustible material exist in its vicinity.
Oh and by the by, a little decoram on the site please. This site, like Climate Audit, was always polite and precise before the blog competition and I would like it to return to that state, please. If you wave your arms, remember to achor them with a quoted paper or reference. It doesn’t have to be peered reviewed but published or given in public would help.
Bon soirée à tout le monde.
Why do people continue to respond to Mary (Un)Hinge(d) who I think on an earlier thread was identified as a man? S/he obviously is a troll; she/he is not a scientist or interested in science. If her/his questions stimulated discussions that helped new readers on the blog, well, then, fine. However, I find her/his intrusions block informative discussions, as a troll’s are designed to do. And there are way too many of them. Of course — personal opinion. At least from this reader, goodbye, Mary, or whatever your name is.
I am ready for some good news. I can’t stand it any more. Probably time to unplug from the web for a while.
I am ready to agree with Mary Hinge that the fires are a combination of factors, the excessive heat being one. I’m not ready to believe the high temps are anything other than normal variation.
For me, the question then becomes what do you do? The quickest and cheapest thing to do would be more sensible land use policies, and laws and penalties to discourage arsonists. How long would it take to have the same mitigating effects by reducing atmospheric CO2 (if ever)? Better land management could very quickly make you feel safer. Even if you brought down atmospheric CO2 concentration, would there be any reason to think this can’t happen again.
Should you do both? Maybe? But the easy changes will have the biggest effect. The costly, slow change will have very little or no effect.
@TonyB.
quite some impressions from weather & climate change in the 1930/1940ties could be derived from the stories from Arthur. W. Upfield.
I’m assuming, that you are, indeed, from down under.
If not, my assumption was wrong.
KlausB
Barry Foster (13:05:07) :
” Funny that, there never seems to be a report that something good would come of a rise in temperatures. Funny that.”
This is one of the more obvious disconnects with climate research and history. It appears that life and particularly humans have flourished in warm periods and suffered during cold periods. As such, a logical mind would expect to see many more quality research papers telling us about the improvements to our lives if warming continues.
Alas, just the opposite occurs. Add to that the nonsense Mary is throwing out about a AGW leading to brush fires that have occurred throughout recorded history and it’s no wonder that AGW proponents have little credibility.