NatGeo: Sun Oddly Quiet – Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?

sun-global-cooling_big

Excerpts printed below, see full story here (h/t to David Archibald)

Anne Minard for National Geographic News

May 4, 2009 A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.

“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”

Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.

For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.

“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”

Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens

0 0 votes
Article Rating
338 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert Rust
May 4, 2009 8:52 pm

Good! Let them paint and paint and paint themselves into a corner. IF it does cool due to the solar minimum (big IF!) – then where can they go to explain it away??? If CO2 is still 50% higher than “normal” – the sun cannot be used to explain why we’re not on fire. What will explain the not-so-incredibly-hot temps in 10 years? WHAT?!?

May 4, 2009 8:54 pm

Excellent solar graphic! Says it all.

wws
May 4, 2009 8:56 pm

“He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.”
And of course, since they are such responsible scientists and researchers, they have carefully compiled all of the preemptive evidence to justify their preemptive denial.
Who needs to wait for the actual measurements?

C Shannon
May 4, 2009 8:56 pm

[ “I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.” ]
I wonder if he thinks a few hundredths of a percent of say a billion dollars is less than a 50 to 60 percent increase on a few hundred dollars. The scale I’m using is of course just an example but the main point is that context is important. Putting something into perspective requires context and the context he provides of percentages (with the implication that they are relatively equal in actual effect) can be grossly misleading.

Editor
May 4, 2009 8:57 pm

Wow, they are admitting that THEY are the ‘denialists’??!!!??? About time.

KimW
May 4, 2009 8:59 pm

“preemptive denial” – What else need be said ?.

May 4, 2009 9:02 pm

Interesting story coming out of NatGeo, one of the most vocal popular scientific publications promoting GW fear:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html

Leon Brozyna
May 4, 2009 9:04 pm

“preemptive denial”
Okay — now I know it — stupid is now the ‘in’ thing.
So, before the data is in, before the cooling starts (if it starts), they’re denying it can happen. How about waiting to see what happens first? I mean, sure, the last time the sun was quiet for any length of time we had a cooler climate. Speaking for myself, it may happen again; I’m just waiting to see how the data comes in over the next few years. Maybe I’m being old fashioned but isn’t that the way science is done? At least I thought it was done that way before this global warming fad hit the planet.

Rebar
May 4, 2009 9:05 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
This has to be “Quote of the Week” and it’s a definite contender for “Quote of the Year”

philincalifornia
May 4, 2009 9:11 pm

“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.”
Ha ha ha.
“The Arctic will be ice-free in 5 years”
– Al Gore, December, 2008

Frank K.
May 4, 2009 9:14 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Oh brother…these people are “scientists”?!
By the way, what level of CO2 is considered “normal”? 300 ppm? Must be…

John F. Hultquist
May 4, 2009 9:26 pm

C Shannon (20:56:38) : A billion dollars.
I like that comparison. Good thought.
And that 50 to 60 % of CO2 increase isn’t much due to humans so the comparison is even more lopsided.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The thing that made me laugh, though, was this by the author:
“The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, …”
I can recall things that happened in 1949 and for most other years since then! I guess there could be a definitional issue here but my mind conjured up an image of a very very old scientist as I read this line.

May 4, 2009 9:31 pm

The media has come a long way in the past few weeks. Finally getting on the bandwagon, perhaps they might get really brave and ask the question:
Can Grand Minima events be predicted with any certainty?

Ohioholic
May 4, 2009 9:32 pm

Hmmm….. if by normal he means a value of 300ppm (.03%, .0003), than aren’t we talking about hundredths of a percent with CO2 also?

Kath
May 4, 2009 9:36 pm

We’ll see what happens. If earth’s climate does get cooler, scientists will get egg on their faces, and their reputation will suffer.
Whatever happened to objectivity in science? Has it all turned to scrying, where a computer screen replaces a crystal ball, and where observation and measurements are no longer relevant?
I bet I could write some Fortran code that proves that worms are responsible for rain. Every time it rains I see earthworms on the ground. Ergo, earthworms cause rain. QED

pwl
May 4, 2009 9:40 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much each contributing factor actually contributes to the total energy input into the Earth from the Sun?

Graeme Rodaughan
May 4, 2009 9:49 pm

The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
The above thought is definently heretical, and if it wasn’t for the apology that comes after it – I would denouce them???
Haven’t they heard of Michael Mann and his famous Hockey Stick – there was no Little Ice Age???
Don’t they know that the climate prior to the despicable Industrial Revolution was in a perfect “Goldilocks” state, not too hot, not too cold, where it rained at night and was sunny each day?
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
Cold Snap? Who have they been listening too? Backsliding in to sceptical immorality -that’s what I say. Don’t they know that Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Catastrophic Global Warming – how could there be a COLD SNAP when CO2 is being pumped into the air at an ever accelerating rate?

Molon Labe
May 4, 2009 10:00 pm

@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
We don’t have years. If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.

Graeme Rodaughan
May 4, 2009 10:17 pm

Molon Labe (22:00:23) :
@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
We don’t have years. If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.

Molon: – And if snow wipes out crops and drives up food prices will they attribute those outcomes to cap and trade?

Gerry
May 4, 2009 10:23 pm

“But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.”
Of course. After the 20-year cold snap, it still might take only another 60 years before global warming destroys The Creation:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/?apage=3

Squidly
May 4, 2009 10:26 pm

Reminds me of a kid with matches. “Ouch, it burned me this time, but I know its not going to burn me next time … wait for it … wait for it … OUCH!”
This stuff just gets better everyday…LMAO

Squidly
May 4, 2009 10:28 pm

Anthony- At this current rate of AGW progression, I am predicting that sometime in the very near future you are going to have to reclassify this blog as comedy. But hey, you can then win Best Blog for both Science and Comedy! … a 2fer…
This site totally rocks…. 🙂

Jim G
May 4, 2009 10:30 pm

…and (solar) x-rays can vary by a factor of ten.
Ha!! More like a factor of 10,000.
I guess the author can’t read a logarithmic scale.

May 4, 2009 10:34 pm

If the climate does cool further, perhaps someone should speak to Lockwood’s boss and demand Lockwood be fired.

AKD
May 4, 2009 10:40 pm

Wait, “global warming skeptics” and “preemptive denialists?” Did these people not get the Newspeak memo?

Claude Harvey
May 4, 2009 10:49 pm

Robert Rust (20:52:27) :
Good! Let them paint and paint and paint themselves into a corner. IF it does cool due to the solar minimum (big IF!) – then where can they go to explain it away???
I believe the article broadcasts where they intend to go IF such an event should come to pass. In the article, they maintain that even The Little Ice Age was local in nature and was not a global phenomenon. You could be up to your behind in icicles and dodging glaciers, yet those folks would not acknowledge anything other than CO2 induced global warming. They don’t “leap forward” the way skeptics do, They hang right in there, no matter what the evidence might reveal. That’s just the way religion works.

Alan the Brit
May 4, 2009 10:49 pm

I love that analogy of percentages, puts the argument very well. After all, despite having respect for Lockwood as a physicist, I have made my point about him before, but he is the one who said recently that if there was going to be a cooling effect we would have seen it by now. COuld somebody at Southampton University – I won’t ask my daughter who is a nurse – tell about all four major temperature metrcis showing said cooling since 2002? Put him out of his misery, somebody!
I was very impressed by the vidoe clip showing the geology conference round from Oslo on Climaterealist.com. It was wonderful to see several real geologists very sceptical of the AGW argument, even one or two honourable pro AGW statements by others, 66minutes of it, but who was that last guy with his sycophantic grovelling with his head so far up the Norwegian Environemnt Minister’s errr………….she was rather attractive you pick it, bacause if he wanted a date why didn’t he do something really romantic & ask her out in front of everyone…………..but that appalling piece of rudenss he displayed, a classic churlish put down, when he referred to the last speaker by saying that he disagreed with his viewpoint, with a comptemptuous “whoever he was” slating, just very poor show & very disrespectful.

John in NZ
May 4, 2009 10:50 pm

@ Graeme Rodaughan (21:49:36) :
“The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.”
They are saying the Little Ice Age (LIA) only happenned in Europe and North America. They are not admitting to a global cooling period. That would be heresy.
My personal opinion is that there is enough evidence from numerous studies around the globe to call the LIA a global event.
This makes me an evil and immoral person because I have examined the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion.
Mea culpa. Absolve me, Pater, quia peccavi.

Barry L.
May 4, 2009 10:55 pm

At what global average temperature does the AGW argument fail?
For example, if the average temperate drops below any possible forecasted value, does this value equal a ‘false’ in any logic treatments that the AGW theory is based on?
Or … can it keep cooling for 30 years, and the AGW argument still be valid?

Cassandra King
May 4, 2009 11:01 pm

So let me see if I understand their position correctly, they are unsure about the effect and causes of the solar minimum but they are sure that it will not affect man made global warming?
They are getting a little desperate to protect their AGW/MMCC theory with statements like ‘preemptive denial’ I thought the role of scientists was to observe events and consider the implications and extrapolate the data NOT engage in quasi political attacks.
The effects of solar minimums are well known and recorded, the science of measuring solar activity in relation to the earths climate isnt that difficult, what is difficult is reconciling the AGW/MMCC theory with solar output variance because the models have not taken this into account, if they are now forced to take account the very thing they worked so hard to ignore and minimize then the implications could be dramatic to say the least.
The uncomfortable reality for the AGW/MMCC believers is that actual observed effects of the supposed carbon dioxide driven global warming are non existent even at present IF solar varience is taken fully into account it means there may well be no temperature rises as advertised in the models, no dramatic melting of the poles at best there may well be temperature stasis within normal variance boundaries and at worst we could be in for a period of global cooling.
The whole basis for enforced reductions in supposed ‘green house gasses’ is to prevent a marked rise in global temperatures leading to a runaway warming, if temperatures fall even slightly over the medium term then the whole basis for rationing,taxing and limiting fossil fuel use is nullified isnt it?
The warmist/alarmist believers have to discount/minimize solar variance or lose the whole argument for dramatic cuts in our living standards, carbon capture becomes useless, cap and trade becomes useless, windmills become useless, solar power becomes useless, carbon/green taxes become useless, all these schemes will not be needed and that is going to upset the applecart of a lot of people who were going to make huge amounts of money and win huge influence over society, the vested interests of powerful people is under direct threat and the vested interest groups will fight to the bitter end to protect their longed for gains both fiscal and political.
The stakes are high the potential losses for the vested interests are huge, no wonder the attacks on the realists/sceptics are so venomous!

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 4, 2009 11:04 pm

“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
So we have the primary driver of ozone formation down by 1/5 with X-rays even more. Ozone presently very low:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
with anomalies of -10 to -20% (coincidence?)
And ozone being the major (and nearly only) thing blocking the 9-10 micron IR band. So the IR windowshade is going up…
And we’re getting colder…
Gee, it must be CO2 doing it /sarcoff>
And they didn’t even mention the solar mag field being down tens of percent and the increased cosmic ray / cloud formation connection. Having been under very unusual clouds and drizzle for the last week in “sunny” California, I think they are missing something…
OK, I’m going to indulge in some “preemptive denial”: I deny that they have a clue. Any clue. Someone needs to tell them what a Bond Event is and remind them that we’re one volcano away from a year without a summer…
The only good news is that as someone with the “redhead gene” giving me nearly transparent skin I’m really happy at any reduction in UV ! If no sunburns is what it means: Bring On Bond Event Zero!!
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/

aurbo
May 4, 2009 11:06 pm

…CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal….
If the current CO2 ~385ppm is 50%-60% above normal then that would make normal somewhere between 241ppm and 257ppm. Where the heck does that number come from. Lockwood apparently knows something we don’t know.
Then there’s “premptive denial” which is nearly an oxymoron and reflects an hypocracy in that the word ‘denial’ was almost totally reserved for the skeptics.
Nevertheless, it took some scintilla of integrity for NatGeo to publish this article seeing as they have been increasingly committed to AGW.

Ray
May 4, 2009 11:11 pm

Anthony, you know that by putting an article up about solar activity/sunspots, you will surely provoke the sun and it will show a sunspot shortly in the next few days… maybe!

Ozzie John
May 4, 2009 11:15 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
– If you do the maths using the 60% claim it works out that “Normal” is ~ 240ppm. Where does this “Normal” figure come from ? If you assume 300ppm to be a more realistic idea of “Normal” then we are currently at ~28% above normal.

Keith Minto
May 4, 2009 11:18 pm

“There are many uncertainties,” said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government’s research institute Eawag.
“We don’t know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn’t play with things I don’t know.”
Good idea ! why play with changes in solar intensity ?,you may even burn your fingers!
I had more fun staring at the two suns and forming a 3D sunspot superimposition on the March 2009 Sun.
Perhaps I should get out a bit more.

K
May 4, 2009 11:18 pm

Drat. Squidly beat me to this:
“At this current rate of AGW progression, I am predicting that sometime in the very near future you are going to have to reclassify this blog as comedy.”
The blog isn’t comedy but this National Geographic News blurb passes the test.
“pre-emptive denial”? You have to love English when terms like that can be so easily coined.
I think that means “you are wrong before you speak.”
Will someone send pizza to those astrophysicists glued to telescopes? Then let Prince Albert out of the can.

Gary Plyler
May 4, 2009 11:22 pm

Numbers taken out of context or without relation are dangerous and can falsely prove anything and nothing.
The article states that CO2 level is “50 to 60 percent higher than normal”. Assuming that all the global heating of the last 200 years is due to CO2 (ignoring possible contributions from the solar shift from a Maunder Minimum of the 16th Century to the Grand Maximum of the 20th Century), then that would be significant. The article states that the solar output (I guess they mean irradiance) is “a few hundredths of one percent down”. Also, Lockwood states “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Well, try this one. The sun has finally started to turndown after the Grand Maximum of the later 20th Century. We may be going back into a Dalton or even Maunder type solar minimum. If the earth’s albedo increases due to a 1% increase in low cloud formation, the amount of additional cooling is 3 times greater (and opposite sign) to the AGW hypothetical warming of CO2 level at 100 percent higher than “normal” (and that effect is a hypothesis, not a theory or a law).
Just as less than 100 years ago, we had no idea or proof that there were galaxies beyond the Milky Way, soon we may find that a quiet versus active sun has other effects besides just irradiance.

stumpy
May 4, 2009 11:29 pm

I wonder how long till Al Gore takes credit for saving us from disaster with his carbon trading scam, oops I meant scheme, and how long before the cooling is blamed on man due to land use change and aerosols?

May 4, 2009 11:33 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good one molecule in 10,000 higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood should have said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Yes that looks better.

mark
May 4, 2009 11:34 pm

so co2 is now 0.0387% of the total gas in the atmosphere .If it doubles it will be 0.0774%. man that must heat the earth up.lol.

Graeme Rodaughan
May 4, 2009 11:35 pm

John in NZ (22:50:49) :

This makes me an evil and immoral person because I have examined the evidence and come to the wrong conclusion.
Mea culpa. Absolve me, Pater, quia peccavi.

Absolution – go forth and purchase Carbon Credits from the Profit Al Gore and your sins will be forgiven.
All hail the Green($$$).

mark
May 4, 2009 11:45 pm

just to add to the above comment. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

Policyguy
May 4, 2009 11:49 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Others have worked the math. The CO2 contribution is so minimal that the delta CO2 is less significant than the delta Intensity/sq m of the sun. Plus, the potential multipliers are not considered.
This person has made a belief statement, not a scientific statement. This person considers the religious beliefs to be more important than the anticipated scientific observation.
What a shame on this thought/belief vs. observation.

p.g.sharrow "PG"
May 4, 2009 11:50 pm

The major media is dropping AGW in favor of cleaning up the air pollutants and fazing out the use of fossil fuels. I believe the smart money is beginning to realize the evidence is more and more aginist AGW and they need to change the subject.
Now if we could just convince Lief that IT”s the sun.

Richard deSousa
May 4, 2009 11:57 pm

Lockwood: Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
Lockwood seems to have forgotten or ignored that the climate has been cooling since 2000 and CO2 has continued to rise. I wonder what excuse he’ll give when the sun’s quietness continues for several decades and the temperature continues to decline as CO2 continues to climb. In fact, I’d bet CO2 will start to decline as the oceans, being colder, will sequester more CO2.

P Folkens
May 5, 2009 12:04 am

Compare Mike Lockwood’s quote, “I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down. I think that helps keep it in perspective” with the following:
A National Academy of Sciences geophysical paper from 2000 by Perry and Hsu (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18780) showed solar output modeling for the past 40,000 years. The difference of solar output was expressed in tenths of a percent of the 90,000 year solar output average. A 0.3% difference of solar output produced around a 54 meter change in sea level (18 meters per 0.1%) in ten thousand years from the Younger-Dryas event to the near present. Following that study, a one-hundredth of one percent change in solar output would therefore produce a 1.8 meter sea level change. A “few hundredths” as suggested by Lockwood would represent a change of around 5.4 meters based on Perry and Hsu’s study. Without stating what normal was, Lockwood declared that CO2 is 40% to 60% higher. Has anyone documented a five meter rise in sea level since the Industrial Revolution-induced CO2 rise?
Let’s move it out one more order of magnitude and suggest the solar output variance now is more like a few thousandths of a percent. A 54 centimeter change in sea level is closer to the real rise in sea level over the past hundred years and projected another hundred in to the future. So the real “perspective” in Lockwood’s example is that a few hundredths or even thousandths of a percent change in solar output has a substantially greater affect than a 40%-60% change in CO2.
I believe Lockwood was trying to imply the opposite, relying on the assumption that the masses would buy that 40%-60% is a bigger amount of anything than ~0.03% without knowing that 0.03% of the sun’s irradiance is orders of magnitude more significant than 40-60% of a minor gas in our tiny planet’s atmosphere.

John Silver
May 5, 2009 12:05 am

Rebar (21:05:51) :
““I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
This has to be “Quote of the Week” and it’s a definite contender for “Quote of the Year””
I agree with you, more than a 100 percent.

May 5, 2009 12:24 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Impressive logic! My potter friend changed her low power kiln for a fancy big new high power one that’s TWICE as powerful, whereas the sun is only a few hundredths of a percent down. Expect global warming to really ramp up from now on.
What’s that? Stupid argument? Sure, but it’s the very same logic this so-called “scientist” uses. He should be dismissed forthwith for either being completely incompetent or deliberately lying.

Claude Harvey
May 5, 2009 12:37 am

The article claims current CO2 levels are 50-60% higher than normal. That brings up the question of “what is normal”? If you take Al Gore’s famous chart showing the commensurate rise and fall of global temperature and CO2 over the past 450,000 years, you will find that during the past four temperature maximums (we’re now in the fifth such maximum) atmospheric CO2 levels rose to approximately 280 ppm at temperatures comparable to today’s. The logical explanation for the rise and fall of natural atmospheric CO2 with global temperature variations is that it is driven by temperature induced variations in the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. This time, at temperatures comparable to the past four maximums, we have risen to 380 ppm of atmospheric CO2. It would seem reasonable to assume that the additional 100 ppm was man-made and that 280 ppm would be “normal” for the current global temperature. That would bring the additional CO2 amount “above normal” to 36%.

crosspatch
May 5, 2009 12:45 am

So I have a question. People seem to make great pains to say that periods of reduced solar output aren’t enough variation to produce any dramatic climate change. Ok, fine. Lets accept that argument. So what DID account for all the climate cooling coincidental with the periods of lesser Sun spot counts?
Is it some period of greater regional expansion of the universe? Maybe flying through a cloud of dark matter? I mean if the lack of spots didn’t cause the cooling, and cooling and lack of spots seems to be fairly well synchronized over time, then the answer has to be that whatever caused the cooling had to also cause a lack of spots. So if the lack of spots don’t directly cause the cooling, then there must be a third thing that causes both. Which is it?

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 12:55 am

Oh! No sunspots today.
So much for the Watts Effect.
I guess it only works for Gore.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 1:01 am

If there was ever a dumb statement by a scientist, it is:
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Sorry Lockwood, but it does not. Here Lockwood is basically saying CO2 has as much impact on the earth’s climate as the sun!
That’s absurd. It’s scientific amateurism.
Again the warmists are completely overstating, 100-fold, CO2’s role in climate.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 1:03 am

Ozzie,
Also a good point you make.

Molon Labe
May 5, 2009 1:04 am

Graeme Rodaughan (22:17:25) :
Molon: – And if snow wipes out crops and drives up food prices will they attribute those outcomes to cap and trade?
No, the blame will fall on the evil kulak farmers. They will be used as scapegoats to justify government takeover of food production. See this excellent essay for the why and how:
OBAMA AND THE NEO-MARXIST LEFT: The Clever Manipulation of Projection and Paranoia

Steve S
May 5, 2009 1:09 am

The earth is warming,
This I know.
Because my models
Tell me so.
Preemptive denialism’s predictive models trump real world data.

Gentry
May 5, 2009 1:13 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
It certainly does put things in perspective.
For instance, a ‘50% increase in CO2’ has managed to give us a supposed 0.6°C of warming but the ‘few hundredths of one percent’ decrease in solar output gave forth a nearly 1.0°C drop in temperature from the MWP to the LIA.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 1:14 am

“…the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.”
This statement is also misleading, as it implies it was evely cold during this period, and then started warming in 1850. WRONG!
The low point of the LIA was, correct me if I am wrong, around 1750, and then it started getting warm. Yes, it’s been getting warm for almost 250 years now – long before the Industrial Rev started!
For Nat Geo global temperature follows an on-off square tooth wave. Utterly clueless.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 1:17 am

Rebar 21:05:51
You got my vote!

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 1:20 am

Molon Labe,
No it won’t.
You got China and India spewing out more and more every day. It’ll never fly.

vg
May 5, 2009 1:33 am

Gentry Very true maybe Lief might understand and explain this.

Tim Groves
May 5, 2009 1:41 am

Barry: “At what global average temperature does the AGW argument fail?”
To paraphrase the Monty Python team, AGW is not an argument, it’s contradiction!
To back up my point, George Monbiot’s recent comedy skit (Apri 30) in the Guardian consisted of a list of 38 allegeded “howlers” by John Tomlinson, many of which he proceeded to “debunk” by writing variations on “No it isn’t!” And when he wants really unimpeachable authoritative backup for his stance, he writes “Fact: Gavin Schmidt tells me….”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/30/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change
In the real world, as far as I can judge, the AGW argument has already failed because despite the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past dozen years, the average global temperature has fallen during that time, or in other words, the earth’s atmosphere and oceans have experienced a net loss of heat which has disappeared through the skylight. It might be argued that the heat has gone into the deep oceans or into melting of polar ice or into warming the subsurface of the solid earth, but there is no strong evidence that this has happened, and a cooling atmosphere on a warming planet is counter-intuative concept to say the least.

Molon Labe
May 5, 2009 1:46 am

Pierre Gosselin (01:20:18) :
If they get cap & trade and global temperatures start dropping, it WILL NOT matter how much CO2 India and China produce. The measured CO2 value at Mauna Loa will be ADJUSTED to show it decreasing.

UK Sceptic
May 5, 2009 2:01 am

Environmental research grants make scientists stupid – discuss.

JamesG
May 5, 2009 2:09 am

CO2 is a trace gas so 60% increase of nearly nothing is still nearly nothing, while the sun provides almost all our energy. Now that really puts it in perspective. But of course when you say that, some warmer comes along and says something utterly irrelevant like “it only takes a tiny amount of poison to kill you”. These warmers are so chock-full of contradictions in their stories that it’s absolutely clear most of them are just making things up as they go along.

May 5, 2009 2:17 am

Molon Labe,
No it won’t.
You got China and India spewing out more and more every day. It’ll never fly.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

May 5, 2009 2:19 am

If Lockwood really wanted to get the AGW message across, he should have acknowledged that the sun might cause some cooling – then when there is no cooling he can point to the increasing effects of CO2.
As far as “painting themselves into a corner” (Robert Rust (20:52:27) : ) – what about the proponents of ‘solar cooling’, what will their position be when there is no downturn in temperatures.

VG
May 5, 2009 2:23 am

S Goddard might want to check this 2 weeks ago this was 1.4 million k above?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/iphone.currentarea.global.html
and it hasn’t changed much since then as far as I can see…..

Pete Stroud
May 5, 2009 2:38 am

A ‘quiet’ Sun certainly correlates with the little ice age minimum temperature period. But it proves as little as global temperatures increasing with increasing CO2. But we have enough empirical evidence to prove that AGW is an utter scientific blunder without relying on this hypothesis.
Furthermore, Mike Lockwood’s preemptive denial does nothing but destroy his case. But it does show how worried his is.

MattA
May 5, 2009 3:03 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
As stated earlier there are some significant problems with the choice of scale described here. Some thoughts follow on the choices of the scales.
The 50-60% increase represents an increase in CO2 (this is significantly lower than some earlier periods of geological history). However as a percentage increase of CO2 in the atmosphere this ammount is insignificant and surely the percentage of the atmosphere would be the more useful scale for determining the the effects of CO2. So why did Lockwood quote the former?
Secondly the author notes that the changes to the suns TSI are of the order of a few 100’s of a percent (this estimate seems deliberately low). However, lets compare these 2 values to the warming which has taken place.
The warming over the last century is approximately 0.4 degrees on a scale whose average is 390 degrees. This is similar to the changes occuring to the TSI in the sun, a few hundreths (as quted by the author) of a percent.
Now directly correlating these values is of course fraut with danger as we should be considering the energy required for the different gasses to change temperature in terms of their specific heat index of each gas. Even so the net energy change is a few hundreths of a percent.
Now when I am examinig causal links and I see the suns TSI percentile changes more closely matching the tiny changes in the earths temperatures it causes me to pause and think.
Does it make you stop and think too?

Hugh
May 5, 2009 3:18 am

We’re all going to die. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Actually, sooner or later, we all will. Solar weather happens. I am glad for this site because an intelligent non-scientist like me can read it and learn. Thank you, all of you.

Mark N
May 5, 2009 3:21 am

With a hack reporting what was said and the solar terrestrial physicist considering carefully what is said, I’m confused by the double talk.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 3:21 am

Molon Labe
“The measured CO2 value at Mauna Loa will be ADJUSTED to show it decreasing.”
They may try, but they are a little late. Temperatures have been dropping 10 years now – and so it will backfire and only prove that CO2 follows temps, and not vice versa. Unless of course they go back a revise the CO2 levels from 15 years ago and show it started dropping in 1995 or so.
Such brazen revisionism would require a Stalinist state.
My guess is that they’ll pull out the “aerosols are causing cooling” or “CO2 is leading to catstrophic ocean acidification” fear-mongering.

Pierre Gosselin
May 5, 2009 3:31 am

QUESTION:
Why has South America been continuously projected to have cooler than normal temps, and has so for the last several months?
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
Is it that the Pacific and Atlantic are keeping it cool?

Craigo
May 5, 2009 3:33 am

Here is a thought … recognition is finally given to Sol for this relapse of “real” AGW heating but then the models are recalibrated to actually demonstrate that the cooling has been less than a true Sol minimum event due to the effect of AGW and predictions begin for a dire catastrophic temperature rise in cycle 24.
Oh and all that extra UV … my “model” predicts new headlines: “Catlin expedition retasked to apply sunscreen to Polar Bears”

Jeff B.
May 5, 2009 3:41 am

I think we are reading him wrong. “Preemptive denial” refers to what he is doing in the face of contradictory evidence for the sake of Grant Money and not the Climate Science itself. Read that way it makes perfect sense.

Tim Wainwright
May 5, 2009 3:46 am

Kath (21:36:52) :
“I bet I could write some Fortran code that proves that worms are responsible for rain. Every time it rains I see earthworms on the ground. Ergo, earthworms cause rain. QED”
It’s like the wind, it must be caused by the trees waving around. Never is any wind when the trees are still.
Tim, Scarsdale, Aust.

Skeptic Tank
May 5, 2009 3:51 am

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

After all, CO2 doesn’t just capture energy, it generates energy!!

MattB
May 5, 2009 3:56 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
OK let’s take 50%, that means that 1x + .5x = 380, or 1.5x=380. So according to him normal is around 250PPM. Is’nt that getting dangerously close to the point where plants start shutting down?

Alan the Brit
May 5, 2009 4:04 am

UK Sceptic:-)
The question should be “how smart was the scientist before he got his grant by selling his scientific principles to the highest bidder?”
No body has ever been able to explain how the sun/earth interaction works to any great detail as I have pointed out before, without plenty of caveats being tacked on here & there as one would expect. That is because although many say we know a lot, whilst that may be true, there may well still be a heck of a lot more we don’t know! Therefore, how can anyone say that A cannot cause the observed affect on B, but it is C causing the effect for sure, when one doesn’t know what affect A can have on B, & or on C, or in fact on D-Z as well?
Oh & I always thought a “cold snap” was something that happened for a few days only, not 20 years or more!
Is the Martian icecap still receding (or was this something that slipped into the “false” net) as I (imho) would expect for some time to come due to its greater orbital variations, before accumuating more ice again? If so, when would it potentially start to show an increase?

Dave Middleton
May 5, 2009 4:12 am

“Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).”
Yeah…Right…Apart from the cooling over the past 6 to 10 years, the CO2 is doing a fine job of overwhelming the solar minimum…
What fits better?
The CO2 curve…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/UAH_LowerTrop_12_78to11_08_CO2.jpg
Or the Schwabe Cycle Length curve…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/UAH_LowerTrop_12_78to11_08_SSC_Leng.jpg

Robinson
May 5, 2009 4:20 am

I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.

The concept of “normal” with respect to CO2 has been visualising the graph of CO2 over geological time, so in that context the above quote is a load of utter tosh (but of course, this goes without saying).

pyromancer76
May 5, 2009 4:26 am

Claude Harvey 22:49 “You could be up to your behind in icicles and dodging glaciers, yet those folks would not acknowledge anything other than CO2 induced global warming. They don’t “leap forward” the way skeptics do, They hang right in there, no matter what the evidence might reveal. That’s just the way religion works.”
This campaign — CO2 50-60% higher than normal — is not simply a religion, but a stone-cold plan to strike terror in people’s hearts with two purposes: 1) to end the industrial advantages of the West (smarts and drive along with the cheap energy of fossil fuels); and 2) to establish permanent lush living/ jet-setting from taxes, fees, and rents of the cap-and-trade priesthood.
Anthony began the task of “re-educating” by showing that the government’s temperature measurements from which they claimed run-away global warming are largely a deception, whether from incompetence or intention. The core issue is the truth of the science, not global warming or cooling. The truth will enable us to understand and adapt to warming and cooling.
CO2 has been named as the dragon to slay re runaway global warming. Paid lobbyists for the cap-and-trade priesthood like Lockwood tout those astonishing statistics (50 to 60% higher than normal) and people’s brains see images of smokestacks spewing earth-destroying CO2 everywhere. A (temporarily) cooling earth will not save us and the earth from armageddon.
I like the idea of Lockwood’s nonsense as the quote of the week in order to show that there is no “normal” CO2 level according to geological history, that CO2 is a minor atmospheric gas, and that the physics of CO2 radiation (feedback leading to global warming) is limited. These are the issues and not the cooling globe. People must begin to trust CO2 again as an essential element for life and not the major pollutant to capture during industrialization processes. (If I am remembering correctly, I am grateful to Stephen Goddard for addressing the physics of CO2 warming. I was too ready to sneer at its having any potency of that sort.)
I have a sense that many contributers here are becoming smug about the coming cold — and the world is due a 1500-year bond event (chiefio.com)just like California is due its 150-year major earthquake. These will happen, eventually. However, to get the public to begin sensible adaptations to colder conditions, they must be disabused of their focus on CO2 and all its variations. The solar terrestrial physicist Lockwood may sound ludicrous to WUWT’s readers, but his figures keep people’s minds locked on CO2 as an object of terror.

WIll Albenzi
May 5, 2009 4:31 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”

Choose one ()
60.00% of my wealth ____ 0.01% Bill Gates Wealth

WestHoustonGeo
May 5, 2009 4:35 am

Quoting:
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,”
Commenting:
Skeptics tend to be cautious and methodical. Leaping forward would be like , say…predicting temperatures 100 years in the future.

tja
May 5, 2009 4:36 am

The alarmist got a big leg up in this argument when they got to define “normal” CO2 as that of the Little Ice Age.

gary gulrud
May 5, 2009 4:39 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Yes, AGW experts and Solar Change Minimizers are with a change in hat the same prevaricator.

May 5, 2009 4:40 am

Lockwood is becoming the CAGW, C stands for Catastrophic, solar expert spokesman and as such will become the premier source for comments on the solar inactivity and its supposedly insignificant effect on terrestrial climate.
I believe we will see more of him in the coming months in the mass media leading up to the Copenhagen meeting, in an effort to try dismiss any effect from the Sun on the climate in the minds of the public and by the misinformed politicians.
In an effort to discredit Henrik Svensmark’s work, two studies have been made during recent years by physicists.
The first study is ”Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcing and the global mean surface air temperature” which was made by him and Frölich. There they took the data from IPCC and added future projective trends to show that while the Sun’s trends have been dropping there has been no drop in the warming trend, while ignoring readily available data that the warming hadn’t been raising at that time for at least 5-6 years. Frölich is an expert in the study of TSI.
The claim Lockwood made that the solar output had peaked around 1985 is contradicted by data in his own earlier papers. If you for example take solar eruptional output and look at the depths of the solar minima’s between in the solar cycles in his papers they give a good correlation, if you use a time lag of 5-8 years, to global average temperature trends.
This study was then recycled as a proof that there were no correlation between current solar variability in the mass media.
Next the CAGW promoters looked for support from physicists that could take on Svenmark’s theory whose works were in the field of particle physics.
So, one year later came “Cosmic Rays and Global Warming”, by Sloan and Wolfendale.
The same thing happened and this article was then recycled in the MSM and was shown as a proof for the dismissal of Svensmark.
I do think both these studies were made for the same reason and ultimately sponsored by the same source.
I’m far outside of this, but I find it reasonable to think that the source and sponsor for these studies where the Royal Society. Both Lockwood and Wolfendale are members of the Society.
There is a huge industry out there promoting the CAGW scam and large sums of money are used for AGW research. This is war and they will not sit idle.
When the cooling sets in and food productions drop in temperate regions of the world because of shorter and rainier summers and food productions drop in the subtropic regions of the worlds because of drought as it always does during prolonged solar inactivity. And when the world is unprepared for this, betting on food to ethanol production for fuel, then likely extra hundreds of millions of people in the third world will go hungry because of the CAGW hysteria.
But that is of no consequence for these people.

pkatt
May 5, 2009 4:45 am

I have a goofy question. If most of the global warming has occured in the northern hemisphere, while the southern hemisphere temps remained fairly flat, when or if a mini ice age hits, even if it only hits the Northern hemisphere wouldnt that negate the ‘global’ warming? And when it starts to warm up again.. are we going to have to hear about all this crap again??

May 5, 2009 4:52 am

Gary Plyler (23:22:58) :
Well, try this one. The sun has finally started to turndown after the Grand Maximum of the later 20th Century.
There are good reasons [as I have mentioned before] to believe that solar activity in the middle of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were comparable. That is the perspective we need to keep.

May 5, 2009 4:52 am

“What will explain the not-so-incredibly-hot temps in 10 years? WHAT?!?”
Robert, I believe they will keep saying that it is in the pipeline.

May 5, 2009 4:58 am

Obviously, cap-and-trade and CO2 sequestration have Wall Street and the large, international corporations slavering.
But IF global cooling does occur, the consequences will be far, far greater to mankind.
In short, global cooling will mean less food.
Science or no science, religion or no religion, it could all go out the window. Food riots will be a fearsome force to contend with …

Mrs Whatsit
May 5, 2009 5:16 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
What’s scaring me is that the man who said this is a physicist. I was an art major, for crissakes. I haven’t studied any math since high school — but I can see the howlers in his math. Why can’t he? What has happened to our scientists??

Larry T
May 5, 2009 5:31 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Questions:
1). What is normal for CO2 – now, middle warm period, some other period?
2). What is % of athmosphere change of CO2 which you need to be able to compare to solor output changes?
3). Do you account for other changes in solar that also affect us?

Peter Plail
May 5, 2009 5:32 am

There is a host of information about measured CO2 levels over recent and longer term history here:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
For a quick overview scroll down to the graphs.
A number of things appear clear:
1) The current level of CO2 has been exceded a couple of times during the last two centuries – and don’t forget these are direct measurements, not derived values – without triggering temperature runaway, and also ,of course, without the help of 21st century levels of emissions
2) The variations in levels over quite short periods of time show the concept of “normal” a bit difficult to grasp, and of course, comparison with a mean is not particularly helpful since choice of start and end times can be used to give you alsmost any answer you want.
3) The comparison between CO2 levels and temperatures shows yet again that CO2 levels lag temperature by 5 or 6 years:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/graphs.htm#proj
Since it didn’t take a lot of work to find this information, I wonder why those much cleverer than me didn’t find it – or have I missed the wamists rebuttal!

Ian Cooper
May 5, 2009 5:41 am

Cassandra King, Gary Plyler & MattA
WOW!
I’ve been reading these columns for quite a while now but this thread had three major peaks in it (maybe some more including the humour of Greame Rodaughan) that had your good names attached.
How succinct the lot of you?
Cassandra (23.01.15) quoted among many delightful comments the most succinct word to describe this whole debarcle, “useless.”
Those who perpetuate it. Yes. I was very tempted to include those sucked in by it, but I didn’t ! “How magnanimous of me, ” the Global Cooling Deniers would say. Nothing generous, just human.
Gary (23.22.58), I’ll be quoting you on your whole last paragraph mate. As a semi-professional astronomer (now there’s an admission, I have received some money from astronomy, but astronomy is not only in the dark technically, it’s in the black personally). I really appreciate the analogy.
MattA(03.03.17)
In answer to your last question,
“You betcha.”
Cheers to one and all,
Coops,
Lower North Island
New Zealand

Geo
May 5, 2009 5:55 am

Jesu H. Christo. “Preemptive denial”. In my lifetime I’ve never seen such a large swath of the scientific establishment bound and determined to not only discredit themselves, but the very idea of “science”. A real scientist would look at this situation and positively gush about what a great opportunity this is to test for real some of the minority scientific theories on sun activity impact on climate. You know, that whole gaining new knowledge and testing theories against reality thing that scientists are supposed to be all about. . .

May 5, 2009 6:01 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 forms less than 0.04% of the earths atmosphere, whereas the sun is what drives all the earth’s weather and climate. I think that helps keep it in perspective.”

Mary R
May 5, 2009 6:03 am

When I read this article I was struck by the similarity between scientists who will not budge on global warming, whether the facts support it or not and scientists who will not budge on evolution whether the facts support it or not. All scientists have a worldview and we filter everything we see and think through that worldview. Scientists who believe man is like a god and can control all of the earth’s climate can’t even comprehend how truly small we are. These same types of scientists, believing that man is a god, can’t allow in their thinking that there is a real God who is the Creator and continues to work in the lives of His people and continues to control all of the universe, including the sun and the CO2 and the water and ice bergs…
AGW scientists have made saving the planet their religion and will not be moved until they have a change of heart. Same for evolutionary scientists. I guess as a believer, I am not surprised that the researchers will ‘engage in preemptive denial’. We see it happen in other areas of science everyday.

May 5, 2009 6:03 am

Peter Plail:
You can judge the accuracy of those particular links by the response. Warmists go absolutely ballistic whenever Dr. Beck’s work is mentioned. That’s because it’s pretty hard for them to refute over 90,000 CO2 measurements, made by esteemed scientists like J.S. Haldane and others — who were not paid for their work, but did it out of genuine scientific curiosity.
Even if 80,000 of those CO2 measurements were discarded, and only the ones done on ocean crossings and in truly remote locations were used, we’re still left with strong evidence that CO2 levels as recently as the early 1940’s were much higher than today’s levels. And CO2 measurements in the early 1800’s, well before the industrial revolution, also show that CO2 levels were much higher than today’s levels.
[That’s a great website you linked to. Clicking on the pictures and numbers gives an interactive tour.]

Jeremy
May 5, 2009 6:05 am

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
So the AGW crowd are now the “denialists”!
It seems to read “tongue-in-cheek” on the part of the author? Is it possible that NatGeo author had a hidden agenda with some satire couched in what superficially appears to be a pro-AGW article?

May 5, 2009 6:08 am

FUN STUFF:
the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
Ann Minard: If you see this, please look at the next picture:
http://www.giurfa.com/volcanes.jpg
It shows 9 (nine) volcanoes and 3(three) cities with a total population of more than 2 million people.
1.Do you see anyone of these two million people?
2.Do you see the cities?
3.Imagine all these people, apart of producing each 900 grams/day of CO2 by just exhalating, polluting with their cars and buses (most of them more than 10 years old, bought used from Japan, and using oil with 5,000 ppm od sulphur (this is real). Do you see any gases down there?
4.Just ONE of these volcanoes, the Huaynaputina, when erupted, back in the 18th.century, provoked this, in Europe:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg
5.How in your brain is it possible for you to even guess that those imperceptible molds that grow and multiply on the ground, which even do not color earth´s surface and which are called, by themselves of course, humans, can produce any detectable change in earth atmosphere, compared when one of these volcanoes decide to “exhale”?

Frank Lansner
May 5, 2009 6:13 am

Molon Labe (22:00:23) :
@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
“If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.”
Not i nice thought! But Russia, India and China is in no way going to lower their CO2. On the contrary. Therefore, the human outlet being reduced markedly is not going to happend, anf thus can never be used as excuse for cooling. Fortunately. No wonder Hansen and co are so anxious to get the Co2 reductions going…

Lockean
May 5, 2009 6:15 am

If a decline in solar activity produces a continued decline global temperatures, the oceans will absorb CO2 at an increased rate. Warmists should rejoice.

Douglas DC
May 5, 2009 6:19 am

Jeremy- I read the same thing. Swiftian in it’s subtlety.Things are like it’s the Renaissance/Reformation era all over again…

Dave Middleton
May 5, 2009 6:21 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
CO2 levels were also “a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal” in the early Holocene…http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5422/1971/F1
Maybe they don’t have a subscription to Science magazine?
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Friederike Wagner, 1 Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, 2 David L. Dilcher, 3 Wolfram M. Kürschner, 1 Bas van Geel, 4 Henk Visscher 1
Science 18 June 1999:
Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1971
Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary
Dana L. Royer,1* Scott L. Wing,2 David J. Beerling,3 David W. Jolley,4 Paul L. Koch,5 Leo J. Hickey,1 Robert A. Berner1
Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2310 – 2313
DOI: 10.1126/science.292.5525.2310

CO2 concentrations determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores cannot be empirically tested to determine their accuracy in reflecting the atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the firn turned to ice.
Plant SI (Stomatal Index) data can be empirically tested under laboratory conditions. SI can be calibrated very closely to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. SI data suggest that warm periods in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods routinely experienced CO2 levels of 330ppm to more than 360ppm.

Dave Middleton
May 5, 2009 6:23 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
CO2 levels were also “a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal” in the early Holocene.
Maybe they don’t have a subscription to Science magazine?
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Friederike Wagner, 1 Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, 2 David L. Dilcher, 3 Wolfram M. Kürschner, 1 Bas van Geel, 4 Henk Visscher 1
Science 18 June 1999:
Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1971
Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary
Dana L. Royer,1* Scott L. Wing,2 David J. Beerling,3 David W. Jolley,4 Paul L. Koch,5 Leo J. Hickey,1 Robert A. Berner1
Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2310 – 2313
DOI: 10.1126/science.292.5525.2310

CO2 concentrations determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores cannot be empirically tested to determine their accuracy in reflecting the atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the firn turned to ice.
Plant SI (Stomatal Index) data can be empirically tested under laboratory conditions. SI can be calibrated very closely to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. SI data suggest that warm periods in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods routinely experienced CO2 levels of 330ppm to more than 360ppm.

Daniel Taylor
May 5, 2009 6:24 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
We’re already cooling from the solar minimum despite higher than expected CO2 output due to the rapid expansion in China and India.
So yes, the numbers he threw out there do help keep it in perspective. The sun’s influence is a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the influence of man made greenhouse gases. If the sun goes down a few hundredths of one percent it’s enough to swamp any human influence or signal.
Maybe someone should explain that to him.

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 6:25 am

“He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
“Preemptive denial.”??
HUH?? Galileo will be laughing in his grave.
Brings back memories, he says……
Chris
Norfolk, VA

pyromancer76
May 5, 2009 6:27 am

Leif Svalgaard (04:52:19) :
Gary Plyler (23:22:58) :
Well, try this one. The sun has finally started to turndown after the Grand Maximum of the later 20th Century.
There are good reasons [as I have mentioned before] to believe that solar activity in the middle of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were comparable. That is the perspective we need to keep.
Anthony, could we have a Leif post? His suggestion is a great one for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it might move minds to consider the wealth of other factors besides sunspots and barycenter movements. These seem to be intellectually too easy.

Frank Lansner
May 5, 2009 6:32 am

@Leif
Could you take a second to check out the resemblance between solar energy and sea level rise / year:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/divergence.gif
As I understrand you, differences in solar anergy does not have much impact on earth? So howcome the appearing link between solar emission and sea level rise / year (And Co2 rise per year, and PDOAMO curves etc etc?)

Katherine
May 5, 2009 6:37 am

Lockean (06:15:54) :

If a decline in solar activity produces a continued decline global temperatures, the oceans will absorb CO2 at an increased rate. Warmists should rejoice.

They should. But it’s a good bet they’ll just turn around and scream about “ocean acidification,” instead. Seizing the high moral ground to beat up on others seems to be their goal in life.

MattN
May 5, 2009 6:37 am

““I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.””
Absolutely absurd statement….

Steve Keohane
May 5, 2009 6:38 am

It is interesting how perspective gets turned in its head. Calling the LIA an unusual cooling period, and local at that is peculiar. We are nearing the end of our interglacial period, where warm exists 10% of the time, so even the LIA was warmer than ‘normal’. Then the 50-60% more CO2 original-sin crap. Excuse me, but the IPCC claims humans put out 3-4% of the annual CO2, so even if we destroy the economy to ‘save the planet’ and cut all our CO2 emmissions to zero, it will have absolutely no effect on CO2 levels and therefore no effect on a CO2 drivel climate. (intentional mis-spelling of ‘driven’)

Sven
May 5, 2009 6:38 am

Now that’s weird. OT, but April UAH is out on Dr. Spencer’s blog
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
and it shows a significant drop, an anomaly of only +0.09! If that’s gonna stay, then not only is it remarkably different from RSS but also does not match to anything observed on AMSU-A during the month?!
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

John W.
May 5, 2009 6:45 am

John Finn (02:19:54) :
If Lockwood really wanted to get the AGW message across, he should have acknowledged that the sun might cause some cooling – then when there is no cooling he can point to the increasing effects of CO2.
As far as “painting themselves into a corner” (Robert Rust (20:52:27) : ) – what about the proponents of ’solar cooling’, what will their position be when there is no downturn in temperatures.

We’ll conclude our hypothesis was wrong. I’m not surprised you didn’t know. It’s a behaviour associated with something called the “Scientific Method.” Perhaps someone in England could explain it to Lockwood?

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 6:52 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
No…this citation grossly distorts any type of “keeping it in perspective” whatsoever:
For a scientist to go on record comparing/contrasting or attempting to offset CO being “above normal” [whatever “normal” is on a 4.5 billion year timescale!] against the current decline in solar activity…seems stupid and a futile exercise from the starting gate and is like trying to compare apples….to baseball gloves.
The sun, comprising 99% of the mass in the solar system, is slightly larger [LOL] than our earth….so any slight change in the sun MAY affect us on a scale and many orders of magnitude higher than CO2 [that mechanism still unproven]
So his quote is such a bogus BOGUS juxtaposition of words even the biggest science idiot [me LOL] can see it.
Will wait for the day when they start blaming the quiet sun on CO2…but they don’t want to appear to be stark raving mad so I know they will not go that far.
Definition “lunacy”:
“Archaic. Intermittent mental derangement associated with the changing phases of the moon.”
Suggest NEW term: “SOLACY”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 6:53 am

Correction: “CO2”.
My “solacy” kicking in.
Aroooooo!

Sven
May 5, 2009 6:54 am

Looking at AMSU-A I would have rather predicted April UAH to be +0.19 than 0.09 …

Just Want Truth...
May 5, 2009 6:58 am

“….whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said.”
Straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! He doesn’t take in to account the size of the sun and how a small change in something that size can have a large effect on something the size of the earth.
comparison :
http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/images/sun_earth_size_comparison.jpg

May 5, 2009 6:59 am

Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
So, before the data is in, before the cooling starts (if it starts), they’re denying it can happen. How about waiting to see what happens first? I mean, sure, the last time the sun was quiet for any length of time we had a cooler climate. Speaking for myself, it may happen again; I’m just waiting to see how the data comes in over the next few years. Maybe I’m being old fashioned but isn’t that the way science is done? At least I thought it was done that way before this global warming fad hit the planet.

Leon, Leon. Don’t you know? It’s all about the Alchemy and the Entrails of the climate models.

Ron de Haan
May 5, 2009 7:00 am

I have serious problems with scientists like Mike Lockwood who keep the ball of the climate blame game in the field of human causes.
He serves a doctrine based on lies. And we know it.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/miklos-zagoni-explains-miskolczis.html

Sven
May 5, 2009 7:04 am

Sorry, one last time on this other topic. Dr. Spencer has his own explanation for the discrepancy between RSS and UAH here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
But I think that this still does not explain the discrepancy with AMSU-A daily data…

May 5, 2009 7:04 am

For the first time, I think I have something interesting to offer on the subject!
Many of you may be aware of Rhodes W. Fairbridge’s paper on King-Hele Cycle. I was not, and I’m finding it fascinating.
Thanks to my colleague Arch Crawford.
Check it out if you have time:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm

cassandraclub
May 5, 2009 7:06 am

Preemptive denial, that’s quite a change from the usual preemptive exxageration ( 2 – 4 degrees Centigrade by 2100).
That CO2 is 50 to 60% higher doens’t mean a thing.
50 to 60% of nothing is still nothing.

D. King
May 5, 2009 7:12 am

“preemptive denial”
Bart Simpson could learn a thing or two from these guys!

Pamela Gray
May 5, 2009 7:13 am

I officially deny both sides of the debate. Both sides are debating the size of a knat’s ass. The most either can do (CO2 or Sun) is ever so slightly exaggerate the swings of natural oscillations. If we want to win this debate, we must continue to talk about the Earth’s oceans, trade winds, and the Coriolis. The rest just doesn’t factor into weather pattern variation to the extent that it should drive anything other than a silly argument over the size of a knat’s ass.
Here is just one official discussion of oceanic oscillations. These are the articles that deserve reprint.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

Pamela Gray
May 5, 2009 7:14 am

“G”nat. My bad.

Chris D.
May 5, 2009 7:15 am

With Mexico having been all but shut down for several days, it might be interesting to see what the local CO2 levels have been surrounding the largest cities and what temps have been there. Of course, temps couldn’t be directly attributed to GHG changes since activity in general has been curatailed. Maybe rural stations would be worth looking at. Just a thought.

May 5, 2009 7:15 am

Alan the Brit (22:49:37) :
I was very impressed by the vidoe clip showing the geology conference round from Oslo on Climaterealist.com. It was wonderful to see several real geologists very sceptical of the AGW argument, even one or two honourable pro AGW statements by others, 66minutes of it, but who was that last guy with his sycophantic grovelling with his head so far up the Norwegian Environemnt Minister’s errr………….

Do you have a direct link? I cannot find it on Climaterealist.com (I may be blind…).

Chris D.
May 5, 2009 7:17 am

Uh oh. That ice just made a little uptick.

Dave Middleton
May 5, 2009 7:19 am

Duplicate post…Dave Middleton (06:23:07)…Due to Operator Error.
First post has the link; the second one doesn’t. Otherwise they are duplicates. Sorry about that. I thought the spam filter had blocked the Science Mag link.

Pamela Gray
May 5, 2009 7:20 am

I posted earlier in another thread that weather pattern variation may be better discussed as a % risk occurrence within a certain time table in a way similar to current earthquake risk projections. So here is one such paper that does or proposes to do just that. We should be examining these papers and giving them top billing here.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Enfield_Cid-Serrano_2006.pdf

Mark Bowlin
May 5, 2009 7:22 am

Preemptive denial is nothing new. My 7 year old son uses that approach regularly — it’s my cue to start looking for what he’s done wrong.

Cassandra King
May 5, 2009 7:23 am

Ian Cooper,
Many thanks for the high praise, your kind words are indeed welcome, more so coming from one with such obvious wit and intelligence(typical in Kiwis).
Best wishes to all sceptics in Gods own country.
Cassie K.

apb
May 5, 2009 7:29 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal”
It’s interesting that science has become PC enough to encourage the mentally-challenged to become ‘scientists.’
What’s worse is the insidious nature of indoctrination taking place. Channels many proles would consider ‘respectable’ (i.e. NatGeo, History) have woven warming references into shows unrelated to climate. Thinking people are now trapped between gummint and scientific opportunists, and the proles that believe them.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…

jack mosevich
May 5, 2009 7:37 am

OT: Catliners re-supplied. Aircraft was able to land safely:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

J. Bob
May 5, 2009 7:39 am

Interesting item from the evil money grubbing Wall Street Journal-April 30th, 2009. It appears new significant natural gas fields have been discovered (not In Washington D.C.) but in northern LA and in the northern Appalachian region. Looks like the sun is telling us, we may need it.

hunter
May 5, 2009 7:39 am

Hansen ridiculed this solar idea as recently as this year. In a talk in Houston to a Geology professional society, he dismissed this and other problems.
There was, at one point, a .pdf of the slides he used available on the internet.
The site is no longer valid, oddly enough.

May 5, 2009 7:46 am

Frank Lanser: Your graph included the Hoyt & Schatten TSI reconstruction. It’s obsolete, as noted in this post here at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/
Regards.

Just Want Truth...
May 5, 2009 7:50 am

“Mark Bowlin (07:22:45) :
Preemptive denial is nothing new. My 7 year old son uses that approach regularly — it’s my cue to start looking for what he’s done wrong.”
Nice point.

Just Want Truth...
May 5, 2009 7:51 am

“Mark Bowlin (07:22:45) :”
He shoots, he scores!

May 5, 2009 7:53 am

Frank Lansner (06:32:52) :
Ya know, buddy, our sun is saving for its retirement, it uses to do it at Sea´s Bank, not in the Air´s Mall where it “dissipates” rapidly… (more rapidly than your wife does it)

J. Peden
May 5, 2009 7:56 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
So I guess Lockwood is not going to start worrying until the solar output gets to 50% lower than normal?

May 5, 2009 7:59 am

Sven (07:04:18) :
Sorry, one last time on this other topic. Dr. Spencer has his own explanation for the discrepancy between RSS and UAH here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
But I think that this still does not explain the discrepancy with AMSU-A daily data

You’re right. The RSS v UAH explanation is fine, but the low anomaly should be reflected in the AMSU raw temperatures.

hunter
May 5, 2009 8:06 am

Since when did a scientist whose job is to measure the sun become an expert on the CO2 AGW situation?
But since these solar guys are the same ones who dissmissed the early reports that this solar cycle was not going to be as the *consensus* predicted. Maybe the wise scientist would limit their comments to acknowledging that the *consensus* was wrong and that we have a lot more to learn?

Cassandra King
May 5, 2009 8:06 am

I have just sent an email to mike Lockwood asking him to post a reply on this blog or contact Anthony Watts with regard to making a guest post where he could expand on his obviously very confusing reported comments, may I suggest that others may like to invite Mike Lockwood to clarify his position on this site using the most diplomatic language possible of course!
His email address is m.lockwood [ -at – ] rl.ac.uk perhaps if he is invited to respond by enough individuals made in the most respectful manner he might actually take the time to post here?

Alan Chappell
May 5, 2009 8:13 am

And the Gov-ment still don’t beleave? But first you got to get them people to shut up and learn to listen, and maybe read.

Stephen Goldstein
May 5, 2009 8:14 am

Perhaps my skeptic questions have been raised by others but I’ll take Lockwood’s “I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal . . . ” as an invitation to raise them anew.
First, what period of time corresponds to the “normal” level of CO2? That would be a hundred or so years ago?
Then I have to wonder . . . what would the conditions have been BEFORE fossil fuels were formed?
Today’s coal fields were laid down over several geologic periods, right? And that carbon came from atmospheric CO2, right?
(You could say that coal was Gaia’s carbon sequestration scheme? 😉 )
So my questions are, just considering coal (’cause I’m still wondering about the possible abiotic origin of petroleum):
1) How much CO2 would have been in the atmosphere at, say, the beginning of the most productive coal forming period (I think that’s like 100 to 200 million years ago)?
2) Using the current climate models, what would have been the corresponding surface temperatures and how does that predicted value correspond to what, clearly, were temperatures quite suitable for plant growth?
3) Given the prediction/concerns that high atmospheric CO2 will lead to oceans too acidic for today’s marine flora and fauna, given the estimates levels of atmospheric CO2, how acidic would the oceans have been at that time?
4) To the extent that there is material overlap between the supposed period of highly acidic oceans and acid intolerant marine species, how to AGW proponents reconcile the apparent conflict?
Just wondering . . . .

May 5, 2009 8:15 am

Why have we come to this: “preemptive denial”?
Applied material science has brought Man wonderous inventions — this is due to the harsh and demanding law of the laboratory: Observation & measurement talks — unsupported hypothesis walks.
But in “sciences” where the “law of the laboratory” has been pushed aside for fashionable theories that can’t be tested in a laboratory, all kinds of speculation has crept into the disciplines, covered with a fig leaf of mathematical gloss.
Climate Science and astronomy both have limited utility of the laboratory and rely heavily on abstract mathematical theory fed into computers.
Math is a language — it can be used for fanciful fiction just as easy as rigorous logic. And what is worse is that the “authors” claim they are “writing” non-fiction when in reality they are “writing” fiction of the most fanciful sort.
“preemptive denial” — have they gone bonkers?
Yup.

Frank K.
May 5, 2009 8:19 am

J. Peden (07:56:43) :
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
So I guess Lockwood is not going to start worrying until the solar output gets to 50% lower than normal?

Great point. The issue that disturbs me is that, as presented like this in a mainstream publication, an astoundingly inept statement like Lockwood’s probably sounds reasonable to the average person, not realizing that he’s comparing apples with oranges…

SteveSadlov
May 5, 2009 8:24 am

“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens
=============================================
Looking at the entire spectrum is the key. What do the changes in output across the entire solar bandwidth do to the Earth – geophysically, climatologically, and biologically?

Mark Wagner
May 5, 2009 8:27 am

CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down
sorry if this is a rehash, but 50% higher CO2 has been reported to = 1.3 W/m2 of forcing. Oh the other hand, 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of change in solar output comes out to “only”…uhm… 1.3 W/m2.
Isn’t he rebuting his own argument?

leebert
May 5, 2009 8:32 am

The TSI/UV question keeps coming up.
In 2001Drew Shindell (NASA / GISS) published a study showing a link between the LIA & the Maunder minimum, the causal source being lower UV heating of the stratosphere & upper troposphere, slowing maritime trade winds that moderate inland winters. Leif Svalgaard & I have debated this one, Leif indicated that studies of historical UV levels suggest UV variance has been too small relative to the -0.3 to -0.4 degrC amount required to drive the LIA.
But in a recent article (sorry, I can’t find the citation) Hathaway said something to the effect that the net decrease in TSI may be in the range of -0.3 degrC, predominantly from a cooler stratosphere due to decreased UV-B & UV-C. This reinforces other researchers who have indicated a -0.1 degrC decrease in UV heating since the mid 1990’s.
However one of NASA’s recent articles also indicated an ongoing 0.02% decrease in visible TSI, which in terms of Kelvin would be -.055 degrC (273 * .0002). That’s in addition to the cooler stratosphere, bringing us to an ongoing -0.155 degrC effect.
During the same period global temperatures have stabilized – global warming has stalled. Could it be that a -0.15 degrC TSI change is offsetting the same amount of greenhouse gas heating while at the same time Co2 levels increased dramatically? If the sun’s slackening is predominant in causing this temperature plateau, then a 1.5 degree/century equivalent GHG effect is no apocalypse.
However if aerosols are masking more than a few tenths of a degree C, then the total net negative offset from lower TSI & aerosols could bring us closer to 1.7 – 2.0 degree/century equivalent GHG effect being masked.
If increased cosmic rays (CR) somehow play some role in cloud cover then we have another variable that changes our interpretation of both other factors and current trend. If CRs are also lending to an ongoing temperature plateau it could indicate how much more dominant the sun is — in both rising temperatures in the last century as well as moderating GHG effects now.
I’m not very AGW – I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of a CO2 apocalypse while noting a great deal of climate model invalidations – but this is the kind of reasoning and explanations we need to be getting from NASA, Nat’l Geo & the rest. What warming CO2 causes is going to saturate and so far we haven’t seen evidence of an a significant water vapor feedback / climate sensitivity in the seas or air.
What we need are better data and analysis on TSI levels, cosmic rays effects & aerosols, not facile statements about keeping the climate vigil, etc.

John H
May 5, 2009 8:33 am

Well done, Pamela Gray (07:20:43) :
I believe your NOAA link
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Enfield_Cid-Serrano_2006.pdf
is how Dr.Jane Lubchenco (new head of NOAA) fabricated this science:
Lubchenco, “climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to help scientists know what the wind patterns will be for the next 100 years, to help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms.”
Of course this is Lubchenco’s MO.
As an OSU professor and researcher Lubchenco reported a link between ocean dead zones and AGW when her own research team found none.
In fact her own research team
“cautioned that at this point it is unclear what — if any — link the dead zone has to climate change.
That’s Lubchenco’s own research.
Yet Lubchenco reported and propagated the fabricated link between ocean dead zones and AGW.
And immediately it was accepted around the globe without any science.
Coming full circle, this last Saturday night, our former Oregon Secratary of State Bill Bradbury, in a power point presentation, was touting Lubchenco and the link to a large group of students at Lake Oswego High school.
AGW BS travels far and wide while integrity vanishes.

Larry T
May 5, 2009 8:36 am

I have been following solar output since i was working with NASA in the late 1960’s and was predicting an upturn in temperature when Hansen, et al were predicting a new ice age. Now i am predicting a solar minimum of little ice age proportion or worse and I will be very happy to be proven wrong because it would be hell to live thru.

Alex
May 5, 2009 8:43 am

I was reading National Geographics from the 1930s/40s and 50s in the local University library and it is amazing how back then the articles were interesting and didn’t appear to take sides or spread nonsense. It was about opening the eyes of people to the different places/cultures and scientific advancements that were unfolding and being discovered at the time.
Now it has been reduced to adverts and propaganda. A sad time for scientific literature indeed.
To say that “Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
-is probably one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in such a publication. What a shame.

bsneath
May 5, 2009 9:01 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
What a disingenuous manipulative liar.
CO2, as a percent of the atmosphere, is up a mere one-one hundredth of one percent, from 300 to 400 PARTS – PER – MILLION.
Put that in your perspective and smoke it!
Even the “is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal” statement is total bull malarky.
This Lockwood guy should be fired.

kim
May 5, 2009 9:23 am

It’s going to be interesting to watch the rhetoric from the great scientists among the alarmists as the realization dawns that the jig is up, and the public can see through the hoax.
Personally, I believe that a lot of these scientists were honest, and only a few corrupt from the beginning. I’d love to see a timeline sometime about when the realization dawns on them that they maybe were wrong, and when they publicly admit it.
==============================================

Robert Wood
May 5, 2009 9:24 am

The Sun is quiet …. but the Earth is STILL spinning out of control!

Arn Riewe
May 5, 2009 9:28 am

Mark Wagner (08:27:11) :
“sorry if this is a rehash, but 50% higher CO2 has been reported to = 1.3 W/m2 of forcing. Oh the other hand, 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of change in solar output comes out to “only”…uhm… 1.3 W/m2. ”
No it wasn’t a rehash and thanks! I waded through dozens of comment looking for somebody to post this kind of info. This is the info that really puts it into perspective. And please note that CO2 increase is closer to 30% than 50%.
Dr. Lockwood’s comments are either deceptive or naive. Guess what my conclusion would be?

bsneath
May 5, 2009 9:34 am

I am curious if it would upset you if you were to learn that Mike Lockwood intentionally misrepresented the facts to your reporter when he stated:
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
I suggest that Mr. Lockwood should have provided you with this more accurate perspective:
As a percentage of the total number of molecules in our atmosphere, CO2 has increased (in rough numbers) from 300 to 400 parts per million. Therefore CO2 has increased by 100 parts per million which is equal to a one one-hundredth of one percent higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.
(If you do not believe me, please follow the math.)
A. 400 ppm – 300 ppm = 100 ppm
B. 100 ppm / 1,000,000 ppm = .0001 (one one-thousand)
C. .0001 / 100 = 0.01 Percent = one one-hundredth of one percent
Therefore, a “few hundredths of one percent down” in solar output and “one one-hundredth of one percent up” in CO2 atmospheric concentrations are relevant comparisons and are reasons for further scientific study.
It is a sad and tragic state of affairs when scientists and the media conspire to withhold the truth in order to further their “noble and just cause”. It is one of the signs that our society has decayed. If “the end justifies the means” in climate research, should it not also hold true say when interrogating terrorists, or when prosecuting criminals or for just about any cause that is just and noble in the eyes of those who are in power?.
From my many years of experience with similar matters, I am quite certain that your organization will do nothing to further investigate, retract, or clarify Mr. Lockwood’s misrepresentation, because to do so would run counter to your strong desire for a CO2 based AGW scenario. Please prove me wrong.
I can only hope that someone in your organization has the integrity and the courage to seek the truth rather than to promote an agenda by using deception and lies.
Sent to National Geographic – nothing will likely come out of it, but I feel a lot better for expressing my concerns!

Wobble
May 5, 2009 9:35 am

>>“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.<<
SKEPTICS Leap forward?????
Wow. That’s rich.

Bill P
May 5, 2009 9:37 am

It is fascinating to watch a new cycle taking hold. Just like Leif’s graphs show: spots of new interest, appearing sporadically in the greater latitudes, gradually consolidating, gaining prominence, and quickly gravitating to the center where they at first overlap, then completely replace the old cycle events. Who could have predicted? Maybe in a year or two there will be just just a few faint, desultory remnats of the old cycle to remind us…
And no, I’m not talking about solar cycles 23 and 24.
That National Geographic is running this article is incredibly sweet, however small and meek their observation that the sun might be affecting Earth’s climate:

In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth’s climate than most theories have predicted.

But there is also all that audible teeth-gnashing going on…
– in the article itself

In the meantime, (Mike Lockwood) and other experts caution against relying on future solar lulls to help mitigate global warming.
“There are many uncertainties,” said Jose Abreu, a doctoral candidate at the Swiss government’s research institute Eawag.
“We don’t know the sensitivity of the climate to changes in solar intensity. In my opinion, I wouldn’t play with things I don’t know.”

– In a nearby link: “Get the facts about Global Warming”, like a lifeline to tow us back to more comfortable, familiar National Geographic fare – industrial smokestacks, melting glaciers, and dire warnings of species extermination, rising seas and rampantly northward-spreading disease.
– and in the side-bar articles of the editors.
National Geographic should be ashamed to make any claim upon scientific objectivity.
Other ages took note of similar transitions in thinking, comparing them to the movement of a spot on the rim of a wheel, rising and falling as it tracks across the horizon. It would seem certain big ideas have a life like this, ascending and falling out of favor. Hopefully AGW has seen its ascendancy.

May 5, 2009 9:43 am

This may have already been said, but what of the fact that there have already been several high-latitude, new-cycle sunspots (proven by their magnetic polarity) in the past few months, hinting that while the sun is indeed in a very deep solar minimum, it is not going to last much longer. so….. the very idea that this decrease in the x-ray and UV output of the sun is powerful enough to start a little ice age, or that it has been/will be prolonged enough to do so has already kind of been shot down. spaceweather.com
Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so needs to have their head examined, as I believe they will find it firmly stuck in the sand of [snip].

delecologist28
May 5, 2009 9:52 am

WOW, very intreuging especially seeing how I leardned this in physics class this semsters, as to pertain to the maximas and minima in Youngs Double Blind Experiment, as well as the Little Ice Age. Which I aslo happened to learn in Ecology class, which was for 350 yeras. Climate has been relativley cooloer the past 1000 years and This may have to do with global warming. Oh I love my field!!!

May 5, 2009 9:52 am

leebert (08:32:57) :
The TSI/UV question keeps coming up.
UV and TSI vary with the sunspot cycle. There are good reasons to believe the sunspot number in the past was underestimated and that SSN (and therefore TSI and UV) in the 18th and 19th centuries was comparable to the 20th century. What influence UV can have on the Earth’s temperature would therefore have worked its magic during the 18th and 19th centuries as well as in the 20th. Apart from my own work on this [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf ]
you might take a look at the independent confirmation fro Ca K-line measurements initiated by Peter Foukal:
http://www.leif.org/research/Foukal-F107-Rz.pdf
Luca Bertello and I are giving a presentation on the Mt Wilson Ca K data and the sunspot number calibration at the upcoming Solar Physics Division [SPD] of the AAS meeting:
(Leif Svalgaard, Luca Bertello [MWO], Ed Cliver)
Three independent datasets support the finding that a discontinuous change of ~20% was introduced in the Zurich Sunspot Number, Rz, when Max Waldmeier took over the production of Rz. The range of the diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field (the East-component) is controlled by the EUV-induced conductivity of the dayside ionosphere and indicates a 23% increase of Rz from 1946 on. The Greenwich Sunspot Areas (and the Group Sunspot Number derived from the Greenwich data) indicate a 17.5% increase of Rz. A CaII K-line index derived from recently digitized Mount Wilson Observatory spectroheliograms indicates an 18.5% increase in Rz. Friedli [2005] notes that “The new observer-team in Zurich was thus relatively inexperienced and Waldmeier himself feared that his scale factor could vary”. We suggest that his fear was not unfounded and that the Zurich Sunspot Number be increased by 20% before 1946.
——
We take this in small steps. We already know that the Group Sunspot Number is too low by some 40% before ~1880 based on the geomagnetic data that the above abstract validate. Ken Schatten and I are looking into a joint paper on this.
It has been suggested that I do a post of this. It would be good to wait until after the SPD meeting [it is June 14-18] so we can have some reactions from whatever ‘reactionaries’ might come out of the woodwork.

Alan the Brit
May 5, 2009 9:54 am

Carsten Arnholm, Norway:-)
Sorry no direct link for me either.
Try going back on to climaterealist.com. The first page should have a You Tube clip of Senator Inhofe running for 23min 13 secs. Scroll down to bottom of page & click on p2. There are a series of mini clips of several of the speakers, but there is one that says ‘watch the hole thing’!
Hope it works but it is there.
Let me know how you get on!
AtB

May 5, 2009 9:59 am

Pierre Gosselin (03:31:00) :
QUESTION:
Why has South America been continuously projected to have cooler than normal temps, and has so for the last several months?
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
Is it that the Pacific and Atlantic are keeping it cool?

One of the reasons is the oceans. But you must consider (as in antarctica too) two climate zones, one east and the other west of the andes mountains chain.
When winter comes, for example, all those green colored areas(in the graphic you linked), which are above 9000 ft. high (3000 meters high) some inhabited places reach temperatures down to -25°C (as in Puno, Peru).
These years we are having “friaje” (pronounced: freeahhes) “cooling” up on the sierras (highlands) during wintertime. But to clarify it to you a bit more.
Here in Lima (Peru’s capital), we now have from 22 to 24°C right now, then, if you drive one hour and a half (it will depend on traffic!) east you can reach an altitude of 15000 (fifteen thousand feet) high, where it usually snows during summertime and freezes in wintertime.

Jim Papsdorf
May 5, 2009 9:59 am

ER Smith
“And ozone being the major (and nearly only) thing blocking the 9-10 micron IR band. So the IR windowshade is going up…”
I am having trouble verifying your contention that ozone blocks IR [I do not see it in Wckipedia], could you please give me a source ?
Many thanks.

Frank Lansner
May 5, 2009 10:36 am

@Bob Tisdale:
Thankyou very much for info! I will try to digest your article, its seems quiet loaded with information 🙂
I hope then, that a good solar activity source is available if not Hoyt and Schatten is valid.
And by the way, thanks for many super interesting and relevant graphs every now and then!
K.R. Frank

Gary P
May 5, 2009 10:38 am

I have been trying to figure out what the dramatic drop in UV and x-rays could do to the radiation balance of the upper atmosphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-ionosphere-drops-to-a-new-low/
One thing that would happen is that the upper atmosphere contracts and becomes more dense. This would mean more molecular collisions and sharing of the thermal energy. A CO2 molecule in the ground state could be excited by a collision with a N2 molecule and the upper atmosphere would effectively radiate more energy because N2 is a poor radiator compared to CO2. Okay now I need a (shudder) model to estimate the net effect.
Perhaps it acts like insulation. The fluffier it is, the greater the insulation value. A denser atmosphere is more conductive. Normal insulation limits conduction and convection. I do not know if it works for radiation, but the collisional effect would be real. I would love a reference. This is fascinating stuff.

gary gulrud
May 5, 2009 10:51 am

“Putting something into perspective requires context”
Lockwood says that “decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down”. Obviously he is minimizing the decline, characterized in terms of TSI. The secular variability from a given Rmax to Rmin is believed to be approximately 0.1% which he, no doubt would say justifies calling the current decline 0.05% from some Rmax, likely that of 24 still to come.
What the decline might be over a century or two has not been measured by the same standard and is therefore not in fact known.
More importantly, it has been pointed out before(and ignored repeatedly) that TSI isn’t the measurement that interests. TSI is a measure of ‘radiation pressure’, literally a count of the number of photons.
We are interested in the energy of any photons captured by the atmosphere and surface. The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. The photons received are roughly 40% IR, 40% visible light, 20% UV and small intermittent numbers of X-Rays.
The reduction in variability in the TSI measurements(note diagram of SORCE in Anthony’s recent post) is indicative of a reduction, in particular, in solar flares since the spring of 2007. During these flares UV radiation pressure can double. By contrast, solar flares continued throughout the 23 minimum of 1996.
This paucity of UV variability is responsible for the current compact Ionosphere(noted in an WUWT article last fall); there is insufficient UV to heat it to the normal doubling of its size.
Lockwood and his professional allies know all this but prefer we, the revenue source, do not.

May 5, 2009 10:52 am

Gary P (10:38:52) :
One thing that would happen is that the upper atmosphere contracts and becomes more dense. This would mean more molecular collisions and sharing of the thermal energy.
The upper atmosphere has a density 1/1,000,000 of the air density at the surface, so can expand and contract as it wants without much effect lower down.

May 5, 2009 10:56 am

Frank Lansner (10:36:55) :
I hope then, that a good solar activity source is available if not Hoyt and Schatten is valid.
Frank, there some better ones at my website http://www.leif.org/research. Scroll down to:
770 TSI (Reconstructions).xls (TSI Reconstructions 1700-present, 2008) [as text, as PDF]
then download your preferred format.

UK Sceptic
May 5, 2009 11:07 am

Slightly O/T
A dairy company in Garstang, UK, a few miles from where I live, has been granted planning permission for a 127m high wind turbine:
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/blackpoolnews/Cheese-firm-smiling-after-turbine.5233719.jp
This monster will be almost as high as Blackpool Tower (158m):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Blackpool_tower_from_central_pier_ferris_wheel_.jpg/800px-Blackpool_tower_from_central_pier_ferris_wheel_.jpg
This comes at a time when a Cumbrian wind farm (about 60 miles away) is about to be uprooted and replaced with a proposed nuclear reactor because, let’s be honest here, wind turbines are not very efficient and cost a fortune.
We allready have several large windfarms in the Lancaster/Wyre/Fylde area including a very large one just offshore at Fleetwood. None of them were operational during the recent cold snap making them less than useless.
Companies are allowed to erect these monsters to offset their carbon footprint and therefore pay less for carbon credits. Of course, they will still be churning out just as much CO2 as ever they do to say nothing of the methane produced by the cows whose milk they process into butter, pasteurised milk, cream and cheese. Naturally, having the bloody thing in the middle of a rural (officially greenbelt) location won’t damage the area at all.
Of course, there will be a huge grant from the taxpayers to build the thing adding insult to injury. So in effect, taxpayers will actually be footing a major part of the bill in order to allow a private company to reduce its carbon tax. Does that make sense to you?
Me neither.

Black Flag
May 5, 2009 11:30 am

I love it!
50% of a completely irrelevant trace gas is meaningful
But a fraction of 1% of something massively powerful is nothing
Mike Lockwood is a mathematical moron.

Tyler
May 5, 2009 11:35 am

“In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth’s climate than most theories have predicted.”
R U serious??? In National Geographic. That’s like a local weather report saying:
“Later today there will be periods of darkness, it will get colder, followed by light again around 6 AM followed by a temporary warming trend.”
Total insanity.

leebert
May 5, 2009 11:40 am

Leif did thusly screed:

UV and TSI vary with the sunspot cycle. There are good reasons to believe the sunspot number in the past was underestimated and that SSN (and therefore TSI and UV) in the 18th and 19th centuries was comparable to the 20th century. What influence UV can have on the Earth’s temperature would therefore have worked its magic during the 18th and 19th centuries as well as in the 20th.

Leif, I’ll review those links when I get a chance, thanks much!
I very much enjoy dropping by Jan Janssens’ Solaemon website & watch the steady progression of the spotless days evolution graph. ( http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution ). This ongoing trend established its track early & looked to start edging toward the lower 2nd SD of SC’s #10 – 15 (which it has… ;-).
Now to my layman’s eyes, Janssens’ chart has continued to speak volumes about a change in solar regime & Jan provided an excellent predictive trendcasting instrument. No hindcasting required!
Now why the heck Nat’l Geo & NASA can’t cover the sun as well as Janssens can, beats me! I know historical trendcasting isn’t the end all to be all, but by golly Janssens has kept hitting home runs with that chart.
On the other note, WRT to facular UV & the LIA, one of my quibbles with Drew Shindell’s study is the question of maritime winters. The historical record I believe shows – perhaps anecdotally – that the British Isles endured some very harsh winters during the LIA as well and yet Shindell’s study established the claim that the decline of maritime trade winds during winter had its dominant effect in continental interiors. So wouldn’t island nations have been exempt from such a modest decline in the trades?
Thanks again….

crosspatch
May 5, 2009 11:49 am

Looks like STEREO has turned up a rather large Cycle 24 spot coming into view. Should be visible from Earth in a few days if it survives long enough.

May 5, 2009 11:54 am

leebert (11:40:59) :
I very much enjoy dropping by Jan Janssens’
Yes, Jan runs a nice site. I don’t particularly like the spotless days graph as it misstates the variability of this. On pages 6 and 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf I have plotted each cycle separately and it is very hard [for me, at least] to see the split into low cycles and high cycles. The variation is just too great. There is, of course, no doubt that there are many spotless days right now.
On the other note, WRT to facular UV & the LIA, one of my quibbles with Drew Shindell’s study
The whole of that study is marred [and all conclusion suspect] by Shindell’s use of Hoyt%Schatten’s obselote TSI reconstruction.

84rules
May 5, 2009 11:57 am

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said.
*********************************************************************
But if CO2 is 50-60% higher and solar output is down so insignificantly, then that should mean temperatures should still be going up, not down.
Yet again, global warming theory fails its own test.

Cassandra King
May 5, 2009 12:04 pm

Jeremyj5000,
Isloated sunspecks/spots tell us little of when the minimum will end and to suggest that these islolated sunspecks/spots have in your words ‘shot down’ the theory of a prolonged period of cooling is perhaps premature to say the least, the phrase ‘shot down’ could be used IF solar activity suddenly ramps up quickly but not before I think.
You seem keen on telling us that your local area has seen changes proving man made global warming yet you omit to tell us what these local changes consist of, many here have noticed the very opposite of warming in their own areas and yet you seem to accuse them all of being wrong while you are right?
The climate changes, it has always changed and it will always change, we exist and thrive in a state of change, the earth does not recognise climate stasis and neither do we.
The earths regions heat up and cool down, they experience often drastic changes then revert back to previous states, the planet enjoys what may be termed a natural cyclic climate variation based on its cyclic cosmic journey round the sun which travels round the galaxy which travels through the universe. There is still no solid proof that a trace gas in the atmosphere has any effect on earths climate and even the IPCC has not found the causal link.
The fossil record is full of clear evidence of huge changes in earths climate and there is some evidence that solar minimums and maximums have a direct correlation with warming and cooling cycles, you mention in passing that anyone who doesnt see the world through your eyes has their ‘heads in the sand’?
Can you follow the accusation with some facts to back up your case please, would you care to expand on your theory of local changes proving AGW/MMCC and would you expain further as to why you feel confident that the current solar minimum will soon end?
You seem to pronounce that anyone who doesnt see the link between natural climate cycles and a supposed man made runaway global warming caused by the emission of a harmless trace gas is somehow mentally ill “needs their heads examining”? Are you a mental health professional with suitable qualifications to pronounce who is mentally ill based on their opinions on issues of science?
May I ask you to reconsider your position and return with a more reasoned and rational argument please, if you have evidence then please present it so we may consider your wisdom and make our own free choices as what to believe.

Jeremy
May 5, 2009 12:09 pm

You know, when I read through all the comments here, I thought you guys were exaggerating and kidding with the whole “pre-emptive denial” thing…
Then I clicked the story link.
Oh my god… I think we’ve essentially already started diving into a new dark age (socially anyway) when major publications are saying that scientists are pulling that sh*t.

Kath
May 5, 2009 12:09 pm

AGW spin
(from Windmills of your mind)
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

anna v
May 5, 2009 12:41 pm

jeremyj5000 (09:43:27) :
Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so needs to have their head examined, as I believe they will find it firmly stuck in the sand of [snip].
Today, May 5th, in Athens Greece, my apartment building turned on the heat tonight. It is the first time in my lifetime this has happened, and I am 69 yrs old. Heating is stopped the first week of April usually.
So yes, there is a change to cooler at the moment. The sea surface anomaly also has 1.5 degrees cooler for the Mediterranean in my region. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
How is this for anecdotal?

bsneath
May 5, 2009 12:52 pm

Jeremy, I could not agree more. I was taught in my high school civics class that what made free societies superior to totalitarian regimes is that we believed “the end does not justify the means”. It appears that this civic lesson has been long lost on our recent crop of scientists and journalists. Does anyone in the AGW community have the courage to stand up and do what is right?
I doubt it would be Gavin Schmidt who censors comments when they are too logical to dispute and run contrary to his agenda. It certainly looks like it will never be Mr. Lockwood either.

May 5, 2009 1:05 pm

Jeremy (06:05:57) :
So the AGW crowd are now the “denialists”!

Haven’t they been that all the time? They have been denying natural climate variability in general and the LIA in particular. They have denied nature’s influence and replaced it by man(n)!

May 5, 2009 1:31 pm

Cassandra King (12:04:00) :
Jeremyj5000,
Iolated sunspecks/spots tell us little of when the minimum will end and to suggest that these islolated sunspecks/spots have in your words ’shot down’ the theory of a prolonged period of cooling is perhaps premature to say the least, the phrase ’shot down’ could be used IF solar activity suddenly ramps up quickly but not before I think.
As I have noted, there are good reasons to believe that solar activity [and geomagnetic activity] in the past (e.g. 1845-1875, or back in the 1770-1780s] was as vigorous as during the 20th century. Most people [and researchers] believe that the temperatures in the earlier periods were considerably lower than during the 20th century, so perhaps the solar connection is not so strong as assumed by many [especially as counterweight to AGW].

May 5, 2009 1:52 pm

AGW spin
(from Windmills of your mind)
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

All because of the dizziness caused by rejecting CO2. When properly exhaled part of it must remain in the lungs. They are in need of CO2!! 🙂
Or…perhaps, because, other stuff they surely inhale,
whitish in colour,
from hidden jungles brought
secret polluters they are!
cause for these strange powders to get
fossil fuels ought to use
and sulphuric acid,
and CO2 of limestone out,
and many logs, many forests, burn
for their fears to appease
and whether in science
or politics, succeed.

May 5, 2009 1:57 pm

Alan the Brit (09:54:30) :
Sorry no direct link for me either.
Try going back on to climaterealist.com. The first page should have a You Tube clip of Senator Inhofe running for 23min 13 secs. Scroll down to bottom of page & click on p2. There are a series of mini clips of several of the speakers, but there is one that says ‘watch the hole thing’!
Hope it works but it is there.

Alan,
I managed to work out a direct link:
http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520
I have not yet managed to see it all (it lasts some 66 minutes), but as Henrik Svensmark was one of the speakers I will surely see it through (I had to resort to Windows to see it, it would not show on my Linux box).
Let me know how you get on!
The environment minister is not the Norwegian one. It is the Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard.
The very last speaker (last 5 minutes) is Dr. Eystein Jansen from the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?pid=47&kat=5&lang=2
(I don’t care too much for what he said….)

Alexej Buergin
May 5, 2009 2:10 pm

If you ask me, how much the sun influences the climate, I would answer 100% (since uranium has no influence, and every other effect is a direct or indirect contribution from the sun).

Mrs Whatsit
May 5, 2009 2:11 pm

“Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so needs to have their head examined, as I believe they will find it firmly stuck in the sand of [snip].”
Jeremyj5000, I think if you stick around for a while you will find very few people here of any persuasion who don’t believe that climate changes. The disagreement is not about whether it changes — of course it does, no matter what we see anecdotally. The disagreement is about how much, if at all, that change is influenced by man.

Mick
May 5, 2009 2:52 pm

On Science Daily today………
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
Worth a comment?

Britannic no-see-um
May 5, 2009 2:57 pm

Lockwood’s comments in this National Geographic piece are extremely depressing. Track back to an outstanding scientist willing to stand up and report excitedly on the results from the Ulysses Mission about startling recent changes to solar magnetic fields, etc. and speculating on their poorly understood influence on the Earth’s climate. It remains very poorly understood. He should be factoring that in to these statements but perhaps when elevated to senior academician status with such humdrum chores as managing budgets one has a different perspective.

crosspatch
May 5, 2009 2:57 pm

“if you stick around for a while you will find very few people here of any persuasion who don’t believe that climate changes.”
Exactly. The notion that climate has ever been particularly “stable” is just nuts. History is full of accounts of droughts, floods, famine, good years, etc. In North America it appears that it is about a 60 year cycle and our “average” temperatures are only generated across a 30 year sample. You probably need to get NOAA to change “average” temperatures to a 60 year span in order to get a better read of reality.
Climate is ALWAYS changing. The early 1900’s saw a significant recovery from the Little Ice Age … climate changed faster and to a greater degree from 1830 to 1930 than it did(will) from 1910 to 2010.

Gary P
May 5, 2009 3:13 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:52:45) :
I understand that the top of the atmosphere is very rarefied, you state one millionth of sea level density.
I seem to recall that the ozone layer, which has some significance, would have a sea level thickness of 3 mm. Well 3 mm x 1,000,000 = 3 km. So if we think about the top 30 km of the atmosphere, could the large variations in uv and x-rays from the sun cause significant changes in the radiation transport?
By significant I mean something on the order of 1 watt/m^2.
I would be grateful for a reference to a paper or book on the upper atmosphere that would be good for a novice with a physics background.

May 5, 2009 3:18 pm

“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. (Get the facts about global warming.) ”
And then there’s that link above that takes you to the “Facts about Global Warming.” When you click on the link that says Science, its the usual canned sound bytes wihtout ANY real evidence! WOW!

Larry T
May 5, 2009 3:25 pm

jeremyj5000 (09:43:27) :
This may have already been said, but what of the fact that there have already been several high-latitude, new-cycle sunspots (proven by their magnetic polarity) in the past few months, hinting that while the sun is indeed in a very deep solar minimum, it is not going to last much longer
My feeling is that most of the sunspots seen of cycle 24 would not have been counted as sunspots in the historical data so if we are comparing apples and apples it could be a prolonged sunspotless time. Even counting the micro sunspots, the number of spotless days for this cycle is already in the top 10 of the historical record (recent record i think – not sure of source data). Spotless days should be declining if we were in the upward portion of cycle 24.

Editor
May 5, 2009 3:39 pm

Keep in mind that the main causes of ice ages is the Milankovitch Cycles, primarily being: Earths orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession (both axial and orbital precession), as well as the variation in the orbital plane.
Jupiter and Saturn’s tidal influence on the Sun are the main influences on long term variations in solar cycle output, as those planets orbital eccentricity varies from 0.01 up to as much as 0.09 over 40,000 and 100,000 year periods (these planets are in 5:2 resonance). They are also the primary influences on the changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricities over the same period. Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle, with minor variations depending on the other cycles as well as short term variance in the solar cycles, the cause of which we dont have a good handle on and bears further research, but the bare fact that Jupiter and Saturn have such a huge influence over long term periods should mandate that we research into what other cosmic influences may be causing the short term variations in the Sun’s output. Perhaps it is due to the inner planets collective tidal influence varying in distribution, perhaps due to the tidal influence of Uranus and/or Neptune.
Either way, Hathaway has joined Lockwood in attempting to generate a reality distortion field around the solar cycle issue:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090505-sun-quiet.html

Sean Houlihane
May 5, 2009 3:40 pm

>In my opinion, I wouldn’t play with things I don’t know.
Thats an odd opinion for a scientist. If you don’t play with it, how are you going to learn how it works?

Rob
May 5, 2009 3:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:31:52) : said,
As I have noted, there are good reasons to believe that solar activity [and geomagnetic activity] in the past (e.g. 1845-1875, or back in the 1770-1780s] was as vigorous as during the 20th century. Most people [and researchers] believe that the temperatures in the earlier periods were considerably lower than during the 20th century, so perhaps the solar connection is not so strong as assumed by many [especially as counterweight to AGW].
Or perhaps you learned experts have not as yet discovered the solar, earth, Mars link, odd that a lack of sunspots appears to bring on cooling. Maybe a lack of sunspots is just a visual indicator or not. Like Becks CO2 data Leif does not trust the early observations as it does not fit his theory which appears to be in the AGW camp.
What caused the earlier coolings ans warmings if not the sun.

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 4:11 pm

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
—————Quoted 28 times so far.—————
There are bright lights shining on Dr. Lockwood’s (latest) distortion.
I am generally suspicious of what I call “the .00001mm trick”.

Mike Bryant
May 5, 2009 4:16 pm

I know that this has probably been said better.
If everything that Al Gore and Chu say is 100% true and every doomsday scenario they portray is upon us, trying to fight the good fight of a real global warming catastrophe with the impotent weapons of collectivism is STILL a very stupid idea.
Does no one remember the story of Jamestown?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2120669/posts
Does anyone remember that WWII was won because of the releasing of capitalism that brought us from the great depression?
No matter what weather/climate we face, capitalism is the weapon of choice. I hope we won’t be thrown into a fight unarmed.

Frank Lansner
May 5, 2009 4:22 pm

Mick:
A comment: Hansen used this graph in 1988 before congress:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Hansen88.GIF
(His 1988 data was wrong).
You don come in congress over night, so since the start of temperature rise in 1977-78 Hansen only heitated very few years to claim global warming.
Now on the other hand, RSS and UAH shows approx 12 years of temperature stagnation. But this is way to fast tro say anything, we hear.
Most important: Lower solar activity, PDO shift etc makes the current stagnation and temperature fall fit in a solid scientific pattern. Therefore this development in temperature is likely to be more than random.
Finally, even more important:
The alarmist say : “You cant say that the cold will continue! because the cold could be temporary!”.
But their position is weak. They themselves claim that we will soon see warming. But they dont have the last dekade of data to support their belief.
Only the skeptics has the last decade of temperature data to support their case.

Editor
May 5, 2009 4:32 pm

Frank,
Of course there will be warming in the future, and then there will be cooling, then warming, then cooling. The natural variability and cycles are what we all here are explaining. The Hockey Team insists that the warming will always exceed the cooling, until a ‘tipping point’ is reached that depends on water vapor being a positive rather than a negative feedback.
BTW: it is claimed the drop in oil prices is due to drops in consumption due to the poor global economy. If so, then the CO2 concentrations should not have continued increasing. Can we get a comparison between fossil fuel consumption over the past 20 yrs vs CO2 concentrations?

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 4:33 pm

Pamela Gray wrote: “I officially deny both sides of the debate. Both sides are debating the size of a knat’s ass. The most either can do (CO2 or Sun) is ever so slightly exaggerate the swings of natural oscillations.”
NO. There are no “both sides debating the size of a gnat’s ass” here.
It is irrational and wrong to juxtapose the lowly CO2 against the sun, as if they were both in the same league.
They are in leagues worlds apart.
Science will most likely prove, Pamela, that you are right that the oceans are the primary driver.
As for the sun, Leif thinks maybe 10% max.
Now 10% may not be primary….or even secondary…or tertiary.
But it is not a gnat’s ass either.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

crosspatch
May 5, 2009 4:48 pm

“Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle”
Then please “perfectly” explain a couple of things, if you have the time …
Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.
Also, the periods of glaciation in this ice age have generally been getting longer and colder. Interglacials have also been getting cooler. This interglacial is cooler than then last one was, for example, though it has been a little longer.
So why does it go from maximum cold to maximum warmth? Why do we “miss” opportunities to come out of glaciations yet never seem to miss opportunities to go into one? It seems that orbital dynamics is only one of the conditions required to come out of a glacial period though seems reasonable to be what tips the balance to go into one.

May 5, 2009 5:20 pm

Mick (14:52:21) : On Science Daily today………
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
Worth a comment?
________________________________________________________________
Mick, I had to laugh at that article. It’s all about cherry picking the current decade to show a stable or cooling trend. What’s funny is the cherry picked start date (1975) of the graph that’s displayed.
I sent my daughter a graph of San Antonio temperatures (raw data) from
1975-2008 showing a trend of +17°F / Century, and asked her what was wrong with the graph.
I later sent her another graph of San Antonio temperatures from 1886-2008 showing a 0°F / Century trend.

May 5, 2009 5:20 pm

Mike Lorrey (15:39:57) :
Jupiter and Saturn’s tidal influence on the Sun are the main influences on long term variations in solar cycle output, as those planets orbital eccentricity varies from 0.01 up to as much as 0.09 over 40,000 and 100,000 year periods (these planets are in 5:2 resonance).
No matter what variations in the orbits, the planets raises only a very small tide [a fraction of a millimeter (1/25 inch = 1 mm)]
They are also the primary influences on the changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricities over the same period. Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle
These changes would happen even if the Sun’s output was absolutely constant.
You are confusing changes to the Sun with changes in how the solar input to the Earth is distributed over the surface of the Earth and the seasons.
Rob (15:45:44) :
Like Becks CO2 data Leif does not trust the early observations
The early observations are very good, it is our modern calibration of them that is incorrect.
as it does not fit his theory which appears to be in the AGW camp.
You have not grasped the AGW position. It goes like this [so listen up!]. Either there has been no climate change in the past [the Hockey Stick – no LIA, no MWP] or they accept there has been ‘climate change’. If we discount the first position as silly, then the group that accepts climate change is even more rabid in their insistence, that the sun is the driver, because ‘what else could change the climate if not the Sun’ at a time when there was no CO2 driver.
So, discounting the lunatics [‘no climate change in the past’], the remainder of the AGW crowd need the Sun badly, as they even bring forth the argument that sunspots and temps went together before ~1980, but not after [thus proving AGW].
If you want to attack AGW, do it coherently [not all that hard] and understand what the position of the enemy is beforehand.
What caused the earlier coolings and warmings if not the sun
Every complex systems has random fluctuations. Oceans store 300 times as much heat, so their currents and behavior can be substantial.

May 5, 2009 5:23 pm

Mike Lorrey (15:39:57) :
Jupiter and Saturn’s tidal influence on the Sun are the main influences on long term variations in solar cycle output, as those planets orbital eccentricity varies from 0.01 up to as much as 0.09 over 40,000 and 100,000 year periods (these planets are in 5:2 resonance).
No matter what variations in the orbits, the planets raises only a very small tide [a fraction of a millimeter (1/25 inch = 1 mm)]
They are also the primary influences on the changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricities over the same period. Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle
These changes would happen even if the Sun’s output was absolutely constant.
You are confusing changes to the Sun with changes in how the solar input to the Earth is distributed over the surface of the Earth and the seasons.
Rob (15:45:44) :
Like Becks CO2 data Leif does not trust the early observations
The early observations are very good, it is our modern calibration of them that is incorrect.
as it does not fit his theory which appears to be in the AGW camp.
You have not grasped the AGW position. It goes like this [so listen up!]. Either there has been no climate change in the past [the Hockey Stick – no LIA, no MWP] or they accept there has been ‘climate change’. If we discount the first position as silly, then the group that accepts climate change is even more rabid in their insistence, that the sun is the driver, because ‘what else could change the climate if not the Sun’ at a time when there was no CO2 driver.
So, discounting the lunatics [‘no climate change in the past’], the remainder of the AGW crowd need the Sun badly, as they even bring forth the argument that sunspots and temps went together before ~1980, but not after [thus proving AGW].
If you want to attack AGW, do it coherently [not all that hard] and understand what the position of the enemy is beforehand.
What caused the earlier coolings and warmings if not the sun
Every complex systems has random fluctuations. Oceans store 300 times as much heat, so their currents and behavior can be substantial. The AGW people have their own answer to what caused the present warming… and will say that it takes 30 years to make a trend…

Steve Keohane
May 5, 2009 5:33 pm

Frank Lansner (16:22:49) Tanks for Hansen’s 1988 graph, another one for the archives. It is strangely flat in the middle, about 1925 to 1978ish. I thought would compare it to his recent works, 1999 and 2007 for the 1880 to 1990 periods, keeping scale as accurate as possible. TSeems the guy just can’t keep his numbers straight.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2mzleg3.jpg

Nic Lonsdale
May 5, 2009 5:38 pm

Stop being rude about Mike Lockwood and his colleagues. They have wives and children to support and they know that if they promote the “wrong” theory they will become unemployed (and unemployable).
He has gone as far as he can to tell the truth and yet still keep his job. Give him some support
We have found ourselves in a position where the “Inquisition” will destroy all those who do not hold the correct views. Let him put forward his tentative hesitations about the perceived dogma and support him as he does so.

Richard deSousa
May 5, 2009 5:40 pm

The bottom line is that Hansen and his fellow travelers never predicted the decline in global temperatures beginning in 2000 to today. So their GCM are full of bovine excrement. The declining global temperatures have blind sided them and they’re now doing damage control.

May 5, 2009 5:44 pm

I haven’t read ALL the comments yet, so I hope no one else has said this:
Carbon dioxide has ranged from a low of ~220ppm to an estimated 7000ppm during the pre-Cambrian period. If you subtract 220 from 7000, you get 6780. Half of that would be 3,390. That’s a “mean”, not an average. To get an average you’d have to have reasonably accurate measurements at relatively equal periods from the earliest possible date until now. Sum the measured levels together, divide by the number of measurements, and you can get a reasonable assumption of an “average”. From data I’ve seen on this site and several others, that number would be significantly higher than 300ppm – probably closer to 1000ppm to 1500ppm. That knowledge ALONE would destroy the foundation of AGW – that human-emitted carbon dioxide is going to send the planet into an “irreversable” catastrophe if CO2 levels “double” (from approximately 350ppm). For me, the simple fact that CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm, and yet never LOWER than ~220ppm shows that it’s politics, not science behind the push for reducing the CO2 level.
Something that’s really going to put a lot of scientist’s knickers in a bind is that if we truly do enter into a Maunder-type minimum, CO2 levels MAY rise even more rapidly. Today, more than half the CO2 created by burning fossil fuels is sequestered. During a Maunder-type minimum, such sequestration would be far less: plants won’t grow as fast, and some areas that now support plant life will no longer be able to because of the local temperature, and less CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. There may be other factors that would affect the amount of CO2 sequestration that I’m not aware of. A series of truly massive volcanic eruptions could send us through the floor, temperature-wise, and we’ll be neck deep in a new ice age.
We, indeed, live in “interesting” times.

Mike Abbott
May 5, 2009 6:01 pm

Mick (14:52:21) : On Science Daily today………
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
Worth a comment?
——————————————–
It’s a wildly pro-AGW article and the mantra of the AGW crowd is that the debate is over. Yet the article begins with “In the hotly debated arena of global climate change…” Maybe the author’s admission that the issue is “hotly debated” is a sign of progress??

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 6:01 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:23:55)
“Every complex systems has random fluctuations.”

Do you have any objection to modifying this to include “chaotic fluctuations” (which are fundamentally different)?

Robert Bateman
May 5, 2009 6:10 pm

So pre-emptive denial…does that include defying the Sun?
Most people when put on a treadmill face against the direction of travel, i.e. – they compensate.
What do you think will happen when someone goes the opposite way?
They’ll be thrown to the floor.
Cooling, happening right now, combined with massive ‘efforts’ to reduce Global Warming will throw the climate to the cellar.
Yeah, some of them, they’re starting to sweat, cold sweat.
About time the lump formed in their throats.

Robert Bateman
May 5, 2009 6:17 pm

Mike Abbott (18:01:06) :
Hot debate, as in cold sweaty palms and nagging doubt.
Some of them are looking at the Sun, looking at the proposed Warmist countermeasures, and are getting quite nervous. What if AGW’s wrong? What if this backfires? What if the Sun dims out?
Are you warmists absoultely sure of what you are proposing to do?
What could possibly go wrong?
Instead of the Gaia of Eden, you might end up with Hell Freezes Over.

Bob Wood
May 5, 2009 6:17 pm

“‘I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,’ Lockwood said. ‘I think that helps keep it in perspective.’”
From that “perspective,” CO2 doesn’t have much warming effect in light of the fact global climate is cooling. I have noticed the temperature always goes down every night when the sun goes down, CO2 or no CO2! From that “perspective,” a “few hundredths of one percent” decrease of the sun’s power would seem to have a correspondingly massive effect on earth’s climate with hardly a budge from even a massive increase of CO2.

May 5, 2009 6:18 pm

Uh-oh, someone’s not reading their AGW Handbook over at Nat Geo: “Over 200 New Amphibians Found in Madagascar” is their homepage headline. Hey, Nat Geo: AGW destroys species…we don’t find NEW ones!

May 5, 2009 6:28 pm

Paul Vaughan (18:01:27) :
“Every complex systems has random fluctuations.”
Do you have any objection to modifying this to include “chaotic fluctuations” (which are fundamentally different)?

Yes, [and I’ll not tell you what they are]

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 6:29 pm

Nic Lonsdale (17:38:55)
“Stop being rude about Mike Lockwood and his colleagues. They have wives and children to support and they know that if they promote the “wrong” theory they will become unemployed (and unemployable).”

Some of the anger relates to the fact that a lot of professors have nearly-absolute job security (while most others do not) …
… For example, I remember a professor bragging – almost goadingly – to a classroom full of students about just how hard it would be for him to get fired. It was clear that he considered losing his job so next-to-impossible that he was barely able to speak at moments as tremors of humor rippled across his efforts to convey that for which he could not find adequate words. He was clearly in a state of tickled-marvel.
Another factor in the anger: The misleading statements damage other families’ security & interests; this should not be taken lightly.

May 5, 2009 6:33 pm

Paul Vaughan (18:01:27) :
“Every complex systems has random fluctuations.”
Do you have any objection to modifying this to include “chaotic fluctuations” (which are fundamentally different)?

Having replied the Paul Vaughan way :-), I’ll now revert to my usual mode:
Yes, as not every complex system is chaotic. The climate may be, but plate tectonics [to mention one example] may not be.

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 6:42 pm

Leif Svalgaard (18:33:14)
“[…] every […]”

Glad you addressed the importance of this word – I had considered doing so, but wasn’t eager to ‘rock the boat’.

May 5, 2009 7:10 pm

Paul Vaughan (18:42:59) :
Glad you addressed the importance of this word – I had considered doing so, but wasn’t eager to ‘rock the boat’.
Wish I could be equally glad from obtaining answers, but, as you point out, cultural differences may preclude me ever getting one.
In general, comments should not be about ‘rocking the boat’, but rather concerned with making positive contributions [sharing when one can] or clarifications, assuming [of course] that the point being commented upon is not garbage [in which case one best simply leaves it alone – being ignored is the best cure against unfounded postings].

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 7:38 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:10:24)
“[…] as you point out, cultural differences may preclude […]”

This is a misrepresentation (&/or misunderstanding) of my words — and you closed the case.
The difference between chaos & randomness is well-worth noting, particularly as there is plenty of evidence that it is off most radars.

Roger Knights
May 5, 2009 7:38 pm

kim (09:23:41) wrote:
“It’s going to be interesting to watch the rhetoric from the great scientists among the alarmists as the realization dawns that the jig is up, and the public can see through the hoax.”
Twisting slowly in the wind …. I like it!

kpr
May 5, 2009 7:53 pm

It is a good thing those NatGeo folks are so sharp. Otherwise, these facts of my life would not make sense:
I reside at appx. 1600 above sea level in the foothills of Mt. Hood, Oregon.
Until the 2007/08 winter, we averaged 6 distinct snowfalls a year over the previous 12 years (meaning snow would fall and become measurable, melt, and at least a day later more measurable snow would fall – or snow would remain on the ground without melting for more than 24 hours, which would trigger another ‘event’).
These often did not occur until late December or early January, and in every year but one were finished by Mar. 10.
’07-’08 winter featured snowfall events beginning in November. There were at least 30 events, stretching all the way into May of ’08!
This year has been no different. Currently (May 05, 19:46) it is 44 degrees with a low of 32 forecast and possible snow mixed with the incessant rain tonight, and for the remaining of the long week) We have already experienced at least 33 snow events and summer seems like a long ways away.
There is no question whatsoever that the ‘global warming’ proponents are using trick science to attempt to control the masses with carbon taxes. There is no other explanation. The UN has countless documents explaining how a carbon tax is going to save the world, as is cap and trade and carbon credits. All are false. Global warming and the carbon scare is nothing but an attempt to steal money from one person to enrich another (richer) person. Recall – WE are made of carbon. I have no doubt in my mind that soon us carbon based life forms will be told we must pay a tax for breathing. This will just be more money offered up for nothing more than enrich an already massively rich international banker.

May 5, 2009 7:54 pm

Paul Vaughan (19:38:21) :
This is a misrepresentation (&/or misunderstanding) of my words
[to clarify: I disagree with the above statement]
and you closed the case
And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.
The difference between chaos & randomness is well-worth noting, particularly as there is plenty of evidence that it is off most radars.
Perhaps, although you didn’t want to ‘rock-the-boat’, whatever that means in this context [I assume I’ll never know]. Anyway, although I said that the climate system may be chaotic, all climate models assume [or is based on the premise] that it is not. Weather clearly is chaotic, so predicting it 100 years ahead is nonsense, but the premise of climate models is that the ‘noise’ does not increase exponentially with time, but that there is some stabilizing [negative feedbacks?] mechanism(s) preventing chaos, yet preserving the salient features of climate evolution, but even the models exhibit a fair amount of random fluctuations.

Mike Ramsey
May 5, 2009 8:17 pm

Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.
For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.
“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens.
I posted on this topic here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/new-sun-watching-instrument-to-monitor-sunlight-fluctuations/
See Mike Ramsey (02:05:24) :
The earth doesn’t react to short wave (less than 300 nm) solar irradiance the same as the long wave (visible down to radio) portion of the spectrum.  99.95% of the < 300 nm light is absorbed by the earth (atmosphere and surface) while only 70% (on average) of the visible on down part of solar spectrum is absorbed by the earth. The rest is reflected out into space as earthshine.  So while the < 300 nm part of the spectrum may only account for 8% of the TSI it is an 8% that hits with its full energy. And that 8% varies a lot.
–Mike Ramsey

Fred Souder
May 5, 2009 8:17 pm

crosspatch (16:48:52) :
Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.

What is your source on this “decade or two” period for re-glaciation? Faster than the interglacial warm-up? This seems very unlikely to me. I would like to read the source and see how it jives with the principals of thermodynamics.
-thks

Jim Papsdorf
May 5, 2009 8:28 pm

As all of this discussion ultimately focuses on the Administration’s Cap And Trade proposal, I am happy to report that Charles Krauthammer, a very perceptive reporter, says on this evening’s Fox news that there is “No chance !” that it will pass the Senate.

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 8:31 pm

“Yes, as not every complex system is chaotic. The climate may be, but plate tectonics [to mention one example] may not be.”
Plate tectonics may NOT be???
What is not chaotic about an entire 1200 km Andaman thrust fault shifting, displacing an unimaginable column of water on Boxing Day, 2004?
Tell that to the families of the 250,000 victims of the 2004 tsunami, that plate tectonics are not chaotic.
In reference to the many….many….MANY other events set in motion due to plate tectonics….where to begin:
Toba [which almost caused us homo sapiens to cease to exist]
Tambora {the year without a summer 1816…June snowfall in New England?]
Volcanic winter>>>>>ice age, or little ice age.
What is NOT chaotic about that?
Understood that the plates are constantly moving and we can be assured that the Hawaiian Archipelago is moving away from the permanent hot spot at a certain rate.
That is not chaotic.
But the many things that happen as a result of that plate movement….are.
Such as one of the most cataclysmic landslides the world has ever known: The Molokai landslide.
Plate tectonics may be measurable….but the CHAOS they set off, are not at all necessarily, until they happen.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Paul Vaughan
May 5, 2009 8:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:54:47)
“And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.”

This is misrepresentation — and you are the one who brought up the closed case.
I noticed that you failed to mention chaos, which is fundamentally different from randomness. I politely drew attention to that (via a polite question).

May 5, 2009 8:52 pm

Mike Ramsey (20:17:21) :
So while the < 300 nm part of the spectrum may only account for 8% of the TSI it is an 8% that hits with its full energy.
But is absorbed high in the atmosphere with negligible heating effect of the surface and lower atmosphere and is only 20 W/m2 to begin with, which is not 8%.
And that 8% varies a lot.
No, it does not. http://www.leif.org/research/Erl71.png [from SORCE] shows that the integrated UV flux. It is typically of the order of 20 W/m2, which is only 1.5% and it varies only about 1 W/m2 over the cycle, so a variation of 0.1%. The large solar cycle variation happens for the extreme UV and X-ray, but their fluxes are so small in W/m2.
The real problem with this is that solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not significantly lower than in the 20th, yet surface temperatures were, so the connection is very tenuous, if there at all.

May 5, 2009 8:57 pm

savethesharks (20:31:51) :
Plate tectonics may be measurable….but the CHAOS they set off, are not at all necessarily, until they happen.
Don’t confuse the cause with its effect.
‘Chaotic’ has a very precise mathematical definition [that deviations from past states increase exponentially with time] and PT does not satisfy that, even though the result can feel like all hell broke loose [which may actually not satisfy the condition either.

May 5, 2009 9:13 pm

Paul Vaughan (20:45:39) :
“And any decent person would abide with that, but since you have already excluded me from that group, suffer me.”
This is misrepresentation — and you are the one who brought up the closed case.

Because I’m not a decent scientist as per your characterization, but I’m willing to let you respectfully agree to disagree with me about my representation of this.
I noticed that you failed to mention chaos, which is fundamentally different from randomness. I politely drew attention to that (via a polite question).
‘failed’? As I explained, climate may not be chaotic as per the modelers. Perhaps it was on purpose that I didn’t claim it was chaotic…[I don’t think it is]
I would have considered it a constructive comment if you had explained [or agreed] why the climate has random fluctuations in spite of it not being chaotic, something that may not be clear to most people, as you point out.

May 5, 2009 9:15 pm

Wow! Getting way to deep for this non-mathematician. But the bit about the sun’s dropping a fraction of a percent compared to some hypothetical rise in CO2, now that bit of mathematical not-so-sleight-of-hand was funny even to me. Duh! Is this supposed to be a serious comparison? Is that the best these guys can come up with? I could lie better than that, and I wouldn’t even know what I was talking about.
From the bits and pieces I’ve read about global cooling, it scares me a lot more than the supposed global warming. It’s cold here already–colder than last year, and that was a good deal colder than the year before. (And yes, I do remember.) How are we going to feed everyone? There are a lot more hungry mouths now than in the dark ages. How are we going to keep everyone warm? I really hope Algore is right–or at least a little bit right–because we are in for a no good, horrible, very bad day if he isn’t. I think it’s time to start piping more CO2 into the atmosphere–hey, if it’ll keep us warm . . . . (unfortunately, I kind of think it won’t)

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 9:16 pm

“Chaotic has a very precise mathematical definition [that deviations from past states increase exponentially with time] and PT does not satisfy that, even though the result can feel like all hell broke loose [which may actually not satisfy the condition either.”
Perhaps it is time to re-examine that definition as PT contribute regularly to the “chaos” on the earth.
Namely….the 2004 event. The build-up on the Sunda [Andaman] thrust fault….until it finally broke in a titanic release.
I understand the legalistic definition here….but
Tell me how this event is non-chaotic?

May 5, 2009 9:28 pm

savethesharks (21:16:49) :
I understand the legalistic definition here….but
Tell me how this event is non-chaotic?

One can understand the emotional problem. On a personal level, I was touched by this. The number three daughter lived in Thailand at the time and they had a condo on the beach in Phuket. They were visiting for Xmas and was scheduled to fly back and go to their condo the day before the tsunami struck. Number one daughter pleaded with her to stay with us [in Calif.] another day, so she did, which is likely why we still have her and her two children among the living.
But Nature doesn’t really much, does she?

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 9:58 pm

No nature does not do much in those situations.
And I really appreciate and respect the personal note here.
All I am saying is that Plate Tectonics are not as non-chaotic as they may seem.
PT movements release enormous cascades of events [some of which could be called chaotic butterfly effects].
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.
As it has been said on here many times: [and as I know you will agree] climate change is the norm [not the “stability”.]

savethesharks
May 5, 2009 10:00 pm

Clarification: Climate change is the norm….as opposed to “stability.”

Robert Bateman
May 5, 2009 10:01 pm

Jim Papsdorf (20:28:36) :
As all of this discussion ultimately focuses on the Administration’s Cap And Trade proposal, I am happy to report that Charles Krauthammer, a very perceptive reporter, says on this evening’s Fox news that there is “No chance !” that it will pass the Senate.

He’s usually right, seldom far from the mark. Meaning that’s he’s a good study, is well aware of what’s really going on in both politics & science.

May 5, 2009 10:25 pm

savethesharks (21:58:31) :
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.
Perhaps with a broad enough definition of ‘chaos’…
This brings us back to the Sun and on topic:
Solar activity could be called ‘solar climate’. Is that chaotic? and why/or why not?

Cassandra King
May 5, 2009 10:26 pm

Leif svalgaard,
You may well be correct in your assertions, time will tell the tale I suppose, either way we live in intereting times.

MDDwave
May 5, 2009 10:40 pm

If you go to National Geographic News, guess what is the “MOST VIEWED NEWS”?
Sun Oddly Quiet — Hints at Next “Little Ice Age”?
Is it because of the WUWT link? I wonder if National Geographic is beginning to wonder about all the interest.

Editor
May 5, 2009 10:45 pm

” Leif Svalgaard (17:23:55) :
No matter what variations in the orbits, the planets raises only a very small tide [a fraction of a millimeter (1/25 inch = 1 mm)]”
WRT Earth’s ocean tides, yes, I agree, but according to astronomers and planetologists far more talented than me, this is enough for these planets to cause Earth’s eccentricity to change in cycles, AND the Sun’s cycle.
“These changes would happen even if the Sun’s output was absolutely constant.”
You didnt understand what I said. The Sun’s output changes both in the short term and the long term based on the tidal influences of the planets, because just as the Moon’s tidal influence is the major driver of the Earth’s electromagnetic dynamo, the planets (Jupiter and Saturn primarily) tidal influence on the Sun helps wobble the Sun enough to generate these cycles in its output.
“You are confusing changes to the Sun with changes in how the solar input to the Earth is distributed over the surface of the Earth and the seasons.”
No I’m not. I am saying both happen. Earth’s orbital variations in the Milankovitch Cycles vary how the solar input is distributed over the surface of the earth, affecting both the seasons and climate. The orbital eccentricity cycle for Earth is due to Jupiter and Saturns tidal influence on Earth, mostly. Those two planets also happen to be responsible for the solar cycle and its variations over Ice Age periods, which happens to change the average intensity of solar cycles (i.e. when Jupiter and Saturn are both closer to the sun AND on the same side of the sun, they exert more tidal influence than when they are further away, high eccentricity causes a much closer perigee for both planets than in eras of low eccentricity. When they are further away at the same time, they exert less. This high variation in tidal influence causes the sun to change from high Maximums to low maximums and even grand minimums frequently.
When eccentricity is low, their tidal influence doesn’t vary very much over the 11 year period so the Sun’s cycles should be very flat, i.e. long term minimums, i.e. long ice ages.

anna v
May 5, 2009 11:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:13:37) :
As I explained, climate may not be chaotic as per the modelers.
Just a note:
It took me over a year of perusing climate model outputs to realize that even though the construction of GCMs has determinism in from the relevant equations and boundary conditions, the modelers believe that the climate is chaotic. They simulate chaos by the spaghetti lines around their optimum fit. As simple as that.
What people think are error bands around the optimum fit of a GCM, are not. They are perturbed initial conditions of the input variables according to the intuitions of the modelers in order to simulate chaos which they believe controls climate.

anna v
May 5, 2009 11:21 pm

savethesharks (21:58:31) :

All I am saying is that Plate Tectonics are not as non-chaotic as they may seem.
PT movements release enormous cascades of events [some of which could be called chaotic butterfly effects].
All of Earth’s violent geology and climate are chaotic.

You are confusing the vernacular meaning of chaotic, which really includes randomness (2a, 3 below), with the mathematical.
webster:1obsolete : chasm, abyss
2 aoften capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme ; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a: a state of utter confusion b: a confused mass or mixture
mathematical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos
Mathematically, chaos means deterministic behaviour which is very sensitive to its initial conditions.[5] In other words, infinitesimal perturbations of initial conditions for a chaotic dynamic system lead to large variations in behaviour.
Chaotic systems consequently look random. However, they are actually deterministic systems governed by physical or mathematical laws (predictable in principle, if you have exact information) that are impossible to predict in practice beyond a certain point.[6] A commonly used example is weather forecasting, which is only possible up to about a week ahead.[7]

It is hard to see what deterministic equations plate tectonics would obey. Breaking points may be considered random.

Editor
May 5, 2009 11:35 pm

” crosspatch (16:48:52) :
Mike Lorrey said: “Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle”
Then please “perfectly” explain a couple of things, if you have the time …
Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.
Also, the periods of glaciation in this ice age have generally been getting longer and colder. Interglacials have also been getting cooler. This interglacial is cooler than then last one was, for example, though it has been a little longer.”
Excellent questions. Rapid changes in climate are due to quite a number of things, which generally have to do with events on Earth. For instance, the draining of Lake Agazziz shut down the North Atlantic Conveyor in ~8200 BC and caused the Younger Dryas. Big changes in vulcanism, meteor impacts, etc are events that seemingly shouldnt cause huge changes globally but they wind up messing up other complex chaotic systems, like climate.
The sun and its planetary influencers setup long term trends and pressure to enable changes in equilibrium, but individual events on earth can trigger rapid changes in equilibrium that the climate system is already biased toward shifting to by these planetary influences, and these generally tend to be events that trigger the end of an Ice Age. Most ice ages dont happen suddenly, we enter into them gradually over thousands of years. We can have geologically short term changes in climate (like the Younger Dryas and the LIA) due to things other than these long term cycles.
Now, Jupiter and Saturn orbit in a 5:2 resonance, meaning Jupiter makes 5 orbits for every 2 orbits of Saturn. This means that they are both in conjunction about every 59 years. They were last in conjunction in 2000, and before that, 1941. Note the years and their correlation to shifts from warming periods to cooling periods. The position in the sky that each conjunction occurs shifts each time over a 960 year period. The last time a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction occurred in this particular location (RE the 2000 conjunction) was therefore in 1040 AD, which was the beginning of the Oort Minimum.

Flanagan
May 5, 2009 11:44 pm

In the meantime, we’ve been in a deep solar minimum for almost 1 year and the global temperatures went up, the Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 was the second lowest on record, and we recently switched from la Nina (cold) to neutral conditions in the pacific. The way 2009 started should place it in the top 10 hottest years. So where is the little ice age in all this stuff?
BTW, we have a good big spot coming our way rightnow
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2009/05may09/20090505_081530_n7euB_195.jpg?PHPSESSID=6d5pf1m4b54smi539anikqot10
It’s on the eastern limb of the sun, meaning we can’t see it today but should be visible in a few days. It’s a member of cycle 24.

Editor
May 5, 2009 11:45 pm

“Also, the periods of glaciation in this ice age have generally been getting longer and colder. Interglacials have also been getting cooler. This interglacial is cooler than then last one was, for example, though it has been a little longer.”
Earth has been gradually shifting to an Ice House climate for a few reasons:
a) since Antarctica separated from South America 22Mya, the circumpolar currents have grown in mass/velocity. These currents insulate Antarctica from the rest of the planet.
b) since the Straits of Panama closed 3Mya Ice Ages have become more solidly entrenched.
c) the growth of corals has increasingly sequestered more and more CO2 more securely as limestone. Within a few million years, Earth will no longer have interglacials of any intensity because any warming due to Milankovitch cycles will not warm the planet up enough to get us out of Ice Age conditions. If humanity is still around our civilization will be restricted to equatorial and tropical regions.
The long term conversion of CO2 into Limestone bedrock has been a long term process that began with the birth of life on Earth. Earth once had 52 times more atmosphere than it currently has, mostly CO2 and Sulphuric Oxides in a reducing atmosphere. Life sequestered most of the atmosphere as limestone. Some was sequestered as oil but most became limestone, and limestone is over a long time the increasing share of the sequestered CO2. The only secure long term sequestration method has been conversion into limestone via corals. When you burn fossil fuels, you give corals a new chance to resequester that CO2 as limestone.

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 5, 2009 11:56 pm

Jim Papsdorf (09:59:11) :
ER Smith

Assuming you meant E. M. Smith

I am having trouble verifying your contention that ozone blocks IR [I do not see it in Wckipedia], could you please give me a source ?

I have a great graph, who’s link I’ve lost… but here are a couple of others:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_3.shtml
In the sidebar at the bottom:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs at wavelengths centered on 15 microns, ozone at wavelengths of 10 microns, and water vapor over broad ranges of wavelengths.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932PhRv…42..622G
“Of the seven known infrared absorption bands of ozone, four (4.7μ, 7.39μ, 9.6μ, and 11.38μ) have been investigated for the first time with a grating spectrometer. The band at 4.7μ shows three branches, not very sharply defined, while the one at 7.39μ shows only a single peak. The strongest band, at 9.6μ, has been resolved into two main branches which probably belong to two different vibrations. The band at 11.38μ has been tentatively ascribed to nitrogen pentoxide, which often occurs as an impurity in ozone.”
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/temp.html
“Energy from the earth, on the other hand, radiates over a range of wavelengths centered on about 10 microns, which, according to the absorption graph, is a region where energy is absorbed strongly by water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide CO2 and, at certain wavelengths, by methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3). The graph at the bottom of the figure gives the aggregate absorptivity for all gases in the atmosphere.”
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/images/image6.gif
Which, when you look at the graph, shows that a 9.6 ish near 10 microns both water and CO2 have little absorption and it’s almost all the Ozone spike… That’s where I think the ozone impact is located. In most other parts of the spectrum there are multiple absorptive gases. But here, just about on the peak of our earthly emissivity, is a window closed by only ozone… that is modulated by the sun.
Many thanks.
You’re welcome. BTW a Google of “Ozone IR absorption graph micron” and similar phrases turns up lots of information…

Just Want Truth...
May 6, 2009 12:20 am

Pamela Gray (07:13:35) :
Leif Svalgaard (17:23:55) :
Piers Corbyn’s success is differing with you.
Unless I am missing some nuance in what both of you are saying.

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 6, 2009 1:04 am

anna v (12:41:15) :
jeremyj5000 (09:43:27) :
“Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so “[…]
Today, May 5th, in Athens Greece, my apartment building turned on the heat tonight. It is the first time in my lifetime this has happened, and I am 69 yrs old. Heating is stopped the first week of April usually.

And here in the south end of the S.F. Bay Area, California, where I’ve lived for about 30+ years (having moved here from 200 miles away where I lived the prior 25) I’m running the heater (though in fairness today was warmer than the past week). Normally it would be the fan. Today I was dampened in my back yard by a sprinkle of rain. This is about the 5th time in 5 days. That is almost unheard of here in May. Early April, maybe but not always.
This chart:
http://camastergardeners.ucdavis.edu/files/64180.pdf
gives the 50% last frost date for San Jose (near me) as JANUARY and the mostly all clear (only 10% chance) as FEBRUARY. Normally March is almost 100% safe and by early April you’re on the late side for starting tomatoes. I lost a tomato to frost the first week in April … (I know, I’m griping about ONLY having a 9 month garden season instead of 11 or 12 😉
May is usually warm with the early tomatoes (put in at last frost, about 15 March at worst, as gallons but you can sometimes sneak them in as early as 1 March….) the 45 day types giving a few nice ripe ones. This year I have one pale orange Stupice waiting to turn red (a cold type tomato from Czech Rep.) and three plants of more normal temp needs, that have yet to flower or set fruit (even if not ripe, I’d at least have lots of green fruit set… but tomatoes are very sensitive to cold for fruit set. It has been consistently colder as proven by the lack of fruit set; a very accurate averaging thermometer… (the pollen tube must grow into the ovum within a couple of days and it’s rate gets too slow when cold; so the pollen dies before fruit set).
Oh, and it’s been rainy, overcast, cold, and drizzly for about a week straight now. Today I saw the sun for about an hour, near late afternoon, and finally got a little warmth from it. This is what you would expect in San Francisco, not down here in Silicon Gulch… (In August it can be 105F here and 55F in S.F. 50 miles north…) From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California
We get that typical May rainfall is 1 cm. Well, I’m pretty sure it’s been more than that already this month… and we are sometimes up to 100F but usually high 70’s F. No where near that the last few days. I’d say we’re running about 10F low (but the month is young, I’m sure we’ll eventually warm up).
So to quote Anna V.:
“How is this for anecdotal?”
I’ll believe it’s warm when I’m eating a fresh tomato from my garden. Until then, it’s cold… and computer fantasy anomaly maps can go pound sand. Computer fantasies don’t feed people, crops do, and the crops know what the real temperatures are. No, that is not subject to argument, negotiation, dispute, complaint, etc. etc. No heat, no ‘matters. Period.

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 6, 2009 1:32 am

Mike Lorrey (16:32:16) : BTW: it is claimed the drop in oil prices is due to drops in consumption due to the poor global economy. If so, then the CO2 concentrations should not have continued increasing. Can we get a comparison between fossil fuel consumption over the past 20 yrs vs CO2 concentrations?
Try:
http://timeforchange.org/prediction-of-energy-consumption
for a rough cut on energy consumption (but it includes pointers to where it got the data so you can probably get more precision and greater duration…)

Ozzie John
May 6, 2009 1:36 am

Question for Leif ?
Why are we only seeing new SC24 sunspots on the suns northern hemisphere ?
I would expect a more even distribution across both hemispheres.

Alan the Brit
May 6, 2009 1:36 am

Carsten Arnholm, Norway:-))
Well done you! That’s the one ok! I hope you see my point about the last speaker’s rudeness/discourteousness toward the previous speaker.
Svensmark was good, as was Bob Carter, now I think he’s a Kiwi, & the guy next to him Barrett? was an Auzzie I believe, so there was no love-loss there! I thought it was intersting to hear the guy next to the Minister, Dr Janssen was it? who worked at the IPCC, saying something quite different to what has previously been described about the workings of the IPCC.
AtB

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 6, 2009 2:00 am

savethesharks (20:31:51) :
“Yes, as not every complex system is chaotic. The climate may be, but plate tectonics [to mention one example] may not be.”
Plate tectonics may NOT be???

That something has a randomness element to it is not chaotic, it is stochastic. Plate tectonics has a fairly regular and bounded set of behaviours that exhibit stochastic (and some stochastic resonance) natures. But it does not seem to be chaotic. (We have regular earthquakes and volcanos around the “ring of fire”; with a certain randomness as to when… but we don’t suddenly just stop all activity for 10000 years nor do we suddenly have a new spreading zone pop up in the middle of the ocean. Likewise, the “plume” under Hawaii doesn’t suddenly take off at 100 mph toward SF…)
Chaotic systems have solutions that become more divergent over time, often radically so. Stochastic systems have regular behaviours, you just can not say exactly when or exactly now strong. But the San Andreas Fault has been and will be the same for 10,000 years and there will be a great quake about every 400 years *IF I RECALL CORRECTLY!* but it could be 300 years, then 500, and only center on the 400 year point. Random, but bound to be near an island of stability…
Basically, predictable would be a Bach Fugue.
Stochastic would be a Jazz Riff, a bit bent but with recognized history.
Chaotic would be dropping a piano on the orchestra pit…

Robert Bateman
May 6, 2009 2:05 am

E.M.Smith (01:04:54) :
Got several inches here in Nw. Ca myself. It just poured all day long yesterday. Looked more like a February Monsoon, El Nino style. More coming tomorrow. It’s not warm here, either. About 10F off from last year, and last year wasn’t exaclty a cooker either. The plants in the greenhouse are now molding, so have to go out and dry them off with a hairdryer. Sheesh.

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 6, 2009 2:28 am

Fred Souder (20:17:22) :
“crosspatch (16:48:52) : Just before the last period of glaciation, temperatures went from the coldest of the entire glacial period to the warmest of the Holocene … in a VERY short period of time. Orbital changes are gradual. Changes from glaciation to interglacial is fast, often within the span of a single human lifetime. The switch back to glacial conditions is even faster, within a period of a decade or two.”
What is your source on this “decade or two” period for re-glaciation? Faster than the interglacial warm-up? This seems very unlikely to me. I would like to read the source and see how it jives with the principals of thermodynamics.

Part of the problem with looking to thermodynamics is defining the thermodynamics of “what”. One of the theories about the demise of the Clovis People and the rapid fluctuations in temperatures about 13,000 years ago has a large rock from space hitting smack into the ice age glacial sheet over North America. Now you get to speculate as to how big, how fast and how deep into how much ice…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
Another theory has a gigantic glacial melt lake breaking an ice dam and flooding the ocean with a fresh water pulse disrupting the normal currents and setting off a climate wobble until the currents reform.
Now you get to speculate about how ocean currents impact climate and how an ill defined giant Canada sized lake could change an ill defined ocean…
For extra credit to you get to mix these two scenarios together and season with some volcanos induced by the shock wave of the meteor impact focused on the other side of the earth …
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation35.html
so, for example, the bickering over the dinosaurs with “meteor” vs “volcanic flood basalt” may be just one event. Meteor on one side causing crustal fractures and basalt flows on the other…
Have fun working out the thermodynamics of that puppy…
So Milankovitch sets the stage, but the actors are doing improvisational theatre… (and sometimes knock the piano toward the orchestra pit…)

Paul Vaughan
May 6, 2009 2:52 am

Candidate for Quote of the Day:
E.M.Smith (01:04:54)
“[…] computer fantasy anomaly maps can go pound sand. Computer fantasies don’t feed people, crops do […]”

E.M.Smith
Editor
May 6, 2009 2:57 am

Flanagan (23:44:00) : In the meantime, we’ve been in a deep solar minimum for almost 1 year and the global temperatures went up,
Leaving aside the question of “went up using who’s broken simulated anomaly maps based on lousy biased data?”… Ya think maybe a system as large as the earth might take just a wee bit longer than few months to change direction? Sheesh.
And please remember that the hottest dates will be near the top, coming and going; it’s the direction of the peaks that matters, not the hight. We’re leaving “higher highs” and entering “lower highs with lower lows” Basically, it’s the derivative of the average temperature slope that matters (Dslope / dt) not the absolute value (since we know that a ball tossed in the air is at it’s highest just before it starts coming back down fast…)
It’s cold. It’s getting colder. We’ve had and are having lots of extra snow fall all over the globe. Cities ran out of road salt. Ski seasons are extended. Crops are going in late and not ripening as expected. etc. etc. I’ll take that non-fudge-able evidence any day over the trash that I’ve seen in the GIStemp code.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
It’s still a very open question if this is just a return to normal or something worse. The sun being at a dead halt is worrying, but it will take a decade to know if it’s a Big Deal or just a modest surprise. (We have to see how 24 shapes up, then 25 may have a chance to be LIA redux… perhaps if we get a volcano tossed in in the next 20 years…) And it would be nice to have a big sun spot, but I’ll believe it when it gets here and has a number.
For now, though, it’s not hot and in case you didn’t notice, it’s been getting cooler for the last decade or so. Arctic and Antarctic ice is way higher than it has been in quite a while and it’s not melting. (Hard to melt at below 0 C ) and along with that, the PDO is in the cold phase.
If you can’t see what these things mean, well, might I suggest that you move to sunny warm Fairbanks, Alaska… The AGW will be making it a vacation paradise…

Chris Schoneveld
May 6, 2009 3:01 am

Leif,
Are you attending this conference?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2009/sns_apr_2009.pdf
At the site there is information about the 2009 SORCE Science Meeting – July 19-29, Montreal, Canada
There will be a special 2-day session called “The Impact of Solar Variability on Earth” on Monday-Tuesday, July 27-28.
The session will address all aspects of the impact of solar variations on the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. These include:
• Variability of the solar irradiance (TSI and SSI measurements and modelling)
• Variability of energetic particle precipitation
• Solar signal in the thermosphere, mesosphere, and stratosphere (observations, modelling, mechanisms)
• Solar signal in the troposphere (observations and modelling, processes, climate relevance)
• Solar signal in the oceans and the role of atmosphereocean coupling
• Solar impact on centennial to millennial timescales
The symposium invited contributions on identifying the solar signal from ground-based and satellite observational datasets ranging from the upper atmosphere (thermosphere, mesosphere) to the troposphere, the Earth’s surface and the oceans. Papers on the solar irradiance and particle flux on Earth were encouraged as well as contributions on physical and chemical processes and mechanisms leading to the observed solar signal, and especially simulations with mechanistic, general circulation and chemistry climate models. Studies could include solar variations on different time scales ranging from the 27-day rotation period over the 11-year solar cycle to centennial and millennial variations including the Maunder Minimum.
Session M03 invited speakers who have accepted and their tentative talk title/subject are:
&#1048707; Ulrich Cubasch, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Solar Impact on Earth‘s Climate at Centennial and Millennial Timescales
&#1048707; Wolfgang Finsterle, PMOD/World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
The TSI measurements of PMOD/WRC
&#1048707; Bernd Funke, Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, Granada, Spain
Odd Nitrogen Variabiltiy Caused by Energetic Particle Precipitation: What Have We Learned from MIPAS?
&#1048707; Lesley Gray, Reading University, UK
The 11-Year Solar Cycle in the Stratosphere
&#1048707; Kunihiko Kodera, Meteorological Research Inst.,Tsukuba, Japan
Conceptual Model for the Solar Influence from the Stratosphere
&#1048707; Greg Kopp, LASP, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
Total Solar Irradiance Measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor
&#1048707; Katja Matthes, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
Solar-QBO Interactions in the Middle Atmosphere: An Overview
&#1048707; Raimund Muscheler, Lund University, Sweden
Reconstructing Solar Variability with Cosmogenic Radionuclides and the Sun-Climate Link on Centennial to Millennial Time Scales
&#1048707; David Rind, NASA GISS, New York, NY
The Role of SSTs for the Decadal Atmospheric Solar Signal in Model Studies
&#1048707; Hauke Schmidt, Max Planck Inst. for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
Solar Signal in Temperature and Chemistry of the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere
&#1048707; Kirill Semeniuk, York Univ., Toronto, Canada
Impact of Ionizing Particle Precipitation on the Middle Atmosphere
&#1048707; Gerard Thuillier, Service d’Aéronomie du CNRS, France
The Solar Spectrum: Methods of Measurements Calibration, and Recent Results
&#1048707; Yvonne Unruh, Imperial College, London, UK
Solar Spectral Irradiance Modeling: Rotational to Solar-cycle Timescales
&#1048707; Warren White, Univ. of California at San Diego, Scripps Inst. of Oceanography, La Jolla
Non-Linear Alignment of El Niño to the 11-Year Solar Cycle in Observations and Models

Flanagan
May 6, 2009 3:56 am

M. Smith, here are the “broken” anomalies I’m referring to
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/plot/gistemp/from:2008/plot/uah/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008
Is there any evidence, I mean any scientific measure, that supports this idea that the earth is and will be cooling? Because every model in the world predicts stages of flat or decreasing temperatures over one or two decades, nevertheless leading to a long-term positive trend.
BTW, the solar activity has been going down since the 50ies. During this time, temperatures have been going up.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/from:1950/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120/from:1950/normalise
60 years of anticorrelation, in my sense, is a sign that the sun is not driving this warming. And thus will not counterbalance the greenhouse effect.

gary gulrud
May 6, 2009 4:01 am

“The position in the sky that each conjunction occurs shifts each time over a 960 year period. The last time a Jupiter/Saturn conjunction occurred in this particular location (RE the 2000 conjunction) was therefore in 1040 AD, which was the beginning of the Oort Minimum.”
Now that is interesting. Likewise the progression in glaciation tendencies due to ocean circulation changes.

Fred Souder
May 6, 2009 4:34 am

E.M. Smith
Part of the problem with looking to thermodynamics is defining the thermodynamics of “what”. One of the theories about the demise of the Clovis People and the rapid fluctuations in temperatures about 13,000 years ago has a large rock from space hitting smack into the ice age glacial sheet over North America. Now you get to speculate as to how big, how fast and how deep into how much ice…
I am not talking about specialized events within the interglacial, such as the dryass, I am talking about the glacial advances at the onset of the next glaciation. These should happen very slowly, not in a period of a couple decades. I would bet the Earth behaves like every other system in the universe: it heats up faster than it cools down, not the reverse. I was hoping to see where crosspatch came up with the two decades for the return to glaciation. Perhaps he was referring to the lesser dryass.

Allan M R MacRae
May 6, 2009 4:35 am

I’m probably repeating dozens of previous posts, but I just want to preserve for posterity these revealing statements (comments in CAPS):
*******************
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling. [THIS IS POLITICS MIKE, NOT SCIENCE. WHAT IS YOUR SKILL SET? WHAT IS YOUR JOB?]

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
[FALSE, IMO THERE IS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY AT THIS TIME, AT THE MACRO SCALE – E.G. THE MAUNDER AND DALTON MINIMUMS. ]
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal [WHAT IS NORMAL? EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE IS CLEARLY CO2 DEFICIENT IN THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, AND PLANTS ARE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. BTW, 50-60% IS WRONG TOO.], whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.” [MISLEADING – IF CO2 IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING, WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1940, DESPITE A ~800% INCREASE IN HUMANMADE CO2 EMISSIONS?]
********************

James P
May 6, 2009 4:45 am

Since Professor Lockwood is just across the water (the Solent, not the Atlantic) from me, I thought a quick email was in order:
I was surprised to read on Anthony Watts’s blog that you feel that the current ‘quiet sun’ is not connected with the climate or recent cooling trend. I’m sure you’re a busy man, but the debate arising from this is interesting, and it would be good to read a response from you. Unlike most AGW-supporting blogs, Anthony’s is level headed and (mostly) respectful of dissenting opinion.
I won’t hold my breath, but you never know…

Hell_is_like_newark
May 6, 2009 5:01 am

Re: E.M.Smith (02:57:39) :
There is further evidence supporting the Clovis extinction impact theory found in the remains of large land mammals (that also went extinct in North America at the same time). Tusks and bones showed signs of being hit with “buckshot”. Only this buckshot had to be traveling at least 3 times the velocity of what would come out of a shotgun. The meteor (or comet?) may have air-burst, showing the continent with rocks, a fireball, and a giant shock wave. There is a layer of carbon and ash found in digs that also support the theory.
As time goes on, it appears that major changes in evolution have been driven my massive impact events. I guess besides the sun, we should be looking more towards the rest of the heavens in case something big is headed our way.
I also finished a book recently on how Europe weathered the Little Ice Age (it was written by someone who supports the theory of man-made global warming.. but focuses the book on the effects of the ice age.. not politics): Europe went from pretty stable climate to devastating swings in temperature and rainfall. One year would be so wet that crops rotted in flooded fields. The next year was so cold rivers such as the Thames froze solid. A few years later, it was back to rain and mud. The effects were devastating: Starvation, revolution, disease. The climate did not stabilize until after the Dalton minimum had finished.
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/0465022723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241611267&sr=1-1

Jim Papsdorf
May 6, 2009 5:10 am

OT: Lobbyists are helping to write the Trade and Cap bill !!!!
How is THAT for hypocrisy !!
EXCLUSIVE: Lobbyists help Dems draft climate change bill
Democratic lawmakers who spent much of the Bush administration blasting officials for letting energy lobbyists write national policy have turned to a coalition of business and environmental groups to help draft their own sweeping climate bill.
And one little-noticed provision of the draft bill would give one of the coalition’s co-founders a lucrative exemption on a coal-fired project it is building.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/04/green-lobby-guides-democrats-on-climate-bill/

Chris Schoneveld
May 6, 2009 6:18 am

Richard deSousa (23:57:24) : “wonder what excuse he’ll give when the sun’s quietness continues for several decades and the temperature continues to decline as CO2 continues to climb. In fact, I’d bet CO2 will start to decline as the oceans, being colder, will sequester more CO2.”
More prudently would be to phrase it: ” In fact, I’d bet THE RATE OF CO2 increase will start to decline as the oceans, being colder, will sequester more CO2.” I doubt that the uptake by the oceans in a cooling climate will nullify human’s input.

ziusudrablog
May 6, 2009 6:32 am

You are treating the subject of global warming like a political question that is open to personal apreciation. The proven fact of global warming will not change due to such blogs.
This kind of information only tries to confuse the public. What is the idea behind denying an abvious fact that has been admitted by the overwhelming majority of scientists, laymen and politicians ?

May 6, 2009 6:52 am

Chris Schoneveld (03:01:04) :
Leif, Are you attending this conference?
No. I have been an invited speaker at earlier SORCE conferences, but a conflict with other work makes it impossible for me to attend the 2009 conference.

May 6, 2009 7:21 am

Ozzie John (01:36:50) :
Why are we only seeing new SC24 sunspots on the suns northern hemisphere ?
I would expect a more even distribution across both hemispheres.

It is quite normal to have such asymmetry for a while. With time it will even out, as you can see here: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html

Pamela Gray
May 6, 2009 7:25 am

ziusudrablog, I added sea surface temp anomalies to your woodfortrees entry and got this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997
Just for S&G’s add CO2 to your graph and whether or not you get such a fantastic agreement.

Pamela Gray