NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible

Guest Post by David Archibald

NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:

” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”

NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.

Hathaway-NYT

The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006.  Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature.  The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent.  To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.

Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.

The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.

Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.

Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.

What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.


Sponsored IT training links:

Achieve guaranteed success using up to date 646-230 dumps and 642-426 study guide prepared by 642-661 certified experts.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
460 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markinaustin
July 28, 2009 10:15 pm

i don’t follow the bit about a 2 degree Celsius variation in temperatures. is that based on past stuff that i am not familiar with?

markinaustin
July 28, 2009 10:17 pm

ah…i guess this is what you meant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

Adam from Kansas
July 28, 2009 10:20 pm

The Sun is as blank as a piece of white paper at the time of writing this.
As for the climate indications, apparently the prospect of more than 3000 cold records in the U.S. (record low highs+record lows), shows that good chunks of this country and Canada are not being obedient to the dramatic uptick in temps. on the UAH site.
Mr. Archibald, what do you make of the current dramatic uptick in temps. according to UAH and the big spike in SST’s?

marks powers
July 28, 2009 10:20 pm

Hope you plan on posting additional comments on this gentleman’s name and model…
“I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century.”

Geo
July 28, 2009 10:21 pm

I’ve come to the conclusion that solar cycle predicting does not deserve the label of “science” at this point.
This saddens me. More, it saddens me that the solar scientists don’t seem willing to own up to that fact. Perhaps this isn’t surprising. Mostly, I suspect they are insanely jealous these days that the Climate “scientists” get to make “science” predictions that can’t be checked until after they’ve left scene entirely, or at least safely on pension.

July 28, 2009 10:33 pm

Weather is not climate: Portland Oregon, high temperature: New record for date, July 28, 106 Fahrenheit (old record 102), all time record 107.

July 28, 2009 10:39 pm

Oops (old record 101)

Alan the Brit
July 28, 2009 10:41 pm

This sounds good sense to me! BUT not good news for weather patterns. Another cool wet start in the South-West, I wish we had this bbq Summer the Met Off claimed we’d get. Typical, we were told that we could have Australian style weather with AGW, (& they would get ours!) & every time a storm occurred & the Sea Wall @ Dawlish failed, yet another “expert” from Plymouth or Exeter Uni would come on tv & claim that “this is what we can expect from climate change, wetter warmer winters & hotter drier summers”! Where are they? Idiots!

Jim B in Canada
July 28, 2009 10:48 pm

We’re over half way through 2009 and the current sunspot numbers are pretty impressive at 160 ish sunspot less days. I say WUWT should set up a sun spotless day pool and let people guess at both the total sun spotless days in 2009 and the highest one day count in 2009.
Everyone can sign and make a guess and that includes staff at NASA then all those who chose correctly are put into a draw to win a prize!
Maybe WUWT fans will guess (ahem calculate-model-predict) better than NASA?

Alex Baker
July 28, 2009 10:49 pm

James F. Evans (22:33:46) :
Weather is not climate: Portland Oregon, high temperature: New record for date, July 28, 106 Fahrenheit (old record 102), all time record 107.
James, I think this is relatively OT from the post, but…
AP reports only 103 – duly noted…though one might comment that this is a regional effect that results anytime, though rarely and only during the height of summer, anytime the weather systems set up in Eastern Oregon in such a way as to send hot air back into the Willamette Valley via the Gorge. The same effect can cause record cold during the height of winter. Tomorrow could be hotter…
http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-40/1248769196206800.xml&storylist=orlocal
However, the Midwest is experiencing extremely unusual July weather with near record low highs and wet weather:
http://blogs.wlfi.com/2009/07/22/record-cool-july-continues/
I think the broader effect occurring in the Midwest is the much more unusual and is in line with PDO + solar effects…

Richard Heg
July 28, 2009 10:57 pm

“The oceans are losing heat,”
and yet…
“Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest On Record For June”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm
Please explain are the ocean’s loosing heat because the surface temperatures are high? or are the figures questionable?

July 28, 2009 11:00 pm

Adam from Kansas (22:20:15) :
I don’t see what you are seeing. NOAA sst anomalies are fairly neutral.
There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.

David Corcoran
July 28, 2009 11:08 pm

I’ve heard that a lot… weather is not climate. But what’s weather? Hansen’s predictions (pardon me, “projections”) 30 years ago were wrong, 20 years ago they were wrong also, and practically no-one predicted the last 10 years of cooling/flat temps. When is it fair to judge a theory? 30 years, 50? 100? 100,000?

Richard deSousa
July 28, 2009 11:12 pm

Hathaway said previous that solar cycle 24 was going to be a hot one. Then the sun made Hathaway’s subsequent predictions less and less correct. Now Hathaway says a Dalton Minimum is a possibility but a Maunder Minimum is not going to happen. Let’s see whether the sun has the last word.

July 28, 2009 11:17 pm

@ Alex Baker (22:49:36) :
103 was the day before.

timetochooseagain
July 28, 2009 11:22 pm

Two degrees C? Seriously? Nobody seriously thinks the solar cycle impact is of that magnitude.
“As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming.”
This is NOT what Steyn said. He specifically stated “If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you’re graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade.”-and I would go farther, since by my calculations Steyn is going by 10/11 years-in fact, there has been no warming for twelve years at least:
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/uahcooling200906.jpg
(BTW using RSS makes little difference, since RSS actually cooled relative to UAH during the last few years (during the AQUA “annual cycle issue” period)

Philip_B
July 28, 2009 11:24 pm

Mr. Archibald, what do you make of the current dramatic uptick in temps. according to UAH and the big spike in SST’s?
SSTs measure heat release from the oceans to the atmosphere and therefore heat lost to space from the Earth’s climate system.
Increasing SSTs without increasing ocean temperatures (and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming) means the Earth’s climate is cooling. Albeit, with a short term increase in atmospheric temperatures due to the ocean heat release.
If I were in the prediction business, I’d say this NH winter will be harsh and next summer even cooler than this year’s.

crosspatch
July 28, 2009 11:25 pm

Which way is the wind blowing in Portland? If it is coming from the East they could be getting downslope warming of air coming in from the desert region as it comes down the Cascades.
I am a few hundred miles South of Oregon and our temperatures are still quite cool for this time of year. It isn’t forecast to get above 80 degrees this week in San Jose, California.

Antonio San
July 28, 2009 11:26 pm

“Climate is the sum of weathers” Marcel Leroux (1928-2008)

crosspatch
July 28, 2009 11:31 pm

“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
Not a good indicator in the aggregate. There can be MANY reasons for pool chemical sales to drop. Increasing insurance premiums making pools to much of a burden, aging of the population, they just don’t want to fool with the pool anymore, has he picked up competition? Too many variables. Many people I know have filled their pools in due to insurance requirements. It is just too expensive to meet the requirements and pay the homeowner’s premium.

Graeme Rodaughan
July 28, 2009 11:35 pm

If a Dalton Minimum Occurs, and is associated with visible global cooling, this will blow every current CO2 based Climate Model out of the water.
REF: “Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming” from http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html

timetochooseagain
July 28, 2009 11:35 pm

Antonio San (23:26:39) : Actually, no, its the sum of “weathers” divided by the number of “weathers” but it is a good point. Most people really don’t seem to understand they relationship between weather and climate-which is strange since so much of it is intuitive and very basic math for the rest…

Mikko
July 28, 2009 11:35 pm

Mr Archibald, you’re very sure of yourself when you state “A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.”
By looking at the NYT article, it features a panel of 12 scientists from NOAA which
“… predicts that the May 2013 peak will average 90 sunspots during that month. That would make it the weakest solar maximum since 1928, which peaked at 78 sunspots. During an average solar maximum, the Sun is covered with an average of 120 sunspots.
But the panel’s consensus “was not a unanimous decision,” said Douglas A. Biesecker, chairman of the panel. One member still believed the cycle would roar to life while others thought the maximum would peter out at only 70.””
To me, this guest post of yours smacks a bit of wanting to boost your status by quoting just one NASA scientist who, as per my reading of the article, did not state in very strong words the possibility of a Dalton Minimum, but “lies in the realm of possible”. Also, Mr Hathaway is but one scientist from NASA, and it is not certain from the article that this prediction of a Dalton Minimum is an official position of NASA. Yet you claim such in your own post.
The NYT article states that scientists confess to uncertainties in predicting future sunspot activity which is what a good scientist would do in the situation where solar processes are not fully understood. And you, who are but one individual, now claim that “A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean…” with apparent certainty.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your prediction of a Dalton Minimum would turn out to be wrong, but hey, I wouldn’t be surprised seeing the commentary I’ve read on your 2006 paper on solar cycles…
BTW, your chlorine consumption anecdote is pretty much irrelevant.

noaaprogrammer
July 28, 2009 11:37 pm

Richard deSousa wrote: “Hathaway said previous that solar cycle 24 was going to be a hot one. Then the sun made Hathaway’s subsequent predictions less and less correct. Now Hathaway says a Dalton Minimum is a possibility but a Maunder Minimum is not going to happen.”
Ha! He should have said it would have been a Maunder Minimum except for global warming!

July 28, 2009 11:37 pm

I’m just reporting the weather with a chuckle…it’s hard to figure out Mother Nature!
In terms of the instant post, I agree with it, and have been very clear expressing my opinion that the Sun’s solar maximum and minimum is a decisive influence on climate. (AGW is wrong in so many ways…)
I also happen to agree with Alex Baker’s comment that the consistent downward sweep (southern flow of cooler air) out of Canada is more reflective of the overall weather pattern. Typically, when a “southern flow” predominates in the Mid-West and East, warmer air (hot) back-flows up behind it, such as now.
Still, I have to chuckle when I think (as I’m sweating it out): “Warmer really means colder.”
Oh…Mother Nature, you’re a fickle beast…
Oh…the plans of mice and men…

Graeme Rodaughan
July 28, 2009 11:37 pm

timetochooseagain (23:22:25) :
The colder it gets, the more “old warming” is wiped out and the longer the period of “no warming” grows.

Kum Dollison
July 28, 2009 11:47 pm

I keep reading: “But, the Argo Buoys say the Oceans are Cooling.”
When was the “Last” Data from the Argo Buoys? How often do they release it. Where?

Richard deSousa
July 28, 2009 11:54 pm

Mikko, Michael Crichton once said: “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

John Silver
July 29, 2009 12:12 am

David Archibald (23:00:06) :
………..
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
That’s cool! Literally.
Where was this?

John Silver
July 29, 2009 12:21 am

Antonio San (23:26:39) :
“Climate is the sum of weathers” Marcel Leroux (1928-2008)
Doesn’t make sense. Typical frogspeak.
Exactly how many years of weather is climate?

July 29, 2009 12:29 am

I’m in Lebanon OR, 90 miles S of Portland and my thermometer never got over 98 today. Could be triple digits tomorrow, but I recall a 105 degree day two summers ago. Not to say that it wasn’t a record day for July 28 — I don’t know about that. And I’m not sure where the “official” thermometer is in Portland. I’m guessing the airport, near the tarmac.

Tenuc
July 29, 2009 12:34 am

After reading NASA’s David Hathaway comments, I don’t think he has a clue about the fundamental processes drivng the sun, or how these processes effect conditions on earth. Both bodies have chaotic dynamic climate systems which makes predicting future behavour very difficult.
I agree with David Archibold, regarding the importance of F 10.7 flux, and my own guess is that part of the answer lies in the sun-earth magnetic and particle interaction, which changes the shape of our atmospheric envelope and it’s electric charge. Perhaps no cooincdence that the earths polar magnetic fields are weakening as the sun’s field flat-lines.
Regardng c24 SSN, my own guess is 42 – the answer to life, the universe and everything…

Allan
July 29, 2009 12:41 am

Argo home page at
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu
or just google

rbateman
July 29, 2009 1:03 am

James F. Evans (22:33:46) :
Weather is not climate: Portland Oregon, high temperature: New record for date, July 28, 106 Fahrenheit (old record 102), all time record 107.
I see a record of 101 for July 28, 1988 for Portland WSFO 1941-present.
Of course, you have 2 other dates with 107: July 30, 1965 and Aug 8, 1981
Portland WSO City shows 97 for July 28, 1958 for 1928 -1973
Portland WB City shows 100 for July 28, 1998.
The funny thing about it is, for all those cities, 1977 shows as a year where a lot of record highs & lows were set. Dry. Lack of H20 vapor.

Alan the Brit
July 29, 2009 1:21 am

A few words on the word “consensus”. When I was a “yoof of today”, so called experts used to say things like, “the current thinking is……….” or “the current thought process is that……….”, which automatically implied that things could change, as & when & if something new was discovered. I’ll give it a few years before it turns around again. Consensus is a new “group speak” word in my book, & it suggests somehow that things are settled, with little room for doubt. Then again that’s just me! Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 1925:- consensus, “Agreement of opinion on the part of ALL concerned”. Emphasis is mine, sums it ALL up nicely! If you don’t agree, you are not concerned, perhaps like the Union of Concerned Scientists!

rbateman
July 29, 2009 1:23 am

It’s been low enough for long enough to approach the Dalton question.
Within striking distance, as long as thing continue down the path of sluggishness, which as of today has not changed all that much.
True, there is a step up in the flux, a promising group in the Southern Hem. this month, but it got back to business as usual save the slightly elevated corrected flux.
What’s left of SC1024 produced a White-Light facula of 600x10E6 yesterday and slightly under 300x10E6 hemi. today, roughly. Pardon my green counting of the ‘other’ type of active region.

Editor
July 29, 2009 1:25 am

Mikko (23:35:45) :
“BTW, your chlorine consumption anecdote is pretty much irrelevant”
What’s the matter Mikko, are you saying that only alarmists are allowed to reference proxies?

Spector
July 29, 2009 1:52 am

As a result of a recent extended solar slumber, the longest such period of solar inactivity since 1856, we may soon expect to have a clear answer to the Climate Change question. If the next three years show a continued progressive warming trend in response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming will be proven beyond a doubt. On the other hand, if a cooling trend develops, it would then appear that climate change was being driven primarily by physiogenic (natural) factors.
As the drum of increasing solar activity over the last century has just skipped a beat, we should not wait long to resolve this issue. This is not a case of going smash if we do nothing and anthropogenic pollution is the real cause of ‘Climate Change’. I think we should be able to wait a little and give nature a chance before investing in a massive federal abatement program.
I formerly accepted industrial pollution caused Global Warming as an established fact and assumed we would soon see ever more melting of the Arctic and Antarctic regions. But after viewing David Archibald’s presentations, I began to seriously question the ‘accepted’ theory.
I find the Archibald boomerang temperature curve showing the Middle Age Warm Period, the Renaissance Little Ice Age and our Modern Warm Period, to be more credible than the Mann IPCC flat-line ‘hockey stick’ curve that only shows modern warming.

July 29, 2009 1:57 am

Alan the Brit
Are you from the South West too? My house overlooks the sea wall betwen Teignmouth and Dawlish (which carries the main line railway link). The first record of it being closed was the winter following it being built in the 1840’s!
There is an engineers report (and lithographs showing damage) from around 1857 confirming the railway alignment was incorrect and that it would always have trouble coping in an extreme easterly gale. The sea wall also shows how little- if any-sea level rise since it was constructed by Brunel.
Tonyb

bill
July 29, 2009 2:09 am

Philip_B (23:24:40) :
SSTs measure heat release from the oceans to the atmosphere and therefore heat lost to space from the Earth’s climate system.
Increasing SSTs without increasing ocean temperatures (and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming) means the Earth’s climate is cooling.

So how did the heat get in the oceans?
Is this why the temperature has not risen for a number of years – because the heat has been stored in the ocean.
Energy budget is everything – outgoing must eventually incoming else the temperature changes until black body radiation changes to equalise.
Since incoming is prettymuch static any energy stored in the sea must come from the atmosphere – giving static temps if GHGs affecting temp or falling if no GHG effect.

Pierre Gosselin
July 29, 2009 2:17 am

Should your “prediction” turn out to be correct, it will be interesting to see if the sun will indeed cause the earth to cool down some, thus throwing cold water on the AGW theory.
That’s the question.

July 29, 2009 2:35 am

John Silver (00:12:59) : Perth, Australia

Mary Hinge
July 29, 2009 3:07 am

Philip_B (23:24:40) :
……(and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming)…..

Where do you pick this nonsense up from, Argo says no such thing. have you a reference to your claims?
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

Rhys Jaggar
July 29, 2009 3:23 am

If you look at the annual sunspot numbers for the last 3 years of cycle 23, you sum them up at 25.6.
There are only two other cycles since 1700 where that figure is less, namely cycle -4 starting in 1700 and +5 starting in 1798.
Cycle +6 is similar to 23, cycles +14 and +11 are slightly higher.
The data from those 5 cycles for the next maximum is:
Maxima of: 63, 46, 71, 104 and 64.
From that, there’s an 80% chance that cycle 24 has annual maximum amplitude of 75 sunspots or less, other things being equal.
Whether other things are equal is a particularly moot point.
But if 2009 continues on a downward path or stays flat, the chances of Dalton Minimum seem reasonable to me.

Jimmy Haigh
July 29, 2009 3:24 am

Mikko (23:35:45) :
“BTW, your chlorine consumption anecdote is pretty much irrelevant”
So what’s the headline? “Global warming causes reduced chlorine consumption”?

Nick Yates
July 29, 2009 3:32 am

John Silver (00:21:17) :
Doesn’t make sense. Typical frogspeak.
Exactly how many years of weather is climate?

I’m starting to think that the climate is so variable that it’s hard to say.

Vincent
July 29, 2009 3:34 am

Spector: you wrote ” If the next three years show a continued progressive warming trend in response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming will be proven beyond a doubt.”
Care to explain why this would prove AGW beyond a doubt?

Alan the Brit
July 29, 2009 3:58 am

TonyB;-)
Yes I am but not an aboriginal, I’ve only been here 20 years! The sea wall was always a standing joke from my viewpoint, I knew some railway engineers who told me there were underlying issues with its original construction, plus being fully exposed to the full might of Mother Nature’s fury! It had been failing for years long before CC & AGW, & Brunel couldn’t get everything right, but it’s quite alarming to be stuck on a stationary train in mid-winter in a storm in pitch black, with waves crashing over head, but fun!
As to the Sun, well according to 3/4 of the gobal temp metrics we have been cooling for 8 years give or take, & I say again, someone like Prof Mike Lockwood from Southampton Uni says about the Sun’s quietness, “if there was going to be any cooling effects we’d see them by now!” (not a direct quote). The Keeling study said in mid 08 we’re going to cool unitl 2014-15, then hang on to your hats, well maybe, Piers Corbyn says otherwise, as does David C. Archiblad, & I dare say others too. The Met Office has today made what can only be described as a humiliating climb down on the Summer weather prediction – how wet do you want your rain? It says nothing about the uncertainties of its GCM’s, but is insistant on bringing these “uncertainties” to the fore about weather forecasts to get out of its embarrassment! Where is Madame Guillotine? If it rains any more the sea-level is bound to rise! Now check, saw, hammer, drill + bits, nails, screws, corking, timber, iron for the keel, tea pot, cup……!
On a more serious note, anyone with an ounce, sorry 0.28N, of common sense knows that we have more to fear from an impending Ice-Age, than from any AGW, as the graphs of the last 700,000 years attest. The likes of the IPCC & the EU & President Obama would be far better paying heed to these stark warnings in tandem, but then again, that’s not what they are here to do, is it?

GeoS
July 29, 2009 3:59 am

Alan the Brit (01:21:17) : A few words on the word “consensus”. When I was a “yoof of today”, so called experts used to say things like, “the current thinking is……….” or “the current thought process is that……….”,
When I was a yoof of today, so called experts used to say, “the state of the art…….”
G

July 29, 2009 4:22 am

Article submitted for publishing in 2003 (page 3, Fig.3. forward extrapolated) suggested value for SC24 of 80.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf

bill
July 29, 2009 4:42 am

Comparison between argo sea temp to 700m and hadcrut3gl gives this
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6243/argovshadcrut3vgl.jpg
In general it looks as if air temp precedes water temp. i.e. water is not pushing air temp.
It looks as if there is a steady rise in sea temp over the same period as air temp.
How would TSI do this when there is little change in TSI over the 1955 to present measuring period?

July 29, 2009 4:58 am

rephelan (01:25:22) :
Mikko (23:35:45) :
“BTW, your chlorine consumption anecdote is pretty much irrelevant”
What’s the matter Mikko, are you saying that only alarmists are allowed to reference proxies?

I read what D. Archibald writes with some interest. But this post does not help to convince me, as there is very little actual substance presented. The chlorine comment appears very odd, as it appeared to be just one random person being quoted. Maybe his marketing has declined. If you want to compare global temperatures with chlorine sales, you may want to compare with global chlorine sales. And swimming pools are of course not just following the solar cycles….if at all. Our swimming pools are mostly indoors anyway.
In my opinion, an upcoming Dalton-like minimum does indeed seem likely at this stage, based on our observations of solar activity. Chlorine sales somewhere in Australia (?) isn’t a very useful proxy in my opinion.

Les Francis
July 29, 2009 5:01 am

David Archibald (23:00:06) :
………..
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”

I would suggest that the downturn of swimming pool chlorine sales in Australia is due to more people converting their pools to salt water. Chlorine contributing to the modern trend of childhood allergies.
I would suggest as Dr. Svalgaard has often mentioned. Solar physics is a field of science where little is known. In short inexact. Dr. Hathaway made predictions – he was wrong. He has revised these predictions – wrong again. It maybe possible that the only predictions that will eventuate correct will be hindsight.
David Archibald has the advantage that his prediction seems to be in line with actual occurrence – but who know what will happen next week, next year or the next decade.
Mikko. That article has been discussed here before. Dr Svalgaard was at that conference. He disagreed with the figure you mentioned. Less of a consensus than the article portrays it to be.

Squidly
July 29, 2009 5:04 am

crosspatch (23:31:06) :
“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
Not a good indicator in the aggregate. There can be MANY reasons for pool chemical sales to drop. Increasing insurance premiums making pools to much of a burden, aging of the population, they just don’t want to fool with the pool anymore, has he picked up competition? Too many variables. Many people I know have filled their pools in due to insurance requirements. It is just too expensive to meet the requirements and pay the homeowner’s premium.

I don’t know about the “Insurance” issue, as our insurance has not changed. But, I can tell you 2 things, I don’t need to use nearly as much chlorine this year while we are well below average temperature, but, I do have to watch the PH level. As the pool temperature rises the PH lowers and I have to add sodium bicarb, as the pool cools, it goes the other way around. Presently, pool temp has been staying right around 80F (chilly) and PH has stayed fairly neutral. Its cheaper to operate a pool when its cool (as far as chemicals), but it is no fun for swimming!

Geoff Sharp
July 29, 2009 5:14 am

One by one they will all fall, nearly all will be wrong with their predictions, and if you look at their methods most show no understanding of what drives the Sun. I dont need to make any adjustments and I am willing to predict the next 200 years of solar activity.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/200predsm.jpg
This grand minimum will be less severe than the Dalton.

"Gentleman" from the lower 48
July 29, 2009 5:16 am

marks powers (22:20:53) :
Workin’ on it.

Ben Gallagher
July 29, 2009 5:16 am

bill (02:09:11) :
So how did the heat get in the oceans?
Is this why the temperature has not risen for a number of years – because the heat has been stored in the ocean.
Energy budget is everything – outgoing must eventually incoming else the temperature changes until black body radiation changes to equalise.
Since incoming is prettymuch static any energy stored in the sea must come from the atmosphere – giving static temps if GHGs affecting temp or falling if no GHG effect.
I would say that the sea is generally heated directly by incoming radiation from the sun – rather than the atmosphere. I also don’t think you can assume that the incoming energy is always ‘pretty much static’ due to cloud cover variations, volcanic activity and the longer term changes in the solar output.
The current El Nino conditions are most likely a result of the warm water generated in the far Eastern Pacific (Asian side) when the trade winds increased in the last la nina. This water has now worked its way back to the S American side (through sub-surface currents) and re-surfaced creating the El Nino conditions.
Frequently we might then expect positive feedback to ensue allowing for more solar radiation to be absorbed by the sea surface and a strengthening into a full El Nino event. If this fails to happen, then these El Nino conditions will have a net cooling effect on the ocean heat content.

Squidly
July 29, 2009 5:18 am

bill (02:09:11) :

Since incoming is prettymuch static any energy stored in the sea must come from the atmosphere – giving static temps if GHGs affecting temp or falling if no GHG effect.

[emphasis mine] ..
Bill, that is impossible! Heat energy cannot enter the sea from the atmosphere (2nd law of thermodynamics+other binding factors).

Steven Hill
July 29, 2009 5:28 am

Dave,
I think it’s going to get cooler as well….however, people are stopping the use of chlorine in pools and switching to salt water, my brother is doing in FL and he states they are all switching over quickly. Thoughts?
So, if we in a Dalton Minimum, will we be able to grow enough food? Will we have enough energy to heat with?
Interesting times…..we had record cool in July here in Ky, zero days above 90 for July, record! 81 average vs 87, record!
However, when you look at Roy’s amsutemps, July is way up there.

Editor
July 29, 2009 5:43 am

David Archibald:
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
This is only true if the number of pools remains constant, which it is not. Pool numbers and usage have been dropping for years because they dont add anywhere near to the value of the house the amount it costs to build and maintain them.

Stephen Wilde
July 29, 2009 5:43 am

I said this on another thread but it is relevant here:
“There is always a balance between solar shortwave input to the oceans and the release of that energy by the oceans to the air.
I say that both components are variable but as regards the oceans that is news to many and there are those who hold that solar variation is negligible as well. However slight the variability might be the Earth is self evidently sensitive to it according to well documented historical data.
The point of balance is always changing and the only way to establish the current position is to observe whether the air around the globe is warming or cooling.
I have said elsewhere that the first indication we get that a change in temperature trend is in progress is a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems
Changes in the composition of the air such as extra greenhouse gases cannot change the temperature of the oceans on any meaningful time scale because the air temperature always moves towards the sea surface temperature, never the other way around.
The only source of energy retained in the oceans is solar shortwave. Infra red radiation cannot get past the evaporative process.
This is a common question:
“Surely mixing of ocean surface waters with water below will transport energy downwards?”
Reply:
If the surface waters are disturbed so that some mixing can occur then that is more than offset by the surface area of the water increasing due to the development of waves. That is one reason why increased windiness will also increase the rate of evaporation. The extra energy that may be available at the surface is not made available to the ocean bulk.
However, changes in the internal circulations of the oceans (not mere ocean currents) will alter the rate of energy emission from water to air and thus over time change the equilibrium temperature of the Earth but that is part of the sun/oceanic interaction and nothing to do with changes in the composition of the air alone. Changes in the air alone cannot get energy into the oceans past the evaporative process.
The mere fact that downwelling infra red warms up the topmost molecules of the ocean surface does not imply that the normal rate of energy flow from ocean to air is reduced. All that happens is that the rate of evaporation increases and the ‘normal’ rate of flow is maintained – or someone is going to have to produce convincing evidence to the contrary which I have not so far found.

Paul R
July 29, 2009 5:45 am

I was thinking of buying a solar cult hoodie, I recently downgraded to thinking about just a T-shirt. Decisions decisions.

J Gary Fox
July 29, 2009 5:46 am

Interesting posting and comments!
On Chlorine Sales which is directly related to pool usage, there may be something there that should be explored. Yes, like crop yields, which many use as an indicator of cooling or warming, there are a load of other factors, but pool usage (unheated outdoors) should be looked at further. Let’s not be too dismissive of those thinking outside the box otherwise we’ll be like the “warm-mongers”.
As to the beginning of Cycle 24 …there were lots of prior predictions that didn’t make it. One I came across is from “the official sunspot counter” – SIDC in Belgium.
in December 2007 in its monthly report (page 5).
http://www.sidc.be/html/SWAPP/monthlybulletin/monthlybull1207.PDF
“This month, solar magnetograms of Dec 13 (2007) indicated one of the first signs of solar cycle 24. The magnetic configuration of bipolar sunspots with leading positive/negative polarity in the northern/southern hemisphere is associated with solar cycle 23.
The big spot in the MDI/magnetogram in Figure 1 of section III is such a typical example of a sunspot of cycle 23 in the southern solar hemisphere: inward magnetic field lines on the right and outward pointing field lines on the left. This spot is also located near the equator as it should according to the butterfly diagrams, which picture the drift of the sunspots to the equator (0°) during a solar cycle. The magnetic flux in the red circle however belongs to cycle 24.”
And let’s not be too hard on those NOAA Solar Scientists who try to make the best predictions based on current knowledge.
Solar Weather is a very important factor in communications and satellite performance and those industries are trying to understand future solar behavior. Like weather predictions, solar predictions will always be made … accurate or not.
Those predicting have admitted that prior predictions were not accurate and future ones should be written “in pencil”. Contrast this attitude to the “warm-mongers” consensus science of “we were right”, “we are right”, “we will always be right” and:
“Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” (Orwell 1984)
To again quote Einstein on “consensus science”:
The Nazis, who didn’t like “Jewish science”, published the propaganda pamphlet “One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein”.
Einstein replied, “If the theory were really wrong, just one would suffice.”

July 29, 2009 5:49 am

As mentioned there are many possible reasons for a decline in clorine sales for pools including modern pools use less clorine. However it may be as good of a proxy as tree rings. (-:
Two or three years of warming would certainly not be proof of AGW. The benefits of increased CO2 are far easier to demonstrate then any projected disasterous consequences. The disatourous consequences of cap and trade is easy to demonstrate. The benefit of cap and trade is impossible to demonstrate as India and China (correctly) will not cooperate, and AGW is only a theroy that is loosing ground to observations.

July 29, 2009 6:00 am

markinaustin (22:15:55) :
i don’t follow the bit about a 2 degree Celsius variation in temperatures. is that based on past stuff that i am not familiar with?

Good question. I’m guessing this comes from one of David’s ‘papers’. David uses the rather loose correlation that appears to exist between Solar Cycle Length and temperature. Not global temperature, as you might think, but temperatures at one or two selected locations that suit David’s hypothesis. One of them is Armagh where DA uses a previous study by Butler & Johnson (though not in the way B&J intended), to conclude that we are about to see a temperaure decline of ~2 deg “over the next few years”. There are so many things wrong with David’s conclusions that it’s not possibe to cover them all in this post. However, the 2 deg decline in temperature relates to 11-year periods which are centred on the solar maximum and solar minimum of the relevant solar cycles. This means we already have at least 5 years data for the current solar min (assuming minimum in 2008/09).
If David’s predictions are correct then we would expect to see the mean temperatures for the period 2003-2013 to be significantly lower than for the period 1991-2001 (SC22 min in 1996). We know what the Armagh mean 1991-2001 temperatures are, and presumably we also know what the mean temperatures for 2003-2008 (if 2008 is min) and for 2004-2008 (if 2009 is min) are, so we should have some idea how the predictions are progressing.
David
I know I’ve asked you this before but didn’t get a reply. So I’ll ask it again. Can you provide us with an update as to how the Armagh predictions are progressing.

July 29, 2009 6:16 am

On Spaceweather.com, there is an item on sunspot activity, on the left side of the main page. If you click on the “explanation” link at the bottom of that item, you will get a chart showing the bottom ten years during the last century for sunspot activity. The tenth year is 1944, with 159 spotless days. If that information is correct, 2009 has just displaced 1944. Yesterday was the 160th spotless day for the year. Now 2007, 2008 and 2009 are all in the bottom ten years for sunspot activity. Or if you prefer, the “top ten” years for sunspotlessness.
1911, 1912 and 1913 are also in the list, with even less sunspot activity, but we are catching up.
Really enjoy the reading here.
Ciao
Ben

LOL in Oregon
July 29, 2009 6:18 am

FYI.
this is very typical weather for Portland Oregon the last 2 weeks of July/first week of August.
Warm air in the high deserts (3000′ to 4000′) of eastern Oregon (95 to 105 degrees F) comes west with adiabatic compression as it descends to sea level (or 200′ in Portland). Except for about 2 weeks in January (when compressing -20 degree F air really helps by getting the temp up to 0), the marine influence keeps it really nice. (As a former governor said “be sure to visit, but don’t stay…;_)
According to the NOAA forecast of July 27th”
….NIGHTS WILL REMAIN QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE AWAY FROM THE COAST.
THIS WILL ESPECIALLY BE THE CASE IN DOWNTOWN PORTLAND…WHERE THE
URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IS WORST. TEMPERATURES IN DOWNTOWN
PORTLAND WILL STRUGGLE TO FALL TO 70 DEGREES TONIGHT..
So, this is very usual weather and, while notable, it is not memorable and those who raise it as an issue are likely newbies (and should go back to California 😉
LOL in Oregon

Neven
July 29, 2009 6:24 am

Any temperature anomaly predictions for the coming months, Mr Archibald?

Mrs Whatsit
July 29, 2009 6:31 am

Regarding the falling chlorine sales over the past 12 years, there’s another possible element in that equation: the availability of information on the Internet. I have owned a modest above-ground pool for five years and I only bought my maintenance chemicals from the expensive pool store during the first summer I owned it. After that, I found several Internet sites (google Trouble-Free Pools to see one) that explain an economical and effective way to keep your pool sanitary without bankrupting yourself, using supermarket products: Clorox, baking soda, and borax, with a little bit of help from pool-store staples such as cyanuric acid. The volume of posts on those sites shows that there are many pool owners who are still swimming but, like me, haven’t been back to the pool store in years.
As to the relationship of swimming pools to climate change, I will say this: my pool’s sparkling clean, but it has stood empty almost every day this summer because, here in the Northeast , it is just too doggoned COLD to swim.

L Bowser
July 29, 2009 6:35 am

Can the rhetoric on a proxy. I’m not a warmist, but I can easily think of multiple reasons that ONE MAN’S chlorine sales might be a bad proxy…
* Fewer people as a % of poplulation owning pools
* New chlorine-free pools systems (my parents have a more expensive chlorine free system)
* He’s not a good salesman
* The man referenced is in an area with a declining population
* Shifting demographics around the store he works
* Trends toward people using public as opposed to private pools
Then if you want to say, lets take a look at global chlorine sales… I would still say its a bad proxy. The primary use of chlorine is not as a pool chemical but in the productions of industrial chemicals (plastics, solvents, refrigerants, etc…) You wouldn’t be able to seperate out the “pool effect” from the noise of regular chlorine sales.
Even if you could segment out the swimming pool portions you would have to contend with a good number of the reasons mentioned above, still making raw chlorine sales a poor proxy. So if you want to use the swimming pool as a proxy, you then have to look at drivers of what may cause people to use their pools less like…
* rise in popularity of other activities (biking, hiking, skateboarding, surfing, basketball, baseball, soccer, and every other sport imaginable…)
* Local ordinances and neighborhood covenants that make it more expensive to install and own a pool including fence requirements, in-ground requirements (some neighborhoods don’t allow above-ground pools, the much more affordable option)
* Re-sale value of the home. In general, an in-ground pool negatively affects the value of your home. Why? Most people don’t want the hassle or liability.
So before you jump on a comment, calling someone a warmista, AGWer or other term because they disregard one of your own’s proxy, think about whether that proxy would stand up to the same scrutiny you have subjected the AGW proxies to. If it doesn’t, leave it alone.

DR
July 29, 2009 6:41 am
DR
July 29, 2009 6:43 am

Looks like the spambot nabbed me; another try:
Relevant ARGO links for those interested. Knowing what to do with the data is another matter 🙂
http://
sio-argo.ucsd.edu/
http://www.coriolis.eu.org//cdc/argo_rfc.htm
http://www.argo.net/
http://www.coriolis.eu.org//cdc/argo/Argo_data_guide.pdf
http://www.usgodae.org/ftp/outgoing/argo/

Carl Wolk
July 29, 2009 6:44 am

David Archibald: The oceans are not losing heat; the recent low temperatures have been driven entirely by ENSO. It’s easy to account for the immediate effects of ENSO, and I’ve done that in the second image, here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/swansons-not-so-novel-post-at-realclimate/
There’s no visible reduction of SST outside of ENSO.

Jim
July 29, 2009 6:54 am

Mikko (23:35:45) : So, Mikko, you appear to be one of those people who believe Mother Nature runs per a consensus of humans. Big surprise – She doesn’t care!!

Ryan P
July 29, 2009 6:55 am

We are looking at July 2009 all time highest temperature ever on UAH. This year will likely be the all time low of Arctic sea ice and June was the all time high SST record, all when solar activity has been at an extended minimum. Maybe we should take the advice we give AGW proponents…. our theories need to be disprovable as well.

July 29, 2009 7:13 am

Alan the Brit
Its a standing joke amongst those of us using the line served via Dawlish that you check the weather forecast and tide tables before you check the train times!
If you live close by perhaps you would like to join our deputation to the Met office to deliver a piece of seaweed to help their predictions? We need to think of a suitable message from us all here though. Hmmmm… come to think of it we could present a toy mole holding the piece of sea weed…
Tonyb

J. Bob
July 29, 2009 7:17 am

WRT chlorine sales.
A great many people have made a great deal of money by paying attention to what people buy, and looking for the underlying reasons. Probably a greater number of people have lost a great deal of money listening to “experts”. So while sales of a mundane item may be under the radar, many times it’s these items that can indicate trends. Sometimes “experts” with their heads in the clouds, may not see the ground they stand on, much less where they are walking.

MattN
July 29, 2009 7:26 am

Again, Theodore Landeschidt absolutely NAILED this, decades ago. Those *experts” are getting schooled by a dead guy…..

Renaud
July 29, 2009 7:28 am

I have just heard the BBC today saying that the forecast from the Met for a hot summer for the UK was now completely wrong and that it was the third time consecutively that the Met get it wrong about their seasonal forecast.

July 29, 2009 7:34 am

“There’s no visible reduction of SST outside of ENSO.”
hmmm
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/190772/hadsst2.JPG
I would say SST are quite good representing also global temperatures – if you combine HadCRUT with UAH since 1979, you will get almost exact copy of HadSST anomaly chart.

July 29, 2009 7:49 am

I just noticed Richard Heg’s comment above about the report of
“Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest On Record For June”
This brings me to the significant trend divergence between this NCDC data and the Uni Alabama data, especially into June.
Compare here: http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Recent%20sea%20surface%20temperature
Have the reasons for this been discussed? It is particularly relevant to us down here in Australia because it just so happens that in June the Ministery for Climate Change shifted the emphasis of air temperature and onto ocean heat.

Douglas DC
July 29, 2009 7:51 am

What I noted with the current records in the Willamette valley, was some of the all time record were from long ago. 1920’s and 30s’. Also, even in the 1980’s the UHE wasn’t nearly as effective as it is now. the Portland Airport is an asphalt sea. Troutdale, Hillsboro and McMinnville are surrounded by Homes, Highways and industrial parks.
The Valley is a heat and cold sink. Here in NE Oregon we are experiencing warm
90F. weather, but it is summer. 1933 was a very dry,warm year,that was the year of the Tillamook burn that devastated the coast timber and towns of the North Oregon
coast.It could happen again. Especailly with the “let burn” and road closure policy of the USFS…

July 29, 2009 7:53 am

“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
As David noted above, pool chlorine sales are probably no worse a proxy than tree rings, and possibly better. Climatologists’ lust for proxies borders on sheer desperation. They’d use bat poop as a speleothem if it had annual strata.

Gary
July 29, 2009 7:53 am

In reference to the comment on Portland weather and the setting of record high temperatures, I live in Arkansas. It’s day after day of mid 80’s here. Every night is mid 60’s. The forecasts regularly miss the actual temps by a few degrees to the warm. It is a balm and a relief to have such mild Summers after so many harsh ones. Last Summer was equally as mild. It is a joy to be able to sit out on the deck in the afternoon and not sweat. There is a “coolness” in the air that I cannot explain. This is ABNORMAL for Summers here. I was born in this same county 40 years ago. Indeed, we’ve had some brutal Summers in the no so distant past, but the trend has definitely changed.
My experience? My neck of the woods ain’t heating up. It’s cooling off.

July 29, 2009 8:07 am

@ J Gary Fox (05:46:53) :
Einstein replied, “If the theory were really wrong, just one would suffice.”
Do you mean one falsification?
In astronomy, many so-called “theories” have been falsified, not just once, but multiple times…still, astronomers cling to their “theories” because astronomy is a consensus science.
One example: So-called “gravitational waves” is a principle prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity theory, however, none has ever been detected despite multiple increasingly sensitive detection instruments developed and deployed for the express purpose of the detection of “gravitational waves”.
Still the “consensus” refuses to consider the possibility that a mathematical ‘thought experiment’ (Einstein never conducted any experiments and in fact disdained empirical laboratory experiments) could be wrong.
How many scientists in the AGW camp look at their models and blithely assume a theoretical model (a series of mathematical equations) has to be right because the “math” says so?

Basil
Editor
July 29, 2009 8:10 am

While everybody’s counting sunspots (or spotless days), or watching channel five
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
or sst’s
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.current.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
I’ve been watching surface temps here:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop/td20090729_e.png
Just eyeballing — and I think my eyeballing is at least as trustworthy as Hansen or Jones mangled data — I see the earth land masses covered roughly half and half with above and below average temperatures (the baseline is the standard WMO normal of 1971-2000, I believe).
Most of the southern hemisphere land masses south of the tropics are cooler than normal (and it is winter), and it looks bitterly cold in Chile and Argentina. It has been cooler than normal across most of the eastern US all month. Stations in north central Asia are spotty, but have been below normal. You can see the evidence for Great Britain’s summer without a BBQ, and the coast of China and Japan are cooler than normal.
Caused by the quite sun? Well, not directly. But surely indirectly. If we’re headed for a Dalton Minimum, expect maps like this to gradually turn bluer. Not ice age blue. Just cooler than 1971-2000.
That will not take much. 1971-2000 was probably a secular peak in global temperature variation, at least for a while. I would expect temperatures to come down from the peak (they already have) and then meander up and down at a lower step level like the mid-20th century, for the next couple of decades. A quiet sun will contribute to that.

Retired Engineer John
July 29, 2009 8:15 am

“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him.”
“So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.”
A description of Dr Hathway’s approach is found at http://www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml. The basis of the predictions is based on observations of the Sun and are closely related to determining solar minimum. Without a better understanding of the physics of the Sun’s processes, how can one rule out a Maunder Minimum?

Basil
Editor
July 29, 2009 8:22 am

I might add to what I just posted, but when the WMO baseline is adjusted to 1980-2010, it should make maps like this go bluer just for that: the 1970’s were cooler than the first decade of 2000, so the baseline will shift up, making the recent cooling appear more dramatic, or remarkable. But in fact, that just emphasizes how dramatic, or remarkable, the last two decades of the 20th century were, temperature wise, ending as it did with the blast of the 1998 El Nino.
There’s an AGW effect of course, and we shouldn’t expect a Dalton Minimum in the 21st Century to cool the earth to the same degree the original Dalton Minimum did. You cannot pave over large portions of the earth, or slash and burn, or just add several billion people to the planet, without some effect. So the coming minimum may just work to offset (dare I say “mask”?) the effect of population growth during the second half of the 20th Century, to return us to temperatures varying in a range similar to what was experienced in the middle of the 20th Century. But we do not have to lose any sleep, or scare our children, about a runaway greenhouse effect from cow gas or burning fossil fuels. We have other reasons for why it is sane to look for alternatives to fossil fuels. Fear of GHG induced AGW is not one of them.

hareynolds
July 29, 2009 8:24 am

What is needed here is commentary from that reknowned Climatologist, Grace Adler, late of Will & Grace, specifically the “I Told You So” dance:
I Told You So, I Told You So,
Told Ya Told Ya Told Ya So!
It’s better when Debra Messing and her stage mom, Debbie Reynolds, do it.

Philip_B
July 29, 2009 8:27 am

So how did the heat get in the oceans?
Sunlight
Position a lightbulb over a glass of water at room temperature. After a couple of hours, you’ll find the water is noticeably warmer.
This is because light penetrates water for a distance before it is absorbed and becomes heat, warming the water.

hotrod
July 29, 2009 8:34 am

David Archibald (23:00:06) :
………..
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”

As mentioned multiple times above, there are some problems with a single source reference, but it would be interesting to look at a controlled sample of pool chlorine usage.
For example a sample of municipal pools that have been in continuous use for several decades. Control the chlorine usage rates for things like changes in procedure (do they still attempt to achieve the same chlorine usage levels today as they did 20 years ago)? Chart the number of swim visitor days (might be an interesting proxy for the general discomfort level). During heat waves they always run news stories how municipal pool visits skyrocket.
Once you cast out or account for variables like above, chlorine usage like other chemical uses that are heat dependent might be useful “reasonableness checks” on the urban heat island effect for one thing. If the weather reporting system is reporting rising temperatures in cities, but pool usage is dropping or stagnant, then you have an interesting dilemma, are temperatures really going up in the cities? Are peoples swimming preferences changing? Are people not visiting pools because they are staying home in the AC and playing video games.
The comment does raise the issue, are there robust indicators of temperatures that are independent of the formal temperature reporting system. Chemical processes that have no political agenda would seem to be something good to look for in this case. If some chemical usage varies directly due to temperature, and the process is not dependent on human behavior (like swimming visits) it might serve as a useful proxy. In the building trades one reference point might be usage of calcium chloride in concrete to help it set in cold weather. Antifreeze sales in winter would be another possible reference point. Each alone would be a relatively weak proxy but a group of chemical process indicators might provide an interesting second source check against the reporting stations data.
I personally would like to see someone gather heating degree day and cooling degree day information from major cities and plot changes over time since perhaps the 1940’s. Many utilities quote heating and cooling degree day information on their heating bills as fuel usage tracks quite well with those numbers.
Larry

Mr. Alex
July 29, 2009 8:43 am

Finally … although by possible he could mean a 0.01% possibility.
Still, everyone is trying to complicate everything with fancy theories and the like; keep it simple!
Something is changing on the sun, Dalton or not, We are definitely not in territory considered “normal” for the last 100 years and many theories will be put to the test in the next few years.
I have been watching the sun closely since March 2008 and it amuses me that when the “experts” proudly announce the end of 23 and the beginning of 24 (putting all those “amateur Dalton Minimum-returns” type theories to rest) the sun goes promptly back to sleep!
False alarms in November 2008 and June/July 2009 spring to mind…
I am certainly no expert but I don’t think that matters because even the experts don’t know what the hell is going on.
Watch the sun, we have much to learn from it!
B.T.W. 19 days blank and counting so far, a 24 corpse is floating across the sun and a tiny tim (possibly 23 region) is being revealed near the equator…

Mike Pickett
July 29, 2009 8:44 am

I’ve been in agreement with Archibald ever since he began. He has connected (hindcasted is a great word) all the data I had at hand back in the early 60’s to more recent curves for solar activity. Meanwhile, though, people keep locking in on local anomalies as if they belie Archibald’s studies and graphs.
Let’s not forget that our planet is a giant dynamical system. Let’s not forget that someone (China) just inserted a HUGE strange attractor (or repeller, depending on whether hundreds of square miles of evaporation attract or repel air-streams, which in turn modify the oscillations of the jet streams).
What I am asserting is that all these incredibly destructive and uncomfortable “local” (like the ongoing Pacific Coast furnace or snow in Argentina) are the results of oscillations of the jet stream caused by the 3 Gorges anomaly. Meanwhile, if you just peer daily at http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/templine_nat_640x480_img.htm you will see the HUGE southward swing of cooling temperatures.
It is those temperature swings (which have been there daily for months now) that encouraged me to not only get in my firewood (I’m done), but to get as much tamarak (highest BTU’s in our region) as possible. I also have amassed about 25% more than last year since I ran out, as did my neighbors, this spring after burning my stove (I heat with firewood) from about 10-1 last year until late APRIL this year…and my grape bushes have no grapes, and my plum tree has no plums.
I’m proposing that “Put another log on the fire” will be a rather frequently hummed tune early this fall.

Philip_B
July 29, 2009 8:45 am

Where do you pick this nonsense up from, Argo says no such thing. have you a reference to your claims?
Mary Hinge, your link isn’t a link to Argo data. It’s to a graph of vague provenance. Although I’ll note that the rising trend it shows in ocean heat content suddenly stops when the Argo data becomes available. Quite the coincidence don’t you think?
Here is a detailed discussion of ocean heat content including references to the Argo data from WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

Nogw
July 29, 2009 8:47 am

And…neutron cosmic rays Oulu count it is above 10%, the highest since 1964:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/06/29&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/07/29&endtime=18:59&resolution=Automatic choice&picture=on

Mr. Alex
July 29, 2009 8:54 am

Les Francis (05:01:37)
“I would suggest as Dr. Svalgaard has often mentioned. Solar physics is a field of science where little is known.”
Little is known, and yet Dr. Svalgaard has on a numerous occasions confidently rejected certain Solar theories outright… Hmm…
Perhaps D. A’s prediction of 2 degrees is a little bit extreme; slight cooling may be possible due to increased Volcanism (although perhaps this link has been disproved?). Maybe we should wait about 3-12 years…
Dalton-style Cooling (if it even happens) won’t be overnight; note that the current situation is similar to 1798, major cooling was only felt around 1810.

crosspatch
July 29, 2009 9:04 am

I believe Mikko’s points are valid.
And if you have a look at Leif’s charts you see that flux isn’t “flat” at all, it is pretty much right along the curve that Leif plotted months ago. Looks like as far as F10.7, things are pretty much on target.
Personally, I am taking Archibald’s forecasts with a grain of salt, as I am pretty much all such forecasts of solar activity. While a Dalton repeat is possible, so is getting hit in the noggin with a meteorite when I walk out my front door. So far the forecast that makes the most sense to me is Svalgaard’s. Hathaway has been all over the place but that isn’t so bad, really, I would tend to have more respect for someone able to modify their view as more is learned than someone who sticks to a position in the face of conflicting observations (as is common in another area of science frequently discussed on this blog).

Editor
July 29, 2009 9:13 am

Don’t any of you guys have a sense of humor? I’m sure Dr. Archibald knows the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. At some point anecdotal evidence can become scientific evidence, if one has some imagination and cares to put in the effort to make it rigorous, but for the moment his anecdote about chliorine is just that, an illustrative anecdote with a dash of humor and malice. After all, tree rings are so much more scientific, right?

ked5
July 29, 2009 9:13 am

The Seattle area, generally very marine climate influenced is also experiencing very high to record highs ( regularly as much as 20+ degree’s above average), and record high-lows. They are forcasting triple digits at Sea-Tac today – which tends to be cooler than the city. Quite the contrast to last summer, when we were cool and moist well into June, and never did have many really hot days.
It has also been very dry (so dry, I’m shocked I’m not hearing cries of “drought” from the local ptb. They seem to love to cry drought in the summer.) with less than 0.09 inch of rain. Half an inch is normal for July.
Last winter was cooler than normal – though not record setting. We did have lots of snow over several different “events”.
Has anyone done a study of different climactic zone variation during the Dalton Minimum as opposed to an “average” cycle?

Nogw
July 29, 2009 9:15 am

bill (04:42:32) :…so you were the guy who warms his feet using a bottle filled with hot air instead of hot water, in spite of the fact that water holds 3227 times more heat than air!. Believe me, “they”, have cheated you.

Lee
July 29, 2009 9:15 am

Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.

July 29, 2009 9:21 am

James F. Evans (22:33:46) :
Weather is not climate: Portland Oregon, high temperature: New record for date, July 28, 106 Fahrenheit (old record 102), all time record 107.

I keep hearing things like this in Seattle as well. But no one wants to say when those highs were set.

Nogw
July 29, 2009 9:33 am

Geoff Sharp (05:14:50) :You are right!. I have always wondered why so a deep rejection against any greater laws whatsoever, it seems that whoever is behind such a ideology is in need of a randomness behind all nature´s phenomena.
Such a pretension of a “mini-reason” it is always behind those who want to change everything, as in the french revolution or as in the china´s cultural revolution. Fortunately life goes on following greater laws and not theirs.

Paddy
July 29, 2009 9:38 am

All regular readers of WUWT should never accept a weather reports of temperature without knowing the location of the instrument source and the level of compliance with weather station installation and location criteria. Airport and downtown office building locations are warm biased. Home weather stations with amateur quality instruments are always suspect as are the persons reporting the information.
All such information should be suspect if it cannot be validated and verified. Filtering reported information would certainly reduce and focus many comments about posts on this blog.

Mike McMillan
July 29, 2009 9:44 am

Mary Hinge (03:07:09) :
Philip_B (23:24:40) :…(and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming)…
Where do you pick this nonsense up from, Argo says no such thing. have you a reference to your claims? http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

From the Argo site –
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/rey_line_atlas.gif

Nogw
July 29, 2009 9:46 am

Ben Gallagher (05:16:53) :This water has now worked its way back to the S American side (through sub-surface currents) and re-surfaced creating the El Nino conditions.
Are you sure?…I am wrinting this blocks away from the supposed “el nino” (nino 1+2 area), low clouds cover it is the same 15 days ago, it is drizzling all the time by humidity oversaturation (sea losing heat) and having reached dew point because of relative low temperatures. It feels like being in a tub filled with water at 15-16°C, it takes you body heat away. Come and take a sea bath!

Nogw
July 29, 2009 9:53 am

A concidence, correspondence, or whatever, but you have noticed that the prophet has not appeared yet again with The inconvenient Truth 1.2 version?

rbateman
July 29, 2009 9:58 am

LOL in Oregon (06:18:12) :
Please don’t lump the State of Jefferson in with the rest of California. Their outlook is the same as the great valley they live in : flat. We have oft tried to get rid of them, but it’s like a bad penny.

July 29, 2009 10:02 am

Hey, AGW is wrong in my opinion, but I find it funny that when ‘weather is not climate’ is reported of cooler temperatures, many (including myself) jump on the band wagon and sing the praises of cooler temperatures, but when reports of hotter (record setting) temperatures are reported, a 101 reasons are offered for why they don’t matter.
It just goes to show human nature tends to lead to ‘confirmational bias’ and folks on all sides of the question should be conscious of that pitfall.
Science does not understand the Sun — Earth relationship, and a frank confession of that state of knowledge should always be the starting point for all sides of the question.
Why?
Because Science is about the unknown, engineering is about what we do know.

KW
July 29, 2009 10:03 am

As much as I’d like to be like the harbinger of cold, I’m not going to say anything.

Alan the Brit
July 29, 2009 10:10 am

TonyB et al:-))
I have just downloaded Peirs Corbyn’s team effort for the July predictive forecast made in late June – uncannily accurate almost to the day! Well worth a wander over to Climaterealists.com for a look see!
Someone further up the chain (possibly on another post) mentioned that PC offered his services to the Wet Office years ago, they turned him down flat, as did the government of the day, presumably on the advice of “experts”. reminds me of the late great Sir Barnes Wallace & his fanciful swing-wing high-altitude super jet ideas, where we literally could breakfast in London, lunch in Sidney, & dine in New York, & sleep back in the UK! Britain is great at that kind of thing – losing brains I mean.

Mr Lynn
July 29, 2009 10:24 am

Spector (01:52:30) :
As a result of a recent extended solar slumber, the longest such period of solar inactivity since 1856, we may soon expect to have a clear answer to the Climate Change question. If the next three years show a continued progressive warming trend in response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming will be proven beyond a doubt. On the other hand, if a cooling trend develops, it would then appear that climate change was being driven primarily by physiogenic (natural) factors. . .

Just how would you demonstrate that a continued warming trend was “in response to increasing carbon dioxide”? Correlation is not causation, remember? Variations in Earth’s climate may be caused by multiple factors besides, or in addition to, observed ‘solar activity’ and measured CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The evidence presented by many on this site and elsewhere suggests that CO2 concentration is at most a very minor factor.
/Mr Lynn

bill
July 29, 2009 10:29 am

Leif’s plot of 10.7 and TSI show cycle 24 to be progressing nomally but slowly:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Philip_B (08:27:01) :
Your bulb will heat the water by long wave radiation and most will be absorbed by the 1st few mm.
LW will also heat the air (and a lot quicker than water)
UV penetrates the ocean to greater depth and is mainly absorbed by ozone in the air.
From my post above:
Comparison between argo sea heat content to 700m and hadcrut3gl gives this
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6243/argovshadcrut3vgl.jpg
Comparison of tsi and SST
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/pmod/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1935/normalise/mean:50
So I ask again
The sea has gained 12*10^22 joules from some where and from the second plot it does not look like TS1
reference for argo data:
https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1661562-1-Obs_for_OHC_WhitePaper_v3.doc

Richard Heg
July 29, 2009 11:09 am

“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
A perfect proxy, sales of chlorine were perfectly constant at zero for thousands of years before dramatically increasing in the 20th century, this proves the hockey stick!!!!!!!!!!

July 29, 2009 11:13 am

Alan the Brit (10:10:35) :
“Britain is great at that kind of thing – losing brains I mean.”
It is all to do with this highly publicised ‘barbeque summer’ we are currently enjoying, curtsey of the Met office.

Nogw
July 29, 2009 11:19 am

James F. Evans (10:02:09) :
Science does not understand the Sun — Earth relationship This is an improper generalization. Only “new age” “hollywood science” does.

Nogw
July 29, 2009 11:21 am

Oulu monitor still up then solar cycle 24 still down. Big chief right again.

July 29, 2009 11:24 am

Mr. Alex (08:54:41) :
Dalton-style Cooling (if it even happens) won’t be overnight; note that the current situation is similar to 1798, major cooling was only felt around 1810.

Felt by whom – and where?

RW
July 29, 2009 11:29 am

“NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.”
Mr Archibald, you appear to have a hazy notion of what ‘predicting solar activity’ means. If you make a prediction three years before someone else makes a prediction, this does not make you ‘better’ at predicting than they are. You do actually have to wait until the thing you are predicting either occurs or does not occur.
“Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature.”
This figure of 2°C appears to be arbitrary. No calculations are presented. The observed climate response to the 11 year solar cycle has an amplitude of about 0.1°C.
“The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent.”
Why should they have been anything other than oblivious to this number?
“Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.”
The Canadian wheat crop has not yet been harvested. The prediction is for a 20% drop compared to last year, but again, you should realise that to assess the accuracy of a prediction, you need to wait until the observational data is actually available.
“As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming.”
Mark Steyn in fact said something different, but no less wrong. All temperature measurements show a warming of more than 0.3°C over the last 29 years.
“I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.”
Who is this person? What is their model based on? Has it been published?
One prediction made for a date that has now passed, which I would be most interested in comments on, is described here.

July 29, 2009 11:32 am

Lee (09:15:29) :
Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.

I know of a way you can make a bit of money. Get in touch with James Annan and offer him a bet on cooling over the next decade. I’m fairly confident he will be only too willing to oblige. I’ll give Annan his due he does put his money where his mouth is.

Curiousgeorge
July 29, 2009 11:53 am

Well, it’s been a pretty mild summer here in NW AL/MS so far. Plenty rain, temps in upper ’80’s mostly. No bad storms. Great weather actually. I vote we keep this weather permanently as the ideal and baseline for future generations. 🙂

July 29, 2009 12:24 pm

San Antonio Triple Digit Days (1942 – 2009)*
2009 4x and counting (and it’s still only July)
1998 36
1948 33
1951 32
1980 31
2006 29
1994 29
1989 28
.
.
.
on the other hand:
1970 1
1971 3
1972 0
1973 0
1974 0
1975 0
1976 0
1977 0
1978 2
1979 0
*significant station move in 1942

Mr. Alex
July 29, 2009 12:34 pm

John Finn (11:24:06) : “Felt by whom – and where?”
*Felt by whom : Europeans who kept temperature/weather records indicate so. Others unknown
*Where : Written records indicate Europe, other areas sparse information/unknown.

July 29, 2009 12:55 pm

Retired Engineer John (08:15:31) :
“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him.”
I also would like to know the reason(s) for the above speculation. Why drop the comment without any explanation?

Gary Pearse
July 29, 2009 1:15 pm

Maybe Alert, Nunavut would be a good station to evaluate the “minimum”.
Arctic basin ice area increasing again:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
Alert, Nunavut, Canada at 82degN at the freezing point, chance of snow Saturday:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/71082.html

David Thomson
July 29, 2009 1:26 pm

“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him.”
I disagree with both Dr. Hathaway and you on this prediction. We are in for a cold spell colder than the Maunder Minimum. I base this prediction on the solar barycenter behavior. The solar barycenter is presently following the surface of the Sun for the longest period it has done so in the past 6000 years. I accept Oliver Manuel’s solar model where the Sun’s core is dense, solid and magnetic (a neutron star). The barycenter, mainly driven by Jupiter, causes the core to flip its polar axis every 11-13 years, which gives us the solar sunspot cycle. With the barycenter transiting the Sun’s surface for a full twelve years, the core will have lost its flipping momentum, which is causing a severe drop in solar sunspot activity and a severe drop in solar irradiance. The cooling we are about to experience is unprecedented in the human record. I will be posting a paper about this online in the next year.

Highlander
July 29, 2009 1:39 pm

The remarks were:
—————-
timetochooseagain (23:35:12) :
Antonio San (23:26:39) : Actually, no, its the sum of “weathers” divided by the number of “weathers” but it is a good point. Most people really don’t seem to understand they relationship between weather and climate-which is strange since so much of it is intuitive and very basic math for the rest…
—————-
Define your terms and your reasoning:
.
[1] ‘weathers’
.
[2] ‘number’
.
[3] ‘sum’
.
[4] Why would one ‘divide’ one by the other?
.

July 29, 2009 1:47 pm

“..Maunder minimum… Felt by whom – and where?”
Try to read Trygve Gulbranssen “Og bakom synger skogene”.
Or look at some temperature record like http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/armaghcetssn.jpg or http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm

Lee
July 29, 2009 1:48 pm

John Finn (11:32:18) :
Lee (09:15:29) :
Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.
I know of a way you can make a bit of money. Get in touch with James Annan and offer him a bet on cooling over the next decade. I’m fairly confident he will be only too willing to oblige. I’ll give Annan his due he does put his money where his mouth is.
John, what would I be betting on? That Archibald is right about the lower cycle, that he’s right about the 2 degree difference? that my interpretation is right? so far it looks to me like I ought to get pretty big odds.
I think it is going to get colder because as opposed to run-away effects, I believe in reversion to mean – particularly in the relative short run. We have had a few years of relatively warm weather (as evidenced by say melting polar caps), so I expect cooler years to come. Not necessarily colder than average, just cooler than they have been (but of course possibly a lot cooler).

Richard Sharpe
July 29, 2009 2:03 pm

David Thomson says:

I accept Oliver Manuel’s solar model where the Sun’s core is dense, solid and magnetic (a neutron star).

I never cease to be amazed. A neutron star! By what model?

July 29, 2009 2:31 pm

David Thomson (13:26:59) :
“………….The barycenter, mainly driven by Jupiter, causes the core to flip its polar axis every 11-13 years, which gives us the solar sunspot cycle. With the barycenter transiting the Sun’s surface for a full twelve years, the core will have lost its flipping momentum………..”
I do not know much about barycentre movements, but I find it intriguing that you suggest that ‘the core will have lost its flipping momentum’.
Here is my equation for polar field’s strength, which describes a scenario where Sun fails to flip its polarity during SC25:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif

Jim
July 29, 2009 2:57 pm

Geo (22:21:52) : “I’ve come to the conclusion that solar cycle predicting does not deserve the label of “science” at this point.”
I, too, get the impression no one knows in detail how to model the Sun. I wonder if we have reliable proxies to determine solar output over 100,000s of years.
On that note, here is a reconstruction of solar activity. It clearly shows the Dalton and Maunder minimums. It also shows that current acitivity is higher than any time in the last 1,000 years.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304007409a.pdf&code=a860b776fa5d1795be3d4e84592ebdd3

July 29, 2009 3:48 pm

Mr. Alex (12:34:40) :
John Finn (11:24:06) : “Felt by whom – and where?”
*Felt by whom : Europeans who kept temperature/weather records indicate so. Others unknown
Ok – now all I need is the “temperature/weather records”. Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum and I know about the De Bilt record and that also shows no significant cooling. There’s also the Uppsala record and that shows the 1850s to be much colder than the Dalton Minimum.
Do you have anything else?

Philip_B
July 29, 2009 3:48 pm

bill (10:29:53) :
That’s the same graph as Mary Hinge posted. Its not Argo data and without knowing how was derived I can’t comment on it. Except to note that it shows a strong warming trend that stops when the comprehensive Argo data starts.
And your supposed link to Argo data is a link to a grant submission.
I realize the Argo data is a serious problem for you Warmers, because it shows conclusively the oceans haven’t warmed since 2003. And if the oceans haven’t warmed the Earth’s climate hasn’t warmed. End of story.

rbateman
July 29, 2009 3:58 pm

If there is only the elevated temps of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the return to means, then there will never be anything colder than the means.
The current baseline is there because of the timeframe upon which it was measured.
The other side of the means is fully capable of manifesting itself, and eventually, it will do just that. It could just as easily do it quickly or slowly.
To say that 2 C cooling is impossible or improbable is to be narrowminded and focus only on what the last 100 years has wrought.
To say that nature has to take it’s sweet time is to make the mistake of reading that geologists did before Mt. St. Helens proved them wrong.
The only question is: How far and how fast do we now cool?
The Sun is and has been out to lunch for quite some time, and given the elevated global temps of the 20th Century Warm Period, it has much to act upon.
Now, who said “The bigger they are the harder they fall”?
A quick look at the pre-alarmist spread of data & measurements reveals how hard things currently sit at the high swing of the pendulum.
David has given us his honest appraisal of that scene.
Given our current state of knowledge on the interaction of the Sun/Atmosphere/Oceans/Land Masses/Galactic Environment, what he has done is no different than the predictors on this page:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
They all end up as handing out a prediction.
They all got there via differering routes.
Most were wrong.
The signpost up ahead says we are entering the Twilight Zone of our late Warming Period.
David says further & faster.
Fine. Let the competition begin.

Philip_B
July 29, 2009 4:13 pm

So I ask again
The sea has gained 12*10^22 joules from some where and from the second plot it does not look like TS1

It came from the sun via sunlight into the oceans.
As others have explained above that is the only physical mechanism by which heat can get into the oceans.
12*10^22 joules sounds a big number but its not compared to the energy received by Earth from sunlight. I can’t be bothered to calculate how long it would take for the Earth to recieve that much energy but its a matter of minutes to a few hours over presumably decades.
Otherwise, ocean temperature data has large measurement and sampling errors pre-Argo. Throwing buckets over the side of ships hauling them up and sticking a thermometer in, isn’t conducive to precise measurements.

rbateman
July 29, 2009 4:31 pm

John Finn (15:48:31) :
The Upsalla Record compares itself to the Wolf number, which is not a measurement as much as it is a count.
For real measurements, see:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/GrPulDebSFOSN_U_UP_F.PNG
The last 3 cycles for Faculae measurements are pending/not certain as to how they relate to Greenwich measurements. They will have to be measured from white-light images directly.
Safe to say that the Wolf record does not reflect the actual extent of solar activity, though it is certainly convenient and much used.
Not the best tool to use.

Richard
July 29, 2009 4:39 pm

John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”
I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler

July 29, 2009 4:58 pm

rbateman (15:58:36) :
Thanks Robert, well said. I tend to agree with your many comments and analyses.

July 29, 2009 5:24 pm

Geoff Sharp (05:14:50) :
This grand minimum will be less severe than the Dalton.
Which, of course, means that this minimum is no Grand Minimum, by that speculation.
Nogw (08:47:16) :
And…neutron cosmic rays Oulu count it is above 10%
The 10 % is above the average, and is not the good metric. The intensity is up only up 4% over last such minimum, but is in ant case not a useful number in itself as different stations have slightly different long-term trends. The uncertainty of the trend since 1952 [when the first good data started] is about 5%, so no significance should be attached to Oulu by itself. Here is the record of measurements from Hermanus in South Africa: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/hermanus_e.html
For almost all stations the intensity has been decreasing since end of April, 2009.

Jim
July 29, 2009 5:29 pm

The other link to the millennial solar proxy record was bad. Here is a good one.
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=288735
and here is the CET record at the Met:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

SteveSadlov
July 29, 2009 5:30 pm

A bit of junk science in the mix on this thread. That having been written, I remain concerned about the potential for a serious Cold Period. As I have stated before, with over 6B people on the Earth, we are highly reliant on continuation of the relative warmth experienced since the 1800s. Were we to fall back into Dalton, Maunder or worse conditions, we would likely experience phenomena and global crises unlike any previously seen before. In all likelihood, such a scenario would certainly result in geopolitical chaos and ultimately wars of mass destruction, which, would serve as a positive feedback loop vis a vis further cooling. We stand at the precipice.

Jim
July 29, 2009 5:38 pm

Richard (16:39:58) :”John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”
I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler”
Does your data look like the chart in http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
?
I am wondering how they “adjusted” this data? Did they use the Mann method? It was shown that the Mann method would decrease the amplitude of events before the calibration period. That could account for the compressed data before the present time.

Adam from Kansas
July 29, 2009 5:39 pm

According to Accuweather right now Canada’s temperature map almost looks like black next to white.
Western Canada is seeing a heatwave slated to extend north to the Arctic Ocean making some people think we’re seeing the fiery end of this planet. Go East and you see below average temps. especially in the region south of Hudson Bay. The apparent loopiness in the Jet Stream right now has it creating both major unseasable ridges and troughs at pretty much the same time.

July 29, 2009 5:56 pm

Just don’t know about this. There are so many factors involved in climate change. We humans just love cycles. They make it easier for our little brains to explain our mundane problems in this big, complicated universe of ours. But can we honestly say with any degree of predictive certainty which way the wind will blow in Canada or the US? I dare say we cannot. All of the statistical models from both sides of the scientific debate (indeed: are there two sides and is this really a constructive debate?) are so “spotty” and lacking in convincing methodology.
I should also say that temperature measurements are not geographically uniform around the planet — not on land and not in the oceans. There is nobody that can argue the contrary. We do not have a coherent system for accomplishing this. And I imagine measuring uniform temp in the oceans with any statistical significance is nearly impossible. About like measuring temperature at higher elevations in the atmosphere around the planet. Currents would make both extremely difficult.
Until we do get an evenly distributed temp measurement system in place, none of the data from either side of the main climate change debate will mean anything wrt which way it is going — the temperature, that is. And even then, we’ll need years of data points before a useful picture emerges. Probably decades. When you quote, “nobody under the age of 29 has experienced global warming,” remember that this is a biased statement. You are most definitely *not* talking about people in rural Zimbabwe. Nor are you talking about people in northwestern Mongolia. This may seem like an insignificant point to you, but it isn’t to me.
As for your predictions — even a broken clock is right twice a day. I suspect the future will humble you soon enough. It tends to humble us all. Scientists are so concerned with what is true. This is a great thing — it has saved us from a world where priests, kings and feudal lords here in the West decided the fates of their “subjects”. (It was worse in other parts of the world and it largely still is.) Scientific truth, however, is often if not always difficult to apprehend. Here we are, postulating, counterpostulating, arguing, boasting, even insulting. We take defensible positions. But none of it is scientifically true. We have certain facts, but there is no irrefutable answer.
I should hope that more scientists continue to passionately pursue discovery and the truth, but also to remain committed to what serves. I ask: Why not err on the side of caution?

Reply to  The Lonely Trader
July 29, 2009 6:07 pm

The Lonely Trader:

Why not err on the side of caution?

Because there is no side of caution to err upon.
If you believe in the dangers of AGW you need to commit trillions to combat it, dooming millions to poverty and likely premature death.
If you don’t believe in the dangers of AGW you risk environmental catastrophe if you are wrong and no action is taken.
Which of those is erring on the side of caution?

Richard
July 29, 2009 5:57 pm

Jim (17:38:18) : I’m sure the graph you have referred me to is roughly correct. They have plotted the anomalies (differences) from the 1961-1990 mean, whereas I have plotted the actual annual mean temperatures.
The 5 year moving average trendline of my graph doesn’t look quite like that.
I dont know what they mean by “based on Parker et al 1992” though. Why they have to base the raw data on anything else I’m not sure. Maybe someone could enlighten me on this.

Ron de Haan
July 29, 2009 5:58 pm

The posting by (Professor) David Thomson (13:26:59) provides us with another interesting scenario.
I am looking forward to his publication which, if possible could be made here at WUWT.
In the mean time I would like to thank David Archibald for his contribution.
All indicators point at sinking temperatures, from Dalton to Maunder to worst than Maunder conditions. Time will tell and the interesting part is that many of us will be able to observe it all happening within our lifetime.
I never would have expected the summer cold spell hitting Canada and North America.
These are extremely interesting times.
Let’s stop the AGW/Climate Change legislative process currently underway and spend our money on serious problems.
For example: How to secure agricultural output in a cooling environment.
People have to eat, don’t they?
It’s time our politicians stop playing Green and take some responsibility for real world developments.
Switches in climate from warm to cold come with huge political power shifts and the downfall of entire civilizations.
Watch the Russians, because they are highly adapted to cold environments and because they persuit their own agenda, now handsomely served by our own (stupid) political establishment.
I ask myself day after day if I have not completely wasted my time when I served the Air Force during the Cold War, protecting the Eastern European Border against the Reds now we see how our political establishment is destroying the Free World from within.
We have to stop this mad and irresponsible act act of treason right now.

Nogw
July 29, 2009 6:16 pm

vukcevic (14:31:57) : & David Thomson (13:26:59) Devasting scenario..

Evan Jones
Editor
July 29, 2009 6:22 pm

Please explain are the ocean’s loosing heat because the surface temperatures are high? or are the figures questionable?
Surface temperatures are high because of el Nino. That means cooler waters are trapped below rather than upwelling off Ecuador/Peru. So surface temps are up, but ocean, overall, may not be.

Jim
July 29, 2009 6:29 pm

The Lonely Trader (17:56:01) : Well, I’m not being cute, but people in rural Zimbabwe can’t experience global warming since they experience the local climate. I mean, Death Valley has been really hot for a long time, but that fact does not global warming make.

Richard Patton
July 29, 2009 6:55 pm

@crosspatch
“which way was the wind blowing?”
Yesterday there was no wind (it hit 106) Today there was a 15mph east wind which was why it ‘only’ reached 106 (new record for the day but not all time). However dozens of stations in western Oregon & Washington including Seattle did break all time record temperatures today and none of them are influenced by winds from the Columbia river gorge.
The cause is the same reason that the Eastern US has been so cool-extremely high meridional flow. The jet stream is clear over northern Yukon, and then plunges as far south as Arkansas which is a bit south for this time of the year (its average position for July is near the Canadian border.)

Retired Engineer John
July 29, 2009 7:00 pm

edcom(12:55:20)
“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him” – Why drop the comment without explanation? The comment is directly from Dave Archibold’s post. Dave also states that picking the month of minimun at the moment may just be guessing. If you go to the website http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml that explains the methodology behind Hathway’s predictions, you will find that they are dependent on determining the solar minimum. There needs to be something based on the physics of the Sun before it can be stated that we are not sliding into something like a Maunder Minimum.

July 29, 2009 7:02 pm

SteveSadlov (17:30:13) :
A bit of junk science in the mix on this thread.
Starting with the very article heading the thread. Archibald [and others] are a bit too self-congratulating for my taste, especially when one takes into account that this is not based on sound analysis, but it is in line with the progressive science-illiteracy that characterizes our time.

July 29, 2009 7:09 pm

I had been thrashing around a couple of month ago trying to get updated forecasts of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude, given that we have been running on forecasts that are now three years old and that the subsequent data should have allowed models to be fine tuned. I was having no success when I got contacted by the gentleman from the lower 48. Now I can look forwards and backwards with great clarity. The fog has lifted. It’s a great feeling.
By the way, the heliospheric current sheet has flattened. That allows us to have the month of minimum. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the month of minimum is here or has passed.

July 29, 2009 7:10 pm

Nogw (08:47:16) :
And…neutron cosmic rays Oulu count it is above 10%
There are scores of measuring stations. NOAA keeps track of the cosmic ray intensity, and reports here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html that the ‘Neutron Monitor % of background’ currently is 99.9%.

July 29, 2009 7:15 pm

@Jeez:
Thank you for making my point so beautifully. Both of your assumptions are based on a false choice — and neither one of them is true.
@Jim:
You miss my point. But I agree with yours completely.

Kevin Kilty
July 29, 2009 7:19 pm

Philip B:
Regarding time it takes solar irradiance to input 12×10^22 Joules, assume cross sectional area of earth, times effective solar constant of 1kW/square meter, times 0.70 for ocean fractional area, times one-half for effective daylight fraction, and the order of magnitude to accomplish the task is about 2.7 million seconds, which is about 3 weeks or so. There is an additional fractional amount for solar zenith, but this is about the order of magnitude.

Geoff Sharp
July 29, 2009 7:21 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:24:41) :
Geoff Sharp (05:14:50) :
This grand minimum will be less severe than the Dalton.
———————————————————–
Which, of course, means that this minimum is no Grand Minimum, by that speculation.

Of course the Babcock bunch would prefer the Dalton Minimum to disappear because it and all the other Dalton like events back through time go against the random nature of the theory. Dalton events are the most common type of Grand Minima and cannot be ignored.
I consider a Grand Minimum to be 2 cycles of less then 50 SSN (old counting method) in succession. The Dalton had a 3rd weak cycle of around 70 which would have contributed to the cooling if that link exists ala SC20.
The Landscheidt Minimum will recover quickly after 2 weak cycles, the timing is completely different.

July 29, 2009 7:46 pm

Geoff Sharp (19:21:56) :
I consider a Grand Minimum to be 2 cycles of less then 50 SSN (old counting method) in succession.
It is not important what you think. The concept of Grand Minimum is a ‘community issue’ and the general feeling [e.g. Usokin] is that Grand Minima are considerable ‘deeper’ and that we should not call any little deviation from the mean a ‘Grand Minimum’.

1stim
July 29, 2009 8:20 pm

waow…:d

Lee
July 29, 2009 8:25 pm

There is just no telling what might happen if the core loses its flippin’ momentum. LOL
That’s on beyond zebra, and definitely passed astrology on the way out.

Geoff Sharp
July 29, 2009 8:28 pm

Leif Svalgaard (19:46:56) :
Geoff Sharp (19:21:56) :
I consider a Grand Minimum to be 2 cycles of less then 50 SSN (old counting method) in succession.
————————————————
It is not important what you think. The concept of Grand Minimum is a ‘community issue’ and the general feeling [e.g. Usokin] is that Grand Minima are considerable ‘deeper’ and that we should not call any little deviation from the mean a ‘Grand Minimum’.

Just as, I dont consider that you think Usoskin has the “general feeling” as important, after all he is in the same camp as you. There are many other scientists who consider Dalton type events as Grand Minima, as they should, as they make up the majority of grand minima over the last 11000 yrs. The fact they occur every 172 years is something your crowd would rather forget.

Lee
July 29, 2009 8:34 pm

Geoff –
Is this a terminology argument? Do you consider the Maunder and Dalton minimums to be very same phenomena? Are they different in any meaningful way?

crosspatch
July 29, 2009 8:35 pm

“Were we to fall back into Dalton, Maunder or worse conditions, we would likely experience phenomena and global crises unlike any previously seen before.”
We are probably one major volcanic eruption away from global calamity. One failed harvest due to a single widespread killing frost in the US Midwest would throw the world into chaos.
(changing subject to Oregon Temps)
“The cause is the same reason that the Eastern US has been so cool-extremely high meridional flow. The jet stream is clear over northern Yukon”
I don’t believe that is the case, actually, because using that line of thinking it would be unseasonably hot all the way down the West Coast. It isn’t. The flow from the East is important because as air moves from a higher altitude to a lower altitude, it warms. So when you have air from the desert of Eastern Oregon which might be at 4000 feet or so move over the mountains and down toward the coast, it will warm considerably. We experience the same thing down here but generally in the fall (remember the Oakland Hills fire in the 1990’s?). San Francisco can get well over 90 degrees on those days with a strong offshore flow.
And that appears to be what is going on in the Pacific Northwest. As one blogger in the region writes:

I don’t know if I have ever seen temperatures rise this fast around here before. We had very warm air aloft and a very shallow inversion above the surface. This inversion was rapidly mixed out by surface heating and the easterlies aloft…thus, the rapid temp rise. Some of the warmest temps are in the foothills (e.g., North Bend) due to the downslope flow off the Cascades. In fact, with offshore flow the foothills can be the warmest locations in the whole region. The north Sound is much warmer today (now 93 in Everett)
Sea-Tac actually went down last hour (93 to 90), as weak northwesterlies reached the airport. If the temps continued to rise at the rate they were going we would have been 120F today. So the pause is expected…don’t worry, it will start up again next hour.

It is the “easterlies aloft” and the offshore flow that is causing your warming. Air is generally going to increase 4 degrees for every thousand feet of altitude drop. So if you have 100 degree air at 4000 feet in the desert, it can easily end up at well over 100 degrees at sea level if blown West. And there might not have been much of a breeze where you stood but the “easterlies aloft” meaning a few hundred feet above you is what is causing the temperatures to rise.
Here in California, it is still cool and pleasant. So there is a high pressure system North of you and you are getting the offshore breeze from the clockwise circulation. Such a thing normally sets up farther South later in the season … at around Eureka, California bringing an onshore flow to Oregon and and an offshore flow around the SF Bay area in September/October.
Looks like that high pressure might be weakening now, though, so you should be in for more seasonable temperatures soon.

July 29, 2009 8:50 pm

Geoff Sharp (20:28:39) :
Just as, I dont consider that you think Usoskin has the “general feeling” as important, after all he is in the same camp as you.
It is called ‘Camp Science’.
The fact they occur every 172 years is something your crowd would rather forget.
Many people has analyzed this correctly and find no such period.

timetochooseagain
July 29, 2009 9:10 pm

RW (11:29:36) : Unless your reason for saying Steyn is wrong is that people to not “experience” the global temperature, you better have a good explanation for accusing him of being wrong-given that there has been no atmospheric warming in twelve years…
Highlander (13:39:19) : I suggest some basic reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean
John Finn (15:48:31) : DeBilt has some interesting monthly variations (Hans Erren says something about a solar effect in January but I haven’t checked this):
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/fingerprintdb.html
But something that gets forgotten is that on a scale this small climate is wildly variable and often out of sync with global variations because it is intrinsically variant. Not many people seem to get this…

July 29, 2009 9:12 pm

David Archibald (19:09:22) :
By the way, the heliospheric current sheet has flattened. That allows us to have the month of minimum. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the month of minimum is here or has passed.
Then what does it mean? aside from the fact that there is no such thing as THE minimum. There is an interval of some length [year or so] with low activity. The very month has little significance, and is not given by the ‘flatness’ anyway.

Admin
July 29, 2009 10:16 pm

The Lonely Trader,
You use words but don’t say much.
How do you define erring on the side of caution?

Geoff Sharp
July 29, 2009 10:20 pm

Lee (20:34:03) :
Geoff –
Is this a terminology argument? Do you consider the Maunder and Dalton minimums to be very same phenomena? Are they different in any meaningful way?

Only difference is the strength involved…otherwise the same. My point is that they are both Grand Minima.

rbateman
July 29, 2009 10:58 pm

I am of the mind that Grand Minimums are all created differently. There being no 2 alike.
At what point do we say that the odds have changed from against to for in terms of attaining a “Dalton” type?
How much more time do we need? One year? Two Years?
How many spotless days are required?
We know firsthand how L&P can take out the spots, leaving the flux to do what the flux does. Does that mean that there are still active regions devoid of spots but still visible (facula), or do those go down as well?
Is it the lack of sunspots alone that causes cooling, or does this require the visible facula as well.
There must be plenty of old material gathering dust that can answer part of these questions. It needs to be dug up, especially where the Dalton is concerned.
I don’t expect to be able to find all the answers, but I will try.

camjones
July 29, 2009 11:11 pm

I reckon the chlorine sales correlation is as good as any that the IPCC give us!!!
Anyway according to the IPCC and warming hysterics – correlation equals causation! After all, CO2 rise from 1979 to 1998 + temperature rise from 1979 to 1998 means that CO2 rise = higher temperatures. If an isolated 20 year correlation period is good enough for the ‘Church of Carbonology’, then the 12 year correlation period between chlorine and temperature is good enough for me!
It wouldn’t be fair if you started coming up with other reasons as to other reasons for the drop in chlorine consumption – because the warming hysterics don’t have to listen to contrary evidence, so why should I?!? 🙂

Geoff Sharp
July 29, 2009 11:34 pm

Leif Svalgaard (20:50:11) :
Geoff Sharp (20:28:39) :
Just as, I dont consider that you think Usoskin has the “general feeling” as important, after all he is in the same camp as you.
It is called ‘Camp Science’.
The fact they occur every 172 years is something your crowd would rather forget.
Many people has analyzed this correctly and find no such period.

But more have found something….many have found a 200 year period which is the 172 year period but missing one option (3 come along every 172 years) This is common because Dalton type events typically dont use all 3 options, only events like the Maunder, Sporer etc.
This is why the more common Dalton type minima are important.

Philip_B
July 30, 2009 12:25 am

Archibald [and others] are a bit too self-congratulating for my taste, especially when one takes into account that this is not based on sound analysis, but it is in line with the progressive science-illiteracy that characterizes our time.
Hear, Hear!
But that doesn’t make him wrong. It merely makes his predictions unscientific.

crosspatch
July 30, 2009 1:05 am

Put me down for “not in a grand minimum” for $20.
We have had relatively active cycles recently. This one looks more like some we have had in the past. I am not buying the “grand minimum” hype from the peanut gallery BUT … I am still interested in forecasts for cycle 25. Last I heard that one was still forecast to be extremely low count.

Mary Hinge
July 30, 2009 1:36 am

Mike McMillan (09:44:30) :
Mary Hinge (03:07:09) :
Philip_B (23:24:40) :…(and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming)…
Where do you pick this nonsense up from, Argo says no such thing. have you a reference to your claims? http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp
From the Argo site –
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/rey_line_atlas.gif

The graph you are shows nicely the small dip in 2007 and 2008 from the strong la Nina. Your graph doesn’t show it but this dip also continued into 2009 but notice the rise in levels from 2008 (I have included the ‘seasonal signal’ to help you compare it to the graph).
The recent drop in sea level was entirely due to the La Nina and subsequent conditions and had nothing to do with low sunspots! If it is connected with sunspot numbers explain how the sea levels are rising again, global temperatures are rising again and lower atmposperic temnperatures are rising higher than previously recorded!!

Philip_B
July 30, 2009 1:48 am

The recent drop in sea level was entirely due to the La Nina
La Nina would cause sea levels to rise (relative to El Nino conditions), as lower SSTs result in more heat retained in the oceans and hence thermal expansion.
It’s that pesky cause and effect thingy.

July 30, 2009 2:01 am

rbateman (22:58:13) :
I am of the mind that Grand Minimums are all created differently. There being no 2 alike.
At what point do we say that the odds have changed from against to for in terms of attaining a “Dalton” type?
How much more time do we need? One year? Two Years?
How many spotless days are required?

As, accrding to yourself, all grand minima are created differently, maybe the “Dalton type” does not exist? Is it an important concept? Maybe it is more useful to compare with the average of cycles 10-15 http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
If we get significantly (say ~50) more than 800 spotless days, it looks like a rather deep minimum to me. We could be there by the end of this year if things proceed as now.
Is it the lack of sunspots alone that causes cooling, or does this require the visible facula as well.
I think we must keep these questions separate. One is “what drives solar activity?” and the other is “what drives the climate?”. Granted, I strongtly suspect there is a connection, but we need to find the physical mechanisms.

bill
July 30, 2009 2:20 am

Kevin Kilty (19:19:58) :
Philip B:
Regarding time it takes solar irradiance to input 12×10^22 Joules, assume cross sectional area of earth, times effective solar constant of 1kW/square meter, times 0.70 for ocean fractional area, times one-half for effective daylight fraction, and the order of magnitude to accomplish the task is about 2.7 million seconds, which is about 3 weeks or so. There is an additional fractional amount for solar zenith, but this is about the order of magnitude

I assume your calcs are good! Taking your figure of 2.7e6 it is a mite over 4 weeks.
But this is not the point. Your 1kW/sqm is required to maintain it at its current energy level. It is evapourating/radiating/conducting heat away which has to be replaced.
What you are looking for is 12e22 joules additional over 25 years 790e6 seconds i.e. 3.5w/sqm(?) (more if you take into account the greater evap and radiation) continuous for 25 years.
I do not believe TSI has been 3.5 W above normal for 25years

bill
July 30, 2009 2:25 am

Ps 12*10e22J is over the period 1982 to 2007 approx. so TSI is not in doubt for this period. (compared to reconstuctions)

Spector
July 30, 2009 2:31 am

Vincent (03:34:28)
I said the anthropogenic theory would be proved beyond a ‘doubt’ because the primary proposed physiogenic driving factor, solar activity, now appears to be at an all time low. We should see a response to this condition if it were the predominant climate forcing factor.
Only a major rebound in solar activity or a major volcanic eruption might ‘cloud’ the issue.
If we see progressive indications of increased arctic melting and continued world-wide warming in the face of this reduced solar activity, I think it will be hard to deny ‘Anthropogenic Atmosphere Change’ as the cause. We would not necessarily know which man-made pollutant was really driving these increases.
I hope we see a clear indicator of this situation before going over the cliff, one way or the other.

rbateman
July 30, 2009 2:58 am

Carsten Arnholm, Norway (02:01:06) :
The Dalton most certainly did happen. And we don’t have much quality data on it, currently available.
That’s a problem.
The Dalton cycles are not represented in the Spotless Days Page. Problem #2.
I think we must keep these questions separate. One is “what drives solar activity?” and the other is “what drives the climate?”
If you don’t know which type(s) of visible solar phenonenon is/are responsible for attributed solar activity, then the process of elimination is hindered. Problem #3.
Focusing on a counting system (Wolf#) and trying to relate it to Climate changes runs afoul of the arbitrary nature of that count.
Increasing technology can help you measure better, but it will only foul up counting schemes as the forest is lost for the trees.
I’m not a scientist, Carsten, but I can certainly appreciate the value of measurements over counts.
I agree with you, we are heading straight for a deep minimum. All that is necessary is for things to continue apace.
I don’t know about you, but as I look at the record of measurements, it’s not near long enough. Therefore, I say dig. Bring it on. I would rather have old drawings to measure, crude and patchwork as that is, than an arbitrary count of how many sunspots groups were seen on a given day.

July 30, 2009 3:04 am

@Mary Hinge, the only thing which is rising is your blood pressure and hysteria of alarmists. Ocean heat content measured by ARGO: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg

RW
July 30, 2009 3:35 am

timetochooseagain:
“you better have a good explanation for accusing him of being wrong-given that there has been no atmospheric warming in twelve years…”
Statistically, your statement makes no sense, because you cannot measure trends in global temperatures over periods as short as 12 years. However, we can observe that the last 12 years have been warmer than any other 12 year period in the instrumental record, and have probably been warmer than any 12 year period for several centuries.

July 30, 2009 3:49 am

i> Richard (16:39:58) :
Richard, let me remind you what I’ve been saying. I’m saying that the Dalton Minimum was no colder than many other periods. I’m not saying it was warmer than other periods – just that there were periods that were hjust as cold depite higher solar activity. I made this comment which you have included in your post.

John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”

I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Ok, Richard what do you think you’ve shown here. What, for example, has 1736 got to do with anything apart from the fact that it’s a relatively warm year. The Dalton Minimum supposedly starts in ~1790 (though the ‘weak’ cycles didn’t begin until 1798). What we really need to look at is the decline in temperature from just before the Dalton Minimum, say in ~1780, until the end of the DM. You are right that the 1730s were the warmest decade of the 18th century but things began to cool off after that. This, though, had nothing to do with the Dalton Minimum.
I’ve checked the trends between 1780 and all years from 1790 onwards. It’s only when we get to 1780-1814 that we actually see a slight negative trend. By 1820 the trend is a NON-significant -0.04 deg per decade, i.e. it’s flat.
Now the interesting thing is that between 1770 and 1790 some of the strongest cycles recorded occurred. So the decline in temperature from 1780 in a period of very high solar activity to 1820 and a period of very low solar activity was an insignificant -0.17 deg.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler
Yes, Richard we know it’s warm now. That’s why we are having all these debates. The question is how does the average 1790-1820 temperature of 9.093 compare to other similar length periods.
The 1740-1770 average was 8.97 which as well as being lower than the DM average also provides an explanation for the post-1730s temperature decline to which you alluded. Here’s another interesting one. The 1760-1790 average was 9.06. So the average for the 30 years immediately before the Dalton Minimum was actually lower than the average during the Dalton Minimum. Here’s a few others
1830-1860: 9.1
1860-1890: 9.075
1870-1900: 9.062
1880-1910: 9.056
After that we get the early 20th century warming period. But, thanks for your post, Richard, you’ve managed to help me confirm exactly what I’ve been saying. The Dalton Minimum was not particularly cold.

kim
July 30, 2009 3:52 am

Mary Hinge was last featured prominently here last fall trying to argue that the La Nina of the last few months was not arriving. She is an intelligent warmista with a blind spot the size of a sunspot. She’ll cherry pick any data that suggests future warming. Hey, she must be a climatologist.
==============================================

kim
July 30, 2009 3:55 am

If wishes were horses, Mary, carriages would crush the cooling thermometers.
===============================================

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 5:22 am

I’ve discovered a way to accurately reconstruct the historical SST’s using the sunspot number and variation in length of day.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=temp-hist-80.gif
The mismatch around the war years is due to maladjustment for cooling water inlet sensors in military vessels.
I think this moves things along a bit.

July 30, 2009 5:29 am

jorgekafkazar (07:53:27) :
“His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
As David noted above, pool chlorine sales are probably no worse a proxy than tree rings, and possibly better. Climatologists’ lust for proxies borders on sheer desperation. They’d use bat poop as a speleothem if it had annual strata.

I wonder if there is a “ring around the collar” correlation? If so we could get the dirt on the weather. And if we watched it long enough on the climate as well.

July 30, 2009 5:32 am

rbateman (02:58:40) :
The Dalton most certainly did happen. And we don’t have much quality data on it, currently available. That’s a problem.

Yes, and therefore it is of limited use to try to compare the current minimum with the Dalton. We can only do it to the level of precision that you find in the Dalton cycles (5-6-7) data.

The Dalton cycles are not represented in the Spotless Days Page. Problem #2.

True. The intent was to compare the current situation with whatever quality data we may have. The average of cycles 10-15 is at least a useful reference, if not the answer to everything.

Focusing on a counting system (Wolf#) and trying to relate it to Climate changes runs afoul of the arbitrary nature of that count.

That is why the two (solar activity vs. climate drivers) should initially be kept separate. And studying the Sun should certainly not be limited to counting Wolf numbers. For example, your efforts with faculae are indeed very interesting and useful. But one measurement does not exclude another. For consistency reasons, continuing also the Wolf# count is useful with all its limitations.

Increasing technology can help you measure better, but it will only foul up counting schemes as the forest is lost for the trees.

I don’t see the inconsistency in counting as a technological problem. Changes in technology does not in itself drive the changes in counting schemes. There is no real technological barrier preventing us from counting the way it was done before. I suspect non-technological reasons why the counting schemes are “fouled up”.

I’m not a scientist, Carsten, but I can certainly appreciate the value of measurements over counts.

I think your facula-work is science. That makes you a scientist. Btw. measuring areas or counting spots are really two sides of the same thing. Spot counts just don’t use fractions and therefore become increasingly meaningless near minimum.

I agree with you, we are heading straight for a deep minimum. All that is necessary is for things to continue apace.

Indeed. So we just have to define when to declare a deep minimum. Arbitrarily I chose ~850 spotless days. It does not say anything physically, it just implies when to write articles about it in blogs and newspapers 🙂

I don’t know about you, but as I look at the record of measurements, it’s not near long enough. Therefore, I say dig. Bring it on. I would rather have old drawings to measure, crude and patchwork as that is, than an arbitrary count of how many sunspots groups were seen on a given day.

Agreed. Pull out as much information as possible from old data. If you can find new knowledge in it, it is science at least as good as anything else.

July 30, 2009 5:33 am

IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?
Jupiter’s inclination to Sun’s equator is 6.09, while for Saturn the angle is 5.51 degrees. Consequently during a single orbit Jupiter could be found at an angle in relation to solar equatorial plane varying between approximately +6.1 an -6.1 degrees. The angle variation in its simplified form can be described by a sinusoidal function. This is also case for any other planet taking into account the appropriate angle. Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane satisfy equation:
Y = A [ Cos(pi /3 + 2 pi(t – 1941.5 – ö)/(2 * 11.862)) + Cos 2 pi (t – 1941.5 – 3)/19.859 ]
Y.-M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley, Jr. from
Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
as published in The Astrophysical Journal, 577:L53-L57, 2002 September 20
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html
by investigating role of a variable meridional flow in the secular evolution of the sun’s polar fields concluded that ‘stable polarity oscillations can be maintained if the meridional flow rate is allowed to vary from cycle to cycle, with higher poleward speeds occurring during the more active cycles’. Their result published in graphic form is closely correlated to the above equation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
Inference can be drawn that the asumed solar meridional flow is controlled by Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane.
Is the assumed relationship result of gravitational (tidal), magnetic or electro-magnetic feedback is for time being an open question.

July 30, 2009 5:39 am

TARGET TO MISSION BY ISLAMIC RULES

INGSOC
July 30, 2009 5:40 am

On a side note, and in response to a number of comments regarding pending calamities resulting from crop failures… If I dabbled in the commodities exchange, I would be going heavily into durum wheat and other grains produced mainly on the Canadian and Northern Plains. This year got off to an extremely late start, and they are already experiencing soft (and even hard) frosts over large areas in the Canadian “wheat basket”. The calamity is already here. I would confidently predict Canadian wheat production to be down by 30% or possibly more starting within the next 2 months at the latest. If you are into pasta, you will be paying much more for it soon, as Canada produces the majority of durum wheat globally. Look for massive farm bailouts this winter for wheat farmers. Check out the weather in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Brrr.

July 30, 2009 5:43 am

ELECTRONICS MEMORISED TO SOFTMISSION

Mary Hinge
July 30, 2009 5:55 am

kim (03:52:25) :
Mary Hinge was last featured prominently here last fall trying to argue that the La Nina of the last few months was not arriving. She is an intelligent warmista with a blind spot the size of a sunspot. She’ll cherry pick any data that suggests future warming. Hey, she must be a climatologist.

To correct you (again) last NH autumn I said there would be no La Nina during the NH winter, there wasn’t, just short lived la Nina conditions. I had hoped you might have been able to differentiate between the two however that seems to be a false hope. To put it plainly to you, there was not a La Nina last winter, just La Nina conditions for a few months. I did state last autumn that I would predict a strong possibility of an El Nino developing later this year. That also seems to be happening.
You haven’t changed I’m afraid. You always have, and presumably always will, continue to issue litle soundbites with no substance or references to back up your innacurate views (at least you’ve dropped the “The Earth is cooling, even Kim doesn’t know for how long” postscript). You seem to prefer the Ad Hominem approach than discuss the science, its a shame but when the global temperatures are rising, fast, I suppose its easier for you. Maybe you can share with us why temperatures are rising despite the solar minimum, and maybe let us know if you actually believe the Svensmark nonsense?

Juraj V. (03:04:26) :
@Mary Hinge, the only thing which is rising is your blood pressure and hysteria of alarmists. Ocean heat content measured by ARGO: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/graph4_evans.jpg

As discussed previously the graph shows the effects of La Nina very well. It is strange you have picked a graph that finishes in January 2008, when the La Nina’s effects were at their peak, is there a reason for this other than the obvious?

Philip_B (01:48:29) :
La Nina would cause sea levels to rise (relative to El Nino conditions), as lower SSTs result in more heat retained in the oceans and hence thermal expansion.
It’s that pesky cause and effect thingy.

Err, all the evidence shows that sea levels fall during and for a short period after La Nina’s and La Nina events, they also rise during El Nino’s. Just compare sea levels with ENSO records and you will see the very clear correlation. I think you have completely forgotten/ignored the impact of changes in evaporation during ENSO events. Evaporation is greater during La Nina’s, this has a major impact on sea temperatures. The reverse is also true, during El Nino events the rate of evaporation is reduced.

Jim
July 30, 2009 5:59 am

John Finn (03:49:27) : I wouldn’t use the CET data from the Had Met Office until we know for sure how they processes the data. If they used a method similar to the one used for Mann’s hockey stick chart, then it cannot be used for anything but virtual toilet paper.

July 30, 2009 6:11 am

People in rural Zimbabwe are experiencing an extreme political climate.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=23095#23095

Richard S Courtney
July 30, 2009 6:29 am

Friends:
Several discussants here have suggested that the Earth is in radiative balance: i.e. radiation received by the Earth equals radiation emitted by the Earth. But the Earth is never in radiative balance on a global scale and it cannot be.
The Earth warms almost 4 deg.C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year. This is because the Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that as the above article demonstrates), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input is never in perfect equilbrium with the energy output.
The absence of such an equilibrium is because the climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it (due to the Earth’s continental configuration and axial tilt).
So, at no time is there a radiative balance on a global scale except in the meaningless way that a stopped clock is right twice each day.
Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the Earth achieves quasi-equilibrium over a 12-month period. A varying system such as the global climate system (see above) could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. An oscillating system is not in equilibrium at any time during an oscillation. Very importantly, the global climate system is observed to exhibit such oscillations; i.e. AO, NAO, PDO, etc., etc., etc.
So, it is an empirical fact that the global climate system is never in in radiative balance and it cannot be.
Furthermore, the climate system is observed to be bistable (i.e. it is stable in the glacial and the interglacial states). The Vostok ice core data suggests that a transition between these two states occurs as a series of rapid ‘flips’ between them until the system stabilises in one or other of the states. These ‘flips’ could be argued to be a demonstration of the system having two extreme boundary conditions such that the system moves to an extreme until it is ‘stopped’ against the boundary.
Importantly, the system has maintained this bistability throughout the 2.5 billion years that the Earth has had an oxygen-rich atmosphere with little change to the temperature of each of the states. This bistability has been maintained throughout that time despite changes to the Earth’s geography, geology, obliquity and eccentricity.
Very, importantly, the Sun is a g-type star and, therefore, the Sun must have increased its thermal output by about 30% during that 2.5 billion years. This is an increase to radiative forcing (from the Sun) of ~30% and if radiative forcing had a direct effect on global temperature the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.
So, the Earth’s climate system is observed to have a mechanism (or mechanisms) that regulates its temperature to counteract effects of very large changes in solar output.
(Incidentaly, for nearly 30 years I have been asking:
“Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect?”
To date I have not obtained a cogent answer.)
But the global temperature does change slightly in each of its apparently stable states (I have my own views of why it changes – i.e. cloud effects – but they are not pertinent here). And anybody who looks at the records of recent global temperature (i.e. the most recent millennia) can see a series of cycles of global temperature change that are overlaid on each other. For example:
1.
There seems to be an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP)
and
2.
There seems to be an apparent ~60 year oscillation that caused cooling to ~1910, then warming to ~1940, then cooling to ~1970, then warming to ~2000, then cooling since.
The above article attempts to predict what will next happen to global temperature on the basis of solar activity. In the light of the the two apparent cycles I cite above, the attempted prediction is an attempt to answer the question;
“Has the warming from the LIA stopped or not?”
And I argue that the answer to that question cannot be known because the pattern of past global temperature fluctuations suggests that the existing cooling phase of the ~60 year cycle is opposing any such warming. And that cooling phase can be anticipated to end around 2030 when it can be anticipated that then either
(a) warming from the LIA will continue until we reach temperatures similar to those of the MWP
or
(b) cooling will set in until we reach temperatures similar to those of the LIA.
Richard

Niels A Nielsen
July 30, 2009 6:30 am

Mary H: “It is strange you have picked a graph that finishes in January 2008, when the La Nina’s effects were at their peak, is there a reason for this other than the obvious?”
Please direct us to an updated graph of ocean heat content.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 6:36 am

I spoke with an 86 year old man yesterday who told me that in late June 1947, the snow was so deep that the village of Stanbury, near Haworth in West Yorkshire UK couldn’t be accessed for nearly three weeks.
Stanbury is 800ft above sea level on the lee side of the Pennine hills.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 6:44 am

Mary Hinge (05:55:35) :
Err, all the evidence shows that sea levels … rise during El Nino’s.
during El Nino events the rate of evaporation is reduced.

Incorrect on both counts. If you look carefully at the sea level graphs, you’ll see the level falls during the el nino as heat is lost from the ocean to the atmosphere.
If evaporation is reduced during el nino, what cause the up to 50W/m^2 reduction in outgoing longwave radiation? Please don’t try to tell me it’s co2.

Ron de Haan
July 30, 2009 6:48 am

INGSOC (05:40:54) :
“On a side note, and in response to a number of comments regarding pending calamities resulting from crop failures… If I dabbled in the commodities exchange, I would be going heavily into durum wheat and other grains produced mainly on the Canadian and Northern Plains. This year got off to an extremely late start, and they are already experiencing soft (and even hard) frosts over large areas in the Canadian “wheat basket”. The calamity is already here. I would confidently predict Canadian wheat production to be down by 30% or possibly more starting within the next 2 months at the latest. If you are into pasta, you will be paying much more for it soon, as Canada produces the majority of durum wheat globally. Look for massive farm bailouts this winter for wheat farmers. Check out the weather in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Brrr”.
INGSOC, not a side note at all.
According to an article published at Icecap.us, we are experiencing a so called volcanic summer.
A series of high latitude blocking low pressure area’s (causing unusual low temperatures in the corn basket, and lows over Siberia transport massive amounts of ice from the Arctic into the Atlantic, thus further cooling the Atlantic Ocean.
Have a look at the weather map from July at http://www.icecap.us (last article in the first column titled “Aircraft Photos of Arctic Ice”, Jul 28, 2009.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 7:02 am

vukcevic (05:33:13) :
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?
Their result published in graphic form is closely correlated to the above equation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
Inference can be drawn that the asumed solar meridional flow is controlled by Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane.
Is the assumed relationship result of gravitational (tidal), magnetic or electro-magnetic feedback is for time being an open question.

Nice work Vukevic.
I have also discovered that variation in Earth’s length of day correlates to the up and down motion of the sun WRT the solar system centre of mass. This means we can now reconstruct historical temperature from purely solar parameters. I’m still working on the method, to improve the solar activity projection, but here’s the interim.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=ssb-ssn-sst.gif
The end is nigh for AGW.

Rik Gheysens
July 30, 2009 7:07 am

Leif,
A new paper examines the role of the solar forcing on earth’s climate system.
“Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009): How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades?”
Unfortunately, I have no access to the entire paper and have only read the abstract.
It likes to me that the authors have an opinion that is opposite to that of 2008. Then they argued: “According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years.”
Now, they state:”But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years [from 2014 to 2019], average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03±0.01 C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming.”
I never heard that a decreasing solar irradiance countered much of the anthropogenic warming from 2002 to 2008. Do you agree with this?

Jim
July 30, 2009 7:47 am

M. Simon (06:11:22) : “People in rural Zimbabwe are experiencing an extreme political climate. http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=23095#23095
There are plenty of problems to go around, but I am tired of people trying to achieve political objective by hi-jacking science. It must stop. People who want to “save the Earth” latch on to global warming because it gives them a chance to regualate away fossil fuels and other things they consider bad, like cows and sheep for example.

July 30, 2009 8:07 am

vukcevic (05:33:13) :
Y = A [ Cos(pi /3 + 2 pi(t – 1941.5 – ö)/(2 * 11.862)) + Cos 2 pi (t – 1941.5 – 3)/19.859 ]
As usual, the formula doe not agree with the formula on the graph [not to mention the ‘ö’]. The paper referred to describes the result of a simulation, not real data. The simulation shows how the simulated polar fields follow the solar cycle rather than predicting it. In Vuk’s graph, the last few years have been omitted [as they didn’t fit too well] as well as the first 30 years of the simulated data [presumably for the same reason]. This whole thing is so typical of the pseudo-science some people have descended into.
Rik Gheysens (07:07:17) :
I never heard that a decreasing solar irradiance countered much of the anthropogenic warming from 2002 to 2008. Do you agree with this?
I don’t know what is due to what. The decline of TSI from solar max to solar min would decrease the temperature by 0.05 degrees.

July 30, 2009 8:37 am

Jim (05:59:34) :
John Finn (03:49:27) : I wouldn’t use the CET data from the Had Met Office until we know for sure how they processes the data. If they used a method similar to the one used for Mann’s hockey stick chart, then it cannot be used for anything but virtual toilet paper.

What?? The CET is a record of thermometer measurements. Mann’s hockey-stick was a reconstruction based on proxy data. I don’t understand what you mean. The H-S is garbage. The CET record is what it is – plain and simple. There are plenty of independent observers who track the CET and I’m not aware of any discrepancies to date.

kim
July 30, 2009 8:48 am

Mary Hinge 5:55:35
The world is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
========================================

kim
July 30, 2009 8:53 am

Mary Hinge 5:55:35
Very interesting that you find a conflict with rising temperatures, very short term and perhaps only in some temperature series, and a quiescent sun. Do you know the mechanism by which the activity of the sun controls the temperature of the earth? Please share.
========================================

kim
July 30, 2009 8:54 am

You little ol’ cherry picker, you.
====================

Mr. Alex
July 30, 2009 8:54 am

John Finn (15:48:31) :
Do you have anything else?
Written anecdotal record.. glacial records… I’m too lazy today to dig up much else.
Hmm.. Ok you win, the Dalton Minimum never existed, the sun is not influencing climate in any noticeable way and CO2 will kill everyone…
I give up for today, there is too much contradictory evidence from all sides.
“Leif Svalgaard (19:02:19) :
SteveSadlov (17:30:13) :
A bit of junk science in the mix on this thread.
Starting with the very article heading the thread. Archibald [and others] are a bit too self-congratulating for my taste, especially when one takes into account that this is not based on sound analysis, but it is in line with the progressive science-illiteracy that characterizes our time.”
Assuming you are pointing fingers, Please grace us with your take on what Literate Science would make of the current Solar Situation?
Place a few predictions on the table which you deem realistic and based on ‘sound-analysis’ and let us note them down so we may check up on them now and then.
Please do so, I would really want to see how your predictions will fare compared with the amateurs.

Retired Engineer John
July 30, 2009 9:01 am

Richard S. Courtney (06:29:12)
“The Earth warms almost 4 deg.C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year”
Do the published temperatures (UAH,etc.) have a bias that corrects for orbital mechanics or should I be able to see this temperature variation directly?

Mary Hinge
July 30, 2009 9:17 am

tallbloke (06:44:41) :
If evaporation is reduced during el nino, what cause the up to 50W/m^2 reduction in outgoing longwave radiation? Please don’t try to tell me it’s co2.

Don’t forget the other factors in an ENSO event, increased wind and less cloud cover (based on the tropical Pacific) during La Nina (hence increased evaporation) and decreasing winds and higher cloud level during El Nino (hence less evaporation). This is covered within this paper http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/esrg/Publications/World_Water_Resources_96/World_Water_Resources.html
Note the following from this paper: Evaporation exceeds precipitation by about 200 cm year-1 during the La Niña conditions of 1988-89, whereas precipitation exceeds evaporation by about 200 cm year-1 during the El Niño of 1991-92.

Jim
July 30, 2009 9:23 am

John Finn (08:37:52) :
**********************
Jim (05:59:34) :
John Finn (03:49:27) : I wouldn’t use the CET data from the Had Met Office until we know for sure how they processes the data. If they used a method similar to the one used for Mann’s hockey stick chart, then it cannot be used for anything but virtual toilet paper.
What?? The CET is a record of thermometer measurements. Mann’s hockey-stick was a reconstruction based on proxy data. I don’t understand what you mean. The H-S is garbage. The CET record is what it is – plain and simple. There are plenty of independent observers who track the CET and I’m not aware of any discrepancies to date.
***********************
John – This is from the Hadley Met web site. Notice the sentence beginning with “The data are then adjusted …” Why is there any need for adjustment if all the numbers are just readings from thermometers????
“The HadCET data series consist of daily, monthly and seasonal temperatures. Anomalies are also calculated with respect to 1961-1990 climatology. The stations used to compile CET are chosen from the UK surface station network to be consistent as possible with those used historically. The data are then adjusted to ensure consistency with the historical series.”

Stephen Wilde
July 30, 2009 9:25 am

Richard S Courtney (06:29:12)
Nice description Richard.
The only slight difference between us is that you think the cloud effects have a contrinbution to driving the observed changes whereas I think the oceans change the rate of energy emission and that drives the cloud effects together with everything else in the air.
In due course that will be resolved but not until the climate establishment unhooks itself from the imagined so called ‘forcing’ effect of human CO2.

Mr. Alex
July 30, 2009 9:28 am

The latest GONG Mauna Loa Magnetogram (reported: 07/30 15:35 UTC) shows a small new region (no spots visible though) in the top right hand quarter of the Solar disc;
Black leading white in this hemisphere = Solar cycle 23!!
It is so high in latitude though!?

Mr. Alex
July 30, 2009 9:28 am

sorry, meant white is ahead of black… therefore SC 23

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 9:28 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:07:57) :
This whole thing is so typical of the pseudo-science some people have descended into.

In the current situation, given the failure of current paradigms, looking for a new and better solar theory seems a reasonable enterprise to ‘some people’.
The decline of TSI from solar max to solar min would decrease the temperature by 0.05 degrees.
This is simply incorrect.

July 30, 2009 9:55 am

vukcevic (05:33:13) :
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?
Leif Svalgaard (08:07:57) :
“Y = A [ Cos(pi /3 + 2 pi(t – 1941.5 – ö)/(2 * 11.862)) + Cos 2 pi (t – 1941.5 – ö)/19.859 ]
As usual, the formula doe not agree with the formula on the graph [not to mention the ‘ö’]. The paper referred to describes the result of a simulation, not real data. The simulation shows how the simulated polar fields follow the solar cycle rather than predicting it. In Vuk’s graph, the last few years have been omitted [as they didn’t fit too well] as well as the first 30 years of the simulated data.”
Ö is suppose to be Greek letter φ (fi) for phase.
Dr. Svalgaard as a scientist, I am sure you are more than aware, that in any time related function there is a phase variable which is there to account for possible response’s time delay.
I have no gripe about it not being measurements but an academic exercise in solar activity simulation. My formula is not a measurement either but also an exercise in solar activity simulation. You as an academic yourself, I am certain appreciate that two simulations investigations approaching a problem from two opposite directions and from apparently mutually exclusive premises (on one side Babcock- Leighton theory and on the other planetary modulation hypothesis) obtain precisely same result, than it is unlikely that whole thing is a coincidence.
The authors also stated:” The latter authors showed that the polarity oscillations could be maintained if the high-latitude fields were allowed to decay on a timescale of 10 yr. However, the physical nature of this additional decay process, which is not contained in the standard flux transport model, remains unclear.”
My formula predicts this to happen around 2025(as the J-S inter-oscillating period drops well below 10 years). Instead of going back 30 years (everyone is familiar with) I submit, far more interesting chart, and now I believe with a significant predicting power, going forward 30 years as shown here:
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-NRWmv2.jpg
What about : IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?

Bill Hunter
July 30, 2009 9:57 am

David Corcoran (23:08:34) :
” When is it fair to judge a theory? 30 years, 50? 100? 100,000?”
My guess is it would be somewhere between 100 and 100,000; unless of course you miss on a year along the way. 😉

Nogw
July 30, 2009 10:03 am

Don’t forget the other factors in an ENSO event, increased wind and less cloud cover (based on the tropical Pacific) during La Nina (hence increased evaporation) and decreasing winds and higher cloud level during El Nino
This is right ONLY for one side of the pacific, it is the contrary on the other shore. El Nino provokes rains in west SA coast (east pacific) whereas it causes drought in west pacific. So it is not the same everywhere.

July 30, 2009 10:06 am

Mr. Alex (08:54:39) :
Place a few predictions on the table which you deem realistic and based on ’sound-analysis’ and let us note them down so we may check up on them now and then.
Please do so, I would really want to see how your predictions will fare compared with the amateurs.

http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
tallbloke (09:28:50) :
“The decline of TSI from solar max to solar min would decrease the temperature by 0.05 degrees.”
This is simply incorrect.

1 W/m2 decrease = 0.07%. A quarter of that is 0.018%, of 288K is 0.05K.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 10:06 am

Vukevic, would you mind if I applied your formula to my model solar cycle oscillation function?
Thanks

July 30, 2009 10:12 am

vukcevic (09:55:16) :
two simulations investigations approaching a problem from two opposite directions and from apparently mutually exclusive premises (on one side Babcock- Leighton theory and on the other planetary modulation hypothesis) obtain precisely same result, than it is unlikely that whole thing is a coincidence.
Only one of them is a coincidence.
Instead of indulging in self-congratulation, put on your graph the years from 1890-1920 and the recent data you omitted and the blue actual measurements.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 10:12 am

Mary Hinge (09:17:31) :
Evaporation exceeds precipitation by about 200 cm year-1 during the La Niña conditions of 1988-89, whereas precipitation exceeds evaporation by about 200 cm year-1 during the El Niño of 1991-92.

I can see that if it’s global figures you are quoting. The point is that the localisation of effects is important to distinguish. The excess evaporation during el nino is right where it neds to be to trap the heat coming out of the ocean. We wouldn’t want all that lovely warmth escaping to space before it gets the chance to warm us northerners up now would we? 😉

July 30, 2009 10:13 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:07:57) :
“In Vuk’s graph, the last few years have been omitted [as they didn’t fit too well] as well as the first 30 years of the simulated data.”
I will go much further, say 260 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
How about going 30 years forward as in here.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarField1Cr.gif
What about :
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?

Richard S Courtney
July 30, 2009 10:15 am

Retired Engineer John:
You ask me:
“Richard S. Courtney (06:29:12)
“The Earth warms almost 4 deg.C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year”
Do the published temperatures (UAH,etc.) have a bias that corrects for orbital mechanics or should I be able to see this temperature variation directly?”
No. The published monthly and annual data (HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, RSS) are not temperature values. They are temperature anomalies from a 30-year mean. The different data sets use different periods for their 30 years.
An anomally is the difference from the 30-year mean in each case. A January datum is the anomally from the average of the 30 Januarys in the standard period, and similarly for each other month.
So, an anomally for a month or for a year removes the +/- 4 deg.C variation within each year.
I hope this is a sufficiently clear explanation but I suspect you will have to read it more than once to understand it. Sorry.
Richard

Sarah from Saskatchewan
July 30, 2009 10:19 am

Ben mentioned the 1911-1913 minimum, above, which the current solar minimum is beginning to resemble. I just found these really amazing photographs from 1911
http://www.seanbuckley.ca/blog/2006/08/28/niagara-falls-was-frozen-in-1911/
Please note there is some opinion that the photos are not genuine, but also a number of anecdotes in various blogs that this did indeed happen.

bill
July 30, 2009 10:38 am

Richard S Courtney (06:29:12) :
Several discussants here have suggested that the Earth is in radiative balance: i.e. radiation received by the Earth equals radiation emitted by the Earth. But the Earth is never in radiative balance on a global scale and it cannot be

Your4 comment is good!
The balance is over a 365.25(+) cycle (with longer cycles imposed as you suggest)
The incoming radiation is fixed (within reason) Temperatures can only be modulated by what radiation leaves the planet.
The energy sloshing around the earth will cause high and low temperatures but there should be no real long term rise unless the radiation exiting changes.
High temps will radiate more and so tend to cool and vice versa. So perhaps one could expect the sloshing causing high will be followed by a low when the sloshing reverts. But what causes a 50 year increase? (albeit with sloshing induced ups and downs)
One point is that I do not think AGW predicts Catastophy. My view is that an extinction event is ver unlikely. But agriculture/humans will have to migrate north or south. Will this be an easy event? Even if spread over a century?
The flooding of florida london NY netherlands do not matter in the scheme of things – its only money and a few million people!

July 30, 2009 10:42 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:12:00) :
“Instead of indulging in self-congratulation, put on your graph the years from 1890-1920 and the recent data you omitted and the blue actual measurements.”
No problem, I will go much further, say 260 years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
What about :
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?
tallbloke (10:06:42) :
“Vukevic, would you mind if I applied your formula to my model solar cycle oscillation function?”
You are more than welcome, it is in the public domain, so it is public property. An acknowledgment would be nice.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 10:54 am

Vukevic:
What about :
IS SOLAR MERIDIONAL FLOW CONTROLLED BY JUPITER – SATURN AZIMUTHAL OSCILLATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SOLAR EQUATORIAL PLANE ?

Sounds feasible to me. How do you fancy having a go at an equation to describe this curve?
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=lod-ssb.gif
Tricky huh? 🙂

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 11:06 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:06:31) :
1 W/m2 decrease = 0.07%. A quarter of that is 0.018%, of 288K is 0.05K.

Two points.
1) As you stated the other day, calibrating TSI is a tricky business, and two scientific teams are in dispute about the data. The team you have an affinity with says 1W/m^2, the other says 2W/m^2.
2) You also stated the other day that incoming insolation varies 30W/m^2 over the year. When the earth is near perihelion, a lot more heat is going into the part of the Pacific which store, retain, and release heat later. The transport of this heat and the terrestrial natural systems which conduct it make for a larger net difference than you get by treating the earth as a homogenous lump of black body.

eric
July 30, 2009 11:10 am

I think David Archibald’s claim is misleading.
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
Hathaway does not rule out a phenomenon like the Maunder Minimum, but that is not his prediction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=2
A panel of 12 scientists assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now predicts that the May 2013 peak will average 90 sunspots during that month. That would make it the weakest solar maximum since 1928, which peaked at 78 sunspots. During an average solar maximum, the Sun is covered with an average of 120 sunspots.
But the panel’s consensus “was not a unanimous decision,” said Douglas A. Biesecker, chairman of the panel. One member still believed the cycle would roar to life while others thought the maximum would peter out at only 70.
Among some global warming skeptics, there is speculation that the Sun may be on the verge of falling into an extended slumber similar to the so-called Maunder Minimum, several sunspot-scarce decades during the 17th and 18th centuries that coincided with an extended chilly period.
Most solar physicists do not think anything that odd is going on with the Sun. With the recent burst of sunspots, “I don’t see we’re going into that,” Dr. Hathaway said last week.
Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible, Dr. Hathaway said. (The minimums are named after scientists who helped identify them: Edward W. Maunder and John Dalton.)

eric
July 30, 2009 11:11 am

Oops,
I read Archibald’s claim as Maunder instead of Dalton minimum.
My apologies.

July 30, 2009 12:12 pm

eric (11:10:28)
“But the panel’s consensus ”
Don’t you just love consensus science?

Dan
July 30, 2009 12:12 pm

I think the report of the ocean temps being the warmest on record is laughable. It is so far from the truth. Has anyone noticed that the only ones making the claim has ties to NOAA? That would be Hansen’s team featuring NOAA and GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies). Have you looked at Unisys’ sea surface temperature anomaly maps? They don’t support the claims. See the RSS data? Doesn’t support the claim either. In fact you’d see that sea surface temps are pretty close to normal globally.
NOAA and organizations surrounding that group continue to post results so far out there that they lack credibility. If you want to find the problem with the organization look no further than Hansen. The guy has a reputation to try and protect and unfortunately is doing some pretty bad work as a result. This is what happens when as a scientist you start trying to play politics and put scientific method aside to promote agendas.

July 30, 2009 12:15 pm

David Archibald
My formula suggests (bound to infuriate Dr. Svalgaard)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
suggests that forthcoming minimum may be just a shade above Dalton.
tallbloke (10:54:28) :
“How do you fancy having a go at an equation to describe this curve?”
That would be a numerology, as Dr. S. tends to call anything else he may not take liking to. Once you know what the data describes, you go to the physical source you assume is responsible for the effect (planet rotation, revolution, precession or whatever) use its natural period of oscilation, if there are more than one than you look at phase relationship etc.
You really have to understand oscillations and the response of resonant systems to cross modulation by sub harmonics of a multiple order.
Once I was ladled by Dr. Svalgaard as a cyclomanic supreme. Some 65 years ago Dr. S might given the same attribute to my compatriot Milutin Milankovic, but I suppose it would be withdrawn by now.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

Mary Hinge
July 30, 2009 12:25 pm

tallbloke (10:12:01) :
I can see that if it’s global figures you are quoting. The point is that the localisation of effects is important to distinguish. The excess evaporation during el nino is right where it neds to be to trap the heat coming out of the ocean. We wouldn’t want all that lovely warmth escaping to space before it gets the chance to warm us northerners up now would we? 😉

Interesting point, the effects of ENSO events are certainly global and do cause changes in wind/cloud cover beyond their immediate influence. Off course after the evaporation there will be condensation and the resulting transfer of heat energy.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 1:02 pm

vukcevic (12:15:43) :
That would be a numerology, as Dr. S. tends to call anything else he may not take liking to. Once you know what the data describes, you go to the physical source you assume is responsible for the effect (planet rotation, revolution, precession or whatever)

I can describe the issue, but my maths isn’t good enough to solve it. There is clearly a passing resemblance between the LOD and SSBz curves, and I have a couple of good candidates for physical mechanism too, but the z axis motion of the solar equator relative to the solar system centre of mass is describing the sum total of planetary effects at the centre of the system. The earth will be differentially affected by the closer and larger planets it is orbiting nearer to at the time. I’m not sure if I can get the JPL ephemeris to spit out useful numbers for that.
Anyway, refinement like that can wait. I have bigger fish to fry. I have built a model which uses another correlation I have found between the sunspot cycle amplitudes and the solar equator/ solar system centre of mass, as well as the LOD/SSBz correlation. Which means I can approximate earth temperature as far back or forward as I want. Still a work in progress, but here’s the interim result. The green curve is the model using solar/SSB parameters only, plus an ocean equilibrium constant I have estimated. The yellow curve uses real sunspot number and the LOD proxy from the SSB z axis, and the dark curve is real sunspot plus real LOD data.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=planetary_temperature-12.gif
I’m going to try your equations to see if I can get them to help my oscillation modulator to mimic solar grand minima. If you have anything else which damps down on the 179 year cycle, let me know.

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Mary Hinge (12:25:05) :
Off course after the evaporation there will be condensation and the resulting transfer of heat energy.

Which is mostly a cooling effect isn’t it? The latent heat heads spacewards from the cloudtops and the rain cools the water it falls into.

July 30, 2009 1:23 pm

Jim (09:23:35) :
John Finn (08:37:52) :
**********************
Jim (05:59:34) :
John Finn (03:49:27) : I wouldn’t use the CET data from the Had Met Office until we know for sure how they processes the data. If they used a method similar to the one used for Mann’s hockey stick chart, then it cannot be used for anything but virtual toilet paper.
What?? The CET is a record of thermometer measurements. Mann’s hockey-stick was a reconstruction based on proxy data. I don’t understand what you mean. The H-S is garbage. The CET record is what it is – plain and simple. There are plenty of independent observers who track the CET and I’m not aware of any discrepancies to date.
***********************
John – This is from the Hadley Met web site. Notice the sentence beginning with “The data are then adjusted …” Why is there any need for adjustment if all the numbers are just readings from thermometers????
“The HadCET data series consist of daily, monthly and seasonal temperatures. Anomalies are also calculated with respect to 1961-1990 climatology. The stations used to compile CET are chosen from the UK surface station network to be consistent as possible with those used historically. The data are then adjusted to ensure consistency with the historical series.”

Ok – adjustments are made to account for urbanisation and station replacement, but these are relatively minor. Read the Parker paper here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
I’m not sure if this is all that relevant anyway as I was the using the CET as evidence to show non-cooling during the late 18th and early 19th century which will come from Manley 1953 (The mean temperature of Central England, 1698 to 1952) which was updated by Manley 1974 (The mean temperature of Central England, 1659 to 1973).
But the CET is nothing like the hockey-stick or any other proxy reconstruction.

July 30, 2009 1:52 pm

A SOLAR CYCLE LOST IN 1793-1800: EARLY SUNSPOT OBSERVATIONS RESOLVE THE OLD MYSTERY
Analysis suggests a new, weak solar cycle began around 1793 – the sunspots in Staudecher’s drawings started appearing about 20 ° from the equator that year, and one of Hamilton’s 1795 drawings shows a sunspot at 15 °. This suggests that in place of one unusually long solar cycle, there were actually two, lasting about nine and seven years, respectively.
(Astrophysical Journal Letters, DOI: 10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l154).
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154/
Has my formula been proved correct or Astrophysical Journal got it wrong again ?
More here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.400-centuriesold-sketches-solve-sunspot-mystery.html
In his, up to date unsuccessful effort, to discredit my polar field formula Dr. Svalgaard produced following chart
http://www.leif.org/research/SolarCycleLengths.png
Cycle 4 is the jump in pink line, while my formula accurately identifies extra cycle 4a (dip in blue line).
Comments reproduced from elswhere:
Dr. Svalgaard “… your polar field curve is pure numerology. …etc. etc.”
My response: “Dr. Svalgaard I like your chart. It revels major ambiguity, the SC4’s extraordinary length of 17 years which has puzzled solar scientists for years, and my equation resolves so neatly. Most solar scientists are coming to believe that there was a major anomaly in SC4….The latest research concludes that indeed there were two cycles buried within SC4, which my formula identifies so accurately.”
Dr. Svalgaard: “No, only a very small band thinks so. And the evidence is simply not there. A recent analysis of Staudacher’s drawings 1749-1796 http://www.leif.org/research/Staudacher-1.pdf concludes “the sunspot areas measured do not support the proposition of a weak “lost” cycle between cycles 4 and 5″. Similarly, analysis of geomagnetic variations do not show any such cycle.
Tomorrow’s publication of
Astrophysical Journal Letters, DOI: 10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l154). Print publication: Issue 2 (2009 August 1)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154/
gives me confidence that my formula is on the right track!

eric
July 30, 2009 2:04 pm

I should have written:
Hathaway does not rule out a phenomenon like the Dalton Minimum, but that is not his prediction.
and wrote Maunder instead of Dalton.

July 30, 2009 2:36 pm

tallbloke (13:02:37) :
I have looked at temperatures, but I am not convinced.
This is my result:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net\Temp1300-2000.gif
It fails dismally before 1300, but then gets in sync again around 900AD.
For long term, since there is 107 year cycle; sub harmonic cross modulation, (for more than 50 or so years) use amplitude envelope formula as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif

July 30, 2009 2:39 pm

tallbloke
the link got mangled, I shall try again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Temp1300-2000.gif
else copy it by hand

timetochooseagain
July 30, 2009 3:14 pm

RW (03:35:03) : So you don’t dispute the actual facts, you just dismiss their significance? Okay. So then, what magical length of time is okay for looking at climate trends?

tallbloke
July 30, 2009 3:20 pm

Vukevic,
Thanks for the pointers, and I had a wry smile as I read the ‘lost cycle’ article earlier today. My model also produced an ‘extra cycle’ at the start of the 1800’s.
Cheers
tallbloke

RW
July 30, 2009 3:37 pm

timetochooseagain: do you know what “statistical significance” means?

Richard
July 30, 2009 4:03 pm

John Finn (13:23:18) : “Ok – adjustments are made to account for urbanisation and station replacement, but these are relatively minor.”
This is what they say for the data I downloaded: “Allowances have been made for topographic, coastal and urban effects where relationships are found to exist.”
The Dalton Minimum does not seem to be particularly cold in the times that it was in, at least in the CET records.
The Hadley data would be viewed as suspect if they do not reveal exactly what they have done and refuse to do so when requested.
On the other hand even in the Hadley records there is a marked cooling after 2002. Whether this will continue and for how long remains to be seen.
The Hadley trend is mirrored in the UAH and RSS data. The only one that flies against this trend is Hansen’s GISS and hence I totally distrust that.

Richard
July 30, 2009 5:40 pm

PS I have plotted the slopes of the temperature curves of UAH, RSS, Hadley CRU and GISS from 1979 (start of the Satellite records) to 2007
Between the satellite data’s UAH and RSS there is a pretty good match all the way through.
GISS starts diverging from 1992 (is there anything significant about this date re: Hansen?) and Hadley starts diverging from 2002.
IF hadley records were fiddled, they could have been even before 2002 and the trend not noticed, if they had raised the temperatures uniformly. The same with GISS.
However after those dates not only are the temperatures elevated but the trends upwards increase in the case of GISS from 1992 and trends downwards decrease in the case of Hadley from 2002.
In the case of GISS the downward trend of the slope levels off from 2002 to 2005. Then if appears to precipitously play “catch-up”. It looks extremely “fiddly” and artificial after that. Quite jerky and unnatural.

Jim
July 30, 2009 9:17 pm

John Finn (13:23:18) : John … that paper was written in 1991. Statistics have really “advanced” since then. The data may be OK for you point, but ever since Mann, Steig, etc. got busted for bad stat methods, it is always a valid question to ask how the data is “adjusted.” That’s my only point. I wouldn’t use HADCET data for anything until I knew for sure how it is being adjusted.

timetochooseagain
July 30, 2009 9:56 pm

RW (15:37:29) : Do you know how ridiculous it is to wave vague responses like that which question whether I am familiar with the particular definition of the vague concept you believe I do not understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
In order to say that there is no significance of a 12 year trend of no warming (in the lower atmosphere) one has to define what one is saying it is not significantly different from. You have not done that-you have just thrown the term around like a third grader.
None of which changes my point-Steyn’s statement is literally true. As for whether it is technically “statistically true”, well, in the words of the great Tory Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or whatever it was called at that time Benjamin Disraeli once said, “There are three kinds of lies-lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

Richard Heg
July 30, 2009 11:48 pm
E.M.Smith
Editor
July 31, 2009 12:38 am

Richard (17:40:05) : GISS starts diverging from 1992 (is there anything significant about this date re: Hansen?) and Hadley starts diverging from 2002.
GIStemp calculates an “offset” between two thermometers based on the last “up to 10 years data” out of the last at most 20 years data. It then uses this “offset” to rewrite the (older) past. So 2009-1992 = 17 years. Right in the middle. So some missing data caused the code doing the “offset” to run back more than 10 years. BTW, I’m still working on characterizing how each of the steps of GIStemp changes the temperature history.

Mary Hinge
July 31, 2009 1:34 am

tallbloke (13:20:22) :
Mary Hinge (12:25:05) :
Off course after the evaporation there will be condensation and the resulting transfer of heat energy.
Which is mostly a cooling effect isn’t it? The latent heat heads spacewards from the cloudtops and the rain cools the water it falls into.

Mostly it is, which is why global temperatures decrease following La Nina events and conditions.

July 31, 2009 2:50 am

Richard (16:03:15) :
The Dalton Minimum does not seem to be particularly cold in the times that it was in, at least in the CET records.

The CET tracks other long term records fairly consistently, e.g. Armagh, De Bilt, Uppsala.
Richard (17:40:05) :
GISS starts diverging from 1992 (is there anything significant about this date re: Hansen?) and Hadley starts diverging from 2002.

Since 1992, the trends for all 4 datasets are within a few hundredths of a degree of each other. GISS has diverged a bit recently but that may be because it extrapolates over the arctic. The arctic has been particularly warm in recent years (see UAH NoPol and ice extent trends).
Jim (21:17:10) :
John Finn (13:23:18) : John … that paper was written in 1991. Statistics have really “advanced” since then. The data may be OK for you point, but ever since Mann, Steig, etc. got busted for bad stat methods, it is always a valid question to ask how the data is “adjusted.” That’s my only point. I wouldn’t use HADCET data for anything until I knew for sure how it is being adjusted.

I ssume, then, you know how UAH temperatures have been adjusted over the years. If so could you explain the huge difference in trends (~0.12 deg per decade) between May and February in the UAH record. This discrepancy, which has increased in recent years, was acknowledged by John Christy in a recent WUWT post.
Perhaps it’s not GISS or Hadley or RSS that ‘s ‘wrong’ – perhaps it’s UAH.

tallbloke
July 31, 2009 4:39 am

Mary Hinge (01:34:16) :
tallbloke (13:20:22) :
Mary Hinge (12:25:05) :
Off course after the evaporation there will be condensation and the resulting transfer of heat energy.
Which is mostly a cooling effect isn’t it? The latent heat heads spacewards from the cloudtops and the rain cools the water it falls into.
Mostly it is, which is why global temperatures decrease following La Nina events and conditions.

I thought we were discussing el nino rather than la nina?

Jim
July 31, 2009 6:51 am

John Finn (02:50:40) :
*********************
I assume, then, you know how UAH temperatures have been adjusted over the years. If so could you explain the huge difference in trends (~0.12 deg per decade) between May and February in the UAH record. This discrepancy, which has increased in recent years, was acknowledged by John Christy in a recent WUWT post.
Perhaps it’s not GISS or Hadley or RSS that ’s ‘wrong’ – perhaps it’s UAH.
*******************************************
I am aware of the seasonal variations in UAH. I know that the procedure used to generate GISS temps is dodgy. The fact that it tracks RSS and Hadley makes me suspicious of them, too. As far as the UAH data is concerned, there may be a problem that is indicated by the seasonal variations or the variations might be real. Climate isn’t well understood, so climatologists can’t really answer questions like that without further research.

July 31, 2009 6:56 am

LOST CYCLE GRAPHICS
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LostCycle.gif
Public (blog) and private (email) comments are welcome.

Geoff Sharp
July 31, 2009 7:58 am

Usoskin’s latest paper on lost cycle here:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/apjl_700_2_154.pdf
Interesting how Usoskin fully recognizes the Dalton Minimum as a grand minimum in this paper but rules it out in previous papers re the 11000 yr 14C record. Perhaps he should now revisit that paper?
If proven this means the Dalton had 4 low cycles…..thats not chicken feed and firmly establishes the importance of lower strength grand minima.

Mary Hinge
July 31, 2009 8:33 am

tallbloke (04:39:18) :
I thought we were discussing el nino rather than la nina?

No, as shown above evaporation increases during La Nina, hence the cooling etc.

tallbloke
July 31, 2009 11:31 am

Mary Hinge (08:33:50) :
tallbloke (04:39:18) :
I thought we were discussing el nino rather than la nina?
No, as shown above evaporation increases during La Nina, hence the cooling etc.

Back to my original question then. What causes the 50w/m^2 drop in OLR during big el ninos if not water vapour?

tallbloke
July 31, 2009 12:59 pm

Geoff Sharp (07:58:42) :
If proven this means the Dalton had 4 low cycles…..thats not chicken feed and firmly establishes the importance of lower strength grand minima.

The sun was getting rorked about by the planets a lot around then.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=Dalton_SSB.gif

Richard
July 31, 2009 3:00 pm

John Finn (02:50:40) :
Richard (17:40:05) :
GISS starts diverging from 1992 (is there anything significant about this date re: Hansen?) and Hadley starts diverging from 2002.
“..Since 1992, the trends for all 4 datasets are within a few hundredths of a degree of each other”. Per year yes. That would be a few tenths of a degree per decade or a few degrees per century.
But I am talking about the slope of the trends themselves. The slope of this curve starts sloping downwards for all 4 data sets from 1992. (Which perhaps seems to indicate that the rate of increase of temperature rise starts falling from 1992)?
Before 1992, (ie from 1978 to 1992) all 4 curves are practically identical, sloping very gently upwards. After 1992, the GISS curve parts company from the other 3 and its downwards slope is distinctly less than the other 3.
The other 3 curves then follow an identical path till 2002, when Hadley parts company with the other 2 having a distinctly lower downward trend to the satellite data curves.
If one had a suspicious mind one could say that GISS inadvertently or otherwise started to overestimate temperatures and trends after 1992 and Hadley after 2002.
Also the flat bit of the GISS and Hadley slopes between 2005 and 2006 look pretty identical for the two. A suspicious mind might say collusion.
“GISS has diverged a bit recently but that may be because it extrapolates over the arctic. The arctic has been particularly warm in recent years (see UAH NoPol and ice extent trends).”
Extrapolation is always risky and prone to errors. The Satellite datasets also use arctic records, as the circumpolar satellites give data upto 2 degrees of the poles I believe. RSS has stopped adding data from the antarctic I believe, but from when I do not know, stopping at 72.5 Degrees South.

timetochooseagain
July 31, 2009 4:48 pm

John Finn (02:50:40) : Yeah, and perhaps the tooth fairy is real to.
UAH lines up with radiosondes, RSS spontaneously jumps relative to all other datasets in 1992…many publications have shown that UAH is better than RSS, but “perhaps” the dataset is wrong 🙄
Not that it matters-neither RSS nor UAH show, globally, 1.2 times the warming seen at the surface…and neither shows warming for twelve years now.

July 31, 2009 4:50 pm

Richard (15:00:15) :
John Finn (02:50:40) :
Richard (17:40:05) :
GISS starts diverging from 1992 (is there anything significant about this date re: Hansen?) and Hadley starts diverging from 2002.
“..Since 1992, the trends for all 4 datasets are within a few hundredths of a degree of each other”.

Per year yes. That would be a few tenths of a degree per decade or a few degrees per century.
No – per decade not per year. Check out the trends. Someone (the woodfortrees guy, I think) did it recently on WUWT and his calculations agreed pretty much with my own.
“GISS has diverged a bit recently but that may be because it extrapolates over the arctic. The arctic has been particularly warm in recent years (see UAH NoPol and ice extent trends).”
Extrapolation is always risky and prone to errors.
Possibly – but the errors will go in both directions. The problem for GISS is that the arctic has been warm over the past few years so any recent ‘errors’ will have been on the warm side. A few months back GISS anomalies were, relatively speaking, the lowest of all 4 datasets. That is, when the 1979-1998 base period was used, GISS was cooler than RSS and Hadley and was much cooler than UAH.

Geoff Sharp
July 31, 2009 4:59 pm

tallbloke (12:59:50) :
Geoff Sharp (07:58:42) :
If proven this means the Dalton had 4 low cycles…..thats not chicken feed and firmly establishes the importance of lower strength grand minima.
———————-
The sun was getting rorked about by the planets a lot around then.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=Dalton_SSB.gif

Exactly, and 2 interesting points tallbloke, the planets are almost in an identical position and the timing of the solar cycle is also very close. The difference this time around is there will be no second hit like we had in 1830.

tallbloke
July 31, 2009 11:05 pm

Geoff Sharp (16:59:17) :
the planets are almost in an identical position and the timing of the solar cycle is also very close. The difference this time around is there will be no second hit like we had in 1830.

I’m not sure what difference the second hit made. It looks to me like it might actually have help jolt the sun back into a higher rate of activity at the end of the Dalton minimum.
The oppositional loops seem to be the major feature of all three periods, Maunder, Dalton and now. I wonder how much the orientation affects the situation. I’d like to know if the tilt in the sun’s axis precesses, but no-one seems to know.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view&current=minima.gif

Richard
July 31, 2009 11:20 pm

John Finn (16:50:07) :
Richard (15:00:15) :
John Finn (02:50:40) :
Richard (17:40:05) :
Ok My figures Trend 1979 to 2008 CRU, GISS, RSS, UAH – 0.159, 0.162, 0.157, 0.128 C/Decade. GISS the greatest warming UAH the least
So you are right – “the trends for all 4 datasets are within a few hundredths of a degree of each other” but only over the 29 years and upto 2002.
From 2002 to 2008 CRU, GISS, RSS, UAH – -0.107, -0.020, -0.151, -0.130 (from the raw data) RSS shows the greatest cooling and GISS the least.
This difference of about 1.5C/century is significant.
My data doesnt quite agree with the wood for trees one, (though not by very much) but then GISS has changed so many times that its not surprising.

Geoff Sharp
August 1, 2009 12:18 am

tallbloke (23:05:41) :
The 2nd hit of the Dalton was a fizzer (not following Wilson’s law) but it still managed to reduce SC7 to way below SC20. We will get a bigger kick start this time because there are no more hits coming. The Dalton started on the first hit of 3, the 1st one doing the damage and the 3rd slowing down SC12 only. This time around the first hit was SC20, 2nd hit is now (fairly strong) and no 3rd hit. Once you understand how the disturbances are quantified it becomes clear.

August 1, 2009 12:20 am

vukcevic (10:42:04) :
“Instead of indulging in self-congratulation, put on your graph the years from 1890-1920 and the recent data you omitted and the blue actual measurements.”
No problem, I will go much further, say 260 years

Except, you didn’t. You produced yet another graph. Go back to the NRL graph, do not omit the last few years and place the ‘blue’ actual measurements on the graph.
Geoff Sharp (07:58:42) :
Usoskin’s latest paper on lost cycle
There are two independent pieces of evidence that point to no lost cycle: the 10Be cosmic ray proxy and the variation of the diurnal range of the magnetic declination. This Figure shows the Wolf number, Group number and Staudacher’s data normalized to be halfway between the Wolf number and the Group number:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png
There is no hint of a lost cycle.

August 1, 2009 12:39 am

tallbloke (11:06:42) :
“1 W/m2 decrease = 0.07%. A quarter of that is 0.018%, of 288K is 0.05K.”
The team you have an affinity with says 1W/m^2, the other says 2W/m^2.

The discussion was about the variation during the very weak cycles to come, so it is reasonable to adopt the lower number.
2) You also stated the other day that incoming insolation varies 30W/m^2 over the year.
Unless you can present a detailed calculating that shows this, you have no basis for saying that the 0.05K ‘is simply wrong’. During a ‘normal’ cycle various researchers have found a solar cycle variation of about 0.1K, so it is quite reasonable to expect a smaller [e.g. half] variation for cycles that are only half as strong.

August 1, 2009 2:37 am

A very interesting and relevant post, David; thank you.
But you said a few things that triggered my skepticism:
“I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model.”
I`m curious, David: did he also have a bridge for sale?
“[His solar activity model” hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it.”
Your use of “faith” is very interesting. I`m sure others here share my skepticism in models of all kinds, recognize that hindcasting isn`t a valid form of verification, and my concern that maybe you`ve been sucked into a cult religion of some sort.
“I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.”
Well, perhaps, but surely you`re not suggesting we accept this on “faith”, are you? Has he published in any journals, or started selling forecasts commercially?
TT

August 1, 2009 3:53 am

Richard (23:20:25) :
Ok My figures Trend 1979 to 2008 CRU, GISS, RSS, UAH – 0.159, 0.162, 0.157, 0.128 C/Decade. GISS the greatest warming UAH the least
So you are right – “the trends for all 4 datasets are within a few hundredths of a degree of each other” but only over the 29 years and upto 2002.

I was actually referring to the trends since 1992 which are in much closer agreement – but not to worry.
From 2002 to 2008 CRU, GISS, RSS, UAH – -0.107, -0.020, -0.151, -0.130 (from the raw data) RSS shows the greatest cooling and GISS the least.
This is too short a period to draw any conclusions. There was a significant El Nino at the start of this period (2002/03) and a significant La Nina at the end (2007/08). The trend(s) will be heavily influenced by these events – some more than others possibly. In fact, if the ENSO effects are removed, I doubt that the underlying trend is negative (even ignoring statisitical significance) . A recent paper (discussed on WUWT) suggests much of the recent warming trend is due to ENSO but this must work both ways, i.e. La Nina will induce a cooling trend.

kim
August 1, 2009 3:53 am

Tokyo Tom, still bathing in the fountain of faith from the hindcast warmista models. It’s the water vapor, Stupid. It’s the economy they want to sacrifice to the shibboleths of CO2 silliness.

August 1, 2009 5:21 am

Leif Svalgaard (00:20:37) :
vukcevic (10:42:04) :
“No problem, I will go much further, say 260 years”
Leif Svalgaard (00:20:37) :
“Except, you didn’t. You produced yet another graph.”
Since it is obvious that your knowledge or oscillations within resonant systems appear to be somewhat deficient let me help out.
Physics of harmonic oscillations is clear: Cross-modulation of two sine waves of the same amplitude but different frequency, varies between zero and double amplitude. A resonant system will respond to higher and lower harmonics. The lower harmonics are sometimes known as sub-harmonics, they have fraction of the base frequency or multiple of the base period. They usually carry lot of power and can in certain mechanic systems be very distractive. In electronic systems, they are nuisance, since they are much more difficult to eliminate than higher order harmonics. Sub-harmonics of higher order also produce cross-modulation, which adds a ‘long-term waveform envelope’ to the original signal. If you are considering period of the high values of the initial sine waves cross-modulation, than contribution of the sub-harmonics cross-modulation can be neglected. However, when the initial sine waves cross-modulation drops to low levels, i.e. near zero than the sub-harmonics cross-modulation becomes the more significant factor. In these circumstances, correct approach is to consider the overall envelope rather than an isolated section, which might exist in an idealised system, devoid of resonant properties. The reality of a SSN cycles has a signature of a multi-resonant system as described here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
The above described effect is also is clearly shown in my charts:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF-strength.gif
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
Otherwise is not a proper consideration of oscillations within a resonant system.
Now, how about using your knowledge (or anyone else on this forum) may answer:
Can solar meridional flow be controlled (or not) by Jupiter – Saturn azimuthal oscillations in relation to the solar equatorial plane ?

WestHighlander