David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And Andrew30-
Given Dr. Svalgaard’s response he ducked you pointless jab like Ingemar Johansson in his younger years.
Leif,
Thanks for your reply. To me it is wonderful to get the earliest “ah ha” that starts a sequence generating new scientific knowledge. Hope to see some come out about solar influences in this interesting time we live in.
Please keep up your sense of humor! You’ve a lot of supporters.
John
tallbloke (17:05:37) :
Leif will tell you that the numbers were under-counted in earlier years and is working on magnetic data to try to improve the record.
How’s it going Leif?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO23.pdf
are ‘progress reports’.
Invariant (17:07:27) :
And, whatever caused this temperature increase, can we be certain that this “something” is not contributing to global warming (in addition to AGW)?
The sun makes a contribution to GW, but is is a small fraction of a degree.
Ref – tallbloke (17:16:52) :
“The climate widget says the sunspot number is 64. Does anyone here actually believe it is a like for like comparison with historical sunspot numbers from previous cycles?”
_____________________
Nope! I can barely see three. These astronomy folks must nip a little white lightin’ to stay warm on these cold nights. Aren’t most of their telescopes up on top of mountains?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
OT
It appears Trenberth’s conduct during AR4 is coming back to haunt him
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
tallbloke (17:16:52) :
The climate widget says the sunspot number is 64. Does anyone here actually believe it is a like for like comparison with historical sunspot numbers from previous cycles?
The widget is not updating correctly or timely. This plot is always up to date:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
The sunspot number today was 27. Brussels will report that as 27*0.6 = 16. I think the sunspot number the past cycle [and today] has been under-reported. See: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_sea_level_trend_1993_2010.png
I heard on NPR how some islands off Bangledash were going under water because of Global Warming and sea level rise. I see the chart from above and it has some parts of the same ocean rising much faster than neighboring areas. How does this work? I thought water will be shaped by the type of container it is in. If a lake receives an influx of water it does not just rise at the source but the whole lake rises. I can pour water in a pot and it will not pile up anywhere. How does ocean water pile up in certain locations as shown in the graph? Are they sure the islands are not sinking as a result of the plate they are on going down?
I would sure like to know the science on how one part of the same ocean is rising at a rate almost 10 times more than water a few hundred miles north in the same ocean basin. Help!
“Day of the Jackal” author Frederick Forsyth:
UK Express: Frederick Forsyth: CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRY IS NOW IN DEEP TROUBLE
ONE tries to be forbearing but honestly, the science behind the “global warming” campaign is beginning to look like roadkill.
If you are going to start and mastermind a science-based global campaign urging governments to require their
exhausted taxpayers to fork out not billions but trillions to prevent a catastrophe that may be 50 to 90 years away, you had better be sure your science is impeccable.
First we are told via leaked e-mails that the leading “scientists” have been cherry- picking only the convenient data
that suit their case. That is not science: that is propaganda.
Then we learn the fanatics have tried to airbrush from history chronicled facts such as the Medieval Warm Period (still unexplained).
Next the scare story about the melting Himalayan glaciers is revealed as having been made up, and now we learn that the linkage between droughts and floods with global warming is also bunkum.
Would it not be smart to get the facts right first and then spend the trillions?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/154858/Climate-change-industry-is-now-in-deep-trouble
Leif Svalgaard (17:01:47) :
Thanks, last question, is there a scientific understanding as to why the continents drift, the forces, and where those forces come from?
Rather then look at historical records of visible sunspots, would it be possible to look at recent 10Be records (I have no idea of their frequency, spatial distribution, or methodology) and directly compare today’s data with the ice core record?
geo (13:08:57) :
Someone remind me why we believe we know sunspot records in detail further than a few hundred years back?
Galileo started the process of counting sunspots.
I find the concept of climate armistice to be quite amusing. For the majority of skeptical bloggers it has always been about finding the truth. Sure a little jab here and there when the facts refuted AGW theocracy. However, the side that has been shooting all the heavy artillery is now the one that wants an armistice. How interesting.
“1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering…. ”
~Geologic Science Committee – Polish Academy of Sciences
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm
(h/t Benny Peiser, and Lubos Motl)
“…….a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades…. It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
–Boris Komitov
-Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
&
–Vladimir Kaftan
-Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Aerial Surveying and Cartography, Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, Russia
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf
&
http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm
Ahhhhh…so it wasn’t just Anthropogenic Global Earthquakes (AGE) resulting from too many people on one side of the planet jumping up and down in glee over the consensus in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) at the same time? Global Warming causes man-made Global Earthquakes…who’d a thunk it?
Robert (16:55:44),
Responding to the statement: “AGW is dead,” said:
“Leaving aside the fact that this assertion makes no sense scientifically, I’d like to draw attention to the irony of a ‘skeptic’ embracing a single unpublished, un-peer-reviewed paper as the final word on what the climate will do for the next thirty years.”
How can so many mis-statements be packed into one sentence?
According to the scientific method, it is the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis that fails to produce any empirical evidence showing that a quantified rise in CO2 will cause a specific rise in the global temperature. No one has the final word in science. But that scary hypothesis is swirling the drain.
The AGW hypothesis specifically refers to the dead Catastrophic AGW hypothesis – because where’s the grant money in a few tenths of a degree warming? It’s dead, Jim.
At this stage of the game AGW doesn’t mean some tiny, theoretical, mild warming. No. Rather, it is the scary CO2=CAGW hypothesis, which states that the planet is nearing a “tipping point,” which will cause runaway global warming, which will in turn bring about climate catastrophe – and the mediator of the global disaster is asserted to be a tiny, beneficial, harmless trace gas, comprising only 0.00038 of the atmosphere – one molecule in 2,600. That incredible hypothesis is what the alarmist crowd still insists will happen. But that particular hypothesis is deader than bin Laden.
Next, putting quotation marks around the term skeptic is an ad-hom attempt to play the skeptic card. All honest scientists are skeptics – while the average true blue AGW believer wouldn’t know the scientific method of skepticism if it bit ’em on the ankle. Psychological projection is the hallmark of alarmists, who often preposterously try to pass themselves off as skeptics. They’re not, of course. They have no skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. None.
And demanding peer review to attain legitimacy ignores the fact that the climate peer review system is thoroughly corrupt, as can be seen in the excellent essay, Caspar and the Jesus Paper; and in the Climategate emails, and in the Wegman Report to Congress, and in the tens of $billions already granted to almost anyone with a pulse who mentions global warming in their submission – while scientists skeptical of AGW hardly get even the crumbs. $50 billion buys a lot of AGW.
The peer review system has been gamed, as can be seen in this account of an outsider trying to make a simple correction in a journal. And he’s not even in the climate game! If he was a CAGW skeptic, he would probably not even get the courtesy of a response.
Finally, criticizing someone for predicting the planet’s cycle over the next 30 years, without criticizing the wild-eyed AGW purveyors who are predicting temperatures to a tenth of a degree and glacier movements in 2100 and beyond is hypocritical, no?
There are a lot of scientists writing articles for WUWT and posting here from both sides of the AGW fence. But I’m guessing Robert has no degree in the hard sciences, because I’ve repeatedly asked him about it when he’s been similarly critical of others here, who do have science backgrounds. He always ducks the question. So how ’bout it, Bobby boy, what’s your official expertise? If you have a degree, I’m still betting it’s something like English Lit. Am I right?
robr (17:40:44) :
is there a scientific understanding as to why the continents drift, the forces, and where those forces come from?
Basically: yes. But there are many details that are still debated.
Convection in the mantle is the main process.
Jean Parisot (17:46:27) :
Rather then look at historical records of visible sunspots, would it be possible to look at recent 10Be records (I have no idea of their frequency, spatial distribution, or methodology) and directly compare today’s data with the ice core record?
People are doing this [with some limited success]. There are several problems: 10Be is mostly generated at lower latitudes [simply because there is more surface there] and must be transported to the polar regions for deposition on ice [cores] and the precipitated out. These deposition processes themselves depend a bit on the climate. So the record is not perfect. In addition, large volcanic eruptions put sulfuric acid in the stratosphere, polluting the 10Be record.
Norman (17:36:11) :
“Can anyone explain this NOAA graph of ocean rise? ”
nope, only the NOAA can explain that one.
It’s obviously robust water.
The climate widget seems to be stuck. I’ve been noticing that for a few days now. The current number is really around 27 and the Flux in the high 80’s. The sunspot group numbers on the widget are also no longer correct.
Ross M (15:04:05) : Maybe as the Earth cools it shrinks a little causing the earthquakes 🙂
I like that, Ross!
However, when I look at this quote from the article you linked to I feel despair:
“Present-day scientists do their studies by measurements and experiments. [Australian] Aboriginal people are just as good scientists, but they use observation and experience,” Bodkin, a botanist at Sydney’s Mount Annan Botanical gardens, told Reuters.
OT – but interesting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece
February 16, 2010
How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong
John Graham-Cumming
How much will the recently launched NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory improve the observation of sunspots, magnetic fields and radiance over what is available today?
Will there be enough of an overlap with existing systems to tie the past records to the new records and place a note on the past records as to their ‘possible actuals’?
Milwaukee Bob (12:25:25) : Stock tip: Buy! LL Bean, North Face….
L.L. Bean is privately held (though very large):
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_06privates_LL-Bean_J18E.html
North Face is a brand of VF Corp (ticker VFC ) who’s chart shows a nice uprun that has stopped, but held up well in our recent downturn. It’s a fairly broad line clothing maker so not much of a cold ‘pure play’ but well positioned for “change” in either direction with brands like:
“V.F. Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and sourcing of branded apparel and related products for men, women, and children in the United States. It offers jeanswear under the Lee, Lee Europe, Wrangler, Wrangler Hero, Genuine Wrangler, Wrangler 47, Wrangler Jeans Co, Wrangler Europe, Rigs, Aura, 20X, Rustler, Riders, and Maverick brands; imagewear under the Majestic, Red Kap, Bulwark, Chef Designs, and The Force brands; and outdoor products under the Vans, The North Face, JanSport, Kipling, Reef, Napapijri, Eagle Creek, and Lucy brands. The company also provides sports wear under the Nautica and Kepling brands; and other contemporary brands, including 7 For All Mankind, John Varvatos, Ella Moss, and Splendid. ”
The above from:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VFC
In cold weather all sorts of clothing would be needed so they would probably do well.
Were I ‘looking for a cold play’ (no, no Jazz pun 😉 I’d probably look to Polaris Industries (ticker PII ) who started in Snowmobiles, but branched out into Victory Motorcycles (that I’ve drooled over… my Honda 500 V twin water cooled shaft drive is nice 😉 but I like the Victory better… ) so you have some protection against a warm turn, but still get the snowmobile “lift” in a cold turn. Oh, and they have riding clothing for both seasons as well
Chart:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/charts/big.chart?symb=pii&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=4&maval=25&uf=7168&lf=2&lf2=4&lf3=1024&type=4&size=3&state=15&sid=3839&style=320&time=8&freq=1&comp=NO%5FSYMBOL%5FCHOSEN&nosettings=1&rand=1201&mocktick=1
Description from:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=PII
“Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, and manufactures off-road vehicles. It offers all terrain vehicles and side-by-side vehicles for recreational and utility use, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. The company also provides replacement parts and accessories, including winches, bumper/brushguards, plows, racks, mowers, tires, pull-behinds, cabs, cargo box accessories, tracks, and oil for ATVs; covers, traction products, reverse kits, electric starters, tracks, bags, windshields, oil, and lubricants for snowmobiles; and saddle bags, handlebars, backrests, exhaust, windshields, seats, oil, and various chrome accessories for motorcycles. In addition, it markets a line of recreational apparel, including helmets, jackets, bibs and pants, leathers, and hats. Polaris Industries sells its products through dealers and distributors under the name RANGER, RANGER RZR, RANGER Crew, Victory Vision Street, and Victory Vision Tour principally in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ”
But realistically, if you want a good “cold play” (and don’t mean a really good CD…) it would probably be best to get one of the the oil and gas trusts (such as PWE ) (9%+ dividend, and I own some) or a gas company like Chesapeake CHK (presently a ‘flat roller” sideways; good for trades) or an exploration and production like APA Apache ( a great company that looks a bit ‘toppy’ to me right now).
Oh, you were just kidding? Nevermind … 😉
I see a 2000 year hockey stick on the sunspot graph.
Could Mann and his trees be recording sunspots?
the ‘carbon cowboys’ know which way the wind is blowing. NYT puts it down to “lack of direction”:
NYT: Special Report: Beth Gardiner: Lack of Direction on Climate Change Hobbles Carbon Trading
Investors are steering clear of energy-saving projects meant to generate carbon credits, and traders in Europe are hunkering down through a period of consolidation that is disappointing to those who had hoped carbon markets would grow quickly into a $2 trillion-a-year business…
“That bold vision, clearly, that hit a brick wall at Copenhagen,” said Dieter Helm, a professor of energy policy at the University of Oxford who argues that taxing carbon is a more effective way of ensuring emissions cuts. People will go on trading carbon, he said, “but it’s not where the future lies.” ..
That may mean that carbon trading loses the primacy its advocates had hoped it would have in the fight against global warming…
Abyd Karmali, the global head of carbon markets at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and president of the Carbon Markets & Investors Association trade group in London, estimated that new investments in such projects fell 30 percent to 40 percent in 2009 and will probably slide another 40 percent to 50 percent this year…
Worldwide, carbon trading markets were worth $125 billion in 2009, Mr. Turner said. In Europe, which accounts for 70 percent to 80 percent of the total, the market is likely to contract this year, he added. ..
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change and carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said he had been contacted by European traders and others working on international projects who were looking for jobs…
In Europe, Dr. Helm said, policy makers should set a floor for the carbon price, to keep it stable and high enough to push big emitters to make cuts.
Taxes are better than permits,” he said. “But we’re stuck with the permits, so we end up in a world where we have to say: ‘Given we’ve got that system, how can we make it work better?”’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/energy-environment/15rentrade.html