Spencer: SST's headed down – fast

Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Continue their Plunge

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite continue their plunge as a predicted La Nina approaches. The following plot, updated through yesterday (June 17, 2010) shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific is well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST, something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event (click on it for the large, undistorted version):

The rate at which the Nino34 SSTs are falling is particularly striking, as seen in this plot of the SST change rate for that region:

To give some idea of what is causing the global-average SST to fall so rapidly, I came up with an estimate of the change in reflected sunlight (shortwave, or SW flux) using our AMSR-E total integrated cloud water amounts. This was done with a 7+ year comparison of those cloud water estimates to daily global-ocean SW anomalies computed from the CERES radiation budget instrument, also on Aqua:

What this shows is an unusually large increase in reflected sunlight over the last several months, probably due to an increase in low cloud cover.

At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “Spencer: SST's headed down – fast

  1. Quick work Anthony!
    Dr Roy is on the mark, and a very worthwhile mid-month update. The faster the drop, the sooner the bounce will be. I think we’ll see SST’s up again later next year, but to lower levels than this last El nino.

  2. What this shows is an unusually large increase in reflected sunlight over the last several months, probably due to an increase in low cloud cover.

    More support for Henrik Svensmark.

  3. The downside is that the warmer water up in the Arctic is a sitting duck for heat transfer to space come October.

  4. Keith Minto says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:24 am
    More support for Henrik Svensmark.
    Has an increase in cosmic ray intensity been observed lately?

  5. tallbloke says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:19 am
    Quick work Anthony!
    Dr Roy is on the mark, and a very worthwhile mid-month update. The faster the drop, the sooner the bounce will be. I think we’ll see SST’s up again later next year, but to lower levels than this last El nino.

    I would guess we will see a fat La Nina for a few years before any new el Nino forms. El ninos and ENSO in general is not the only mechanism for loss of OHC – there is a longer term decrease in OHC underway independent of the shorter term ENS oscillation. But we’ll see, I may be wrong.
    Interesting stuff on your website BTW, e.g. the Willie Soon and Duhau & de Jager data.

  6. That change rate is stunning. Looks like La Niña is setting up to kick in with a vengeance. Something tells me that this past winter, with only three months of snow, will be something I’ll be looking back on fondly this upcoming winter.

  7. At Anthony Watt/ David Archibald Climate Talk in Melbourne today, David A mentioned Roy Spencer’s comments on ocean cooling and predicted there could be a decade of cold weather ahead . I was pleased to be able to attend today’s talk by Anthony and David, a crowded and well received event. Glad to be able to thank Anthony personally for his contribution to evidence based debate on Climate Change. I thought it was somewhat symbolic that today’s event took place at The Institute of Public Enterprise ,as I listened to the accounts of two individuals working independently of consensus to question the data. Hasn’t this always been the case in the history of science? 🙂

  8. “I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.”
    They’ll just change the way they calculate it, then declare it the hottest year evuh. They just about have to, they’ve all but said it is going to be.

  9. Just another example of one of our planet’s many natural cycles.
    The problem is that “natural cycles” are the ultimate heresy to the alarmist community.
    Unfortunately for the alarmists, neither the US Congress, nor anyone else, can legislate or tax away natural cycles.

  10. I think James Sexton has it right, the data will be “adjusted”. I have come to the conclusion, reluctantly I might add, that the climate scientists at the centre of alarmism are not above bending the evidence to support their case.
    It is my view that the Met Office dropped its long term forecasts not because they kept getting them wrong, but because getting them wrong was undermining the CAGW case.
    Why have they kept silence, or defended MBH1998?

  11. Notice that the Sun appears “bluer” through the Earth’s atmosphere. As per SpaceWeather.com, the increased “blue” tint is caused by increased ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. These “Noctilucent” clouds increase during a Sunspot minimum, due to cooling in the upper atmosphere.
    We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?
    If lower Sun energy output, and higher reflectivity of the upper atmosphere are occurring, this would easily explain the “sudden” drop in ocean temperatures.
    Of course the Sun is NOT variable star, “correct” ?!?! The TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) measurements do not appear to correctly measure TSO (Total Solar Output) that reaches the Earth’s surface.

  12. Dr. Spencer,
    Still not looking into salinity changes?
    Salt being a crystal HAS reflective abilities especially when they concentrate on the ocean surface. It can also inhibit evaporation trends.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897
    Since we have had no MASSIVE evaporation to explain the salt changes to the surface, the cause must be atmospheric. This could be changing pressure on a rotational basis that the atmosphere is stretching due to gases building up from a environmental growth of plant and animal life. Growth up mountains shows that the gases and heat are expanding.

  13. phlogiston says: “El ninos and ENSO in general is not the only mechanism for loss of OHC – there is a longer term decrease in OHC underway independent of the shorter term ENS oscillation.”
    The vast majority of the recent drop in OHC is in the North Atlantic:
    http://i50.tinypic.com/2eexa8w.png
    Note that the linear trend of the South Atlantic OHC is almost 1.5 to 2 times the trends of the “non-Atlantic” ocean basins. And the North Atlantic is about 3 to 4 times as high. One would think that the scientific community would see the disparity and conclude that the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the same multidecadal process as SST: AMOC. But do we ever hear about it? Nope.
    The above graph is from my post:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/02/ohc-linear-trends-and-recent-update-of.html

  14. Joe Lalonde says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Dr. Spencer,
    Still not looking into salinity changes?
    Salt being a crystal HAS reflective abilities especially when they concentrate on the ocean surface. It can also inhibit evaporation trends.
    http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=897

    The WHOI report discusses salinity – salt in solution – and says nothing about salt crystals. Being an ionic crystal, salts break completely break apart in solution. You might be able to make a case about salt crystals being formed in salt water spray that evaporates, but I can’t imagine salt crystals on the surface of the ocean. Are you thinking perhaps of sea foam?
    Please provide references!

  15. Joe Lalonde says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:39 am
    Growth up mountains shows that the gases and heat are expanding.

    Well a lot of hot air is being expended by alarmists I’d agree, but if the treeline in places like Scandinavia is heading back up the hill towards where it was at the warmer end of the holocene a few thousand years ago, I don’t see much reason to be displeased. Better than being engulfed by the next ice age IMO.

  16. BenAW says:
    June 22, 2010 at 1:13 am
    “More support for Henrik Svensmark.”
    Has an increase in cosmic ray intensity been observed lately?

    No, it has been decreasing steadily.

  17. The $100,000 dollar question is: What does this mean for the second half of the year? How will regional weather be affected by this? Which regions will be drier and which regions will be wetter? I really enjoyed the warmer, drier El Nino conditions here in Ohio. It seems that now we can’t shut off the clouds and rain. Maybe I’ll move to Seattle where they have more sunshine.

  18. “I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.”
    I suspect that a new class of thermometers will be added to the rolls. They will be located under the armpits of those scientists on the “good” list. Voolah! Hottest year ever in 2010.

  19. Joe LaLonde,
    In the oceans, salinity is not high enough for any crystaline salt to form. Salt dissociates in solution into Na+ and Cl- ions. As such, I highly doubt that salinity plays much of a role in reflectivity of the surface of the ocean. If salt did not dissociate in solution, we could skate on the salt blocks that would be covering the Dead Sea.

  20. I don’t see the same people commenting on this quick cooling who put up many comments on the warming of the first 1/4 of this year.

  21. In air I don’t think droplets of sea-water would evaporate to crystals. I’d have thought, water being a polarized molecule, that each ion would have H2O molecules cluster around. These of course would seed clouds.

  22. Very interesting.
    Recommend adding “relative standard deviation” on the right Y axis.

  23. “We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?”
    Seems some titles are earned.

  24. Very interesting Dr. Spencer. I wonder if the temperature differential between the Nino 3.4 area and the rest of the Pacific will induce more energetic/violent cyclones than usual. With a couple of fires going, Roan Plateau, CO and Flagstaff, AZ; I’m seeing a 10-15% reduction in voltage on my PV system, so there’s more sunlight not making it to earth. This coming winter could be interesting.

  25. “During the transition from El Nino to La Nina in 1998, the changes in weekly NINO3.4 SST anomalies were at times almost twice the rate that they are presently changing.”
    Oooh, that makes your NA OHC graph so much less frightening. I’ve lost(chasing a toddler, missing meals) 30 lbs. since last La Nina.

  26. tallbloke says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:19 am
    Quick work Anthony!
    Dr Roy is on the mark, and a very worthwhile mid-month update. The faster the drop, the sooner the bounce will be. I think we’ll see SST’s up again later next year, but to lower levels than this last El nino.
    TallBloke,
    While I agree that the chances of a quick deep La Nina starting in early fall are looking pretty high. I would guess around 75% IMO. The Pacific Northwest U.S. is already seeing La Nina type weather patterns. I seriously doubt that the system will switch back to El Nino quickly, there is quite a large pool of cold (cooler than normal) water at depth accumulating across the Pacific. Nino 3.4 is cooling rapidly which is not unusual post El Nino, but the large pool of cold water at depth does not appear to be depleting at all while this is going on, in fact the anomaly appears to be slightly increasing even as SSTs drop.
    I am curious to see how this plays out, as I don’t recall the last few La Nina’s starting with such a large pool of cold subsurface water. Of course all of this information is a preliminary signal contained in noisy data, and the only thing that is for sure at this time is that everything looks to be in place for a quick transition to La Nina conditions. Most of the Models that I have seen (And don’t get me started on the Models, because most of them are junk IMO) seem to indicated a quick dip to a shallow La Nina and then a return to ENSO neutral early next spring, but then again they are all over the place as usual, no matter what happens, a model will have predicted it.
    Tallbloke, getting back to your comment about a quick dip into La Nina conditions and then back to El Nino, I curious, what makes you think that we will be heading back to an El Nino Next year?

  27. Just a quick check on the Oulu Neutron monitor shows a peak of activity from the most-recent summer seasons in both hemispheres.
    If the cosmic-ray “cloud-seeding” theory holds, then there are likely to be more clouds.
    As the ocean take up a lot of heat during the summer from the sun, greater levels of cloud cover with reduce the takeup of heat. Then, as the southern oceans cool in the longer darkness of the southern winter, the cooling will be deeper than the previous winter’s.
    The good news appears to be that the galactic flux is reducing, so there’s a chance of a little more warming in this northern-hemisphere summer than the previous one.

  28. Robert M says:
    June 22, 2010 at 7:08 am
    Tallbloke, getting back to your comment about a quick dip into La Nina conditions and then back to El Nino, I curious, what makes you think that we will be heading back to an El Nino Next year?

    Partly the understanding I’ve developed around the way the ocean absorbs heat from an active sun and relinquishes heat when the sun is low on activity. Also, I see a strong parallel between now and the 1880’s – 1890’s:
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/sst-ssn1870.jpg
    Green temp curve is modern day
    Green sunspot curve is 1880’s.
    I don’t think the ‘dead cat bounce’ next year will be a full blown pacific warm pool event. I think we’ll get generally elevated SST’s across wide areas of the globe as the ocean continues to burp out excess energy that got stuffed into it in the second half of the C20th by a hyper active sun.
    Read more here if you’re interested:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/

  29. BenAW says:
    June 22, 2010 at 1:13 am
    Keith Minto says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:24 am
    More support for Henrik Svensmark.
    Has an increase in cosmic ray intensity been observed lately?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Yes, Here is the graph

  30. So, if we go here;
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    And plot from 1/1 2010 until now (ask for chart in checkbox) , it seems neutron count has been steadily decreasing since approx 1/1 2010.
    That doesnt support cosmic rays support, does it? It does the opposite?

  31. Knowing and understanding and accepting that Leif places no special stock in the Oulu monitor, I will mention that current cosmic ray counts remain at high levels, at or above most of the levels seen during the other solar minima Oulu has measured since it began service in 1964:
    http://tinyurl.com/2erulnv

  32. Why do most AGW scare stories occur where the population of humans is either zero or near zero.
    Glaciers
    Antarctic
    Arctic
    Pacific Island w/ population of near nothing
    Mountain tops
    Open Ocean
    Do you suppose that there is a reason for this? It might be cynical of me but perhaps by using a remote location, one cannot have any context if you are not there.
    By reading the stories of how warm the Arctic is getting, It seems it might actually be a nice alternative to Florida.

  33. This natural variation between El Nino and La Nina conditions is always interesting to monitor, as is the current actual sea surface temperature anomalies in the Arctic, as noted here:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    Lot’s of warmth in the sea surface in the Arctic region, especially on the Atlantic side, and the 60 day project shows growing warmth in the Bering Sea region (La Nina or not).

  34. Forget any preconceptions as no one of us were living during the previous “interesting times” epoch, so all this is not to be taken as usual phenomena. If we are or about witness a new Maunder like minimum, this SST deep dive could indicate that, so let’s see what happens.
    BTW this will enrage those in the NON-deniers list.

  35. Looks like Jow Bastardi was right. We are looking at a massive global cooling at the moment, even if there are a few warm spots near Greenland, which looks to me nothing more than a “hangover” from the El Nino. I reckon they’ll have disappeared by the Autumn, and then Joe is predicting significant ice growth after that.

  36. Midwest Mark-
    You might want to rething that Seattle move thing. Officially, we have NOT hit 75 once this year. The longest it has *ever* gone without hitting 75. So, the record books are waiting as to what will be entered for the latest date *ever*. We’ve set records for low-highs and consecutive days of rain (not always Seattle drizzle) this time of year. Our forecast for today and tomorrow is low 70’s. That’s warmer and drier than it’s been for a while.

  37. kwik says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:10 am
    That doesnt support cosmic rays support, does it? It does the opposite?
    That is why cosmic ray supporters carefully avoid showing the full dataset…

  38. Regardless of which cosmic ray graph, which recently shows a small dip, the levels are at historic highs. A climatologist would not be surprised by a lag time before clouds develop en masse. Cosmic rays are at unprecedented levels today using a 2-3- or more-year moving average. (We can use the “u” word too, not just the warm-earth cultists).

  39. Wife and I went to Wallowa County (NE Oregon) over the weekend, Sunday was grim,it was coastal- winter Oregon coastal ugly. So far we have not had a decent summer type
    day with and exception for a couple of days last week constant cold rain.
    Finally the Sun is out…
    Not holding my breath…

  40. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:15 am
    Correct: There are unprecedented high values at both stations at most frequencies.
    Further corroborates the cloud cover-cooling-cosmic ray hypothesis.

  41. Dr. Lurtz says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
    We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?
    If lower Sun energy output, and higher reflectivity of the upper atmosphere are occurring, this would easily explain the “sudden” drop in ocean temperatures.
    Of course the Sun is NOT variable star, “correct” ?!?! The TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) measurements do not appear to correctly measure TSO (Total Solar Output) that reaches the Earth’s surface.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    It is more variable than the often quoted 0.1% change in TSI indicates. For one thing this
    TSI Graph from NASA shows the TSI is lower than usual for this solar minimum and the minimum has gone on longer than usual. This means the total energy absorbed by the earth over a couple of years has decrease instead of decreasing for just a year or so. This is a decrease of “0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet”
    “….At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet….
    Finally – and of most immediate relevance for Earth–SDO will observe the sun at wavelengths where the sun is most variable, the extreme ultraviolet (EUV). EUV photons are high-energy cousins of regular UV rays that cause sunburns. Fortunately, our atmosphere blocks solar EUV; otherwise a day at the beach could be fatal. In space, solar EUV emission is easy to detect and arguably the most sensitive indicator of solar activity….”
    SDO: The Variable Sun Mission
    For the last two years the sun has been very quiet.
    “…But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
    A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
    A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up….”
    Deep Solar Minimum
    The 6% change at extreme UV wavelengths is a change that effects the atmosphere especially ozone and oxygen. The interaction of oxygen with UV causes ozone formation.

    UVC (200–280 nm) is far more energetic and dangerous than UVB. UVC is sometimes
    referred to as germicidal UV as it is deadly
    to most forms of life, but luckily these
    wavelengths are completely absorbed
    in the Earth’s ozone layer. Light in this
    range is useful for a number of scientific
    measurements.
    VUV stands for vacuum ultraviolet and
    spans from 200 down to 10 nm. These
    wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen in the
    Earth’s atmosphere so measurements of
    VUV are usually made in vacuum conditions.
    Source
    So we are presently seeing a 6% decrease of these very energetic (and chemically reactive) wavelengths.
    “The ozone found in our atmosphere is formed by an interaction between oxygen molecules (composed of two oxygen atoms) and ultraviolet light. When ultraviolet light hits these oxygen molecules, the reaction causes the molecules to break apart into single atoms of oxygen (UV light + O2 –> O + O). These single atoms of oxygen are very reactive, and a single atom combines with a molecule of oxygen to form ozone (O3), which is composed of three atoms of oxygen (2O + 2O2 –> 2O3). “ OZONE LAYER

  42. Joe Lalonde says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:39 am
    Dr. Spencer,
    Still not looking into salinity changes?
    Salt being a crystal HAS reflective abilities especially when they concentrate on the ocean surface.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Salt is VERY soluble in water and dissociates into Cl+ and Na- ions which have no reflectivity.
    “Low salinities occur in polar seas where the salt water is diluted by melting ice and continued precipitation…
    …The saltiest water (40 o/oo ) occurs in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, where rates of evaporation are very high. Of the major oceans, the North Atlantic is the saltiest; its salinity averages about 37.9 o/oo. Within the North Atlantic, the saltiest part is the Sargasso Sea, an area of about 2 million square miles, located about 2,000 miles west of the Canary Islands. The Sargasso Sea is set apart from the open ocean by floating brown seaweed “sargassum” from which the sea gets its name. The saltiness of this sea is due in part to the high water temperature (up to 83º F) causing a high rate of evaporation and in part to its remoteness from land; because it is so far from land, it receives no fresh-water inflow….”
    http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm

  43. bubbagyro says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:48 am
    Cosmic rays are at unprecedented levels today using a 2-3- or more-year moving average. (We can use the “u” word too, not just the warm-earth cultists).
    bubbagyro says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:56 am
    Correct: There are unprecedented high values at both stations at most frequencies.
    Further corroborates the cloud cover-cooling-cosmic ray hypothesis.

    ‘Both’ stations?
    The cosmic ray count at this minimum is not higher than at any other minimum [between odd and even cycle – that makes a well-understood difference] since measurements started in the 1950s. This station-chain from the equator [Tsumeb] over South Africa to Antarctica [Sanae] clearly shows this to be the case:
    http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html
    It is very difficult to maintain constant calibration over half a century. The group operating this chain has done an outstanding job [better than Oulu]. Most other stations also show no ‘unprecedented’ values, e.g. Kiel: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Kiel-1959-now.png

  44. Dr. Lurtz says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
    Notice that the Sun appears “bluer” through the Earth’s atmosphere. As per SpaceWeather.com, the increased “blue” tint is caused by increased ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. These “Noctilucent” clouds increase during a Sunspot minimum, due to cooling in the upper atmosphere.
    We are experiencing a major Sunspot minimum. Could it be that the lower energy output from the Sun in the Ultraviolet frequencies and above is NOT warming the upper atmosphere? Could the increased ice crystals also be reflecting energy away from the Earth?
    Robert says:
    Two days ago I was in my garden and noticed the same thing. There were no clouds in the sky and the sun gave no heat. This time off the year here in Barcelona that´s not normal. Also temperatures are a lot lower than normal. Nature is about 2 or 3 weeks behind schedule and there is no way my tomatoes get red

  45. Lief,
    Does the energy distribution of electromagnetic radiation from the sun (at ~ earth orbit) vary with the ~11 yr solar cycle? If so, do you think there is any significance to any distribution shifts with respect to earth’s energy receipt?
    John

  46. Thanks, Gail.
    From NASA, “A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming…”
    The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming:
    And this is because???
    I love the way the warm-earth “scientists” use these throw-away phrases like they were tic-tac mints.
    A 0.2% change in irradiance is nothing to shake a stick at, apart from the unknown (or unknowable) effects of decreased UV, radio waves, and other wavelength radiation. Without the sun we are close to absolute zero (notwithstanding fissile energy from radioactive elements in the crust), right? -273°C? Let’s say the present earth average temperature is 300°C higher than that, at 27°C, just for argument’s sake.
    0.2% of 300° is 0.6°C just from the irradiance difference from high to low in the cycle.
    Add in lower flare incidence, lower high and low wavelength UV effects, lack of the protective magnetosphere (only a negative influence?), and the 0.2% looks awful big to me.

  47. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:23 am
    The Kiel graph can not be trusted. For one thing, the X-axis is in two year major increments, except at the outset, it jumps from 1958 to 1970! Gee, a 12 year duration of the maximum for 1958! That would be unprecedented.
    That was enough for me to stop looking and discount the data.

  48. Leif,
    Sorry, got your name wrong in previous post. : (
    I looked in my excuse file, and didn’t find one.
    John

  49. John Whitman says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:28 am
    Does the energy distribution of electromagnetic radiation from the sun (at ~ earth orbit) vary with the ~11 yr solar cycle? If so, do you think there is any significance to any distribution shifts with respect to earth’s energy receipt?
    Yes, and that is not appreciated [or even known – as people shut their eyes when put in front of inconvenient data].
    Here is a modern view:
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/working_groups/WACCM/Presentations/2010/fontenla.pdf
    “Most of the visible varies opposite to TSI and UV and to infrared [see slide 10].”
    Now, those variations are all very small [fractions of a Watt/m2].
    Calahan et al. discuss the implications of the Solar Spectral Irradiance in some wavelength bands being out of phase with the solar cycle:
    http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/Cahalan_Wen_etal.pdf

  50. bubbagyro says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:40 am
    it jumps from 1958 to 1970! Gee, a 12 year duration of the maximum for 1958! That would be unprecedented. That was enough for me to stop looking and discount the data.
    Perhaps you should look again. The time marks read
    1958, 1960, 1962, …, 1968, 1970, 1972, … etc. Nothing wrong with those.
    you should should not discount data that I endorse 🙂

  51. It does not matter if under cloudy or under cloudless skies, but that Kid (El Niño) died from neumonia.

  52. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:47 am

    John Whitman says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:28 am
    Does the energy distribution of electromagnetic radiation from the sun (at ~ earth orbit) vary with the ~11 yr solar cycle? If so, do you think there is any significance to any distribution shifts with respect to earth’s energy receipt?

    Yes, and that is not appreciated [or even known – as people shut their eyes when put in front of inconvenient data].
    Here is a modern view:
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/working_groups/WACCM/Presentations/2010/fontenla.pdf
    “Most of the visible varies opposite to TSI and UV and to infrared [see slide 10].”
    Now, those variations are all very small [fractions of a Watt/m2].
    Calahan et al. discuss the implications of the Solar Spectral Irradiance in some wavelength bands being out of phase with the solar cycle:
    http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/Cahalan_Wen_etal.pdf

    Leif,
    This is the start of “Looking Beneath the Veil”!
    Thanks. Great stuff. Those references will take me some time to wade through . . . . : ) It should be worth it.
    John

  53. You have to start worrying about Leif when he goes fishing for other data graphs…..Either one is wrong or the other one is please provide back up evidence

  54. @Amino Acids in Meteorites
    ‘I don’t see the same people commenting on this quick cooling who put up many comments on the warming of the first 1/4 of this year.’
    Where did that warming really occur?
    For some reason if there was any warming in the NH it apparently where not many a people live, and apparently not that many weather stations neither.
    When talking about winter temps I once got the answer Australia, so being the very nice and humble person that I am, I happily pointed out that Australia is a very warm place in the summer indeed before I promptly LMAO. :p

  55. Enneagram says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Forget any preconceptions as no one of us were living during the previous “interesting times” epoch, so all this is not to be taken as usual phenomena. If we are or about witness a new Maunder like minimum, this SST deep dive could indicate that, so let’s see what happens.
    BTW this will enrage those in the NON-deniers list.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Yes , and the change in circulation patterns that are moving warmer air and water to the poles is a great way for the earth to dump heat faster.
    I wonder what the 6% decrease in solar EUV and the decrease in the height of the atmosphere reported by NASA is doing to the rate of heat transfer?
    “…The extent of current solar minimum conditions has created a unique situation for recent SABER datasets, explains Stan Solomon, acting director of the High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. The end of solar cycle 23 has offered an opportunity to study the radiative cooling in the thermosphere under exceptionally quiescent conditions.
    “The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
    The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then….”
    NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere.
    Of course the usual CO2 – AGW blurb is included.
    “The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.
    While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide.”

    The Upper atmosphere cools and warms in sync with the solar cycle, and more importantly the changes in the amount of solar energy, but the cooling is in response to increasing CO2 according to “a fundamental prediction of climate change theory”
    The article says “the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002.” So what has the sun been doing? The second peak of cycle 23 was in 2002 and sunspots as well as TSI has decreased steadily since than until the beginning of this year. click Here is the most recent graph of total solar irradiance graph from SORCE
    Ignore the evidence in front of your nose why don’t you. It just has to be a minuscule change in a minor component of the atmosphere that is responsible for the ten fold decrease in IR radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules. GRRrr

  56. Stephan says:
    June 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
    You have to start worrying about Leif when he goes fishing for other data graphs…..Either one is wrong or the other one is please provide back up evidence
    should says Leif’s “data” not him my blooper

    which ‘data’ are you referring to?

  57. Gail Combs says:
    June 22, 2010 at 11:55 am
    It just has to be a minuscule change in a minor component of the atmosphere that is responsible for the ten fold decrease in IR radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules. GRRrr
    To temper your anger, bear in mind that nitric oxide molecules are but some billionths of the molecules up there, so are not important for the energy budget.

  58. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:51 am
    OOPS! You are correct, thank you – the graph was too small on my laptop. Should have used my Mac. Usually the Russians can be trusted to not fudge the data too much, as do the Americans, Brits, and Aussies, so I should have looked more closely.
    Nevertheless, now that I look closer, the Kiel curve now is numerically slightly above the very similar slope rise in cosmic rays that occurred during the 70s minimum that preceded a higher C.R. minimum (higher low) followed by the curiously long and flat cosmic ray maximum (lower high) in the late 70s that coincided with “The coming ice age”. It will be interesting to see if the C.R. peak is sharp and descends, or if it plateaus like late 70s.
    But, I think that correlations of only one parameter in this complex climate scenario will ever show a strong correlation. Then there is always the possibility of a lag of unknown duration further compounding the problem, due to the conglomeration of various heat sinks that protect the earth from drastic swings.

  59. bubbagyro says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    ….Nevertheless, now that I look closer, the Kiel curve now is numerically slightly above the very similar slope rise in cosmic rays that occurred during the 70s minimum that preceded a higher C.R. minimum (higher low) followed by the curiously long and flat cosmic ray maximum (lower high) in the late 70s that coincided with “The coming ice age”. It will be interesting to see if the C.R. peak is sharp and descends, or if it plateaus like late 70s.
    But, I think that correlations of only one parameter in this complex climate scenario will [N?]ever show a strong correlation. Then there is always the possibility of a lag of unknown duration further compounding the problem, due to the conglomeration of various heat sinks that protect the earth from drastic swings.
    __________________________________________________________________
    I certainly agree. If there was only one dominant factor driving climate, it would have been seen by now. Heck look at what Dr. Svalgaard just posted about the supposed “solar constant” or TSI. It is “a lot more complicated than we thought” and this paper by Cahalan, Wen, Harder, and Pilewskie was just published in April of this year. The data was gathered by SORCE since 2003.
    Now I have to go back and read the paper more carefully. (thank you Dr Svalgaard)
    ….Nevertheless, now that I look closer, the Kiel curve now is numerically slightly above the very similar slope rise in cosmic rays that occurred during the 70s minimum that preceded a higher C.R. minimum (higher low) followed by the curiously long and flat cosmic ray maximum (lower high) in the late 70s that coincided with “The coming ice age”. It will be interesting to see if the C.R. peak is sharp and descends, or if it plateaus like late 70s.
    But, I think that correlations of only one parameter in this complex climate scenario will ever show a strong correlation. Then there is always the possibility of a lag of unknown duration further compounding the problem, due to the conglomeration of various heat sinks that protect the earth from drastic swings.

  60. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    [To temper your anger, bear in mind that nitric oxide molecules are but some billionths of the molecules up there, so are not important for the energy budget.]
    Leif, are you sure about that?
    “The primary radiative cooling mechanism in the terrestrial thermosphere is the infrared emission from the NO molecule at 5.3 microns [Kockarts, 1980].”
    From: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~kratz/ref/p32jgr.pdf
    Dr. Mlynczak et al seem to think otherwise.

  61. bubbagyro says:
    June 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    Usually the Russians can be trusted to not fudge the data too much, as do the Americans, Brits, and Aussies, so I should have looked more closely.
    Kiel is in Germany…
    The flux at every other minimum is slightly higher, that is in 1966, 1987, 2009, than in the intervening minima, that is in 1954, 1975, 1997. The reason for that is not directly in the Sun, but is an ‘extra’ modulation of cosmic rays due to sensitivity to the polarity [or sign] of the magnetic field of the Sun, which switches at every solar minimum. Keep in mind that we are talking about differences of a few percent only.

  62. Brego says:
    June 22, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    Leif, are you sure about that?
    “The primary radiative cooling mechanism in the terrestrial thermosphere is the infrared emission from the NO molecule at 5.3 microns [Kockarts, 1980].”

    Yes, as the heat content of the thermosphere is so small that it has no influence on climate and weather down where we are [what I called the ‘energy budget’].

  63. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:09 am
    No, here is the
    graph

    Leif, that still looks high. coming down recently, but still high.

  64. I went looking for something that would tell me how much delta would result from computing Wien’s Law from the last Solar Max to the 2008.8 Solar Min. Still scratching around. The remarks of a ‘bluer sun’ only tell me about ice crystals in the atmosphere, not whether the blackbody temp of the Sun has shifted due to spectral shift.

  65. AGW’ers have been very vocal about temperatures the last five or six months during the peak of the El Nino. Prior to that, they were quick to point out that skeptics were trending the line from the 1998 El Nino peak to the 2008 LA Nina minimun. They have been taking a lot of credit lately for the El Nino affected temperatures erasing much of the cooling that has occured over the last decade. What will we hear when temperatures start responding to the demise of the El Nino? A lot of silence?

  66. peterhodges says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    Leif, that still looks high. coming down recently, but still high.
    My graph was just intended to show the ‘coming down’ as the previous graph conveniently omitted that.
    Oulu does not have ‘correct’ long-term calibration [this is hard because the local magnetic field and climate and instruments change over time]. Most other stations do not show ‘unprecedentedly’ high values, as several of my posts have demonstrated.

  67. Robert says:
    Two days ago I was in my garden and noticed the same thing. There were no clouds in the sky and the sun gave no heat. This time off the year here in Barcelona that´s not normal. Also temperatures are a lot lower than normal. Nature is about 2 or 3 weeks behind schedule and there is no way my tomatoes get red

    It’s very warm here in the UK. I think the jet stream has moved south from us now, and there is more aerosol in the sky over southern Europe, blocking some of the sun’s warming rays. Our tomatoes are very late too however. There’s something they are not getting.

  68. I look mostly at the Moscow Neutron Monitor, and that’s because it runs a bit ahead of the rest.
    I see the Neutron Count as stepping down, last downslope was Jan – April, now running flat until further development.
    Conversely, the Solar Activity is going up in steps, not in a steady incline.

  69. Re: Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    Ah, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the energy budget of the thermosphere, as was the paper Gail linked to.

  70. rbateman says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Conversely, the Solar Activity is going up in steps, not in a steady incline.
    The cosmic ray flux shows an ‘average’ of solar wind left behind from solar activity from the past year or so and spread out through the whole heliosphere, thus will tend to smooth out any variation. There is an exception to this as the flux also is sensitive to solar wind near the Earth and that can vary on short time scales, e.g. a large solar storm causes a ‘Forbush Decrease’ and a recurrent storm will cause a recurrent wave of peaks and valleys every 27 days. both are visible in any of these plots, and also here: http://www.leif.org/research/FD-and-CRI-GCRs.png
    I have marked the Forbush Decreases with ovals and the recurrent storms with a box.
    Brego says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    Re: Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    Ah, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the energy budget of the thermosphere, as was the paper Gail linked to.

  71. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Brego says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    Ah, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the energy budget of the thermosphere, as was the paper Gail linked to.
    Also my mistake for not being clear enough. Also Gail’s post was referring to “The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming”, and the thermosphere has nothing to do with that [does not influence the climate].

  72. thanks Leif i did look at those too.
    Leif, i saw that over solarcycle24.com the solar flux was back down to 70, which led me to reference one of your graphs. it looks like solar flux has been declining long enough and has been back down around the low of 70, creating a downslope in the average. peculiar?
    i also wondered what your thoughts are on the length of the solar cycle: is there any forecast to be made regarding the length of cycle 24 based on the long, slow, ramp up?
    I did search through old threads and comments first, but i would also be interested in your opinion on the correlation archibald shows between solar cycle length and temperature.
    thanks!

  73. peterhodges says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    I saw that over solarcycle24.com the solar flux was back down to 70
    The real Flux is 76 today. You have been a ‘victim’ of the confusion that arises from the fact that the Sun is further from the Sun about now. Radio hams care about the flux at Earth, so their number ’70’ is not wrong, just not what the Sun puts out.
    I also wondered what your thoughts are on the length of the solar cycle: is there any forecast to be made regarding the length of cycle 24 based on the long, slow, ramp up?
    statistically, slow starting cycles are long cycles [the reverse is not true].
    I did search through old threads and comments first, but i would also be interested in your opinion on the correlation archibald shows between solar cycle length and temperature.
    That paper is junk [IMHO] and there is no established correlation of that nature. More here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

  74. Robert says:
    … Nature is about 2 or 3 weeks behind schedule and there is no way my tomatoes get red…
    tallbloke says:
    June 22, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    … Our tomatoes are very late too however. There’s something they are not getting….

    we have the same problem, as we attempt to garden in a narrow canyon at 2300m, which even in california gives us at most 3 months between freezes. bring your tomatoes in at the first signs of freezing weather and hang them up to dry. the tomatoes will slowly ripen over several weeks. which meant we got freshly ripened garden tomatoes while the snow piled up outside 😉

  75. Gail Combs says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:08 am
    The magnetic susceptibility of ozone is about 6.7 x10-6 cgs
    for oxygen O2 varies by temperature from:
    3,449.0 x10-6 cgs@ 293K
    7,699.0 x10-6 cgs@90.1K
    8,685.0 x10-6 cgs@70.8K
    10,200.0 x10-6 cgs@ 54.3K
    So incoming energy converts oxygen to ozone to conserve energy by dropping the magnetic resistance by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, when the levels of energy drops the o3 reverts to 02. Which is why the hole in the ozone layer forms at the South pole, and the size of it is regulated by the total magnetic flux it feels.

  76. Gary Gulrud: When you look for replies to your comments, do you read through the entire thread or do you use the word find feature of your browser and search for your name? I, like many others who blog here, don’t have the time to run through all comments on a thread, so I use the browser to search for my name. With that in mind, how would you expect me to find your nonsensical reply to me…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/spencer-ssts-headed-down-fast/#comment-414603
    …if you haven’t attributed the quote to me?
    In the future, if you quote me, please include my name. Thanks.

  77. Leif, very interesting thanks for the reply. you have inspired me to now go look up f-c&e
    one thing i would say in their defense is we now know that the temperature record has substantially changed shape since 1991, distorting the record. so the 1991 record they use would have a much different shape for the same time period than your new hardcru. the newer, altered temperature record could be responsible for the uncorrelated scatter in your analysis.
    as far as the solar cycle length, my laymans assumption is that there is consensus on the historical record for the length solar cycles. if this is not true i then would accept that anyone could ‘choose’ the solar cycle length record according to leif’s law. of course, i would also assume Leif follows leif’s law as well 😉
    i appreciate your comments Leif because the correlation between sunspot length and temperature seems so simple and convincing. but alas i am a skeptic, so pardon me if rely on you to help further my inquiry

  78. Toms need warm nighttime temps to develop as a plant. They are also difficult to pollinate. Especially in wet weather. Commercial toms are set on vibrator beds to get pollen up and in the air so that it falls on the female flower parts.

  79. Leif Svalgaard,
    Thanks for all your comments.
    I understand that from earlier experiments that the few percent of modulation of cosmic rays may very much changes the propensity for clouds to form. i.e. It’s a high-gain amplifier. The CLOUD experiment at CERN should shed some more light on the issue; being of larger scale.
    The other big variable in cosmic ray flux, other than the magnetic fields from Earth/Sun is the variable density of the particles in the galaxy. IIRC, Anthony had an article regarding that on this blog a little while ago.
    Nigel Calder Updates described Why Star Positions Matter for Climate Physics.
    GCR, in conjunction with solar activity and Earth’s magnetic fields are certainly not the only factor in determining climate, but they seem to be much more important than CO2.

  80. peterhodges says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    as far as the solar cycle length, my laymans assumption is that there is consensus on the historical record for the length solar cycles.
    Not really.
    because the correlation between sunspot length and temperature seems so simple and convincing
    Except when you analyze the data correctly, there is no correlation.
    Keith Minto says:
    June 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm
    My understanding of Svensmark’s theory has the Muon count (not the Neutron count) influencing low cloud cover, but that seems to be heading down,
    The neutron count is just a measure of the Muon count. A cosmic ray proton creates Muons in the atmosphere. These Muons create Neutrons in the measuring device, and are just our measure of the Muons.
    If you look at Sunspot activity since 1700 at http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global ,we are close to the 1914 level and not that far from the zero at 1810 and 1712.
    so by that argument our climate now should be on par with the climate in 1914, 1810, and 1712. I believe most people would agree that it isn’t.
    Bernd Felsche says:
    June 22, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    I understand that from earlier experiments that the few percent of modulation of cosmic rays may very much changes the propensity for clouds to form. i.e. It’s a high-gain amplifier.
    But this is moot because the flux at every minimum [taking into account the odd-even and even-odd difference] has been the same since the 1950s. I think most people will agree that the climate hasn’t.
    The other big variable in cosmic ray flux, other than the magnetic fields from Earth/Sun is the variable density of the particles in the galaxy. IIRC, Anthony had an article regarding that on this blog a little while ago.
    the galaxy is so big that there is very little variation in the cosmic ray flux from it. I don’t think any variation has been detected in recent times.

  81. Bob Tisdale says:
    June 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm
    Gary Gulrud: … I, like many others who blog here, don’t have the time to run through all comments on a thread, so I use the browser to search for my name. With that in mind, how would you expect me to find your nonsensical reply to me…
    In the future, if you quote me, please include my name. Thanks.

    Sorry Bob, my nonsense isn’t actually directed at or offered for the author of the quote. Your work was intended no disparagement whatever. I acknowledge your request and hope to do better.

  82. Leif Svalgaard

    the galaxy is so big that there is very little variation in the cosmic ray flux from it. I don’t think any variation has been detected in recent times.

    I’m puzzled by that remark. Have you read Calder’s article?

    By 2000, Helio Rocha-Pinto and his colleagues were able to report clumps in the ages that told of several stellar baby booms during the Galaxy’s long history. The survivors seen today are necessarily modest, long-lived stars, but their massive cousins would have soon exploded and generated cosmic rays in abundance during those periods of high rates of star formation.

    “The Snowball Earth scenario appears to be connected with the strongest episode of enhanced star formation recorded in the solar neighbourhood during the last 2,000 million years.”

    Which squadron of stars included the one that blew up closely enough to splash the Earth with that identifiable trace of iron-60 atoms? The relative positions of the Sun and its violent neighbours have changed during the past few million years. At times the action was closer than it is now. Accurate plotting of distances and motions by the European Space Agency’s star-mapping satellite Hipparcos (1987–93) has helped astronomers to try to figure out where the culprit lay.

    So there are clear signs of temporal and spatial variability in cosmic ray flux.
    Oulo shows roughly 5% variation recently. The significance of that variation is defined by the actual sensitivity of water vapour to having high-energy particles acting as catalysts for the formation of droplet nucleation sites. That is to be determined experimentally by the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Earlier link and preliminary reports.

  83. Leif Svalgaard
    A word-search through the PNAS climate denier black-list reveals – no Dr Svalgaard! 🙂
    Thus your industrious efforts in constantly opposing the idea that any solar or cosmic ray parameter could affect climate in any way – have been successful, you are politically acceptable to the climate establishment. You may be, overall, wrong but this doesn’t matter very much, what is more important is – you are officially CORRECT.
    There is however just one niggling question that arises inevitably from all your comments:
    Does the sun in fact exist?
    Some recent research has indicated that the appearance of a bright yellow object in the sky could be an illusory artifact of the fovea centralis or “yellow spot” in the retina or the human eye.
    Modern research is revealing the possibility that the “sun” could also be an artifact of faulty instrumental measurements and incorrect analysis methods, combined with historic traditions associated with the sky visual artifact referred to above. Also, scientists hitherto claiming the sun’s existence probably received inadequate political vetting, by today’s standards.

  84. Bob Tisdale says:
    June 22, 2010 at 4:54 am
    Thanks for these illuminating data on the OHC downward trends, I’ve copied and saved them to file. It is indeed regrettable that the science media is little better than the MSM in extraordinary selectiveness in what they protray concerning climate. The North Atlantic fall in 0-700m OHC is indeed striking, as is the media silence about it.

  85. “Thanks for these illuminating data on the OHC downward trends”
    Bob’s latest graphs reinforce(rightly or wrongly) my intuition of the SO as Gaia’s heat sink and NH as its radiator fins. The now departed Modoki was in no way evidence of ‘hotting up’-just the typical cyclic climatic behavior at solar minimum: La Nina regime punctuated by moderate El Ninos via circulatory rebound.
    Last La Nina bequeathed 3 record evening lows on us, Brrrr.

  86. Bernd Felsche says:
    June 23, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    “I don’t think any variation has been detected in recent times.”
    So there are clear signs of temporal and spatial variability in cosmic ray flux.

    Perhaps the word ‘recent’ should be seen in perspective. By recent I meant the past few centuries where we have reasonable measurements. Not millions of years [where we only have suppositions]
    Oulo shows roughly 5% variation recently.
    1. Oulu is discrepant compared to other monitors
    2. The variation is solar cycle related. The original question was if there were observations of recent variations of the flux coming from the galaxy. There is only one that I’m aware of, and it is not confirmed [yet] by other data [so is still a puzzle]: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf and their suggestion is of a ‘decline’ not an increase.
    phlogiston says:
    June 24, 2010 at 1:21 am
    Thus your industrious efforts in constantly opposing the idea that any solar or cosmic ray parameter could affect climate in any way
    Not opposing, ‘challenging’ would be better. One does not ‘oppose’ anything in science, except that which is not science, e.g. the pseudo-science often spewed here.
    Does the sun in fact exist?
    There is some evidence that it does, but you may find this crowd more to your liking:
    http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/The_Sun_Is_Cold_I.htm
    http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/The_Sun_Is_Cold_II.htm

Comments are closed.