The Gods punish excessive hubris, but Anthony has invited me to comment on Dr Hathaway’s most recent Solar Cycle 24 prediction:
The number is still wrong.
Hathaway’s number is 64. The best estimate is 48, the same as Solar Cycles 5 and 6. We still have four years to solar maximum so there is plenty of time for activity to build. With the F10.7 flux at 75 as I write this, the trajectory is very flat.
The shape is wrong.
Strong cycles are front-loaded. Weak cycles are symmetrical. This is a weak cycle so the decline will be as long as the ramp up. Dr Hathaway has the Solar Cycle 24/25 transition in 2020. It will be in 2022.
Year of maximum is wrong.
Dr Hathaway has maximum in 2013. It will be in 2015, as foretold by the green corona intensity, and halfway through a 12 year solar cycle that started in December 2008.
Based on the rate at which Dr Hathaway is approaching a correct prediction, we can now estimate when he will finally make a correct prediction. That will be in 2012.
In the spirit of the Hockey Team, I will now make a prediction based on an interpretation of someone else’s as yet unpublished work. That prediction is that there will be no reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles at Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
In hindsight on Solar Cycle 24 prediction, what is apparent now could have been predicted a couple of decades ago in that it is a de Vries cycle event. The de Vries cycle is a 210 year cycle. The last one was the Dalton Minimum which started in 1798. The current minimum started right on schedule exactly 210 years after that. In the last 2,000 years, the only time we missed out on a de Vries cycle event was the Medieval Warm Period. So it is about 90% reliable. To not have a de Vries cycle event now, we would have to be able to explain why this time that we live in is special. This is a not a special time in which the laws of physics and Nature are suspended, so we are having a de Vries cycle event. While a couple of individuals (Clilverd and Badalyan) made early and correct predictions of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude, nobody got the big picture view correct. While I am saying that, we are also due for a Bond Event.
Under Svensmark’s theory, the significance of weak solar activity is in its effect on the neutron flux in the lower troposphere. Neutron flux remains in an extended peak:
If someone was really good, he or she would be able to predict the shape of the Oulu neutron flux over the rest of this solar cycle (My fossil fuel interests have sidelined me – I am in the middle of drilling an oil well).
With global cooling underway, and while waiting around for solar maximum, my own research interest has moved on to understanding the transition to cooling. A recent report on the Canadian wheat crop has it down 20% this year due to a cold and wet start to the growing season. This is consistent with my view that, by the end of the decade, Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as it was in the 17th century.
The transition to a severely cold regime can happen in one year flat. Brauer et al, http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/sigman/paperpdfs/Brauer08.pdf , determined that the transition to the Younger Dryas occurred in 10,671 BC. The date they used was 12,679 BP. As their paper was published in 2008, I changed it to a fixed date. The year of transition was preceded by 21 years of sometimes bad winter weather, but otherwise there was no gradual transition. It was a rapid regime shift. We are now headed into the third cold northern winter in a row, so perhaps there may be only 18 more winters before the climate is set up for a rapid regime shift. As Brauer et al note, there is a strong negative feedback from sea ice. Last winter, some English people were astounded by a patch of sea ice that grew out from the local beach. That may have been the harbinger.
Apart from being very cold, it was also very windy, which reminds me of a slide I will be using in a presentation at a power conference in Brisbane next week:
The north German plain is now blessed with an abundance of wind turbines. With the fierce winter westerlies coming, they might get to have a higher load factor.
That’s about what I told my brother a year ago.
Minimum first of each century except the 1878 to 1933. That was a 400 total mean cycles.
50 to 60 high for the next two.
200 total sunspot mean for this and the next cycle.
Pile the wood high and long.
Off grid heating required.
Scathingly refreshing article.
But now I am scared for reals.
“This is consistent with my view that, by the end of the decade, Canadian agriculture will be reduced to trapping beavers, as it was in the 17th century.”
Ouch !
Some say the Bond events are caused by the Gulf Stream slowing down… and we all know that that’s not happening anytime soon…
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8714/aofscur100f024natl.png
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/8714/aofscur100f024natl.png
http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html
Very straightforward writeup, with some very powerful predictions.
The scale of the shift to colder climate suggested would have very unhappy consequences.
Meanwhile, for future occasions, it would be appreciated if major concepts such as Bond event or deVries cycle were hyperlinked to some added discussion/ elucidation.
I’m not so sure that the suggested climate implications are right though I do prefer David’s analysis of solar behaviour to that of Dr. Hathaway.
As for a Bond event I’m vey doubtful They are characteristic of highly unstable glacial epochs so I think we will need to have exited the current interglacial before seeing one of those.
I have proposed elsewhere that interglacial periods are relatively uneventful because in my opinion the solar and ocean cycles are phased so as to be generally offsetting one another hence a period of relative stability.
What we will see much more of is equatorward jets producing colder mid latitudes in both hemispheres and warmer but still cold polar regions. Furthermore we are still seeing warmish oceans from the very warm ocean cycles of the late 20th century and it may well be up to 500 years before the ocean surface temperatures are back to the temperastures of the LIA.
So, although we might well see a period of low solar activity with harsh mid latitude winters the temperatures for the entire troposphere may not cool down very quickly just yet.
Even if we do see the oceans turn significantly colder one must recall that I did say that periods of quiet sun result in a warming stratosphere and a reduced energy flux to space which again offsets ocean cooling effects on the troposphere.
The new findings of Joanna Haigh mentioned in another thread seem to support my opinion that solar effects on the atmosphere are contrary to expectations (as she put it).
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.”
Hathaway’s number is 64. The best estimate is 48, the same as Solar Cycles 5 and 6
“Best estimate”? based on what? As for SC5 and 6, their sizes are very uncertain.
I hate to be so ad hoc, but, hasn’t the requirement for “sun spot” been recently reduced to try to boost sun spot numbers? I mean, 72 or 48 of what sized spot is a good question. I’ve been following the spot resizing discussions when they come up here, and, it sounds to me like we’re already in a huge minimum because the spot numbers we have from recent data are really from spots that would be too small to show up in previous data, and, therefore the new data doesn’t really compare to older data. Is this not the case?
Leif brings up a salient question. Every research article (and every post here) should have as its final paragraph, the answer to “Based on what?”. Love it.
Agriculture technology has obviously made vast, vast improvements since the 17th century. Surely they will be able to grow *something* in Canada’s shortened summers….
“No difference really” “an indulgent luxury with no moral basis”
I’ll take mild offence. The differences between these two religions are numerous:
1. The early Christians acted on their beliefs themselves, rather than to try and makes others follow their teaching without doing so themselves.
2. Their founder lived a life of simplicity, had “nowhere to rest his head”, and died a cruel death to open the way to God. The many leaders of the new “Faith” live in luxury, and require the poor in the third world to suffer & die in their stead.
I could go on. The environmental movement is a religion straight out of Hades.
“No difference really” ?
One huge difference, really, Dr Archibald. I recommend taking down that offensive slide from your presentation.
Also, “Gods” in your first paragraph should not be capitalized.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The part that SC24 is still flat is par for this cycle’s course.
And since Hathaway is predicting SSN Max, ‘flat’ refers more specifically to sunspot numbers.
The Sunspot Area is much worse, and is only a couple of months away from undercutting SC13 & 14.
I too see no semblance of similarity between the cross of the crucifixion and the wind turbines. It might appeal to some with little or no knowledge of Christianity, but to everybody else it reveals how little you know about it.
Owen, Mike McMillan and RockyRoad are right – that slide should be removed. Christianity did not start out of some capitalist impulse, subsidized by state support, to pull one over on the gullible. The wind power industry, given the huge cost overruns of building and maintaining these behemoths, is getting away with daylight robbery through misrepresenting the costs and benefits of wind power. And they are aided and abetted by a culpably ignorant MSM that appears to have abandoned investigative journalism in favour of agreeing with anything that’s PC. Not much MSM support for Christianity, nowadays. With the same degree of indifference to the truth, the MSM prefers to clobber and misrepresent Christians, adding to the general ignorance on which this slide is building.
Some points worthy of consideration in Mr. Archibald’s paper, but his references to religion distracts from his message and dilutes the credibility. Also, his hubris is quite noticeable. To predict nature — that’s tough and prone to errors!
On the wind turbine / cross comparison, folks. Lighten up.
I am an practicing Episcopalian and I don’t mind the humor.
The allusion in that slide that the CAGW movement is actually a “religion”, and, sure, wind turbines could very well be one of their icons. [lol].
-Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I understand it is offensive to some people, but I see the juxtaposition of the crosses vs. wind turbines NOT as an affront to Christianity, but as a demonstration that people are trying to replace Christianity with this new eco-religion. And that is a position I agree with.
Until the glaciers are a mile high again over the prairies, something will always grow here. There are faster growing strains of wheat, and we’re getting better with GM plants.
Besides, even if we trap beavers, there’s no market for the pelts anymore… maybe we can send them to Australia where they can build some sorely needed dams? 😉
Owen says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Mike McMillan says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I feel I ought to head this off at the pass. You are barking up the wrong tree on this. My earliest theological training was as an alter boy in the Anglican church. More recently I gave me self a refresher course by reading the 1,293 pages of Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (1988 edition). I have the greatest respect for the true Christian tradition. In this day and age, it is frowned upon to take offence at other people’s religions. But you can object to being forced to pay through taxes and power charges for other people’s idolatry. So I think your offence at the comparison is misplaced. Like Moses coming back from Mt Sinai to find the Israelites worshipping a golden calf, tear down the false idols, or at least complain as loudly as you can to your politicians that you don’t want to pay for the things.
E.M. Smith had a posting about a year and a half ago called Bond Event 0 but it was a placeholder and I am not sure if he followed it up:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
Scary stuff.
The comment on April 6 at 3:21 pm is interesting as is the comment on April 7 at 9:09 am.
MattN says:
October 6, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yeah…Pot, to supply the out of work green scaremongers who’ll have nothing to do but sit-around singing kumbaya and dreadlocking each others hair.
okie333 says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I checked your links and if they are credible they indicate that the m/s velocity of Atlantic Ocean currents is less than 1/3 last year at the same time.
What is the basis of this information? Is it a credible site? Please share more.
An Inquirer says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“To predict nature — that’s tough and prone to errors!”
Yes it is, but I have a track record which is why I was asked. But I am also trying to hand the burden over to anyone who will take it. A couple of years ago in a paper on Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory, I included a list of the solar cycles and invited anyone to generate their own correlations. Only one person took up the invitation, Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of the University of Oslo, who published an elegant study of the Norwegian temperature record. Which astounds me, because if you were a junior academic who wanted to build a publication record, that stuff is very easy. The requirement for warmer scientists is shrinking by the day. You might as well anticipate the regime shift and go to the cool side.
Predicting the neutron flux for the next ten years successfully would establish you as a Master of the Universe, as you would be demonstrating a complete understanding of solar and terrestrial processes.
An Inquirer says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:06 pm
As 10:10 says: “no problem”
Now where is that button? Oh you are right, that is a highly inappropriate climate change snuff children video. How bad of me to reference it.
The Younger Dryas is Heinrich event 0. The planet cooled during the Younger Dryas event for roughly 1300 years which rules out a simple increase in GCR due to a series of weak solar magnetic cycles. (i.e. What is causing the change is not simply the solar magnetic cycle is low for a 1000 years.)
There are geomagnetic excursions at each of the Heinrich events and there are geomagnetic jerks (A geomagnetic jerks is a mild version of the geomagnetic excursion) at roughly 400 year periods. The occurrence of a geomagnetic excursions or a geomagnetic jerk both correlate in time with cooling periods. The strongest geomagnetic excursions correlate with the termination of the interglacial periods.
During an excursion or a jerk the geomagnetic field no longer aligns with the planet’s rotational axis and there is a strong non-dipole portion of the field. This causes an increase in GCR at lower latitudes and in some cases depending on the specific field configuration both increases and decreases in higher latitude regions. Using Svensmark’s mechanism this complex change in the geomagnetic field will cause strong regional cooling with a few regions that warm. The GCR strength also affects upper atmospheric wind patterns. (Just as we are now observing.)
The research finding that the geomagnetic field is abruptly changing cyclically is relatively recent. The geomagnetic specialists appeal to a mechanism of core instability to explain what is causing the geomagnetic excursions. That mechanism cannot explain however why geomagnetic excursions are cyclic.
From the periodicity of the geomagnetic observation and rapidity of the changes (the core cannot change cyclically or sufficient time to cause what is observed) and a set of other observations and analysis, a strong case can be that the geomagnetic field changes are caused by a restart of the solar magnetic cycle at which time there are a series of large discharges from the sun.
The direct evidence to support that hypothesis are burn marks throughout the Northern Hemisphere that are concurrent with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007
“Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined.”
http://web.geology.ufl.edu/Channell/images/PDFs%20for%20web%20site2/channell2006.pdf
We conclude that directional instability is a characteristic of the geomagnetic field at times of polarity excursions. Polarity excursions are observed at time of low paleointensity (Fig. 12) when the strength of the axial dipole is reduced by a factor of about 5, and reduced relative to the non-axial dipole (NAD) field. Zhang and Gubbins [80] have shown that the critical Reynolds number (Rc) for the onset of core convection is very sensitive to the poloidal field, and the strength of core convection varies wildly in response changes in magnetic field strength particularly during intensity minima. Geomagnetic field instability with rapid changes in magnetization directions is to be expected at times of low geomagnetic field intensity.
This is a early paper that discusses the Younger Dryas cooling event and notes there is a very strong change increase in cosmogenic isotopes during the cooling period.
Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/
rbateman says:
October 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
The part that SC24 is still flat is par for this cycle’s course.
???
The Sunspot Area is much worse, and is only a couple of months away from undercutting SC13 & 14.
Sunspot area will also be [mildly] affected by L&P.
The sunspot areas reported by SOON [NOAA] must be multiplied by ~1.5 to match Greenwich 1874-1974.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Sunspot area will also be [mildly] affected by L&P.
The sunspot areas reported by SOON [NOAA] must be multiplied by ~1.5 to match Greenwich 1874-1974.
I don’t use SOON data. I use Debrecen ( or compute it myself) and divide it by 1.1 as per the best estimates that Tunde Baranyi gave me – to relate it to Greenwich photoheliogram data.
Like you say, the area measurements are decoupling somewhat from the flux data.
It’s every indice for itself.
rbateman says:
October 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I use Debrecen ( or compute it myself) and divide it by 1.1 as per the best estimates that Tunde Baranyi gave me – to relate it to Greenwich photoheliogram data.
The umbral area is not homogeneous for the Greenwich data was my point.
Better to use the whole area.
OH’ Canada,
Northern Europe survived off of potatos during the mini-ice age.
France stuck with cereal crops and lost a third of the population.
Farmers slept with their cattle in Long houses..
Villages disappeared and survivors fled to the cities and, there, they met the “Black Death”.
Stack the wood high.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 6, 2010 at 10:26 pm
The umbral area is not homogeneous for the Greenwich data was my point.
Better to use the whole area.
Did that for a while. Made no appreciable difference to the slope of progress. Even in this weak and goofy cycle, the whole spot and umbra are strongly related (despite being very noisy at minimum). Going back to 1874, from cycle to cycle, the relationship of umbral to whole spot does vary, but slowly. So does L&P. That might be a clue.
If something does catch my eye with the relationship, I’ll look back into it.
The religious allusion might be inspired by this little polemic by two German authors who are well known for their “skeptical environmentalism”:
http://www.maxeiner-miersch.de/oekologismus.htm
The headline says “Let us separate waste – Ecologism, the new religion of the wealthy elites”. At the bottom it lists the “Ten commandments of eco-religion”:
“First commandment: Thou shalt be afraid! The most horrific scenario is the most probable. What came out harmless once, will only hit back doubly bad nex time
Second commandment: Thou shalt remorse! Anyone who lives, damages the environment if only by pure existence.
Third commandment: Thou shalt not doubt! The eco movement never errs. Those who doubt serve the infidels.
Fourth commandment: Nature is our benevolent God! It consists of panda bears, baby seals, sunsets and flowers. Earthquakes, tornados and killer viruses are results of human hubris.
Fifth commandment: Thou shalt despise your own species! Man is the cancer tumor of the world. Before his appearance, earth was a peaceful idyl.
Sixth commandment: Thou shalt abhor free markets! The planet can only be saved by central planning of international bureaucracies.
Seventh commandment: Thou shalt not consume! Whatever you buy, use or consume, it is damaging to the environment. Rationing of goods shall be handed to the wise priests of ecologism.
Eighth commandment: Thou shalt not believe in a better tomorrow! Prevent changes and progress, because everything was better in the past.
Ninth commandment: Thou shalt disdain technology! The only remedy are fundamental changes in society, but not inventions of technocratic engineers.
Tenth commandment: Know that guilt is male, white, Christian and western! Innocence is an Indian woman from the jungle.”
By the way, about the remark on wind turbines in the North German plains. Here is a photo of the wind park at Friedrichskoog on the North Sea cost in Schleswig-Holstein state:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2629/4258348804_1234a9594a.jpg
Well I have been watching Erik Klemetti’s Eruptions blog a fair bit. Many who study the seismic activity say this Iceland volcano is likely to erupt about April.
Global Volcanism Program | Grímsvötn | Eruptive History
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1703-01=&volpage=erupt&format=expanded#E190212
So there may be no break from the solar dimming after Eyjafjallajökull. That’s cold!
If I may offer a comment about context –
NASA, Hathaway, has to produce a number, that the satellite owners and operators can plan on, in terms of potential for solar disruption. This is a huge responsibility that is not uncommon to that which other of the people I associate with have to maintain regarding an environmental impact document. These responsible parties (state and federal agencies) must state the problem in terms of the potential maximum impact, so that , if necessary, they can back track, but they can never go beyond the anticipated impact in the environmental document.
I suspect that the same is true for Hathaway. He does not have a free path of prediction. He MUST predict the most dire result he sees. This fits with his re-estimations and re- reporting of his estimations over time. I bet if someone with phone privileges to him were to give him a call that he would back this up.
If this is the case, maybe we should give him some space. He will adjust his forecasts, likely as predicted.
He has before.
In other words, he may not be an in the way guy – get It?
William wrote
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?,
See Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles,
A Possible Connection
Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
Available on my website http://www.akk.me.uk/Climate_Change.htm
However it may be that changes in ocean currents cause changes in climate also affect the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field and this might be the cause of my observations.
Professor Gregory Ryskin from the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois, US, has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans’ salt water (which conducts electricity) and found that the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth’s main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans’ circulation.
With global cooling underway,….
No chance we’ll see some evidence of this, I suppose.
vigilantfish says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:02 pm: ‘Christianity did not start out of some capitalist impulse, subsidized by state support, to pull one over on the gullible.’
State Christianity did start from political motives, as an aid to establishing Constantine’s control after his coup d’etat, and was used by the state to bolster its power. Subsequent to Constantine it was then organised by emperors and clerics into an overarching system of social, political, financial and personal control which dominated and, in many ways, stultified European thought and history almost up to the present. Ask Bruno or Galileo or any of those the church destroyed because of their heresy or free-thinking. There are clear parallels with the extreme environmentalist movement – all they need is some compliant politicians …. yeah, but that couldn’t happen could it?
http://www.jupitersdance.com/thelasttango
Planetary motion affecting solar output.
Oh, come on Archibald. Please don’t say we are in for a de Vries cycle and that this explains everything – and then not tell us what a de Vries cycle actually is (apart from the fact that we get 5 of them per millennia).
I tried Wiki, but no luck. Can you write a Wiki article?
.
Archibald:
And regards the de Vries cycle, I am not looking for a URL to that slide of yours with the various solar minima displayed on it. I was looking more for your best guess and explanation for this cycle.
It is a cycle. The Sun spins, the planets orbit, the Sun throbs and churns – so what is the driving factor of the de Vries cycle? What, exactly, is resonating?
.
I just love this blog, though I am not a scientist and do struggle with the finer points. Needless to say, I have the logs stacked already. On the crucifix/winturbine slide, I agree, it is a salient point and I do come across people who behave as though AGW is a fundamentalist religion and brook no other view.
Please continue with your excellent dialogues, I follow with a lot of interest though not complete understanding(understatement). It does prompt a lot of interest and reading whilst trying to keep up with you guys though
>>Owen says: October 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
>>2. Their founder lived a life of simplicity, had “nowhere to rest
>>his head”, and died a cruel death to open the way to God.
Actually, their founder was given great riches on his birth, was highly educated (enough to amaze the chief priests), became an architect (tekton), had a number of very rich tax-collectors and very rich and influential friends (Nicodemus** and Arimathaea among many), had a sumptuous wedding (Cana), was judged not by some yokel priest but by the Roman governor himself (the equivalent of being judged by Obama), and he was hailed as a king.
So yes, the Green religion is indeed like Christianity – they are both masquerading as something that they are not.
** According to Prof Eisenman, Nicodemus was the richest man in Judaea.
.
William – Thanks for the citations and links, most helpful!
Very interesting…..
This might shed some light on the issue of Grand Minima
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/10/recent-grand-minima-in-level-of-solar.html
While your at it you might want to look at the synchronization of the Odd and Even sunspot maximums and the position angle of the planet Jupiter at the times of the alignments of Venus and Earth:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-are-evenodd-sunspot-cycle-maxima.html
Ed Murphy says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:41 pm :
“Well I have been watching Erik Klemetti’s Eruptions blog a fair bit. Many who study the seismic activity say this Iceland volcano is likely to erupt about April.
Global Volcanism Program | Grímsvötn | Eruptive History……”
Hekla is also ready, so we may have two eruptions here in Iceland soon: Grimsvötn in Vatnajökull glacier and Hekla. We have been waiting for Katla for a long time… Maybe Katla is also ready…
This reminds me of: Year Without a Summer by Willie Soon and Stephen H Yaskell.
“A weak solar maximum, a major volcanic eruption, and possibly even the wobbling of
the Sun conspired to make the summer of 1816 one of the most miserable ever recorded”.
This was during the Dalton minimum which may be repeating…
cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/GoldbergMay05-d/Summer_of_1816.pdf
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=86174493950
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Year1816.html
For those who might be interested as to when the next Bond (or DO) Event will occur:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/10/1470-year-do-events-transition-from.html
I should have added to my comment at October 7, 2010 at 3:04 am that Constantine didn’t get baptised until his deathbed and, previously and pertinently to this thread, had always been a devotee of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun.
The north German plain is now blessed with an abundance of wind turbines. With the fierce winter westerlies coming, they might get to have a higher load factor.
Their recent load is more than enough to overwhelm the north-south energy transfer inside Germany. Because there is a “green” resistance to build more power lines (disfiguring the landscape and suchlikes…), the Germans dump the whole energy overload from their Northwest to Polish and Czech grid without any warning. In Czech rep., we already had a blackout due to overload some years ago and our grid manager therefore decided to install sort of fuses at the German-Czech interface to protect us, but the Germans complained at the EU and we were forced to remove them.
Ralph says:
October 7, 2010 at 6:35 am
“So yes, the Green religion is indeed like Christianity – they are both masquerading as something that they are not.”
Ralph, how did it serve the main discussion here to go out of your way to offend those participants here who are of the Christian faith?
Hi Mac the Knife,
We may have a chance to observe how an interrupted solar magnetic cycle restarts.
The mechanism that creates sunspots appears to have been interrupted based on Livingston and Penn’s measurements of the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots that show the magnetic field strength of new individual sunspots is reducing linearly. As a minimum magnetic field strength is required for the magnetic ropes that travel from the tachocline through the convection zone to the solar surface, to enable the magnetic ropes to avoid being torn apart by the turbulence in the convection zone there will be no sunspots after around 2014. (The ropes will be torn apart in the convection zone.) One solar mechanism theory postulates that the past cycle sunspots are the seed for new sunspots (That mechanism has the sunspots formed at the tachocline). Without the seed the mechanism is interrupted.
Comment:
I believe the changes in LTD (ionosphere increases and decreases tracking the solar magnetic cycle) are related to what causes sunspots. If the sunspot mechanism has been interrupted one would expect the ionosphere to continue to contract.
>>Ralph, how did it serve the main discussion here to go out of your
>>way to offend those participants here who are of the Christian faith?
??? Sorry, how can the truth be offensive? The truth has no motive, nor does it have an agenda, it just IS.
Your position is like saying that F=M*A might be offensive to some scientists. It cannot be offensive, it is just the truth of a formula, no more no less.
If a member of a sect wants to profess something, and the very texts of that faith say something completely different, how can they be offended by this? Do their texts offend them? If so, perhaps they should try a different belief system.
I fail to see your logic.
.
I’d like to recommend “Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps” by Robert Felix – picked up through another WUWT reader’s recommendation, about a year ago, and
readdevoured voraciously as one of those special rare “aha” books. A book that somebody here might tell me is total rubbish. But it’s a paradigm shifter that is scientifically well-grounded IMHO, well-written with a light touch so it’s very readable. It draws on a formidable number of sources – I estimate the bibliography has some 150 science papers, in addition to books and articles.“Ralph says:
October 7, 2010 at 6:35 am
“So yes, the Green religion is indeed like Christianity – they are both masquerading as something that they are not.”
October 7, 2010 at 11:24 am
??? Sorry, how can the truth be offensive?”
That’s not factual truth, that’s an opinion. Not everyone here agrees with your opinion, including myself and hence it is offensive. I’ll leave it at that.
Still waiting for leif’s question to be answered by DA:
“Best estimate”? based on what?
Similar questions have been asked on other threads and they have not been answered…
David Archibald
You have to distinguish clearly between Christian spirituality and idolatry because icons speak to people very fast. *No pressure*
Please, what is the de Vries cycle? And can you give some refs to work that evidences your predictions?
Ralph says:
October 7, 2010 at 11:24 am
“I fail to see your logic.”
Indeed.
vigilantfish says:
October 6, 2010 at 7:02 pm
“Owen, Mike McMillan and RockyRoad are right – that slide should be removed. Christianity did not start out of some capitalist impulse, subsidized by state support, to pull one over on the gullible.”
As a Catholic and a believer in Jesus Christ I still must take exception to your comment. Ever heard of Emperor Constantine? Christianity was not started by him but was certainly given a big push when it was made the Roman Religion of choice 1500 or so years ago. The truth is still the truth and the Roman Empire, then, was a much stronger influence than any corporate influence of today. Plus I am not so sure the Council of Nicea got it all right in terms of which Gospels to use as well as other issues which most present day Christians buy into.
Mr. Alex says:
October 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“That’s not factual truth, that’s an opinion. Not everyone here agrees with your opinion, including myself and hence it is offensive. I’ll leave it at that.”
How is it that one can be offended by an opinion they do not agree with? That is a “dis-agreement” not an “offense”.
What a world we’d live in if every opinion was the same.
It seems to me the trouble these days is that people are too easily “offended”.
JimG
Of particular relevance is that Emperor Constantine founded Constantinople and enabled the Eastern Roman Empire to flourish as Byzantium. Thanks to this we have some 1000 years of climate references relating to the Byzantine empire demonstrating numerous periods of climate change.
Tonyb
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 7, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I also like Robert Felix’ web site http://www.iceagenow.com, its entertaining and informative
– he doesn’t take himself 100% seriously which is always good. He is often quicker to post important climate news and scientific publications than WUWT. Iceagenow is an easy place to see the latest sunspot status with a very nice link at the top.
He has some sound instincts on climate and other areas of science; however his ideas on evolutionary leaps coinciding with magnetic reversals is impossible to believe. Too much is known in too much detail about species formation and change under natural selection, for it to be remotely possible to re-write evolutionary history on such a punctuated timescale. Many instances thoroughly documented of species changes over much shorter timescales, such as the remarkable African Cichlid fishes of lakes Tanganika and Victoria and surrounding waterways, where hundreds of new species have appeared on a century to almost decadal timescale over just a few millenia. Other examples are the recent evolution of the spider crab and the ring species (species merging into each-other around a geographical ring) such as the herring gull / lesser black backed gull around the Arctic and the Ensatina salamander of Central Valley in California.
Also his tenacious adherence to the idea that magnetic reversals lead to catastrophic “explosions in the sky” leading to extinctions, is hard to take seriously. None the less R Felix is likeable and his website interesting and useful.
DA has found a symbolic link between the Roman warm period and our own moden warm period.
Do these new structures represent our own modern crucifiction at the hands of the panic driven greenies on mass, who believe in the false anti-Carbon ?
Always look on the bright side of life
Jim G and Ralph:
I know that Christianity is not the subject of this blog but must reply to your distortions of the point I made yesterday – Christianity began in the year 33, not the year 313, in which the Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan declared religious tolerance for Christians. Christianity did not become a state religion, but rather one of many religions to be allowed. But all of this happened long after Christianity inspired its followers, who were not state-supported elites, but rather often the poor and marginalized, and especially women and slaves, with a new understanding of the essential equality of all of humanity. Too often people read back into history the later tropes which were not at all in existence in earlier times. I have the hardest time making my students understand the almost total lack of support by the military of scientific and technological research and development in the US prior to the Second World War. I can give example after example of military hostility to innovation, and they will still tell me that US inventors had it easy because of military funding in the late 19th and early 20th century. To argue, going back to my earlier point, that Christianity enjoyed a state-supported, almost corporate influence on the population, of the kind that wind turbine companies are enjoying today, is like trying to argue that CO2 is responsible for global warming even though CO2 increases historically have followed centuries after temperatures peaked.
Stephen Wilde says: As for a Bond event I’m vey doubtful They are characteristic of highly unstable glacial epochs so I think we will need to have exited the current interglacial before seeing one of those.
Um, the 1500 year cycle persists in both glacial and interglacial periods. It was found by two different groups in each, so is named differently during glacials than interglacials. During interglacials (that is, now) it’s a Bond Event. During glacials it is a Dansgaard Oeschger event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event
(The wiki, of course, has to assert that the periodicity is “debated”. Couldn’t just admit there are long cycle events…)
Given that the 1500 year cycle has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, the odds of us skipping this one are close to nil, IMHO. And this being an interglacial, it will be a Bond Event. I’ve christened it Bond Event Zero (as they are numbered higher as you go back in time)…
Oh, and D.O. Events are warming events while Bond Events are cooling (same 1500 year cycle, just they detected the flip sides of it…) The cooling event is called a Heinrich Event, though we’ve not detected as many of them. NCDC:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html
says it’s all about fresh water flows. My opinion is that the water flows are a symptom, not root cause. Oh, and I’d bet there were some 1500 year coolings that we didn’t tag as Heinrich Events simply because it was in the middle of a glacial and kind of hard to pick them out…
So I’d put hard money on Bond Event Zero happening. Then again, they have a couple hundred year or so error band, so it might be a while before it gets here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
makes an indirect assertion that the Little Ice Age might have been a Bond Event (and it could, I suppose) but my money would be on it being just a lead in opening act. The nominal cycle is 1470 years, and the last one ran about 450 – 900 AD. So with a 450 year duration, we ought not to be out of the wood yet. (The Iron Age Cold Epoch ran about 900-300 BC or 600 years, so long events are not unusual). If the LIA was the start (say 1700) we ought to still be in the middle of it.
But take 535 (when the Dark Ages began, supposedly with a couple of years where the sun was quite dark “like the moon”) and add 1470 to it. 2005. Gee, just about the time our present solar quiet began…
So my money would be in the LIA being just a normal part of our oscillation down toward the next glacial. And that Bond Event Zero has not yet passed….
but we’ll see… even if it takes 100 years…
John Finn says:
“With global cooling underway,….”
No chance we’ll see some evidence of this, I suppose.
All the snows in both hemispheres last winter(s) along with all the rains now. All that rain comes from clouds. More clouds mean more sunlight reflected away AND they mean that a load of water condensed up high and dumped that heat to space.
So you can see the cooling (heat loss) in all the mass flow of water. Eventually the temperatures will drop everywhere (not just in selected areas as now) as even more heat is lost. But please do remember that ‘cooling’ is heat loss, not temperature reduction. “Warmers” like to confound those two, but they are quite different.
So just look at the global precipitation and see the heat loss.
Per the folks wondering what a De Vries cycle is: Try looking up a Suess Cycle. They are the same thing.
It’s a 205 or so year long solar output cycle.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2000GL006116.shtml
E.M.Smith says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:50 pm
All the snows in both hemispheres last winter(s) along with all the rains now. All that rain comes from clouds. More clouds mean more sunlight reflected away AND they mean that a load of water condensed up high and dumped that heat to space
So the evidence that “cooling is underway” is that it was a bit snowy in parts of the NH last winter and it’s raining in some parts of the world. Isn’t this cooling supposed to be part of a significant decades-long downturn? When did it start? I thought the “cooling” had been going since 1998.
Never mind you’ll soon have some La Nina-affected data to offer as “evidence”.
E M Smith said:
Stephen Wilde says: As for a Bond event I’m vey doubtful They are characteristic of highly unstable glacial epochs so I think we will need to have exited the current interglacial before seeing one of those.
Um, the 1500 year cycle persists in both glacial and interglacial periods. It was found by two different groups in each, so is named differently during glacials than interglacials. During interglacials (that is, now) it’s a Bond Event. During glacials it is a Dansgaard Oeschger event”
Thanks EMS.
I noticed my terminology error shortly after posting and once again regretted the absence of an edit facility.
I really had in mind those much larger swings of the glacial epochs and mixed them up with interglacial Bond Events. My comment is applicable to the former rather than the latter and of course David was indeed referring to the latter.
EMS,
“The events may be caused by an amplification of solar forcings, or by a cause internal to the earth system – either a “binge-purge” cycle of ice sheets accumulating so much mass they become unstable, as postulated for Heinrich events, or an oscillation in deep ocean currents (Maslin et al.. 2001, p25).”
I’d go for the combination of solar forcings plus oscillations in deep sea currents with the binge – purge process as a by product. That would fit my NCM nicely especially now that Jo Haigh has firmed up the matter of the sign of the solar effect on the atmosphere for me. That was by far the point that caused me most concern prior to her announcements since my proposal was way out of line with the received opinion. I had a lot of problems with Leif over that issue.
You can offend my God all you want He doesn’t care. You can offend my Gods all you want they don’t care.
And Bond event? Will there be a feature on the girls in one of the usual magazines?
But all of this happened long after Christianity inspired its followers, who were not state-supported elites
How the times have changed. At least in some places.
Any way. Back On Topic. It is criminal given the uncertainty that we are not preparing for change in either direction – warm or cold.
I too see no semblance of similarity between the cross of the crucifixion and the wind turbines. It might appeal to some with little or no knowledge of Christianity, but to everybody else it reveals how little you know about it.
Hey. It amuses us Jewish guys. (You know. The old time religion.)
Personally I am tickled even further because of all the Christian hymns I was forced to sing back in public school. (yeah it was a long time ago – in human years). Funny how some things stick with you and still leave a bad taste in your mouth 50 years later.
Any way I liked the graphic. And I like religion. Realizing that it may just be an artifact of our brain chemistry. Maybe that Leary guy was on to something.
If this cooling comes to pass I think I’m going to enjoy going back over the Inet and making fun of the warmistas. OTOH the hunger will not be so much fun.
D Archibald : “the transition to the Younger Dryas occurred in 10,671 BC. The date they used was 12,679 BP. As their paper was published in 2008, I changed it to a fixed date.”
12,679 BP is a fixed date and means “12,679 before 1950”, ie 19729 BC !
E.M.Smith says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:25 pm
What does it take for you you note this post?
Ninderthana says:
October 7, 2010 at 8:11 am
For those who might be interested as to when the next Bond (or DO) Event will occur:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/10/1470-year-do-events-transition-from.html
The Christians are offended because they don’t like their icons being compared to some other faith based outfit’s icons. But they are just icons! Both the cross and the turbine only provide alms to salve the fears and uncertainties of the unknown and unpredictable future. One outfit is offering freedom from persecution in the after life, the other is offering freedom from persecution by hot weather. Both outfit’s force the individual to give up some freedoms in order to attain the salvation. One can argue whether both outfits are frauds or not; but you cannot argue that the icons are just representations of the belief system. I wish the modern day Christian was a bit more easy going about their icons just as much as I wish the same for the AGW alarmists. But I can acknowledge that the Christians are not as threatening as the AGW alarmists are these days. However, Galileo (and plenty of others) had it the other way around in their day.
E.M.Smith says:
October 7, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Those are not “bonds” to buy but to sell, in any case. 🙂
MikeH says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:55 am
You are confusing icons with symbols, these are representations of actual working laws in the universe, neither imagination nor dreams, but actual “machines”.BTW the “cross” which worries you so much, it is one of these.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
also:
http://www.amazon.com/Symbols-Sacred-Science-Guenon-Works/dp/0900588772/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286553282&sr=1-1
MikeH says:
October 8, 2010 at 6:55 am
So…we have been lost in the multiplicity and the time to return is due. What is your choice?
So since the Christians doth protest too much shall we call this the new Iconoclast period?
Demesure says on October 8, 2010 at 2:24 am
Fixed it for you. I know, 0 is next to 9 on most keyboards, at least if you don’t use the keypad.
Richard Sharpe says:
October 8, 2010 at 9:23 am
Demesure says on October 8, 2010 at 2:24 am
D Archibald : “the transition to the Younger Dryas occurred in 10,671 BC. The date they used was 12,679 BP. As their paper was published in 2008, I changed it to a fixed date.”
12,679 BP is a fixed date and means “12,679 before 1950″, ie 10729 BC !
Fixed it for you. I know, 0 is next to 9 on most keyboards, at least if you don’t use the keypad.
In the interests of accuracy that would be 10730 BC there being no year 0! 😉
M. Simon says:
October 8, 2010 at 2:15 am
My latest theory is that Christian persecution of the Jewish people is responsible for a lot of the advances of Western civilisation. By restricting Jewish occupations to largely ones in which intellectual effort was required rather than muscle power, that forced a 15 point rise in Ashkenazi IQ over the last 1,000 years odd. That was the fastest IQ rise in human history. That meant that a lot more people were produced with IQs over 140 say, which in turn meant a lot more advances in science and mathematics. So it is the medieval church which can be thanked for the current advanced state of Western Civilisation.
William says:
October 6, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Lucidly argued. Thanks.
And thanks once again, David.
“No chance we’ll see some evidence of this, I suppose.”
Like that could change your mind?
“I see the juxtaposition of the crosses vs. wind turbines NOT as an affront to Christianity”
CodeTech manifestly strikes the intent here. The offenses imagined may abound but who can be genuinely offended in this day?