Guest post by David Archibald
I will be giving a lecture in Washington in early June on my way through to the Bahamas. Following are the slides that pertain to the agricultural impact of the current de Vries cycle event – the Eddy Minimum.
The stippled line is the current Canadian wheat-growing area. The heavy black line is what that would shrink to if temperature fell by one degree Celsius. Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory applied to the temperature records of the northeastern US derive a temperature decline of 2.0 degrees Celsius to the latitude of the US-Canadian border. It therefore follows that Canadian agriculture will be back to trapping beavers by the end of this decade, as it was in the 17th century.
Many years ago, in the time before global warming corrupted most branches of science, researchers looked at the consequences of warming and cooling. Newman in 1980 was such a researcher. This is a figure he provided of where the US Corn Belt would shift to with one degree of warming, the dashed line, and one degree of cooling, the solid line. The current corn growing area is shaded. His calculation of 144 km per degree C is in line with my estimate of a 300 km shift southward in growing conditions.
And corn is a big business in the United States:
The large amount of ethanol production is a good thing in that it provides a buffer of capacity in the climatic event under way. The mandated ethanol requirement has brought the future forward.
Archeological records tell it that it has happened before. The map in the following graphic shows how Indian maize growing moved south in response to the onset of the Little Ice Age (Reiley 1979).
But it can get worse than the standard de Vries cycle climate response. That can be overprinted by a major volcanic eruption:
Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and 1992 averaged 0.5 degrees C cooler as a consequence. The Dalton Minimum’s major volcanic eruption was Mt Tambora:
My generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.
The Australian Prime Minister spoke recently of the benefits of reading Bible stories. The Bible story that all governments should be paying particular attention to is the one in Genesis about the seven years of fat followed by the seven years of lean. Otherwise another Biblical character will make his appearance – the Third Horseman of the Apocalypse, Famine.
References
Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142.
Riley, T. J., and Friemuth, G. (1979). Field systems and frost drainage in the prehistoric agriculture of the Upper Great Lakes. American Antiquity, 44 (2), 271-285.
Vuk
In no way can 250 hits in 396 seconds be considered DOS
Its using normal page requests!
Unless your server is connected to the net with a piece of wet string and analogue modem this should cause no slowing of others connections. If it did seek another provider.
Calling this a DOS attack is disingenuous.
From where I sit, Vukcevic is one of the few notables that predicted the current solar minimum. I personally see nothing wrong with hind casting. If there is an obvious and perhaps fuzzy pattern emerging from the actual data then use it.
walt man says:
May 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm
In no way can 250 hits in 396 seconds be considered DOS
Its using normal page requests!
They were proving to him that F5 can be used to generate page requests, which he had denied, but I think you are missing the point: the DoS charade was designed to deflect attention from his deceptions, and seemed to have worked. Bad usually drives out the good. His cover-ups and misrepresentations did irk me, I admit that, but I think it would irk everybody else too.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm
>i>“I have already argued at WUWT why those reconstructions are failures. And that my money was on Schrijver.”
Then you should have referred back to those points in the thread concerned. In any event you presented your opinion as a generally accepted fact whereas it is not.
I said:
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 10, 2011 at 8:53 am
The main problem with the paper is visible in the upper right hand plot of the Figure. It shows a large change in [assumed] TSI from 1900 to 1950 and no change thereafter. All evidence we have from solar indicators is that the sun the last few years have returned to conditions of a century ago. This would seem to include TSI as well, unless they can give a reason for why not [and the paper doesn’t do that]. Since the large increase in their TSI drives the reconstruction back in time, the whole thing becomes dubious. You could contrast this with the conclusion of Schrijver et al.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-minimal-solar-activity-in-2008%e2%80%932009-and-its-implications-for-long%e2%80%90term-climate-modeling/
My money is on Schrijver, but there is a lot of room for confirmation bias with two such disparate papers: you get to choose which ones fits your agenda.”
This does not sound like a misrepresentation of what is generally accepted [there is no generally accepted view, yet]. I just think you jumped on a convenient bandwagon.
We have a winter storm warning for the Sierra & So. Cascades this weekend…in mid May. A good 90+% of the US will be below normal by Monday, as will a generous portion of the US well below normal.
This is most likely 100 -140 yrs ago weather, perhaps further back as records become scarce prior to the 1870’s. It is known that in the 1830’s Sitka, Alaska was much warmer with the Pacific NW much cooler followed by a very bad Cascades drought in the 1840’s.
This keeps up we go into uncharted territory.
Ulric Lyons says: May 13, 2011 at 8:54 am
These cold seasons crop up now and again, like 1708/9 winter, no large eruptions then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709 and surprisingly warm for 2yrs before and afterwards too.
Honshu, Japan December 16, 1707, FUJI, VEI-5
Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program, large holocene eruptions
Eruptions by date cannot be accessed at present. (Sloppy)
But I suspect there were accomplices adding to the solar dimming.
Oh, I dumped that stock that flew high ramp up. It appears to be a pump &dump. Beware! Monday or Tuesday I bet it will crash. I hope we don’t see the sun do the same.
All the swimming pools are opening this weekend at Dogpatch, Arkansas latitudes. But nobody seems to get in much past their knees. I’ve swam in lakes/streams in late April, early May some years… some not, like the last FOUR in a row.
Leif,
You just switched away from:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
and
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext
by diverting attention to Schriver.
Those two papers are not dependent on reconstrucxtions but on instead the effects of the observed changes in the mix of wavelengths and as such they show that your comments about the ‘impossibility’ of a top down solar effect are not as generally accepted as you would have us believe.
In any event my point here was to show that you are not above being guilty of what you accuse others of doing so I think (respectfully) that you should moderate certain aspects of your tone.
I only put a comment in here because others are coming to the same conclusion and I wished to give them some support.
vukcevic; your comment below is at the very least misleading in light of the response Leif gives to walt man (also copied below). Leif notes he was “irked”. I would have been furious; and on Leif’s behalf I am.
vukcevic says: (May 13, 2011 at 1:31 pm)
Your science is OK.
Your moral pronouncements are phoney.
Neither yours or my ISP would be delighted with your actions.
You have not explained anything, such practices, specially if deliberate are bordering on illegal. Blocking someone’s website from a third party without a legal warrant interferes with freedom of communications!
Leif Svalgaard responds to: (May 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm) walt man who comments (May 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm): In no way can 250 hits in 396 seconds be considered DOS
(Leif) Its using normal page requests!
They were proving to him that F5 can be used to generate page requests, which he had denied…
A negative 2 degree drop THIS DECADE?
I’m used to “The sky is falling” crud from AGW proponents not from AGW skeptics.
You know it’s bad in Cali when you see Jay Leno advertising for a California pump & dump stock! For a guy named Marc Lautner, aka John Bell. Friday the 13th is always interesting.
walt man & Roger Carr:
May 14, 2011
…………..
Any comment (with no insults) is appreciated and noted.
Thank you.
Response to:
Pasting the old formula on the new graph is gross …… Trying to cover it up makes it worse.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/#comment-659746
It is a new graph because more sunspots were added since 2003, and the old graph didn’t have forward extrapolation.
It was not old formula pasted, but a formula which was riddled with errors, eventually corrected. That was nothing of sort, it was just erroneous presentation.
Ian says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:12 am
A negative 2 degree drop THIS DECADE?
I’m used to “The sky is falling” crud from AGW proponents not from AGW skeptics.
It’s a predicted fall for a localised area, not global. You’d know that, if you read the article fully.
tallbloke says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:21 am
It’s a predicted fall for a localised area, not global. You’d know that, if you read the article fully.
Is it really? Actually I’m not sure on what David is basing his predictions. Perhaps you can help? Admittedly he does say the following:
This implies he’s applied the F-C & L ‘technique’ to the “temperature records of the northeastern US “. Has he? Why didnt he show us if he has? The only analysis I’ve seen from David uses Butler & Johnson’s linear regression correlation. I remeber him being quite keen on B&J a few years back. I know that, in at least one paper, he concluded that there would be a 2 deg decline in NE US states based on the B&J method. He even plotted the 2 deg decline to show us the magnitude of the drop. However, there was a small inconvenient problem with the B&J method he was using. B&J used 11-year mean temperature data centred on the years of solar max and solar min. This, in effect, means we already have many of the observations which contribute to the next 2 data points …. and it’s pretty clear that a 2 deg decline is not going to show itself.
Undeterred, David changed his timescale from “in a few short years” to “over the next solar cycle”. This does give him some breathing space, however, I can’t see that this is justified. Just to muddy the waters even more, B&J did do an analysis which centred data on the following solar cycle but I’m quite sure this was not what David used. Around 2006 I asked him (on Warwick Hughes blog) quite directly for an interpretation of his results and his answer implied that the original method was the one being used.
I’d like to know on what David is basing his 2 deg decline. Is it on F-C&L – if so can we see a brief explanation on how he’s done this. If it’s based on B&J – which one is it?
walt man & Roger Carr
May 14, 2011:
……………….
It may appear to you as a trivial point. I have a stats counter, recording every visit to my website with all supplementary details. This is an arrangement which involves a small payment of $US 49 per annum.
There were about 340+ hits from a particular IP address, of which only first 252 (I had to count them manually, not 256) were recorded and stats counter shut down. I am not able to tell if there were any other visits, record of which is permanently lost. I might also be carrying a commercial operation on the same website, using the same stat counter facility, but this is private information.
If communication between a commercial partner (in this case stat counter operator) and myself is interrupted by a third party, that is clearly interfering with my freedom of information exchange, not to mention that I pay for information which can’t be retrieved at the later date.
It may not be DoS in strict sense of the word, but ethics of it are still questionable.
All the best
vukcevic
@Ed Mertin says:
May 13, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Excellent, I hoped some would pick up on that one, ie no cooling showing until a year later, and in the N.H. winter not summer, the opposite of the theoretical cooler summers and warmer winters, and did the cooling hide for 12 months before showing up? Care to show me cooling after every/most VEI 5+ events then ? And where is the cooling after the large events in 1883, 1903 and 1912 ?
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
@vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:32 am
“a ‘down to earth’ explanation for period 1660-1750,”
Interesting how cold it was almost every year from 1670 to 1705, and then so warm from 1706 to 1738.
The problem with the SI Global Volcanism Program is that there is no altitudes of the aerosols from the eruptions. No corresponding solar winds data. Now the entire find eruptions by date/year is in disputes and that function is currently suspended. There are a lot more VEI-3 + eruptions and VEI-4? VEI-5? if you research all the eruptions in a given year than often make the large holocene list. (Sloppy)
If you simply go by numbers/volume then we should have frozen in the 1930’s. But because the stratosphere wasn’t being reached with those eruptions there was considerable warming. Like a slow altitude smoke filled greenhouse baking in the sun, what I’ve ding dang been trying to say for a long time.
Stephen Wilde says:
Stephen Wilde says:
May 13, 2011 at 11:35 pm
they show that your comments about the ‘impossibility’ of a top down solar effect are not as generally accepted as you would have us believe.
1: never said that. On the contrary a 0.1C solar cycle effect is to be expected and many claim to have found this.
2: it is often assumed and at least uttered that there is a larger climate effect. Such claims go back ~400 years. There is no generally accepted view what the effect is, how large it is, what might cause it, or any other aspect of such an effect [e.g. global vs. local], except that it is good for funding [at least for solar researchers; I don’t see that from the climate science of the question] to pay lip service to a sun-climate relationship [on that there seem to be general acceptance].
I only put a comment in here because others are coming to the same conclusion and I wished to give them some support.
As I said, you jumped on a convenient bandwagon.
vukcevic says:
May 14, 2011 at 1:29 am
it was just erroneous presentation.
As I said earlier, you could have just admitted that up front [to err is human – to attempt to deceive is perhaps even more so]
vukcevic says:
May 14, 2011 at 4:24 am
I might also be carrying a commercial operation on the same website, using the same stat counter facility
If you would document how much business you have lost during those 3 minutes, I’ll be generous and refund you that amount. I did not experience any loss of service while proving to you that leaning on F5 works [which you denied]. Perhaps the question of ethics goes back to your claim that I showed ‘economy of accuracy’. I think that using your own stats counter to prove the accuracy of my statement should have been compelling.
Slow and low altitude aerosols from Ejafyallajökull heated up in the fast solar wind speeds of last summer. Everyone noticed the hot spots, especially the Russians. Personally, I was diving into every lake I could to cool off. Had that solar wind remained absent, it would have been mainly another wet and cool summer.
Ian says:
May 14, 2011 at 12:12 am
A negative 2 degree drop THIS DECADE?
I’m used to “The sky is falling” crud from AGW proponents not from AGW skeptics.
The Ice Core records indicate at least twice that drop in temps over very short periods, followed by not quite as steep rises, so the overall curve of Ice Age/Interglacial is preserved. A 2F drop is 1.1C drop, remember to convert to the appropriate units of measure.
Leif Svalgaard says:
…………..
Nothing is lost, and even less gained, but even it was it is my affair. You were given note of the previous event (120 hits), that you are making excessive demands on my facilities, instead of restraint you hit about 3 times as hard.
An apology would have sufficed but since that was not forthcoming (instead further feeble explanations are preferred), , and I do not require any of your programming skills demonstrations, I consider the matter closed.
Keep moralising lectures to your own affairs.
P.S. It was not 3 it was 6.5 minutes, before counter shut down, but again I wouldn’t expect you to quote it right, attitude of facts distortion is prevailing.
First documented entry of the sequence was at 18:43:39, it recorded 345 entries but logged 252(I counted manually). It shut down at 18:50:15 and restarted at 18:57:32 with single entry from your IP address. What happened in the interval it is not known.
Recorded sequence is fully documented here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
vukcevic says:
May 14, 2011 at 9:49 am
First documented entry of the sequence was at 18:43:39, it recorded 345 entries but logged 252(I counted manually).
At least you are admitting now that F5 can be a very efficient tool to test if some behind the scenes manipulation is going on, despite your assertion that ‘Google browser doesn’t work that way’. That my demonstration of this was a DoS attack is just nonsense.