Guest post by David Archibald
The first prediction of the current climatic minimum was made by Hubbert Lamb in 1970 in a report (Weiss and Lamb) for the German Navy. He did it by making a reconstructed record of the average frequency of south-westerly surface winds in England since 1340. Quoting Lamb “We sense a cycle or periodicity of close to 200 years in length.” and “There may be a valuable indication of the origin of this apparent 200 year recurrence tendency, in that the sharp declines of the south-westerly wind indicated in the late 1300s, 1560s, 1740s-1770s and now, in each case fell at about the end of a sequence of sunspot cycles which built up to periods of exceptionally great solar disturbance (around 1360-80, the 1570s, the 1770s, the 1950s and more recently). The frequency maxima of the south-westerly wind, and evidence of warm climate periods in Europe sustained over several decades, all bear a similar relationship to these variations of the Sun’s activity.”
Following is Figure 11.6 from Lamb’s 1988 book “Weather, Climate and Human Affairs”:
The frequency of the southwest wind at London is shown by the solid line. A tentative forecast (broken line) is made simply by moving the whole curve 200 years to the right, i.e. the forecast implied by accepting the apparent 200 year recurring oscillation shown by the series.
The most successful prediction of the current minimum, in terms of lead time and detail, was made by two researchers in the US later that decade. Using tree ring data from redwoods in Kings Canyon in California, in 1979 Libby and Pandolfi forecast that, “by running this function into the future we have made a prediction of the climate to be expected in King’s Canyon; the prediction is that the climate will continue to deteriorate on the average, but that after our present cooling-off of more than the average decay in climate, there will be a temporary warming up followed by a greater rate of cooling-off.”
In a Los Angeles Times interview, Libby and Pandolfi gave a more detailed forecast:
“The forecast is for continued cool weather all over the Earth through the mid-1980s, with a global warming trend setting in thereafter for the rest of the century – followed by a severe cold snap that might well last through the first half of the 21st century.”
“Both the isotope record and the thermometer record show neat agreement for the cold decades at the ends of the 17th and 18th centuries, when temperatures fell by 1-10th to 2-10ths of a degree.”
“More recently, the world has enjoyed an agricultural boom during the past 70 years or so. The Earth’s annual average temperature has risen by about 1 to 1½ degrees, about as much of an increase as the decrease during the Little Ice Ages, during this interval.
When she and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now thorugh the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr. Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold – if we believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
How cold? “Easily one or two degrees,” she replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees.”
The remarkable thing about the Libby and Pandolfi prediction is that they got the fine detail right, up to the current day, which gives a lot of credence to their projection for the next fifty years.
In 2003, two solar physicists, Schatten and Tobiska, published a paper which included the following prediction: “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
The next prediction of the current minimum was made by Clilverd et al in 2006 using low-frequency solar oscillations:
Clilverd predicted that Solar Cycles 24 and 25 would have amplitudes similar to that of Solar Cycles 5 and 6 of the Dalton Minimum before a return to more normal levels mid-century.
A Finnish tree ring study (http://lustiag.pp.fi/holocene_trends1000_INQUA.pdf) followed in 2007 – Timonen et al. This is a portion of a figure from that study showing a forecast cold period starting about 2015 that is deeper and broader than any cold period in the previous 500 years:
Summary
Libby and Pandolfi provided timely warning of the current cooling more than thirty years ago, through the proper use of tree ring data. Given the enormous societal and financial consequences of that cooling, it would be good application of climate research funds to have a number of groups replicate and update the Libby and Pandolfi work.
References
Clilverd. M.A., Clarke, E., Ulich, T., Rishbeth, H. and Jarvis, M.J., 2006 “predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond” Space Weather, Vol. 4, So9005, doi:10.1029/2005SW000207
Libby, L.M. and Pandolfi, L.J. 1979, Tree Thermometers and Commodities: Historic Climate Indicators, Environment International Vol 2, pp 317-333
Schatten, K.H. and W.K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03
Timonen, M., Helema, S., Holopainen, J., Ogurtsov, M., Eronen, M., Lindholm, M., Merilainen, J and Mielikainen, K. 2007 “Climate patterns in Northern Fennoscandinavia during the Last Millenium” Xvii INQUA Congress
Weiss, I. and Lamb, H.H. 1970 ‘Die Zunahme der Wellenhohen in jungster Ziet in den Operationsgebieten der Bundesmarine, ihre vermutliche Ursachen and ihre voraussichtliche weitere Entwicklung, Fachlich Mitteilungen, Nr. 160, Porz-Wahn, Geophysikalisher Bertungsdiesnt der Bundeswehr.
Andrew Greenfield says: May 22, 2012 at 5:50 am
Looks like May could come in at about 0.15C so falling again from last month. R Spencer’s binomial curve is looking very precise now
I know Roy says that curve is for ‘entertainment purposes only’, and I am entertained. If one takes that curve and plots it +/-.3°C relative to the original curve, I find even more entertaining.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2hmdl6s.jpg
Allan MacRae says: May 22, 2012 at 1:25 am
The serious consequences of this debate are the debasement and corruption of science, the sabotage of electrical grid integrity by wind and solar power schemes, the huge conversion of food to fuel, and the squandering of a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on a non-issue. These unfortunate consequences can only be blamed on the warming alarmist side of the mainstream cliamte debate.
Regards, Allan
________
One more consequence, which I think has a ~~40% probability of occurrence:
IF imminent global cooling is severe enough to reduce the grain harvest, humanity, with its preoccupation with mythical manmade global warming, will be woefully unprepared.
During the Maunder Minimum circa 1700, widespread starvation claimed the lives of many millions worldwide. While we have better transportations systems today, there are many more mouths to feed.
It seems to me we should be conducting emergency research on frost-resistant crops, and amassing stores of grain rather than burning it in our gas tanks. Unlike the nonsensical schemes of the global warming fanatics, my proposals cost much less and have few downsides.
Steve Keohane says:
May 22, 2012 at 7:00 am
Andrew Greenfield says: May 22, 2012 at 5:50 am
Looks like May could come in at about 0.15C so falling again from last month. R Spencer’s binomial curve is looking very precise now
I know Roy says that curve is for ‘entertainment purposes only’, and I am entertained. If one takes that curve and plots it +/-.3°C relative to the original curve, I find even more entertaining.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2hmdl6s.jpg
Use +/- 0.2 degree and I think you’ve got a more valuable addition to the good doctor’s attempt.
What needs be emphasized is that your +/- 0.3 variation in month-to-month temperatures, or my recommended +/- 0.2 natural (measured) variation, shows that ALL past proxies in ALL studies for temperature need to ALSO apply the same month-to-month random variation: Therefore, any conclusion or any trend or any extrapolation in behavior for corals, bleaching, mountain goats, or beard-lengths cannot be made unless the change being studied has at least 2x (or 3x) the change in temperatures of 0.3 degrees.
otherwise, the “study” is only looking at existing “noise” in the assumed data
“Ulric Lyons says:
May 22, 2012 at 6:42 am
@Stephen Fisher Wilde says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm
” don’t interpret that chart the same way as you. […] Furthermore I am not satisfied that that chart is adequately comparable with the charts in the 2009 paper that I linked you to. ”
In your link the graph stops at 2006 and it is the same data”
Ulric, the paper I referred you to deals with several levels in the stratosphere and shows a clear if small warming at certain levels following an earlier period of cooling.
The chart you provided is limited to levels affected by volcanic activity which is lower down only.
I don’t know why you are so determined to pick at the peer reviewed evidence I produced without a more convincing tale to tell.
Allan MacRae says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990976
Henry says
I assume you just wanted to know where the Orssengo curve came from.
it came from here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/
I determined that the top of warming was around 1994/1995
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
So I am thinking/hoping that the final Orssengo curve
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
must be shifted a little bit to the left.
Although theoretically and statistically it probably is the last hour/time (for someone on earth today – 1John 2 vs 18),
I don’t think we are all doomed just yet….
but I am very interested to hear/see exactly what was/is your prediction for global future temps.
( sorry, I could not find it quickly enough amongst the myriad of replies here and I don’t have more time now)
phlogiston (May 22, 2012 at 2:27 am) asked:
“If the wind anomaly is not lunisolar neutralised, do you still get the weave pattern? If not, then could the weave be an artefact of this correction?”
It’s not a “correction”. See here for an efficient background primer:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/10/solar-terrestrial-lunisolar-components-of-rate-of-change-of-length-of-day/
Maybe you’ll need to review earth rotation basics, global constraints (via the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum), and mode-tuned aggregation. The details of the NASA-sponsored 1997 paper to which I linked above might be illuminating. Pay particular attention to the graphs of QB & LF components of annual & semi-annual variations. (It seems to me that sometimes people forget that the dominant mode of the southern oscillation is the year.)
We’ll be able to have a more productive exchange several weeks from now.
Best Regards.
@Gail Combs (May 22, 2012 at 6:54 am)
Gail, I sincerely appreciate your interest. I must divert my attention to paid work now, but I look forward to discussing things further as the weeks, months, & years unfold. Best Regards.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2012 at 7:41 am
“I don’t know why you are so determined to pick at the peer reviewed evidence..”
I don`t why you bothered to present such out of date data, you can`t tell me that there is currently a warming trend with a series that stops 6yrs ago. It`s the same data in both of them. Obviously it matters where you start the trend from, and your link has the warmister trick of starting at a particularly low point. Why not make the trend from `95 instead ?
Allan MacRae says: @ur momisugly May 22, 2012 at 7:20 am
…One more consequence, which I think has a ~~40% probability of occurrence:
IF imminent global cooling is severe enough to reduce the grain harvest, humanity, with its preoccupation with mythical manmade global warming, will be woefully unprepared…..
________________________
Only one part of humanity will be woefully unprepared. Since the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture was written by the VP of Cargill, Dan Amstutz, the large multinational food cartel has been working on a food supply monopoly. link I have been watching it evolve for over ten years.
India has had the largest wave of suicides in history. Between 1997 and 2007 there have been 182,936 farmer suicides. This despite 8 million people quiting farming between 1991 and 2001. Because of the way the Indian government counts numbers it excludes thousands of women farmer suicides. http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/02/12/the-largest-wave-of-suicides-in-history/
60% 0f the farmers in Portugal have been removed and the removal of a million Polish farmers was planned by the EU in 2008
A study showed that between 1992 and 2002 agricultural households in Mexico fell by 75% from 2.3 million to 575,000 http://www.networkideas.org/news/jun2008/news14_Mexico.htm
The USA is not to be spared. We had the Food Safety Modernization Act passed during the lame duck session and now the much hated and hard fought Animal ID (NAIS) is also getting shoved down our throats despite over 5000 HECK NO! responses to the proposed ruling in the Federal Register (first time) and the fact NAIS opposition was one of the top contenders in the Change.org “poll” about what we wanted from Obama in 2009. (unfortunately the link http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_nais no longer works)
An illustration of what this does to American farmers is the $3.9 million dollar fine the USDA slapped on a family making a profit of $200 a year raising bunnies in cages link Another farmer is facing a possible three years in jail link (kinda radical but not many other news sources)
Now the situation has evolved to the world wide land grab.
Retirement: Betting the farm: http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/08/retirement/betting_the_farm.fortune/index.htm
Soros, Buying Farmland reaps 16% profit: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html
African Land Grab – “Acres for a bottle of Scotch” http://www.zerohedge.com/article/african-land-grab-acres-bottle-scotch
Massive Theft of Developing World’s Farmland: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107538
The World Bank funding land grabbing in South America: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1097:open-letter-to-ifc-pending-approval-of-the-project-calyxagro-proj-ref-29137&catid=23:agrarian-reform&Itemid=36
More at: http://farmlandgrab.org/
At this point with the rabid USDA making “examples” of farmers I am certainly not raising any more food to sell. Any other smart farmer in the USA will do the same. Million dollar fines and three years in jail? Forget it. You get two months probation for stealing a car so that is a less hazardous occupation than farming right now. (Based on information from the local DA and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines)
At this point I agree with Doreen Let them EAT GRASS!
“Obviously it matters where you start the trend from, and your link has the warmister trick of starting at a particularly low point. Why not make the trend from `95 instead ?”
Ulric, it does start from the mid 90’s
http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Recent_Stratospheric_Temperature_Observed_from_Satellite_Measurements_5_53.pdf
See Fig 4
I prefer that paper to Willis’s rather coarse diagram. Even in Wilis’s diagram the last few years has been pretty near flat so updating it would make no difference.
The stratosphere stopped cooling when the sun started to become less active following the peak of cycle 23 and thus far cooling has not resumed.
Joanna Haigh and others have reported increased ozone above 45km which implies warming at that level and above despite the quiet sun.
That unexpected finding is the subject of ongoing investigation.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“..increased ozone above 45km which implies warming at that level..”
Implied warming? 1 hPa is on a downward trend as well: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
Gail Combs says:
May 22, 2012 at 6:54 am
“”This would all link to Willis’s Thermostat theory That is when the air temperature gets too hot thunderstorms build in the afternoon and dump heat to the upper atmosphere. ”
The seeming intensification from 1980 to 2005, yes – correlates with more energy in the system.
But Willi’s hypothesis can’t explain the checkerboard pattern.
During each 11 year (normally) solar cycle ONE polar reversal of the sun’s field happens. It takes 22 years (normally) to return to the same configuration.
Now consider the Earth and the Sun as two parallel magnets. When one point up with its N pole, the other down, the “magnetic field lines” (which are not REAL entitites but lines that we draw to help us figure out the structure of the fields) can form half-circle-like curves, going from the S pole of the sun to the N pole of the Earth.
Now flip the “Sun” magnet. Suddenly the field lines can’t “close” like that anymore but “repel” each other.
So, the shape of Earth’s magnetosphere must be quite different in one solar cycle as compared to the next.
This, in turn, affects the trajectories of charged particles (who travel along spirals around the “field lines” – it turns out the “field lines” are approximations for the trajectories of charged particles; so, the lines don’t really exist but when a jet of charged particles travels along one and emits light we can see the “field line”; as we do in solar eruptions).
I didn’t consider possibilities of three-dimensionally twisted field lines between Sun and Earth here, and I didn’t find suitable 3D graphics of the interaction between the Sun and Earth’s magnetic fields… I fear I’m thinking too two-dimensional here. But what I want to say is that the solarmagnetic reversal affects WHERE energetic charged particles hit the atmosphere (protons from the solar wind, free electrons – do they hit at opposite ends ?)
Now you might say, like Pamela, but these are only small energy quantities – yes, granted, but consider that compared to the total thermal energy of the Earth a lightning bolt is a small amount of energy but nevertheless 50 lightnings a second create the Schumann resonance in Earth’s ionosphere; or that electrons with relativistic speed whirr around the Earth all the time (a problem for electronics in certain orbits); that the electrostatic field of the Earth is 100 V/m (Earth itself is negatively charged), about 500,000 V up to the stratosphere, and that cloud droplets are electrically charged.
I agree with Gail Combs comment ‘we are facing another Bond Event.’
The irony burns.
“1 hPa is on a downward trend as well: ”
Maybe, temporarily, as we approach solar max but I am looking at multidecadal timescales.
HenryP says: May 21, 2012 at 11:41 am
Thank you Henry.
My prediction is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990638
Repeating:
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections)? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
______________
I have more faith in the satellite data than the surface temperature data. The large El Nino temperature spike of 1998 can strongly impact certain types of analyses.
Global cooling may have already begun – it is difficult to say, but it is not severe yet.
My predictions are subjective, but in truth, so are everyone else`s. Climate science is still in its infancy, and the predictive record of the average mainstream climate scientist (who has predicted global warming, either severe or moderate) is utterly abysmal.
Almost nobody was predicting flat or cooling global temperatures a decade or more ago – almost all climate scientists` predictions were for varying degrees of global warming. Theodor Landscheidt was a notable exception, publishing in 1989 his prediction of severe global cooling peaking in about 2030. I made my first global cooling prediction in an article published in 2002. I do not recall if I had read Landscheidt at that time – my primary source was paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carleton and his observations of natural warming and cooling cycles.
My fundamental premise is that despite increased combustion of fossil fuels, natural cycles still prevail, and there is nothing new under the Sun.
Alan MacRae says
Thanks…!
1) My prediction is at….
2) I have more faith in the satellite data than the surface temperature data
Henry says
Thanks…!
1) but I still don’t see anywhere on what measurements your predictions are based
2) I don’t. First of all they only report on means or average temps. and I know that that is not a good variable to look at. Earth has hidden a lot of energy in the oceans, in the vegetations, in the hydrological cycles even in the weather. Rather look at maxima which gives us much more information as to how much heat is coming from the sun. Further I am not sure how all latitudes and 70/30 sea/inland are represented and balanced as I have done in my tables. 3rd It seems nobody can tell me the accuracy and precision of that equipment on board of the satellites (UAH, Hadcrut, GISS, etc. )and how often it is calibrated. Even looking at the BEST Surface data, they only looked at means (average temps) which according to my table has only fallen 0.2 degrees C or K since 2000 which is not a lot, yet. In fact you could still say it is still flat. However, from the fall in maxima I can accurately predict that we are falling at about 0.2 degrees per annum and soon it will drag the means with it.
@Gail et. al.:
I’m glad you liked the postings. It is very gratifying to know it was worth doing. That someone enjoyed or benefited from it.
FWIW, I looked at a bit longer stretch of history in a similar way here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/8-2-kiloyear-event-and-you/
There was a tremendous down spike at 8,200 before present. Then we have ripples after it. I’m pretty sure the ‘plunge into the glacial’ doesn’t happen for a couple of thousand more years, but that we likely have another Bond Event in the middle.
“Why?” is an interesting quetion too. Best I’ve been able to work out there are two things that are synchronized by orbital resonance. One is the Lunar / Tidal cycle that has a long period series in it, the other is the return of the central core of the Taruid meteors. So we get a ‘double whammy’ of lunar shifting cold ocean bottom water to the surface along with a big load of dust in the sky (there are records from prior times in Europe of intense meteor showers at just the right times…)
Is there a solar component too? Could be, but hard to tease it out. The same orbital resonance effects cause the same actors to be in similar positions at the same times to “causality’ can’t be assigned from a ‘wiggle match’ on cooincidences. A similar problem exists with the volcanic coorelation. Basically “they all come together when they come”.
At any rate, some other interesting related bits on the potential causalities:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
The one thing that is VERY clear in all of it: Those wild swings of the past had nothing to do with human activity nor with CO2.
A couple of articles, the first from Wood’s Hole including info on cores showing abrupt starts to ice ages and the second just for the sigh what will they think of next..
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/a-new-ice-age-day-after-tomorrow
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/31-climate-engineers-get-a-pr-lesson
Paul Vaughan says: May 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm Solar-Terrestial-Climate weave
Paul, I cannot understand this graph. It seems to have the same parameter on the right side Y-axis as on the X-axis, which is less compressed. The colours are not labelled so we do nor know what they are. If they are some form of energy, then we seem to be getting two summers and 2 winters a year along the X-axis.
Now, I like the algorithmic beauty of mathematical art, but could you please help out a little?
Stephen Wilde says:
May 21, 2012 at 3:05 am
“The dependence is complicated, but the bottom line is the jet stream is weaker when there’s less ozone (it has to do with latitude-dependent temperature gradients across the upper atmosphere; those gradients are strong in winter and weak in summer). Ozone creation depends on UV from the Sun, which is weaker during a solar minimum. See where this is going? Weaker magnetic activity on the Sun means less ozone which means a weaker jet stream which means it meanders more, bringing cold air south in some places.”
Very much a reflection of my previous work but they have the sign of the solar effect wrong.
Ozone above 45km decreased to give cooling aloft when the sun was more active and is increasing now that the sun is less active.
See work by Joanna Haigh and others.
Furthermore I have pointed out that the weaker more variable jetstream MUST be accompanied by stratospheric warming and not cooling because that is what pushes the jets more equatorward as witness the events observed in shorter term ‘sudden stratospheric warming’ events.
So, the only scenario that fits observations is contrary to established climatology. The stratosphere must cool naturally when the sun is active and warm naturally when the sun is less active.
It is because established assumptioins were wrong (and still are) that it was necessary to have recourse to the theories about the CFC effects on ozone and the CO2 effects on stratospheric temperatures. Only with those theories could the observations be accounted for.
But if one simply reverses the sign of the solar effect above the tropopause it all becomes clear as to what is going on.
=================
Steven – Joanna Haigh makes no sense whatsoever, to me.
What she is is a product of the fake fisics created to promote AGW and so thinks that visible light heats the Earth’s surface [the shortwave in longwave out meme], visible light is incapable of heating land and oceans, physically incapable. It cannot move molecules of matter into vibrational states which is what it takes to heat matter. It works on an electronic transition level, not on atom/molecule vibrational level. Besides which water is transparent to visible light, it simply passes throught, is transmitted, without being absorbed even by the electrons of the molecules of water – unlike the atmosphere where visible light is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, which is what produces the blue sky, it’s called reflection/scattering as visible light is bounced around the sky. What it takes the heat up land and oceans is Heat, not Light. Heat from the Sun is thermal infrared, this is what is powerful enough to heat water and land, because it moves the whole molecule of matter into vibration, kinetic energy, actually heating matter. The heat you feel from the Sun warming you up is thermal infrared, you cannot feel visible light as heat because it does not heat you up.
So a couple of things about her research, firstly that she is assuming an increase in visible is creating a warmer Earth which is physical nonsense, and that she is claiming the Earth has been warming in the three year period of this study, when it hasn’t been afaik, so her conclusions are gigo.
What I think is happening with the Sun is that as it is cooler the UV production is down because it takes higher temps in the Sun to produce it, so visible increase merely the limit of what the Sun can produce at this time, but the study is as I’ve explained nonsense because it has excised the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, so pretty much useless information.
How she can claim that the Earth is getting warmer against what is actually known is because a) the meme is to keep saying the Earth is continuing to warm and she has simply gone with that in b)associating it with the meme that more visible means more heating power arriving with us.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101006/full/news.2010.519.html
“Radiation leak
Haigh’s team compared SORCE’s solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth’s surface, compensated for the decrease.
Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth’s troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.”
This reminds me of the AGWSF trained scientist who went to prove that methane in a mine wouldn’t separate out because the meme is that these are ideal gases, without volume, weight or attraction, and spontaneously diffuse into an atmosphere which is physically empty space by bouncing off each other and not the real atmosphere we have around us which is the heavy fluid ocean of gas, Air, which has volume, attraction and gravity, and so molecules have weight relative to each other as water vapour being lighter rises and carbon dioxide being heavier sinks displacing Air. He’s probably still puzzling why his experiment failed, the methane being lighter than air separated out..
So, my thoughts about her study – it looks like sunspots then are simply a result of the build up of thermal energy levels in the Sun, the eruptions the manifestation of this as the Sun throws off the excess – is there any research on the reason why the Sun periodically builds up this internal thermal energy?
Myrrh,
I agree that Joanna Haigh et al have got stuff wrong but I’m referring only to the simple observation that the ozone quantity variations above 45km are the opposite to what was expected.
That simple discrepancy from the established climatology enables us to explain the observed shift in the climate zones from changes in solar variability and thus cast doubt on the theories that involve CO2 and CFCs.
The climate zone shifts can arise either from a warming troposphere (from more GHGs) or a cooling stratosphere (from solar effects on ozone amounts).
The climate establishment thinks it is the former whereas I think it is the latter.
HenryP says: May 23, 2012 at 7:19 am
Hi Henry,
I have used UAH satellite measurements and to a lesser extent Hadcrut3 surface temperatures – most of my detailed work ended in ~2009.
There is quite a bit of detail in the satellite data, for example at:
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/
I’m sorry I can’t be more specific but we’re talking about over 25 years of work, and the conclusions are still highly subjective, imo.
The difference between my conclusions and those of many others is:
1. I’m willing to admit my conclusions are subjective.
2. I have a much better predictive track record than most of those who claim much greater objectivity in their analysis. 🙂
Having said this, I’d really rather be wrong about imminent global cooling.
Regards, Allan
I have added one more reliable weather station from South Africa and published the latest results here
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
My sample is now 45 weatherstations – randomly chosen – but carefully selected to balance the latitudes and 70/30 sea/ inland
I don’t have Antarctica in my sample as (I think) somebody is hiding the raw data but I suspect it would even show more cooling becoming evident from there.
People would do well to take note of my results, as the drop in global temperature as shown in my table for Means (=average daily temperatures) of 12 x 0.019 = 0.2 degrees C over the past 12 years has been steeper than what I would have expected from the observed drop in maxima.
The observed cooling trend could still accelerate further. In fact, if the plot y= 0.0455 ln(x)-0.1273 (r2=0.997) holds true, and by taking it to the present time, it can be shown that we could already be cooling by as much as 0.2 degree C per annum on the maxima. It also appears from the results in my tables that earth’s energy store is big, but it looks depleted now and earth’s temperature is now also dropping, at least at the same rate now than the drop in maxima. So my prediction is that earth is now cooling by about 0.1 to 0.2 degrees per annum. I am also hoping it is found not to be true: periods of cooling in the past have usually been associated with crop failures and subsequent periods of poverty and starvation. But I cannot put my head in sand hoping that these results will simply go away. By checking the results at your local weather station you will be able to pick up on the particular trend in your own area and make the right decision on whether to sow or not to sow….
Buying some extra warm cloths is on my shopping list for today.
Regards.
Henry