The Climate-Grain Production Relationship Quantified

Guest essay by David Archibald

There is now consensus that the Sun has now entered a quiet period. The first paper from the solar physics community predicting the current quiet period was Schatten and Tobiska’s 2003 paper “Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?”. To date, Solar Cycle 24 has shown similar maximum SSN amplitudes to that of Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:

clip_image002

Figure 1: Solar Cycle 24 relative to the Dalton Minimum

But what comes beyond that? Predicting the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 was big business in the solar physics community with a total of 75 forecasts. There is only one forecast of the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25 to date. That forecast is Livingstone and Penn’s prediction of a maximum amplitude of seven. The first forecast, by Libby and Pandolfi, of the current quiet period is now over 40 years old. The fact that Libby and Pandolfi’s prediction got the detail of temperature changes to date right gives great credibility to it. Written in 1979, they forecast a warming trend for the rest of the 20th century followed by a cold snap that might well last throughout the first half of the 21st century. Specifically, Dr Libby is quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying,

“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 Libby and Pandolfi forecast was based on isotope ratios in tree rings and dates from a time before the corruption of tree ring science.

One commercial consequence of lower solar activity is that satellites will last longer in their orbits. Another is that agricultural production in the mid-latitudes will be affected. One of the most productive agricultural regions on the planet is the Corn Belt of the United States. Modern corn hybrids are tuned around maximizing the yield from the growing conditions experienced in the Corn Belt over the last 30 years with Growing Degree Days (GDD) to maturity ranging from 2200 to 2700. GDD is calculated from the day of planting by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperature in Fahrenheit, dividing by two and then subtracting 50 to produce the result. If the overnight minimum is less than 50°F, 50°F is used. The maximum is capped at 86°F as corn plants don’t grow any faster above that temperature. Daily temperature records for the Corn Belt start about 1900. The following graph shows the accumulation of GDDs for the periods 1901 – 1910 and 2001 – 2010 for Whitestown just northeast of Indianapolis in the southeast end of the Corn Belt:

clip_image004

Figure 2: Cumulative GDD for Whitestown, Indiana 1901 – 1910 and 2001 – 2010

The graph assumes a common planting date of 27th April. The blue lines are the years 1901 – 1910 and the red lines are the years 2001 – 2010. They all stop on the date of first frost. Most of the growing seasons last decade had plenty of heat to get to maturity with up to 1,000 GDD in excess of the requirement at 2,500 GDD. A century before, the margin of safety was far less. Normal first frost for Whitestown is 10th October. A century ago the earliest frost was five weeks before that on 3rd September, 1908. Similarly, in the latter period the earliest date to get to 2,500 GDD was 15th August. In the earlier period the last date to get to 2,500 GDD was almost six weeks later at 28th September.

Farmers can adjust the type of crop they grow to suit their climatic expectations. Yield is directly proportional to GDD though as shown by the following graphic of corn and soybeans:

clip_image006

Figure 3: Yield relative to GDD (CHU) for Corn and Soybeans Source: Andy Bootsma, 2002: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Eastern Canada

If a farmer plants a 2,200 GDD corn crop in the expectation of a cool or short season and the season turns out to have been capable of growing a 2,500 GDD, then he has foregone about 12% of the value of the later maturing variety. If he plants a 2,500 GDD variety and the season falls short though, most of the value of the crop will be lost. Wheat and barley require about 1,600 GDD and 1,400 GDD respectively. The highest wheat yield in Indiana in 2012 was 74 bushels/acre whereas the highest corn yield was 159 bushels/acre. Another factor in predicting grain output is the ability to switch to winter wheat in which a crop is planted in early September, germinates and then lies dormant under the snow blanket until the following spring.

A study in the 1980s of the effect of lower temperatures on Canadian wheat production found that a 1°C decrease would reduce the frost-free period by 15 days and that a 2°C decrease would not allow the crop to ripen before the first frost. Canadian wheat farmers have assured me though that they could switch to winter wheat and have a higher yield. In Manitoba, for example, the yield might be 71 bushels per acre for winter wheat compared to 51 bushels per acre for spring wheat. Growing winter wheat is riskier than spring wheat in that a hard frost before the first snow could kill the crop.

A further complication in trying to determine what the coming decline in temperature will do to grain production is that the area of the Corn Belt approximates to the region that was scraped flat by the Laurentide ice sheet. After the Wisconsin Glacier receded, the glaciated soils of the Midwest that are primarily north of Interstate 70 were covered with several feet of wind-blown loess deposits that came from the Great Plains that lie east of the Rockies. In Northern Illinois for example, in an area north of I-80, six to eight feet of loess deposits overlie glacier till. These soils are all primarily silt loam, silty clay loam, clay loam and clay. The water holding capacity of these soils are about 2 inches per foot. The counties in the Corn Belt with the highest productivity have deep fertile soils. Most of these soils were covered with prairie grass that over time raised the organic matter levels to between 2% and 5%. The resulting biological activity that developed in these soils made them very productive. These counties are also watered by natural rainfall that results from the Gulf of Mexico Pump. As the weather fronts move from west to east across the Rockies, we have the Great Plains that are mostly arid, but by the time the fronts reach eastern Nebraska, the moisture from the Gulf of Mexico is sucked north by the counter-clockwise flow of air that rotates around the low pressure fronts and drops the rain on the Midwest when it hits the cooler air from the north. Therefore the Corn Belt has the optimum combination of soil type, temperature and moisture. As growing conditions shift south, the soil types won’t be as good.

Friis-Christianson and Lassen theory enables us to predict temperature for a solar cycle if we know the length of the solar cycle preceding it. Thus Solheim et al have been able to predict that the average global temperature over Solar Cycle 24 will be 0.9°C lower than it was over Solar Cycle 23. Polar amplification also plays a part such that Svalbard, for example, in winter will experience a 6°C decline in temperature. Work on temperature records in the northeast United States suggest that the temperature decline in prospect for the Corn Belt is 2.0°C for Solar Cycle 24.

We can cross-check this expectation against modelled historic Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) data. Lean et al produced a reconstruction of TSI back to 1610. That is shown in Figure 4 following. Also shown is Livingstone and Penn’s prediction for Solar Cycle 25 amplitude converted to TSI by scaling against the Maunder Minimum. Shaviv in 2008 found empirically that a 1 watt/m2 change in TSI was associated with (as opposed to cause directly) in a 0.6°C change in global average temperature. A fall in solar activity to levels reached in the Dalton Minimum, as per Lean’s data, would result in a decline of global temperature of 1.2°C, a little more than what Solheim’s group is projecting. Solar Cycle 4, the cycle preceding the Dalton Minimum, was 13.6 years long, about a year longer than Solar Cycle 23. Libby and Pandolfi’s prediction of a temperature decline of up to 4°F translates to 2.2°C. Through TSI, this would require a fall of 3.7 watts/m2 which is greater than the range in Lean’s modelled data for the period since 1610. This may mean that Libby and Pandolfi are correct and Lean’s model needs adjusting.

clip_image008

Figure 4: Projecting the decline in Total Solar Irradiance

Working through the effect on GDDs, a return to TSI conditions of the Dalton Minimum can be expected to reduce US corn production by perhaps 20% to 25%. This equates to the increase in corn production over the last ten years from mandated ethanol. US grain and soybean production of about 500 million tonnes per annum is sufficient to feed 1.2 billion vegetarians. The amine profile of wheat can be approximated by a diet of 70% corn and 30% soybeans, otherwise those things are fed to animals at about a 25% protein conversion efficiency. Corn and soybeans would be the diet of involuntary vegetarianism. The rest of the world does not have the luxury of US agriculture’s latent productivity.

clip_image010

Figure 5: US Corn and Wheat Prices 1784 to 2013

Figure 5 shows the effect of the low temperatures of the Dalton Minimum on corn and wheat prices in the United States. The absolute peak was associated with the eruption of Mt Tambora. Also evident is the period of high and volatile prices associated with the cold temperatures of the mid-19th century.

clip_image012

Figure 6: Major wheat exporting countries

A return to the climatic conditions of the Dalton Minimum is likely to take Russia, Kazakhstan and the European Union out of the export market. The other countries will have some reduction in wheat available for export. Colder is also drier and thus a number of major grain producers such as India and China, currently largely self-sufficient, will experience shortfalls from their requirements.

clip_image014

Figure 6: Imports and exports of grain by continent

Figure 6 above shows net exports of grain by continent with the Arab countries as a separate region. Those countries are the biggest grain importing block on the planet. Soybeans are not included in this graphic. China has become the major soybean importer at 60 million tonnes per annum. In terms of protein content, that equates to about 180 million tonnes of wheat per annum. The Chinese convert those soybeans to animal protein in the form of pig meat.

Countries in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region have been in the news recently. Further detail on their import dependency is shown in Figure 6 following.

clip_image016

Figure 6: MENA region domestic and imported grain by country

In Figure 6, the population size of each country is shown by the size of the bar. The blue component of the bar shows how much of each country’s grain requirement is grown domestically and the red component denotes the imported share. Countries are shown from west to east as per the map. A proportion of the Egyptian population already suffers from malnutrition. A current wheat prices, it costs about $1 per day to keep someone fed in terms of bulk grain. The oil exporting countries in the graphic can afford to feed their populations, with some countries feeding others as well. Saudi Arabia has been keeping Yemen above water and more recently took on Egypt too.

clip_image018

Figure 7: An animal model of population growth and collapse

All the countries of the MENA region have seen their populations grow to well in excess of their inherent carrying capacity. A combination of deteriorating climate and ongoing world population growth can be reasonably expected to cause a spike in grain prices to levels last seen in the 19th century. It is also possible that sufficient grain may not be available at any price in some regions. Populations models from the animal kingdom provide some guidance as to how events might unfold. A good example is the snowshoe hare and lynx of North America. The snowshoe hare population collapses to less than 10% of its peak on a roughly ten year cycle, followed by the lynx. Taking the example of Egypt, the current population is twice the level that can be supported by its grain production. If the food supply to that country falls below the minimum required to maintain public order, then the distribution system for diesel and fertiliser will break down and domestic grain production would also be affected.

The starving populations of Egyptian cities will fan out into the countryside and consume whatever they can chew which will include the seed grain. That will ensure that domestic grain production will collapse. The population of Egypt might fall to 10% of its carrying capacity which would be 5% of its current level. Any starvation in the MENA region is likely to trigger panic buying by other governments in the region and beyond with consequent effects on established trade patterns.

UPDATE:

The Excel spreadsheet for the Whitestown data used in this essay is here Whitestown-all-years (.xlsx file)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

222 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
September 10, 2013 2:46 am

Gail Combs says:
September 9, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Willis Eschenbach says: September 9, 2013 at 12:33 pm

Willis, I am very careful to provide links for what I write.

Indeed you are, Gail, your comments are always solidly researched and backed up. My comments were not intended for you, sorry if there was some confusion.
w.

Editor
September 10, 2013 3:11 am

Henry Clark says:
September 9, 2013 at 8:59 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 9, 2013 at 1:02 pm

“So the mere fact that the sun is the source of the heat for the Earth, just as the furnace is the source of the heat for the house, does NOT mean that we can blithely assume that the Earth’s temperature will vary in step with the temperature of the sun when it goes up and down … any more than the house’s temperature varies in step with the furnace when it goes on and off.”

I don’t have to assume; I can look at actual data in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif to see there (references given and in text form too if requested) that the rate of change of sea level, humidity at appropriate altitude, cloud cover, glacial extent, and temperature varies largely in step with solar-GCR forcing, when viewed on a timescale mostly averaging out the ENSO oscillation, aside from some contribution from other factors (including some lag not averaged out, the 60-year ocean oscillation, etc).

Thanks, Henry. I looked at the Holgate paper, the first of your references in your graphic. As you show in your graphic, it reveals an amazing correlation between sea level rise and solar activity.
Unfortunately, you have quite arbitrarily cherry-picked the Holgate data by cutting out more than half of it … the half which, by a strange coincidence, doesn’t show anything of the kind. It shows no correlation at all with the solar cycle. This kind of appearing-and-disappearing cycle is quite common in climate records.
What is less common is someone just cutting off the data that doesn’t fit their theory without comment or explanation … and when someone does that as you have done, Henry, I fear that I simply stop paying any attention to them. I don’t have time to screw around with data that’s been possibly tampered with, and you’ve conclusively proven that we can’t trust you not to tamper with the data.
w.

Gail Combs
September 10, 2013 3:34 am

Understood Willis, I misinterpreted what you said.
This Koppen Map, first provided at WUWT by Pompous Git, gives a visual of how far south the plant hardiness zones move if the weather returns to the norm for the 1970’s. map
The problem as I see it is not so much the temperature as the possible blocking highs that go with a more meridional pattern of the jet stream. This will give blocks of rain/flooding, drought and freezing or very hot weather. These more irregular weather patterns are more of a headache for farmers (and plants) than just a shift to cooler weather.

beng
September 10, 2013 8:17 am

***
rgbatduke says:
September 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Sadly, I fail to achieve that degree of certainty very often. Well, maybe in my degree of belief in gravity, stuff like that. But sure as hell not in the unholy mess of post hoc ergo propter hoc and ceteris paribus and other latin words meaning “logical nonsense” that is modern climate science. I do admire a man who can just look at some data and intuitively solve a pair of globe spanning, coupled Navier-Stokes equations on the spinning non-inertial reference upon which we reside, while careening around a 6000 K hot object a million and a half kilometers across in an elliptical orbit sufficiently eccentric that it causes TOA insolation to vary by 92 Watts/m^2 from apogee to perigee, with a highly variable and poorly understood system of heat transport and variable albedo, for decades into the future! Wow! Good job! You go, guy! Who needs supercomputers, or a physical model — you’ve got Friis-Christensen and Lassen!
***
Priceless…

Henry Clark
September 10, 2013 9:17 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:11 am
As you show in your graphic, it reveals an amazing correlation between sea level rise and solar activity.
Unfortunately, you have quite arbitrarily cherry-picked the Holgate data by cutting out more than half of it … the half which, by a strange coincidence, doesn’t show anything of the kind. It shows no correlation at all with the solar cycle.

False.
Those sea level and humidity plots were aligned to start at the same year the oulu.fi neutron monitor data does, in 1964, the start year prominently labeled on the plots. In the early 20th century in contrast, the very existence of the neutron was not known yet, so naturally there were not neutron monitors then. Perhaps I could have added a note, though I didn’t think it was necessary, and you could have asked if you didn’t know that rather than being so rude.
Also it was a triple comparison of 3 plots with humidity as well; humidity data at altitude didn’t extend back to the early 20th century either, and the point was to have all 3 plots begin with the same start date so not misaligned for comparison. (Meanwhile, I already had, a bit beneath it, a separate comparison extending centuries back of cosmic rays by proxy to temperature and glacial extent).
It is possible to switch to a partial proxy, like sunspot count, to cover the era back to 1900 A.D. for sea level comparison. That has some weaknesses like, as one of many examples of divergence, by half-way through 1999, sunspots were near maximum values for that cycle whereas cosmic ray deflection did not approach such until well into the year 2000. (There are other examples of divergence, like two different times can both have nil sunspots but substantially different neutron monitor count data and thus cosmic ray forcing).
But, even for the more imperfect proxy of sunspots, even over the period back to 1900 A.D. start of the sea level data, correlation is shown, with your claim of it lacking correlation being very untrue, as illustrated in the following which includes highlighting of the 19 peaks and troughs corresponding in timing, with only *once* it showing much of a sea level rise dip not matching a solar downturn and that from other causes:
http://s8.postimg.org/q7pjwub4l/againillustrated.gif
And, once again, here are the couple dozen other plots you had to utterly ignore in order to make that claim:
http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif

Editor
September 10, 2013 9:40 am

Just a note to point out that despite several requests, to date David Archibald is continuing to follow the most despicable practice of the climate alarmists by flat out refusing to post his data and code.
Which I suppose is not surprising, as his post is long on alarmism (in the cooling direction) and woefully short on facts, observations, and references. I’d hesitate to show my work if that were the case …
What is surprising, however, is that he seems to think that the issue will go away if he says nothing.
David, this issue is fundamental to science, and it won’t disappear just because you ignore me. It’s time to put up or shut up, your endless waffling and overblown claims of certainty in a most uncertain field, with nothing to back them up but repetition and earnest sincerity, are getting quite boring.
I’m not saying you’re trying to scam people. It’s clear you honestly and fervently believe this stuff, David, but saying it over and over is not the way to convince scientists.
Scientists want data and code, and sorry, no substitutes accepted.
w.

theBuckWheat
September 10, 2013 10:19 am

I ponder the northern-most line of viable grain crop growing in Canada, and for every degree day, how far that line moves south and how many bushels/tons of crop that represents.

Editor
September 10, 2013 10:43 am

Henry Clark says:
September 10, 2013 at 9:17 am (Edit)

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 3:11 am

“As you show in your graphic, it reveals an amazing correlation between sea level rise and solar activity.
Unfortunately, you have quite arbitrarily cherry-picked the Holgate data by cutting out more than half of it … the half which, by a strange coincidence, doesn’t show anything of the kind. It shows no correlation at all with the solar cycle.”

False.
Those sea level and humidity plots were aligned to start at the same year the oulu.fi neutron monitor data does, in 1964, the start year prominently labeled on the plots.

Sorry, but your justification for your cherry-picking doesn’t hold water. You claim a correlation between cosmic rays and sea level, but you didn’t use all of the available data. In another graphic just below that one you use Berggren’s ice core cosmic data, which runs from 1389–1994 AD … that covers the period you left out entirely.
The only possible conclusion is, you had the cosmic ray data to compare to all of the sea level records, and you chose to only compare it where it supports your claim, and not where it falsifies your claim.
And on this planet, that’s called “cherry picking”, and my rule is that when a man does that, I just let his work go. I don’t have time to fight my way through that kind of deceptive practice …
So you had the data. But heck, if you actually didn’t have the data, I’d have been satisfied if you’d just included the earlier half of the sea level data so people could make up their own minds … but that data has no obvious cycles at all.

From that graph, anyone can tell that your claim of some kind of tie between cosmic rays (which vary with the 11 year sunspot cycle) and sea level is total hogwash … which of course is why you cherry picked the data.
w.

September 10, 2013 10:46 am

In order to have a solar/climate connection show up the solar conditions have to vary by a certain degree of magnitude over a certain duration of time, anything short of that WILL NOT BE ENOUGH ,to show a solar /climate connection.
This is why it is hard to show solar/climate connections since the end of the Dalton , to very recently.
However the sun has gone into a prolonged solar minimum state which is turing out much WEAKER then the conventional forecast thus far ,and IS going to have an impact on the climate going forward if the prolonged solar minimum reaches the many solar parameters I have talked about.
solar flux sub 90 sustained.
solar wind sub350 km/sec. sustained.
UV light off upwards of 50% sustained.
cosmic ray count 6500 or more sustained.
solar irradiance off .015% or more sustained
ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
These solar values folowing several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since year 2005.

September 10, 2013 10:47 am

That is the basic flaw in the reasoning of those who keep trying to say there are no solar/climate relationships.

September 10, 2013 10:50 am

Many are in denial of the climatic response to the last two prolonged solar minimum periods,(Maunder Minimum /Dalton Minimum) and do not accept the concept of thresholds, which require a certain degree of magnitude change and duration of time change in the state of solar activity in order for it to exert an influence on the climate.
The period from 1844-2005 should have shown weak to no solar/climate correlations due to the fact solar activity through out that time was in a steady regular 11 year strong sunspot cycle with peaks and lulls which would masked any potential solar/climate correlations.
To clarify there is not one prolonged solar minimum period during that time frame following several years of sub-solar activity in general , to refer to ,to see if prolonged solar minimum conditions do or do not exert an influence on the climate directly and thru secondary means.

September 10, 2013 10:53 am

The low solar activity associated with solar cycle 14 does not meet my criteria for a prolonged solar minmimum period following many years of sub-solar activity in general an thus a definitive solar/climate correlation.

Mike Silver
September 10, 2013 11:40 am

rgbatduke says:
“As I said, if the sun does enter a prolonged period of comparative inactivity with extended, weak solar cycles, then no matter what the climate does it will be very useful data for those seeking not to assert certain knowledge that they do not, in fact, possess but to determine what the correct theory is by building constructive, physics-based theories that explain the data as the climate moves through something more than a monotonic behavior of irregular warming, which is pretty much all that has persisted for the last 30 to 40 years (as it did for the similar length period at the beginning of the 20th century from roughly 1910 to 1950).”
The weak solar cycle started late 2008, and we have had highly negative AO/NAO conditions and very low land temperature episodes already. It helps to keep up to date.
“As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that the climate over the last 2000 years was modulated by solar magnetic activity, and we lack direct observational evidence in the form of sunspot counts to extend the Maunder Minimum assertion back to earlier periods of cooling.”
There are Aurora records, and reconstructions:
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2007/19/aa6725-06/img81.gif
http://davidpratt.info/climate/clim9-10.jpg
“There is no convincing evidence I’m aware of that solar magnetic activity had anything to do with the Younger Dryas itself,”
Did you check google scholar?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X03007015
“I especially doubt that the climate is a one-trick pony, slaved to solar magnetic activity to the exclusion of all else,”
There are always negative AO/NAO conditions when the solar plasma is slow:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

September 10, 2013 12:07 pm

THer is much evidence that the Younger Dryas cold period was associated with low solar activity.
If you google that subject you will find many studies in support of this.

September 10, 2013 12:19 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
“The low solar activity associated with solar cycle 14 does not meet my criteria for a prolonged solar minmimum period following many years of sub-solar activity in general an thus a definitive solar/climate correlation.”
1879-1909 wasn’t too different from Dalton, 1902 for example had the coldest summer for 500 years in mainland Europe.

TRM
September 10, 2013 1:02 pm

Enter vertical gardening on a grand scale. All you need is energy. So as long as they don’t ban all affordable energy …. never mind 🙁

September 10, 2013 2:34 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 9:40 am
It is unbecoming to for a brave seafarer to throw a hissy fit. There was only one request (and I offered to email the file to you) and a couple of commands. You got cranky because I did not immediately jump to do your bidding? As they say, where is the magic word? Loosen the grip on yourself and get a grip on reality. Normally I wouldn’t bother replying to someone who immediately descends to talking about the size of genitalia, but I detect that there is some good in you and I am interested in the advancement of science. So I have emailed the file to Anthony. After apologising to Anthony for your language and demeanor, he might deign to send it to you if you express yourself civilly.
Have you been able to understand the whole Canada and corn thing yet? That corn is a heat-loving crop and Canada is a cold place and that they don’t generally go together? I don’t have time to help you myself but there is plenty of material online if you are still confused. I admire attempts at self-improvement through reading and good luck in finding out all about corn. It is an exciting subject!

September 10, 2013 2:42 pm

Mike Silver
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=1319

September 10, 2013 2:45 pm

TRM said September 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Enter vertical gardening on a grand scale. All you need is energy. So as long as they don’t ban all affordable energy …. never mind 🙁

Tosh! You also need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, manganese, iron, boron, copper, cobalt, zinc…

September 10, 2013 2:52 pm

Despite Willis’ claim of 16 varieties of savoy, I have been able to ascertain the following:
Terra Nova 3 varieties, Fairbanks 0 varieties, South Pacific Seeds 1 variety, Seminis (Monsanto) 0 varieties and Syngenta 1 variety. Local rural suppliers Roberts and Hollanders almost confirm what I originally claimed: “less than 5 varieties”. Terra Nova have introduced a new variety and I was unaware of that. So it goes…

rgbatduke
September 10, 2013 4:11 pm

The weak solar cycle started late 2008, and we have had highly negative AO/NAO conditions and very low land temperature episodes already. It helps to keep up to date.
And you think something about this constitutes proof? Did nothing else change that could explain this?
It’s easy to be convinced if you want to believe something, isn’t it? Of course the change in phase of the PDO couldn’t have been relevant to any of this, and its period (fairly regular, actually) is OBVIOUSLY caused by the sun, which has an identical period, only not exactly, or maybe not at all.
Understand, I’m not saying you, or Salvatore, or anybody else that wants to claim that the sun is more important than existing climate models allow for is wrong. I’m saying that we have damn-all reliable data to support egregious assertions, a planetfull of possible confounding causality, and a very thin causal thread to hang “certainty” of a connection AT ALL upon. If you are really a skeptic, it helps to be skeptical of your own beliefs and biases as well as the claims of others.
rgb

September 10, 2013 6:24 pm

rgbatduke says
“Of course the change in phase of the PDO couldn’t have been relevant to any of this..”
Of course not, it makes no sense and the correlation is abysmal.
“I’m saying that we have damn-all reliable data to support egregious assertions..”
More likely that you make egregious assertions that there is insufficient data, which is a bit ripe considering you have been presented with the best data immediately before. Don’t just pick the post 2008 cherry, look at the whole series, land temperatures in the temperate zone drop when it’s low, every time:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
“If you are really a skeptic, it helps to be skeptical of your own beliefs and biases as well as the claims of others.”
I have hunches and leads that either get proved or disproved. Beliefs and biases are not at all useful for scientific progress, neither is cynicism.

Henry Clark
September 10, 2013 7:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
Sorry, but your justification for your cherry-picking doesn’t hold water.
You continue to ignore everything said beyond the first sentence of my replies as if you find the cognitive dissonance of viewing more inconvenient facts unpleasant (which should be a warning flag, as truth isn’t bothered by seeing additional info and doesn’t have the insecurity of trying to suppress such).
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
You claim a correlation between cosmic rays and sea level, but you didn’t use all of the available data. In another graphic just below that one you use Berggren’s ice core cosmic data, which runs from 1389–1994 AD … that covers the period you left out entirely.”
A segment of a Breggen et al 2009 Be-10 reconstruction was plotted by Miyahara et al 2010 from 1610 to 1760 A.D. at a resolution fine enough for showing the temperature and humidity correlations then. The Miyahara paper plotting such is at http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/2k_Miyahara_SORCE_brief.pdf as noted in my image but does not cover up to 1994 at that resolution. (While the Usoskin page 5 plot extends further, it should be obvious such isn’t of remotely the same resolution and isn’t picking out 11-year cycles in a comparable manner, being rather about covering quite a number of centuries).
*IF* you have really found in googling a non-paywalled link for such at comparably fine/annual resolution up to 1994, provide it here now (so I can highlight further correlations), as it is not in the URL links in my image.
The plot of Be-10 (and C-14) over the past thousand years from Kirkby (again in my http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif image), quite well shows the relationship to temperature and glacial extent history but is not at a resolution scale fine enough for picking out ~ 11-year cycles within it (as is obvious).
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 10, 2013 at 10:43 am
I’d have been satisfied if you’d just included the earlier half of the sea level data so people could make up their own minds … but that data has no obvious cycles at all.
Claiming such has no cycles is untrue, as you already know from what was highlighted in http://s8.postimg.org/q7pjwub4l/againillustrated.gif but take the typical strategy of counting on readers not clicking to see for themselves; I’m disappointed that you resort to such as I hoped you might be a better person than that.
With no interest in learning, your post is just a transparent play to an audience, stepping away from everything inconvenient (even down to my debunking of your false implying of the cold of Canada being as good as or superior for corn growing as the U.S.), hoping that aggressive enough offensiveness, projection of dishonesty, and slander will make me go away. Sorry. I despise that.

Henry Clark
September 10, 2013 8:35 pm

As an addition to the main http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif image, prior posts noted http://s8.postimg.org/q7pjwub4l/againillustrated.gif as a secondary plot, showing sea level rise rate back to 1900. That had 9 peaks and 10 troughs in the 20th century corresponding to the 9 peaks and 10 troughs in sunspot count meanwhile (though with such as a merely imperfect partial proxy for cosmic rays as earlier noted), aside from how there was one extra bit of a sea rise trough around the end of WWII. It is looking like ENSO adjustment might eliminate the one and only superficially extra trough, the WWII double dip so to speak, but that is something I haven’t gotten around to illustrating yet.
(Note anti-sun dogma has to claim not only those correlations but also the ignored humidity, temperature, cloud cover, and glacial extent ones in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif were all sheer coincidence, which speaks more about bias than about what an unbiased honest observer would guess as most probable when there is an excellent chain of physics to expect effect — as opposed to giving no explanation for events like the LIA or, in quantitative ludicrousness, blaming on the pre-industrial small human population of the time as the CAGW movement tries now).
However, in the meantime, there is another plot of simple data without any such adjustment to highlight too, as a good illustration actually is something Mr. Archibald found way back 4 years ago (— too bad it wasn’t in later posts):
Anthony’s post of the Jason data reminded me that I had produced this graph:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640
It is derived from a post on Climate Audit of Holgate’s rate of change of sea level rise over the 20th century.
The saw tooth pattern reminded someone of the solar cycles and he overlaid it. I had the graph redrawn. The correlation is striking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/07/archibald-on-sea-level-rise-and-solar-cycles/
It appears to be plotting sunspots, so one must note such can be off by a year or more in timing compared to cosmic ray peaks as earlier remarked, but it is pretty good in context.

Henry Clark
September 10, 2013 8:37 pm

As an addition to the main http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif image, prior posts noted http://s8.postimg.org/q7pjwub4l/againillustrated.gif as a secondary plot, showing sea level rise rate back to 1900. That had 9 peaks and 10 troughs in the 20th century corresponding to the 9 peaks and 10 troughs in sunspot count meanwhile (though with such as a merely imperfect partial proxy for cosmic rays as earlier noted), aside from how there was one extra bit of a sea rise trough around the end of WWII. It is looking like ENSO adjustment might eliminate the one and only superficially extra trough, the WWII double dip so to speak, but that is something I haven’t gotten around to illustrating yet.
(Note anti-sun dogma has to claim not only those correlations but also the ignored humidity, temperature, cloud cover, and glacial extent ones in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif were all sheer coincidence, which speaks more about bias than about what an unbiased honest observer would guess as most probable when there is an excellent chain of physics to expect effect — as opposed to giving no explanation for events like the LIA or, in quantitative ludicrousness, blaming on the pre-industrial small human population of the time as the CAGW movement tries now).
However, in the meantime, there is another plot of simple data without any such adjustment to highlight too, as a good illustration actually is something Mr. Archibald found way back 4 years ago (— too bad it wasn’t in later posts):
[The] “post of the Jason data reminded me that I had produced this graph:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640
It is derived from a post on Climate Audit of Holgate’s rate of change of sea level rise over the 20th century.
The saw tooth pattern reminded someone of the solar cycles and he overlaid it. I had the graph redrawn. The correlation is striking.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/07/archibald-on-sea-level-rise-and-solar-cycles/
It appears to be plotting sunspots, so one must note such can be off by a year or more in timing compared to cosmic ray peaks as earlier remarked, but it is pretty good in context.