![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/latest_512_450011.jpg?w=300&resize=240%2C240)
It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Since then the sun has been getting quieter.
By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years.
Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.
He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.
And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.
He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.
It’s worth stressing that not every winter would be severe; nor would every summer be poor. But harsh winters and unsettled summers would become more frequent.
Professor Lockwood doesn’t hold back in his description of the potential impacts such a scenario would have in the UK.
He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.
Although the biggest impact of such solar driven change would be regional, like here in the UK and across Europe, there would be global implications too.
According to research conducted by Michael Mann in 2001, a vociferous advocate of man-made global warming, the Maunder minimum of the 1600s was estimated to have shaved 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures.
It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.
But should North Western Europe be heading for a new “little ice age”, there could be far reaching political implications – not least because global temperatures may fall enough, albeit temporarily, to eliminate much of the warming which has occurred since the 1950s.
You can see more on Inside Out on Monday 28th October on BBC1, at 7.30pm.
###
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
==============================================================
Back in 2011, Lockwood said something totally dissimilar:
“The Little Ice Age wasn’t really an ice age of any kind – the idea that Europe had a relentless sequence of cold winters is frankly barking” – Dr Mike Lockwood Reading University
From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/10/bbc-the-little-ice-age-was-all-about-solar-uv-variability-wasnt-an-ice-age-at-all/
I have a follow-on article coming up on UV observations in a couple of hours, don’t miss it.
Meanwhile the sun has recently gotten more active in the last couple of weeks, indicating a possible second peak in the current solar cycle is upon us, see details on the WUWT Solar reference page – Anthony
Ah, the press… they do love their scary stories.
Sounds like we’re going to have catastrophic global warming and catastrophic global cooling at the same time.
Time to bundle up. It’s going to get colder outside.
Now, something new to worry about. Oh, but it’s just temporary! Save the religion at all costs in the bigger picture.
Mann has just gone into a twitter meltdown about this blog.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
Hope he realizes that Paul Hudson has been conversing with a serious University Professor.
From a well respected English university.
Mann massive problem is the way he deals with any critique. Is skin is so thin its unreal.
Doubtless Leif will comment soon. I take issue with Anthony’s comment that “the sun has recently gotten more active in the last couple of weeks.” By the measure of the number of sunspots, this is true. But by other measures, it is not. I am no expert, but the number and intensity of flares is small, (there is an M1 only now in action), the Ap is low, and the L&P sunspot magnetic intensity is below 2000 gauss, with the trend line still negative.
The prof is stunningly doing real actual science. Its rather good to see to be honest. I’m amazed his Uni are letting him.
I wonder if temporary means 30 – 60 years of the next minimum….hmmm… Is it time to have a poll to name it?
No more “hide the decline!” Now, those that call themselves “scientists” can “ride the decline!” Perhaps, in a toboggan.
About time Lockwood, a respected Solar Physicist working in a Meteorology Department which has hitherto followed the IPCC Party Line, jumped off the fence on this matter.
All we need now is for more academic physicists to accept that the current IPCC heat generation and transfer physics is juvenile nonsense.
Also, with a little bit of thought, it is easy to prove CO2-AGW is near zero and that the recent AGW, now saturated, was from Asian pollution reducing cloud albedo.
I just love twitter… It really shows everyone how lame your mind is in the fewest possible words.
The only rationale to continue efforts to push for carbon taxes in support of global warming while multidecadal global cooling is underway comes from the liberal assumption that there is always ample wealth to tap for any good cause. What if that too is a false assumption during global cooling?
Brrrrrrrrr!!
(Sarc on) Good thing we live in a time when data are adjusted to climate models. That way we’d never know it got cold…if it gets cold. (Sarc off)
At least Lockwood is able to learn, advance and brave enough to change his stance which is so rare in today’s science climate.
BBC just can’t do anything but uncritically blurt out the old saw “but warming is still going on in the background”. Of course it is, Beeb. Of course you can tell, by direct measurement, of course. Of the number of gigabytes of zeros and ones streaming out of the model du jour.
Cooling, warming,
Flooding, droughts.
Melting, freezing.
Have no doubts.
Something’s coming experts know.
but when they’re wrong they must eat crow.
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.”
I noted independently of Anthony Dr. Lockwood once was on another side of this argument, part of a Solar Scientist clique familiar to WUWT.
The hottest weather I’ve experienced, residing in WI and MN, was 1982 thru ’88.
The secular peak in the Jovian planetary tide was also 1982.
Oh mon Dieu! Let the bells ring and the banners fly.
A BBC reporter investigated a scientific issue (spoke to a neutral old school, traditional scientist as opposed to an activist); the scientist, Lockwood notes that the solar magnetic cycle 24 change is the fastest slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle in 10,000 years and notes the planet cools when the sun enters a grand solar minimum i.e. if the past is a clue to what will happen in the future there is scientific evidence that the solar magnetic cycle slowdown will cause the planet to cool and if the cause of the cooling is the change in solar magnetic cycle, the planet will cool rapidly due to the rapidity of the solar magnetic cycle change. Based on Michael Mann’s 2001 work the planet was 0.3C to 0.4C colder during the Maunder solar magnetic cycle minimum. Other scientists estimate that the planet was 0.7C to 1C colder during the Maunder minimum. The past grand solar minimums have lasted for 50 to 100 years.
Perhaps the sudden unexplained increase in polar sea ice both poles (and record cold winters in Europe) is the catalyst for the sudden conversion of a BBC reporter from a mouth piece of the AGW movement back to the traditional role of reporters which is to investigate issues.
Good news indeed. Looks like we’ll be getting a several decade long respite to build those 20 meter seawalls.
Sounds like we’re going to have catastrophic global warming and catastrophic global cooling at the same time.
This time we are threatened by extreme average. Catastrophic mediocrity.
Have to love the: It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.
Do they think there will be any humans left on the planet when the long-term warming swamps us?
According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
I can already hear the Leif blower spinning up.
Now we need to figure out what the impacts on food supply will be if all of this happens, and make plans to get the future food producers set up with what they need – irrigation, infrastructure, etc. The warmists just need to go away.
What a load of bull. They are still holding on to this nonsense that global warming is suddenly going to save us from freezing cold winters. If AGW was true it would cancel out any cooling before it got started.
“… the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.” Could the BBC pour fluid out of a boot if the instructions were written on the sole?
Sun and SC24 not done yet?
As the end of the month is near, it is clear that the SIDC sunspot count SSN for October is going to be above 80. If so, it may mean that SC24 hasn’t shown its maximum as yet. This would mean that ‘variable’ forecasters as the NASA’s Dr. Hathaway may need to do some upward revision, but it is in line what the extrapolation from 2003 published in January 2004; it is still holding firm.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Lockwood is working to educate the UK MetOffice on these themes – there is a paper in J of Geosphysical Research (2012) where he teams up with Hadley to model the impact of a returning Maunder Minimum (if I get time later today, I will post the references!). Of course, it does not trump global warming – which returns with greater force. That’s because although this team recognise the current hiatus could be due to a low solar cycle, they don’t recognise that the warming was driven by the rising solar cycles of the late 20th century. In the JGR paper, the age-old CO2 factor of RF in watts times 0.88 was used without reference to the advise of Lockwood’s colleague at Reading (Keith Shine) that the factor could be as low as 0.44. Thus, CO2 retains its power, first estimated by IPCC in 1990, despite the evidence presented (to IPCC4) by Shine.If Shine’s lower factor had been used – then a returning Maunder Minimum would register cooling that could not be overidden by CO2.
In the USA, Gerry Meehl and his team have also modelled this (Geophysical Research Letters, 2013) – AND incorporated models of the solar UV effect on the jetstreams (as the most likely mechanism), and lower factors for CO2’s power….and they DO predict cooling until mid-century, followed by recovery to the obligatory 2C above present by 2100 (Meehl and team are key advisors to IPCC, so they also have a party line to maintain).
This research starts to present massive problems for environmentalists who pinned their colours to carbon – because cooling spells real misery in terms of food supplies, and in these scenarios, CO2 ameliorates the impact of cooling! I actually don’t thing the amelioration would amount to much, but Lockwood and Meehl certainly do!
We also need to anticipate the political problems which will arise with nations that will be stressed by decreasing food supply. The Chinese are already thinking along these lines, in a manner that may ultimately bring us into conflict.
In his article on the LIA the BBC’s Paul Hudson does not quote Lockwood. Strange. Instead, Hudson gives his own account of what he maintains Lockwood said.
Why didn’t Hudson quote Lockwood directly?
John
Silly nonsense. That effect is maybe -0.2° C and it is simply invisible against CAGW.
Instrumental CET-thought to be a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures-goes back to 1659. I have reconstructed it back to 1538
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
The Blue lines indicate glacier change. Closed blue line at the top means glacial retreat, closed at bottom means advance.
The cold period in the early 1800’s can be clearly seen. A globally averaged temperature means nothing, the regional effect is far greater than this, as can be seen from the CET decadal and annual temperatures.
Are we [heading] to a Dalton minimum? Who Knows? However the current plunge in UK temperatures can be clearly seen and this has been combined with a sharp ratcheting up of fuel prices, so any sustained drop in temperatures has severe consequences in many fields.
tonyb
Jim Cripwell says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:32 am
But by other measures, it is not. I am no expert, but the number and intensity of flares is small, (there is an M1 only now in action), the Ap is low, and the L&P sunspot magnetic intensity is below 2000 gauss, with the trend line still negative.
There has been several X-class flares the last few days. Ap is 15 [mean so far for 2013: 15.4]. F10.7 is north of 130 for October and SSN for October is about 81. Such swings are normal for weak cycles.
the little ice age we know about…how does the professor get the solar data for the last 10,000 years ?
He (Mike Lockwood) found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.
Highly controversial claim based on what?
Neither C14 or 10Be proxies can provide such resolution at millennial range, it’s only 11 years since significant SSN number.
Dr. Svalgaard ?
Mike Lockwood is overdoing it a bit, not long ago he was taking the opposite stance; a wind vane science posture.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
Ap is 15 [mean so far for 2013: 15.4].
Correction: that was Aa. For Ap the numbers are 8.2 and 8.4, not unusually low.
Perhaps two distinct and opposing climate science camps will evolve, one supporting global warming and the other supporting global cooling. Since “climate change” is the operative term, both camps should be on firm ground. It won’t matter really about looking at the actual data, since they will all use their climate models. I see a three ring circus in the near future when it comes to climate scientists. Whether the world ends in an inferno or a snowball, at least at some point in the future, the science WILL be settled.
A hint of sanity approaching, but they just have to spout this nonsense, still:
“if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling.”
A trace gas is more important than the sun.
Yeah, right…..idiots
In other words, no-one REALLY knows what is happening or why, lots of people make educated (to a greater or lesser degree) guesses, the BBC listens to a few of them and reports what it thinks they said while ignoring the majority.
Not much change there, then.
justanotherposter
In that link to Dr Mann’s twitter musings was this tweet from Gavin to Mann about the Moss on Baffin island. The link led here
http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/more-on-mosses-miller-et-al-2013/
The reference to black carbon-however hesitant-surely is intriguing. Its an area that deserves much more research I feel
tonyb
I thought the all-time maximum (that has been measured) occurred in 1957. High numbers of sunspots have long been associated by radio operators with being able to communicate over exceptionally long distances at low power. That year is famous for ham radio operators running 5 watts into simple wire antennas routinely being able to communicate with the other side of the globe. CB operators reported similar experiences. No year since has even come close for that kind of range, and every band up to 30Mhz has been deader than a doornail for the past several years.
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
We have experienced (3) X-class events (R3) since October 25th.
Some travelers might want to check out this new article from NASA on the same subject matter.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/25oct_aviationswx/
Alerts in the last 7 days below.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/alerts_timeline.html
BTW, you can sign up for notifications of such space weather events on the same site.
https://pss.swpc.noaa.gov/LoginWebForm.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fproductsubscriptionservice%2f
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
‘the sudden conversion of a BBC reporter from a mouth piece of the AGW movement’
Well, I think Paul Hudson has, maybe alone among BBC reporters, been his own man for some time now. Let’s give credit where it’s due.
techgm says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:24 am
I thought the all-time maximum (that has been measured) occurred in 1957.
Cycle 3 peaking in 1778 was probably just as high.
the good professors language is just like the IPCC”S…except the other way around…solar energy reaching earth only varies about 0.5% during the 11 year sunspot cycle..and this was just a low maximum…well within the 0.5%…energy reaching earth varies by almost 7%…from aphelion to perihelion every year…just looking at the stats i saw a 30/60 year cycle in the last century…warm 1919-1950…cool 1050-1980…warm till 2010…on the basis of this i predicted global cooling in 2010 lasting to about 2040…so far spot on…i suspect it has something to do with ocean circulation…the oceans have more than 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere
From my viewpoint, the sun has been getting less active rather than more active recently. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=20&startmonth=10&startyear=1999&starttime=00%3A00&endday=27&endmonth=10&endyear=2013&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
gopal panicker says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
From Be & C isotope variations.
Apparently, Paul Hudson is broadcasting something on this topic tonight at 7:30 pm GMT. Unfortunately, it is only going out as a regional programme broadcast by BBC Yorkshire, not on the national network so I won’t be able to watch it as I am in the BBC North West region. If there’s any reader who lives in Yorkshire maybe they could report back, or even record it and put up a link.
Quite a paradox to admit that reduced solar activity can cause cooling, but unable to admit that the inverse caused and will cause warming as well.
pokerguy says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:27 am
If he had been called “Robert Heat” it might have been an entirely different poem…
See comments on the Bishop Hill blog on this for how the BBC story was changed to bring in the alarmist element.
dcfl51:
At October 28, 2013 at 9:48 am you say
If you or any other Brits use Freeserve or Freesat then you can re-tune your digital TV or digital decoder and it will provide every BBC regional service. So, you can watch BBC North West region.
Richard
Here’s an old pre AGW BBC documentary on the influence of the sun on climate:
The Sunspot Mystery (BBC Documentary)
@Jimmy Haigh:
Some say end will come from politics, other say space rocks.
From what I’ve seen of the UN’s insanity
I’m sure it will be broadcast live by Sean Hannity.
But having heard quite enough of Fox
and IPCC fudging on arctic iceflow rates
I think I’d prefer the big space rocks
than to slowly croak while Mann bloviates.
//it’s Monday, doggerel’s as good as I get today.
Bob Tisdale says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:39 am
That sarc on/off comment would be really funny if it were not feasibly possible given the current state of climate ‘science’. I do hope that the warmista scientists do not get their hands on the solar data and treat it in the same fashion as they have with the temperature data.
Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. What if the likes of Mann, Jones, Hansen, et al massage the temp figures more to bury the solar ‘worry’ under the weight of the CAGW scam? Imagine how serious a Maunder minimum could get – and imagine how important it would be to have genuine data to use for predictive capacity and policy decisions? Many millions of people will be reliant on the output of such predictions?
That the solar issue is finally being given some proper concern – is a good thing – but if this
MM-like threat is real; we will need proper science and proper data to help prepare ourselves……does anyone feel confident in our current crop of climate scientists to deal with such a ‘catastrophe’?
In reply to:
Stephen Fox says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:28 am
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:53 am
‘the sudden conversion of a BBC reporter from a mouth piece of the AGW movement’
Well, I think Paul Hudson has, maybe alone among BBC reporters, been his own man for some time now. Let’s give credit where it’s due.
William:
Thanks for the correction. Best wishes William.
I am from Yorkshire, I will watch it and report back later this evening. I am unsure as to how i could record it and link to it as I will be watching on my tv, but if anyone has any ideas then let me know.
I’m surprised that the good professor has been allowed to conduct his research AND publish the results. Everyone – well at least 97% of everyone – know that the sun has little or no influence on the climate. And that everyone – 975 of them anyway – knows that man is 100% responsible – or it that 97% responsible. Now that I have gotten the sarcasm out of my system…I will wait to see this information hit the local paper…but I will definately NOT hold my breath.
Nice to see that Lockwood has revisited real data and [apparently] determined his own earlier comment about solar influences and the potential for a new solar minimum was, at least, premature. Interesting also to see how Hudson jumps in with how any cooling will be temporary and AGW will once again control. Seems rather contradictory to me that human-caused climate change can drive the climate until one day that’s not the case anymore, and then — with a lot of handwaving, AGW will again dominate later. However, I’m glad Hudson has written what he has, sans actual Lockwood quotes, of course. (That is really odd, that a reporter would not quote on something so powerful, even profound.)
And, DUH!, of course any cooling from solar influences will be temporary: the Earth’s climate isn’t a steady state system, is it… That modeling “shows” we’ll still make “the obligatory 2C above present” after cooling that may last till mid-century is a strong indicator to me that something is very, very wrong with the models to make that kind of an recovery. Intuitively that just does not make much sense as — if memory serves correctly — the cooling on Earth has always been at a more brisk pace than the subsequent rewarming. The models would appear tone driven incorrectly. I wonder what would happen if they forced a cooling to remain in progress until 2080 or 2090: would the warming to 2C above present still occur by 2100?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist#dna-comments
Read the second blog from Greensand!
“Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. ”
Too late.
gary gulrud says:
October 28, 2013 at 10:57 am
“Imagine if you will, how bad it would be if the solar data keepers were infiltrated. ”
Too late.
Nonsense Gary. There are hundreds of solar observers [most of them amateurs] all over the world and they all see the same thing.
A new LIA (Little Ice Age) is forecast!
‘who says so? Well scientists do, I have the DAILY FAIL telling us we will have a mini ice age within ten years because of a drop in sunspot…in the very second line the DAILY FAIL tells us this comes from some scientists, since we now know it comes from scientist we don’t really have to read the article…Frank Hill, of the NSO a scientist, says the solar cycle may be going into some sort of hiatus…no mini ice age there, but Dr R Alcock also a scientist says it may be going into state which may take a long time to recover…still no mini ice….experts not named says the Sun has been quiet for four years, that’s well known, but still no mini ice age…D Hathaway a scientist from NASA says this cycle will be the weakest for a century…no mini ice age…Matt Penn NSO says solar magnetic fields have been decreasing since 1998,…what happened to this mini ice age…we have four named scientists…all telling us we may be in for a hiatus…but none supporting a mini ice age, the headline is of course a conclusion of scientists at the DAILY FAIL…it’s OFFICIAL wrote James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, a new ice age is on its way…well which official body announced it…Delingpole who is right about everything…simply copied and pasted what he read on internet blogs…the GWPF, sounds important, not only said that the Earth may be heading for a mini ice age in the next ten years, but that announcement came from scientists at the US Nation Solar Observatory, WHAT!…in fact this media paradoxism… all started with a paper from the 2011 meeting of SPAAS, interesting how government researchers are corrupt liars when the Earth is warming but the model of integrity when they are thought to be saying the Earth is cooling…no where does it say we are headed for a mini ice age…and neither the Mail or any other media organistion bothered to talk to a climatologist to see what the repercussion might be…they would have come across this paper by Fuller and Ramstoff…would result in global cooling of 0.3 degree C, but that has to be set against the expected rise in temperatures due to a doubling in co2 from pre-industrial levels expected to be 2.5 and 4 degrees C…why didn’t any of the media organisations not check the scientific literature…these blogs seem so convinced that GW is a scam they never even considered that co2 could over come this ‘predicted’ cooling…’
Watch at:-
Am I the only person in the UK surprised that as soon as the government threatens to cut funding to the BBC. Alternative stories regarding the future of the planets weather suddenly appear. Simple message, “don’t try and pressure us or we will derail your plans”
Or am I too cynical
Sorry should have read not surprised
Well, I guess this is one way to get my Norwegian DiL to live in California rather than Oslo. 🙂
But seriously, if this does happen it’ll not be much good beyond gloating rights. Which is not really worth it if you ask me.
the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe……
truth is, no one would probably notice the difference……these guys play it up like it was freezing all the time
An interesting (and very different) approach to modelling:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
@ Andrew. Nice conspiracy theory. Not sure anyone at the BBC is intelligent enough to have come up with such a plan.
Perhaps some of them are beginning to realise that the game is up and they now need an exit strategy and so are starting to gradually move to a more balanced reporting stance from where they can more readily choose either side once they see how the weather and public sentiment and political sentiment are panning out.
Though I guess what I’ve just postulated also requires more intellect from the BBC than they perhaps possess.
Perhaps Hudson just blind-sided them.
Such is the power of a conditional. You can construct a true proposition from two false ones.
gopal panicker says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
the little ice age we know about…how does the professor get the solar data for the last 10,000 years ?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
ShrNfr said:
“From my viewpoint, the sun has been getting less active rather than more active recently. ”
Your Oulu GCR plot shows a short up-trend (since 2013), but a much longer down-trend (since 2009). So looks to me that the longer trend dominates. And down-trending GCR is consistent with rising “solar activity”, because cosmic rays tend to be blocked from Earth by increasing solar wind.
Is “increasing solar wind” the same as “increasing solar activity”? What’s the connection between these two phenomena?
Question for Dr. Svalgaard: Why do we associate high “solar activity” with high sunspot count? Sunspots are sites where solar radiation is blocked and is therefore the sun is more “inactive” at these spots. Sunspots block solar radiation, that’s why they look black.
So it seems to me that sunspots could be interpreted as an indicator for decreasing solar activity, in the sense that these they represent a winding down of magnetic activity, leading to the reversal of the solar magnetic field during these sunspot highs.
The number of sunspots peaks in midterm of a solar cycle, i.e. so-called “solar max”. But that is precisely the time the Sun’s magnetic field is reversing and is presumably in its highest state of degeneracy, i.e. least active.
So the coronal holes, which normally reside at the poles, are allowed (because of this decreased activity) to wander down towards the equators. Coronal holes are the source of the fast solar winds, so the cosmic-ray blocking properties of solar wind are enhanced because the magnetic field has degenerated and allowed more solar wind to be inserted into the plane of solar system.
Contrary to intuition, there is no big increase in solar output at “solar max”. Not clear to me why TSI nudges up 0.1% at this time, but that is a very tiny increase in “solar activity”.
So, the Oulu plot shows that cosmic rays peaked in 2009, when the Sun was more “actively” keeping the coronal holes locked near the poles, decreasing the blocking effect of the solar wind, right?
In exactly what sense is the Sun more “active” when sunspots are numerous? Just asking.
Let’s remember that Dr. Solanki of the Max Planck Institute beat Lockwood to the punch by a decade in a letter to nature:”According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago”
“Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
Key to their reconstruction was a standing of Mannish dendrochronology on its head… using radioisotopes from tree ring samples, dated by the tree ring the material was from, to generate an accurate year by year record of the ability of the heliosphere to protect the planet from high energy galactic cosmic rays. It sounds like Lockwood et al did a similar thing but using ice core layer chronologies.
Here is the rub.
If Lockwood concedes we’re currently in the fastest falling solar activity cycle in 10,000 years, which explains the reason for RSS troposphere temps being flat since October 1996 and falling HADCRUT4 temps from January 2001, then it only seems logical to concede the strongest 63-yr string of solar activity (1993~1996) contributed to most of the 0.6C warming of the 20th century.
If that is true, then it’s also logical to concede that IPCC’s new AR5’s ECS projections of 1.5C~4.5C are much too high and that Dr. Lindzen’s ECS projection of 0.6C seems more probable.
CAGW is imploding. I really can’t see the CAGW hypothesis surviving 3 more years of flat/falling temps, which would make 20 years of no statistically significant warming, despite over 1/3rd of all CO2 emissions since 1750 having been made over those 20 years.
I really think CAGW is in its death throes as a viable hypothesis. The preponderance of empirical evidence no longer seems to support the validity of CAGW.
One in the eye for the paticipants of the secret BBC conference that declared the science settled and the need for balanced reporting over. A foolish mistake that may shorten many of their careers, hopefully.
Don’t worry, Al Gore can belch enough CO2 to offset the cooling…
“Inside Out Yorkshire and Lincolnshire”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03flj49
An interesting (and very different) approach to modelling:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
##########
Its so bad its not even wrong
“The general approach is currently to describe the climate system from ‘the bottom up’ by accumulating vast amounts of data, observing how the data has changed over time, attributing a weighting to each piece or class of data and extrapolating forward. When the real world outturn then differs from what was expected then adjustments are made to bring the models back into line with reality. This method is known as ‘hindcasting’.”
1. The current approach is to start with the known laws of physics. Not with data. in fact climate models were built before the collection of much of the data that is used to check them.
2. There is no “weighting” of pieces or classes of data. When ModelE code was released to the public I went t hrough every frickin line of code. No weights. no extrapolation. Wilde is making shit up. he even claims to be a statistician although he has never produced a single calculation or estimate with uncertainties.
3. He does not even know what hind casting is.
Johanus says:
October 28, 2013 at 11:50 am
Why do we associate high “solar activity” with high sunspot count?
Because sunspots are a proxy for high magnetic fields in and around them. It is that magnetic field that is the ‘real’ solar activity. The additional radiation from the surrounding magnetic field wins over the blocking effect of the darker sunspots.
R Taylor says:
“… the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.” Could the BBC pour fluid out of a boot if the instructions were written on the sole?
———————-
I liked “and if projections are correct” from Paul Hudson. Excuse me Paul, we have already seen with the passage of time that the IPCC’s “projections” are NOT correct, so…..
Honestly, the BBC can’t help but put the old propaganda lines at the end of each article about the environment; in this case the “don’t worry about the cold winters, the scary CO2 monster is coming back later unless we do something about it” BS (actually a relatively new propaganda line, since nature stopped cooperating).
I read on another excellent blog a commenter said: “The job of the mainstream news media is not to report the news, their job is to shape public opinion. People need to repeat that over to themselves, until it sinks in”.
SAMURAI says:
October 28, 2013 at 11:53 am
CACA never was a viable hypothesis. Its advocates never falsified the null hypothesis that observed climatic fluctuations since the 1970s or 1940s were in any way out of the ordinary.
in fact climate models were built before the collection of much of the data that is used to check them.
===
does that include the data they make up…..in order to make the models work?
So… now they’re going to agree that a less active sun results in a cooler climate, and make that the excuse they need for why CO2 isn’t doing it, while at the same time arguing that the earlier active sun had nothing whatsoever to do with warming of the 80s and that our evil human-produced CO2 will soon swamp the sun’s current cooling of the climate, restoring mankind’s evil dominance that must be expunged at all costs… to save the world… and our children’s children…
Right… right… just checking. Hopeful bunch, aren’t they? They are desperate for the warming “catastrophe” to return, but at all costs it must be seen as human induced… so that we mere mortals can be clamorous to be led to… Oh, I give up! Somebody inform these Bozos that it’s school in the morning with some hard lessons coming, so they had better call it a night.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Though I think this is much more likely than catastrophic man-caused warming, it should still be taken with skepticsm: first, the BBC wholly bought into the “warming mania,” so it’s always possible they’ll fall for the next climate hysteria. (Remember global cooling in the 70s?) Second, the professor cited in the article is on record as saying a few years ago almost the opposite of what he’s saying, now. Everyone can change their opinions, of course, as new data comes in, but it’s something to keep in mind.
Latitude says:
October 28, 2013 at 11:38 am
the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe……
truth is, no one would probably notice the difference……these guys play it up like it was freezing all the time.
Isn’t it strange that some people don’t think that we would notice the change if we returned to the conditions of the Little Ice Age, yet they think that a similar increase in temperature would be catastrophic?
Roy says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm
People would notice the Thames & Rhine freezing over & Swiss glaciers advancing again to threaten mountain villages.
“Because sunspots are a proxy for high magnetic fields in and around them. It is that magnetic field that is the ‘real’ solar activity.” -lsvalgaard
Correctomundo, though I don’t quite agree with the ‘real’. Luminosity would of greater interest if it varied very much, but it doesn’t. If it varied much we’d be very concerned.
One of the better ‘general science’ descriptions I’ve heard was from some PBS primetime science program where a solar physicist made a comparison to cooking spaghetti in a large pot. A low boil and you can see the pasta moving under the surface; get a roiling boil going, and the strands break the surface here and there. The higher the boil, the more the surface is broken. Sunspots and magnetic field strength are nicely analogous to the strands breaking the surface while boiling pasta and the heat under the pot.
The “Team” has been putting a lid on the link of GCR and sunspots to climate for 20 years. It’s time to see a change. Thank you, Mike Lockwood.
The real issue with trends is they only are trends until something changes…
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:55 pm
The higher the boil, the more the surface is broken. Sunspots and magnetic field strength are nicely analogous to the strands breaking the surface while boiling pasta and the heat under the pot.
Dumbed-down analogies always fail somewhere. The solar photosphere is ‘boiling’ and roiling all the time all over the sun, sunspots or no sunspots. Actually, the sunspots suppress that boiling a bit, thus interfering with the transport of heat to the surface.
ls, while I completely agree that dumbed down analogies always break down somewhere, I’m sorry I presented the analogy in a way that lead you to think I, or the unnamed solar physicist, thought heat within in the sun was involved in the analogy.
There was no intention for the analogy to link such magnetic activity to heat within the sun. Just magnetic activity and sunspots being analogous to the relationship of the strength of a boil and the pasta breaking the surface.
– – – – – – –
J Martin,
Ahhh yes!
One of the behind-the-public’s-back advocates of unbalanced climate reporting was the BBC’s Roger Harrabin, the slinky (referring to the toy) of catastrophic climate change journalists. A Slinky only goes one direction; downhill.
Roger Harrabin is to climate journalism coverage policy as Maximilien Robespierre was to public safety policy.
John
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Just magnetic activity and sunspots being analogous to the relationship of the strength of a boil and the pasta breaking the surface.
But that is precisely where the analogy is wrong. The strength of the boil [on the sun] is not related to the eruption of sunspots.
Latitude says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:31 pm
in fact climate models were built before the collection of much of the data that is used to check them.
===
does that include the data they make up…..in order to make the models work?
You dont make up data to make the models fit. In every tuning experiment I’ve looked at that is not the case. A typical tuning parameter might be Aerosols.
Let me give you an example. once we had to built a flight control model for the singapore airforce. The plane in question had an accelerometer in the sensor path. The accuracy of this accelerometer was unknown. So, how do we fix the model.
Simple. We build the model where the accuracy of the acceleromter is a knob
Step 1, determine the knob limits: we do this by looking at various boundary cases for devices and device theory. That gives us an upper bound and lower bound
Then we run the model at various settings of the knob until the model results match the observations. This gives us a value for the setting of the knob
In a climate model the value for aerosols is bounded: lets call it X + or minus .5 Watts.
You run the model and fiddle that knob. Since the value is unknown but bounded its about the only thing you can do since you cant go back in time and measure the aerosols.
lsvalgaard @ ggoodknight
Why bother with analogy when you can observe the ‘real’ thing
“But that is precisely where the analogy is wrong. The strength of the boil [on the sun] is not related to the eruption of sunspots.”
Sigh.
There is no “boil [on the sun]” in the analogy. We seem to be talking past each other.
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 2:05 pm
There is no “boil [on the sun]” in the analogy. We seem to be talking past each other.
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:55 pm
“The higher the boil, the more the surface is broken. Sunspots and magnetic field strength are nicely analogous to the strands breaking the surface while boiling pasta and the heat under the pot.”
Then I don’t ‘get’ the analogy.
“Then I don’t ‘get’ the analogy.”
I got that from your first response.
here we are:
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Then I don’t ‘get’ the analogy.”
I got that from your first response.
Then it must have been a very bad analogy…
Analogies are supposed to further the understanding, not stand in the way of it.
Steven Mosher:
Your post at October 28, 2013 at 1:59 pm says
Bollocks!
The aerosol fudges in climate models are completely “made up” and each model uses a unique aerosol fudge.
It seems I need to post the following yet again.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
@Steven Mosher
“…start with the known laws of physics. ..”
——————————————
But those are exactly what the “basic physics” of the “settled science” ignored.
1. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.
2. Incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporativly cool.
3. The speed of tropospheric convective circulation and thereby mechanical energy transport from the surface is increased by increasing atmospheric concentration of radiative gases.
“Then it must have been a very bad analogy…”
Or a very bad listener.
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
“Then it must have been a very bad analogy…”
Or a very bad listener.
I know myself. You cannot be a judge of my listening. If I with best effort don’t get it, chances are good that reasonable and attentive people will get the wrong idea about what is going on. And that therefore the analogy was objectively bad. Since it is not your analogy this should not upset you [as you obviously interpreted it wrongly proving my point].
“…. solar-driven cooling”.
LOL — Contradictio in adjecto.
andrew says:
October 28, 2013 at 11:10 am
“Am I the only person in the UK surprised that as soon as the government threatens to cut funding to the BBC. Alternative stories regarding the future of the planets weather suddenly appear. “
I agree with Stephen Fox. Paul has been his own man for many years. For example the following:
What happened to global warming? (9 October 2009)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2013 at 12:06 pm
An interesting (and very different) approach to modelling:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
##########
Its so bad its not even wrong.
———————
well that’s patently false.
It has limited utility, but utility nonetheless.
Our colleague Tamitha Skov has been producing excellent space weather and forecasting videos on her own time. The latest involves the recent solar activity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrtIBja-Qs
The warmists have ignored the fact there are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The warming and cooling cycles affect both hemispheres simultaneous. As internal climate forcing cycles do not affect both hemispheres and are chaotic and hence are not cyclical unless driven by an external cyclic forcing function they cannot cause what is observed.
This paper for example notes there are 340 climate cycles in the last 240,000 years during which time the Antarctic Peninsula warmed and then cooled. As the paper notes the temperature of Antarctic Peninsula has been shown to be closely linked with the Southern Ocean temperature. The 340 climate cycles have a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years which matches a cyclic warming and cooling cycle that is also observed in the Northern hemisphere. The amount of warming in the past cycles is the same or greater than the warming that has been observed on Antarctic Peninsula in the last 50 years.
The fact the climate cycle occurs in both glacial and interglacial period (the internal climate forcing functions are very different for glacial and interglacial periods due to affect of the ice sheets), affects both hemisphere simultaneously, and correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes all support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle changes are causing what is observed.
It should be noted that this is no longer a theoretical, modeling issue. The solar magnetic cycle has changed very quickly. Based on what has happened before the planet will cool. It is significantly easier to discover exactly how the solar magnetic cycle changes causes cooling if there is direct measurement of the cooling rather than attempting to solve the problem using proxies. The scientific community and the interested public will by observations determine how much of the warming in the last 50 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and how much is due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate in Synch Worldwide
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm
The warming and cooling cycles affect both hemispheres simultaneous.
which explains why the Arctic Ice Cover has been decreasing while the Antarctic Ice cover has been increasing…
I wonder if anyone has yet calculated the time lag between Mother Nature and the mainstream media. It’s good to see some alternative stories out of the BBC, but this conversation has been going on for the best part of this solar cycle.
BBC & Mike Loskwood
Tuesday, 21 April 2009:
Climate sceptics have gone further arguing that the Sun – rather than man’s activities – may be the main driver of climate change. The argument came to a head with the broadcast of Channel 4′s The Great Global Warming Swindle in 2007, which focused on the cosmic ray theory.
But speaking on the programme this morning Mike Lockwood from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory said the cycle of the Sun’s activity didn’t fit with the longer term trend towards global warming.
Solar activity began to tail off in the mid 1980′s – a period of steadily rising temperatures. If the Sun was responsible for global warming we would have seen a much more marked decline by now.
Dr Lockwood believes the latest data settles the debate. The Sun has an impact on global temperatures, but it’s not enough to account for climate change.
“If the Sun’s dimming were to have a cooling effect, we’d have seen it by now,” he says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/04/could_a_cooling_sun_save_the_p.html
Sigh.
“Since it is not your analogy this should not upset you [as you obviously interpreted it wrongly proving my point].”
No, I did not interpret it wrongly; you made assumptions about my description that were neither stated or intended. It was a bloody throwaway line for me; you might go argue with the science Ed people at NASA as I found by googling, they’re apparently still using the same analogy.
I’m just a lowly BS Physics/MSEE grunt, not worth your effort. Move along.
lsvalgaard says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Our colleague Tamitha Skov has been producing excellent space weather and forecasting videos on her own time. The latest involves the recent solar activity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrtIBja-Qs
She is a bit too early; all the action came 2-3 days later
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c2.gif
> mwhite says:
> October 28, 2013 at 11:49 am
>> gopal panicker says:
>> October 28, 2013 at 9:16 am
>>
>> the little ice age we know about…how does the professor
>> get the solar data for the last 10,000 years ?
>>
>> Try this
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspots_11000_years.svg
That led me on a bit of a chase. The document you want is…
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/solanki2004-ssn.txt Note that zero year for the data is 1950. i.e. the calendar AD year, Yad, is related to the
BP year, Ybp, as Yc=1950-Ybp.
ggoodknight says:
October 28, 2013 at 4:29 pm
It was a bloody throwaway line for me
You seem attached to it, nevertheless.
science Ed people at NASA as I found by googling, they’re apparently still using the same analogy
That does not make it good. It is still lousy.
you made assumptions about my description that were neither stated or intended
My assumption was that you thought it was a good analogy, if I was wrong about that, we seem to agree that the analogy was poor. And so we can move along.
“He says such a change to our climate could have profound implications for energy policy and our transport infrastructure.”
And even bigger challenges for farmers. UK farmers face unprecedented levels of debt since the poor summer of 2012. and are facing more cuts:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/24/10/2013/141674/call-for-direct-farm-payments-to-be-cut-by-15.htm
More frequent cold and wet growing seasons could put many out of business.
According to the warmists, the heat will be hiding in the sun. But when it’s finally released, it’ll be enough to boil the atmosphere.
Hmm.. Shows his “research” includes fingers in ears going la la la la la la and ignoring paintings of the era depicting ice fairs on the Thames for many winters.
Amazing Lockwood is “discovering” cooling, that Leroux had figured out 20 years ago through understanding atmospheric circulation… Oh well, credit will never be given, as usual.
“Perhaps two distinct and opposing climate science camps will evolve, one supporting global warming and the other supporting global cooling.”
Treat them as an ensemble. Average them together. Voila! No change predicted. So obviously they are good models.
If we have just a couple of 1960s-style winters, AGW propaganda is OVER.
Surely a ‘vociferous advocate’ of global warming is one who pleads loudly in its favour and thinks that it is a wonderful thing. Are linguistic standards at eh BBC dropping, or have they uncovered some hidden irony?
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:54 pm
The warming and cooling cycles affect both hemispheres simultaneous.
which explains why the Arctic Ice Cover has been decreasing while the Antarctic Ice cover has been increasing…
William:
You need climate 101, an explanation of the polar see-saw. Note Antarctic sea ice has suddenly increased for all months were previously it was higher only for certain months.
The “polar see-saw” caused the first increase in Antarctic sea ice. The entire planet warmed in the last 50 years except for the Antarctic ice sheet which cooled, slightly. When the planet warms due to solar magnetic cycle change the entire planet will warm except for the Antarctic ice sheet which will cool slightly. (The cooling of Antarctic ice sheet is shown in a graph that Wattsup’s ice link.)
The physical cause of the polar see-saw is the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is slightly greater than low level clouds, therefore as clouds also warm due to the greenhouse effect of their water vapor a reduction in low level clouds causes the Antarctic ice sheet to cool and the surrounding Southern ocean to warm. The cooling of the Antarctic ice sheet caused there to be an increase in sea ice but not for all months. The warming of the Southern sea caused the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula which due to its extension into the Southern sea warms when the Southern sea warms.
In the Northern hemisphere the albedo of the Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheet is less than low level clouds and there is not a strong polar vortex that separate the ice from the surrounding ocean so a decrease in low level clouds causes the Arctic and Greenland Ice sheet to warm.
There is now an increase in low clouds in the Arctic which caused the lowest summer Arctic temperatures in 50 years and there is an increase in low level clouds in the Antarctic which caused their to be anomalously cold temperatures of the Southern Ocean which in turn caused there to high sea ice around the Antarctic for all months of the year.
This shows the cold Arctic summer temperatures.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
This shows the anomalously cold water around the Antarctic which is causing the increase in sea ice all months.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.10.28.2013.gif
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
This is Svensmark’s paper that explains the polar anomaly and provides data to support a cloud modulation mechanism to explain why it occurs.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly. … ….Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator[17] with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
“It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away.”
No it isn’t. Please, provide an accurate census that backs up that assertion of what “most scientists” believe.
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:46 pm
The entire planet warmed in the last 50 years except for the Antarctic ice sheet which cooled, slightly.
Forget your ‘slightly’ and forget Svensmark. The cooling is a large effect:
“The last deglaciation: timing the bipolar seesaw” by Pedro, J. B.; et al.
Climate of the Past, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2011, pp.671-683, 2011
Abstract
Precise information on the relative timing of north-south climate variations is a key to resolving questions concerning the mechanisms that force and couple climate changes between the hemispheres. We present a new composite record made from five well-resolved Antarctic ice core records that robustly represents the timing of regional Antarctic climate change during the last deglaciation. Using fast variations in global methane gas concentrations as time markers, the Antarctic composite is directly compared to Greenland ice core records, allowing a detailed mapping of the inter-hemispheric sequence of climate changes. Consistent with prior studies the synchronized records show that warming (and cooling) trends in Antarctica closely match cold (and warm) periods in Greenland on millennial timescales. For the first time, we also identify a sub-millennial component to the inter-hemispheric coupling. Within the Antarctic Cold Reversal the strongest Antarctic cooling occurs during the pronounced northern warmth of the Bølling. Warming then resumes in Antarctica, potentially as early as the Intra-Allerød Cold Period, but with dating uncertainty that could place it as late as the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial. There is little-to-no time lag between climate transitions in Greenland and opposing changes in Antarctica. Our results lend support to fast acting inter-hemispheric coupling mechanisms, including recently proposed bipolar atmospheric teleconnections and/or rapid bipolar ocean teleconnections.
Doug Danhoff says:
“I wonder if temporary means 30 – 60 years of the next minimum….hmmm… Is it time to have a poll to name it?”
Call it the “Mannder Minimum” – just to tweak him.
“Frost Tax”, anybody?
This is obviously a scam; Lockwood is a shill for the big wooly jumper industry!
but but but, I thought the sun had no impact on our earths temperature – I thought its all down to CARBON – sorry Carbon Dioxide
So Lockwood is switching horses the same way that MIchael Mann switched horses after his 2002 paper in which he claimed CO2 causes global cooling.
This way the same people stay on top of the game and in the best positions for garnering filthy lucre. Lockwoods timing is just about impecable I must say.
And this is the way it goes. The same people are always at the top.with no thought for anything but position, power and money. Real scientists, the good guys, are always recognised and supressed by the corrupt.
The people pay in more ways than one.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 28, 2013 at 9:20 pm
William Astley says:
October 28, 2013 at 8:46 pm
The entire planet warmed in the last 50 years except for the Antarctic ice sheet which cooled, slightly.
Forget your ‘slightly’ and forget Svensmark. The cooling is a large effect:
“The last deglaciation: timing the bipolar seesaw” by Pedro, J. B.; et al. Climate of the Past, Volume 7, Issue 2, 2011, pp.671-683, 2011
William:
I used the word slight which is correct if the temperature measurement is the sum of high latitude Southern Ocean temperature which warmed and the Antarctic ice sheet temperature which cooled. The Antarctic ice sheet cooled around -2C which is greater than the amount the planet warmed.
The paper you quote supports Svensmark analysis. Svensmark’s analysis used ice core temperature data (direct measurement of temperature of the ice which is proportional to the temperature at the time of the ice forming and retains a record for up to around 6000 years due to insulation of the ice) comparing the Greenland ice sheet to the Antarctic ice sheet, that data also showed there was no time delay in the effect.
The paper you quote hypotheses (no details provided for the hypothesis) some imaginary internal mechanism which there is no paper reference or a waft an explanation as to what internal mechanism that can cause by teleconnection the Antarctic ice sheet which is isolated from by the polar vortex to cool or warm in opposition to the Greenland ice sheet. That is ridiculous, silly.
Svensmark proves a detail explanation of a mechanism is capable of causing what is observed (i.e. Svensmark mechanism is not blocked by the polar vortex) and shows using top of the atmosphere analysis of radiation over the Antarctic that the Antarctic does cool when there is an decrease in low level clouds to support a key pillar of his mechanism.
“Our results lend support to fast acting inter-hemispheric coupling mechanisms, including recently proposed bipolar atmospheric teleconnections and/or rapid bipolar ocean teleconnections.”
The paper I quoted noted there has been 340 warming and cooling cycles with a periodicity of – 1500 years and 400 years – of the Antarctic Peninsula which is not isolated from the Southern ocean by the polar vortex. Changes in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the 340 warming and cooling cycles, solar magnetic cycle changes did.
Observations will prove and are proving Svensmark to have been correct.
Good luck to Lockwood in trying to suggest how solar variations affecting climate could be limited to a single region.
There is a profusion of evidence that the effects were global.
Reg Nelson said:
“It has limited utility, but utility nonetheless.”
Thanks Reg. That is all I claim for it.
When we have more of the right data it can be refined.
The main issue is whether the cascade of cause and effect is correct and observations are in line with that currently.
I’m still suggesting changes in jet stream behaviour as the cause of global albedo changes rather than the Svensmark effect so I await further data on that.
I also need a reverse sign solar effect on ozone above 45km and towards the poles so I’m still waiting on that too.
Someone 10 years ago predicted that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one, perhaps exceeding the Maunder LIA. His name has not been welcomed here on this blog.
Are there any educated guesses as to how cold it will get?
William Astley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:24 am
The paper I quoted noted there has been 340 warming and cooling cycles with a periodicity of – 1500 years and 400 years
There are no 1500-yr cycles: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
Someone was there long before paul hudson;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3641316/The-truth-is-we-cant-ignore-the-sun.html
and take a look at the reply;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3641481/Letters-to-The-Sunday-Telegraph.html
Scientific community immune to spin – prof lockwood – pot, kettle, black.
Russian climatologist have been preaching this for years now. The very next solar cycle should be the answer!!
I see increased tax credits for the burning of CO2-generating fossil fuels on the horizon to fight global cooling. Investors in wind, solar, and nuclear power might want to reconsider (liquidate) their positions.
Interesting. So, I wonder where the CO2 “forcing effect” will go during this cooling period? And, how does it know when to come back out again? Is CO2 schizophrenic perhaps?
Ahh, the age of double-speak continues (the BBC hedging its bets).
So we are now going to have a little hot-cold, and some drought-floods, to be followed by periods of clear-fog. Did I get the climate forecast correct?
Funny that they couldn’t resist to mention Mann. He appears in the BBC report like (what Dutch Catholics used to say) Pontius Pilate in the Credo of the creed: nothing to do with essence of the story. I remember first reading Mann when sitting at my desk with a repro of a Breugel’s painting on the wall above it depicting a 17-e century skating scene. I read what Mann wrote, I looked at the painting and knew there and then that it was a fraud.
The BBC video can be seen here.
It’s 11 minutes long.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/bbcs-paul-hudson-on-a-new-maunder-minimum/
Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
Paul Hudson is suffering from a bad case of anti-groupthink disease. He needs to be brought back into line. Anyone who thinks the sun plays a significant role in Gaia’s current climate is a denier.
The rapid rate of decline suggests to me that the upcoming minimum will be briefer than the Maunder one. It appears to me as a combination of a Dalton repeat (of the ~210 year Seuss cycle) and a minimum of a shorter period cycle. There may be a temporary cycle with a period around 60 years currently underway.
In reply to: lsvalgaard says: October 29, 2013 at 5:50 am
William Astley says: October 29, 2013 at 2:24 am The paper I quoted noted there has been 340 warming and cooling cycles with a periodicity of – 1500 years and 400 years
Leif: There are no 1500-yr cycles: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
William: Leif you appear to be confused. The paper you quote does not support the assertion there were no warming and cooling cycles. The paper you quote notes the timing of the cycles varies rather than being exactly 1500 years plus or minus 500 years which is reasonable, as the sun is causing what is observed and at this point in time the physical mechanisms that cause the solar magnetic to change are not understood. As Lockwood notes (the subject of this thread) the solar magnetic cycle 24 change is the most rapid reduction in the solar magnetic cycle in 10,000 years. The paper you are co-author of notes that if the current solar magnetic cycle change is extrapolated cycle 25 will have a peak of 20 sunspot groups which is a Dalton minimum like cycle. Obviously we will by observations (planet cools or does not cool) determine if that extraordinary change in the solar magnetic cycle from a grand maximum to a grand minimum is going to affect planetary temperature. It is not possible to hide a massive increase in sea ice both poles and a cooling of the planet from the general public or the media.
The paper quote you acknowledges that there is correlation of solar magnetic cycle changes with the timing of the warming and cooling cycles which supports the assertion that solar magnetic cycle changes are the cause of what is observed. There is hence no need for ‘heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain the phenomena’, as the paper alleges. The sun causes what is observed. The problem is to figure out what causes the timing of the solar magnetic cycle changes such as solar cycle 24.
The paper you quote states without a waft of explanation that the observed warming and cooling cycles ‘could’ (William: I repeat ‘could’) be caused by a mystery transient phenomenon, for example, ice sheet boundary conditions, which is ridiculous, silly, goofy. There is no explanation of why the disconnected ice sheets would surge and more importantly why they would surge simultaneously and why the same warming and cooling cycle would be observed in the Southern hemisphere. The surging ice sheet hypothesis was ruled out by specialists for at least ten years as the data indicates three physically disconnected ice sheet surge simultaneously and it is not possible for the ice sheets to surge simultaneously unless the forcing function is external. The dynamics of each ice sheet that affects surging is weather in the vicinity ice sheet, thickness of the ice sheet, temperature of the underlying base of the ice sheet, and so on which is different for each ice sheet there is hence no internal means to force the ice sheets to surge simultaneously.
Solar magnetic cycle changes can physically cause the entire Northern hemisphere to cool by Svensmark mechanism. Svensmark’s mechanism is physically capable of causing three separate ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere to surge and at the same time to cause the cooling in the Southern Hemisphere which proxy data shows did occur.
This is a link to paper Lief quotes and which he alleges disproves something, I am not sure what the paper disproves it certainly does not provide any data to support the conclusions the observed warming and cooling cycles do not occur or that internal climate fairies wave their wands to cause the warming and cooling of both hemispheres.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
A 1500-year oscillation is primarily limited to the short glacial Stage 4, the age of which is derived solely from an ice flow model (ss09sea), subject to uncertainty, and offset most from the original chronology. Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 +/-500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the 1000 and 2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability. Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.
The warming and cooling cycles are observed on the Greenland ice sheet and correlate with named warming and cooling cycles that affected our ancestors. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
This paper finds 340 warming and cooling cycles in the Southern hemisphere over a period of 240,000 years. Come on man, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming and cooling cycles occur. The problem is not the data or the analysis but rather that it indicates that a significant portion of the warming in the last 50 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. If it is a fact that there is no CO2 warming problem to solve is that such a bad thing for humanity? What am I missing? That sounds like very good news.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle” (William: Duh, yes) …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates by Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
ggoodknight: You are discussing with Sheldon Cooper! Don’t you get it? There are clearly psychological issues on display. Oh, I should add that was about Sheldon Cooper, of course, not lsvalgaard…no, not lsvalgaard.
It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.
The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.
Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.
I’ve been to see Professor Mike Lockwood to take a look at the work he has been conducting into the possible link between solar activity and climate patterns.
************
Back in 2011, Lockwood said something totally dissimilar:
“The Little Ice Age wasn’t really an ice age of any kind – the idea that Europe had a relentless sequence of cold winters is frankly barking” – Dr Mike Lockwood Reading University
************
So you CAN teach an old dog new tricks, Dr. Lockwood.
Who’s barking now?
William Astley says:
October 29, 2013 at 11:48 am
William: Leif you appear to be confused.
I’m never confused, sometimes wrong, but never confused.
The paper you quote does not support the assertion there were no warming and cooling cycles.
There are warming and cooling episodes, which are not cyclic and have nothing to do with the Sun. There is a perfectly good explanation of those episodes: http://www.leif.org/EOS/palo20005-D-O-Explanation.pdf the episodes are self-sustaining and do not an external cause.
Leif:
Interesting concept which sounds like a reasonable explanation of the characteristics of the DO events. One thought came to mind when reading your paper.
In addition to the supposed ice shelf collapse by warm water erosion and eventual collapse, I wondered if you have considered physical triggers like large Atlantic basin tidal wave events? If such an event happened it might heave and break up an ice shelf at some random time earlier than it would otherwise collapse. Good modern examples might be major earthquakes such as the Alaskan Goodfriday earthquake and its well documented tidal surge. Some have commented in the past regarding potential for massive tidal wave events in the Atlantic basin due to landslides such as the suspected future land slide event anticipated from the island of La Palma in the Canaries.
Has any effort been made to sync known major tidal events in the are with the onset of DO events?
correction — Has any effort been made to sync known major tidal events in the area with the onset of DO events?
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:29 pm
correction — Has any effort been made to sync known major tidal events in the area with the onset of DO events?
Dunno, is there data of the tidal events?
lsvalgaard: ‘are’ there data… not ‘is’. ‘Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’. If you are ever unsure of how the word should be handled in a sentence, just substitute ‘figures’ for ‘data’. You wouldn’t say, “Is there figures of the tidal events?” I know it is often treated as a mass noun in non-scientific use, but as you are a stickler for being correct, and a scientist, I thought you would appreciate the correction. You’re welcome.
Can of worms… set free!
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:09 pm
lsvalgaard: ‘are’ there data… not ‘is’.
When used as a mass noun [which I did] data is singular.
Here is a link that discusses this issue: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-data-singular-or-plural.aspx. Charles Carson in a guest post for Grammar Girl describes count nouns and mass nouns. Count nouns answer how many while mass nouns answer how much. The simplified answer here is that data can be either, depending if it is a count noun (can be replaced by facts) or a mass noun (can be replaced by information). An example of data used as a count noun is, “The data consist of the names, heights, and weights of the 30 children in this class.” An example of data used as a mass noun is, “Data is increasing at an incredible rate.”
[comment deleted since it is by a person under an assumed name – Anthony]
As I said, it IS very often treated as a mass noun in NON-scientific use, but if you are a stickler for detail and correct use, then in scientific use, by a scientist, it is not treated as a mass noun.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:37 pm
As I said, it IS very often treated as a mass noun in NON-scientific use, but if you are a stickler for detail and correct use, then in scientific use, by a scientist, it is not treated as a mass noun.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/data :
“But more often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage.”
I’ll say with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
@Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
>’Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’
That’s true for its usage in Latin. And for years pedants have insisted that this Latin rule for plurals applies to English as well.
But there are many foreign plural words which are singular in English. For example, ‘spaghetti’, which is the diminuitive masculine plural of ‘spago’ in Italian. It’s singular in English, so we don’t say “The spaghetti are delicious”. But the Italians do: ‘gli spaghetti sono deliziosi’
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/spaghetti
‘Data’ is a mass noun, so you can use it in phrases like ‘how much data?’ or ‘too much data!’.
But you cannot say ‘how much figures?’ or ‘too much figures?’, can you?
So ‘data’ is in the same class as ‘sugar’ and ‘money’, both singular mass nouns. ‘Figures’ really is plural so it cannot be in the same class as ‘data’.
😐
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm
………….
Yes, tectonics of the N. Atlantic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
lsvalgaard says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Dunno, is there data of the tidal events?
Yes.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-T.htm
vukcevic says:
October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm
“Dunno, is there data of the tidal events?”
Yes.
Looks made up to me. What is that 62+y?
Re: So you CAN teach an old dog new tricks, Dr. Lockwood.
Who’s barking now?
*************
For the record, I have been concerned about the probability of imminent global cooling since long before it became fashionable, first publishing my concerns in 2002.
I have had little time to pursue this subject in detail so have no opinion as to whether this global cooling will be mild or severe., although the crash in solar activity during SC24 has heightened my concerns.
I suggest it is past-time to rid society of global warming hysteria, and focus on the immediate implementation of low-cost, high-impact measures to help to adapt society to the possible impacts of severe global cooling.
These measures would include accelerated research to develop frost-resistant crops, the storage of food grains rather than converting them into fuel ethanol, and other sensible changes to energy policy, specifically the abandonment of costly and ineffective ”green energy” schemes like grid-connected wind and solar power.
The clearing of rainforests for palm oil and sugar cane plantations for biofuel feedstocks is another highly destructive “green energy “ scheme that should stop now.
Also, the foolish Euro-leftist opposition to shale fracking of natural gas reservoirs should cease now, by government decree if necessary.
If I am wrong and there is no severe global cooling, the costs will be modest and the savings will be significant. If I am correct, many lives could be saved.
We know that excess cold kills many more people than excess heat, particularly in Northern climes.
The Excess Winter Mortality rates in many European countries including the UK, Spain, Portugal and Greece, are about 20%, double what they are in those colder northern European countries like Sweden and Norway that adapt better to winter.
Global warming hysteria has cost society over a trillion dollars in squandered resources. It may also cost lives, due to global cooling.
Actually it should be V(P)/g (unit cm), something to do with tide equilibrium potential.
Data: TABLE 1. Rankings, dates, and times of largest total tidal potential during 1859–2000 along with equilibrium tide V(P)/g.
from “Decadal Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection?” by Richard Ray
lsvalgaard says:
October 29, 2013 at 1:31 pm
I am not aware of any specific sources, just making an observation from logical deduction.
There might? be historical peak tidal records from the UK and other maritime nations like the Dutch that go back a few hundred years, but for historical reconstruction order of several hundred years I am not sure how far back those records would be useful.
To some extent tidal information could be roughly reconstructed from moon orbital data, and merging with exceptional historical storm barometer records, but again that would be a proxy for real tide data.
I was also specifically referring to tsunami events triggered by coastal landslides etc. in the northern Atlantic basin. The historical record should have the biggest of those recorded in sagas or other references. You would probably need to combine nautical historical records and historical records of major coastal flooding. Hopefully someone has done some of that correlation already.
I was considering that some geologist might have done a study of seismic coastal inundations due to tsunami events based on the geology of the near in coast, just like in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.. The looked for sand layers well back from the shore line and debris characteristic of tsunami events, combined with Japanese historical tsunami records. In the process they found evidence of repeated large tsunami events due to major earth movements in the north west, as they were trying to find enough historical information to predict the risk of the next major event in that area. (see January 26, 1700 Cascadia earth quake)
well that’s patently false.
It has limited utility, but utility nonetheless.
####################################
with no quantification and uncertainty there is no scientific use. It can be used to distract people from the important issues, so I supposed that falls under limited utility.
it can be used to amuse people.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
……………….
I recommend this paper
ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf
if you or anyone can get actual data for the graph on page 10 I would be very much obliged.
Maybe Steve Mosher could get hold of the data.
John Day: I accept your point about ‘figures’ but it was to give Leif the general idea – if wrongly. But you’re missing my point. Read my posts again, then read what you wrote here: “…pedants have insisted…” Do you get it now? Personally I have no problem with using ‘data is’ in a colloquial fashion, or even in science. I also have no problem in splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition. But someone who is usually so totally unbending might…do. 🙂
This is not a Maunder Minimum.
Won’t happen. Numbers are matching the minimums Joseph D’Aleo noticed a while back is not a minimum but a normal occurrence each century and in terms of climate it cleans out animal and plant species that are too far north such as pythons, Africa an ants, etc. That have encroached on Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
These cycles will have a total sunspot average of 200. The Maunder type minimums have no normal counts peaks or noticeable structure.
This is not a Maunder Minimum.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
The bing purge ice sheet theory is not a new theory and was developed to try to explain Heinrich events which are sudden releases of ice bergs and cooling into of the Northern Hemisphere. That theory was abandoned as it could not explain why disconnected ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere all purged at the same time. Here is a link to a conceptual model that was proposed in 1994.
http://geoweb.uchicago.edu/pdfs/macayeal/Alley_macayeal.pdf
The bing purge ice sheet theory could also not explain how the release of ice bergs in the Northern Hemisphere caused simultaneous cooling in the Southern Hemisphere and warming of Antarctic ice sheet. The analysis of the ice cores on the Antarctic Peninsula show there has been 340 warming and cooling cycles with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years which matches the periodicity in Northern Hemisphere. Detailed proxy analysis for the recent cycles confirms the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere warming and cooling periods coincide in time and correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The cause of the Heinrich events and the cause of the lesser Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is current solar magnetic cycle changes, not bing purge of ice sheets or changes to North Atlantic drift current which was the other theory proposed. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”
The D-O cycles, the Heinrich events, and the majority of the warming in the last 50 years were all caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. If that assertion is correct as then there will significant cooling of high latitude regions both poles and an increase in La Niña events.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantics 1500-year cycle.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399437a0.html
A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years
The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth’s magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun’s properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.
@Big Jim
> read what you wrote here:
> “…pedants have insisted…” Do you get it now?
That you are only a half-hearted pedant? Yes, I think I got it. Thanks!
There has been bit of a spat about this at Dr Mann’s facebook page with Paul Hudson weighing in and giving back better than he had to take.
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/604799366242936
Look at the comment from Bru Pearce and subsequent replies.
Ulric lyons says:
October 29, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Rubbish my solar forecasting shows mild winters ahead”
THIS COMMENT WAS NOT MADE BY ME.
[Confirmed – comment deleted since it is by a person under an assumed name out of Dublin. – Anthony]
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 3:12 am
The D-O cycles, the Heinrich events, and the majority of the warming in the last 50 years were all caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. If that assertion is correct as then there will significant cooling of high latitude regions both poles and an increase in La Niña events.
But since it is not correct, you cannot assert what you do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399437a0.html
A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years
Has been debunked, e.g. by http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf or by Arge, C. N. et al. two cycles of non-increasing magnetic flux, J. Geophys. Res., 107(A10), 2001.
Regarding Central England Temperatures (CET`s):
I used CET`s in dC from this source:
MONTHLY MEAN CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE (DEGREES C)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
1659-1973 MANLEY (Q.J.R.METEOROL.SOC., 1974)
1974ON PARKER ET AL. (INT.J.CLIM., 1992)
PARKER AND HORTON (INT.J.CLIM., 2005)
CET`s with Yearly Averages Less Than 8.00dC were 1675, 1684, 1688, 1692, 1694, 1695, 1698, 1740, 1784, 1799, 1814, 1816, 1860, 1879.
The coldest year was 1740, averaging 6.84C, the only year below 7.00C. The coldest month was January 1795 averaging -3.1C.
Perhaps significantly, the year 1814 (pre-Tambora eruption) averaged 7.75C, slightly COLDER than 1816 at 7.87C, the year AFTER Tambora.
CET`s with Yearly Averages Greater Than or Equal To 10.40C were 1733, 1779, 1834, 1921, 1949, 1959, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002-2007, 2011.
CET`s with Yearly Averages Greater Than or Equal To 10.50C were 1949, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011.
The warmest year was 2006 averaging 10.82C. The warmest month was July 2006 averaging 19.7C.
I do not know if the CET data has been adequately adjusted for UHI effect.
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum, but it appears that CET`s were only slightly colder during the Maunder versus the Dalton.
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum
Based on what?
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 30, 2013 at 8:16 am
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum
Based on what?
William:
The solar large scale magnetic field has dropped 50% which by the way supports Lockwood’s assertion that it rose 50% from 1900 to 1985. The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. The paper you are co-author extrapolates what is happening to the sun predicts a maximum smooth sunspot count of 20 for cycle 25 which is the same as a Dalton minimum.
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”
Coinciding with the most rapid drop in solar magnetic cycle activity in 10,000 years is record sea ice in the Antarctic, a rapid recovery of sea ice in the Arctic, and an increase in La Niña events.
The increase in La Niña events is caused by a reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropics which reduces the clouds’ ability to block long wave radiation. The reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropical regions is caused a reduction in solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn removes cloud forming ions.
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:19 am
The paper you are co-author extrapolates what is happening to the sun predicts a maximum smooth sunspot count of 20 for cycle 25 which is the same as a Dalton minimum.
It could be the first cycle of Maunder Minimum to come. And BTW during the Dalton, the SSN maxs were ~50, not 25.
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
There was no Grand Modern Maximum as you well know [having been told that several times]
The reduction in cloud droplet size in the tropical regions is caused [by] a reduction in solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn removes cloud forming ions.
There are no clouds in the ionosphere. Your statement borders on nonsense.
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:19 am
The solar large scale magnetic field has dropped 50% which by the way supports Lockwood’s assertion that it rose 50% from 1900 to 1985.
You are misrepresenting Lockwood. He claimed in the Nature paper you linked to that the field rose 130% [by a factor of 2.3]. As we show [Figure 10 and 11 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf ] the field fell from the mid 1800s to a low around 1900, then rose to the same value as in the 1870s before falling again to now being comparable to the field a century ago. Nothing mysterious or unusual, just the normal ebb and flow of what the sun is doing.
Allan MacRae says: October 30, 2013 at 7:53 am
Solar Cycle 24 looks more like a Dalton Minimum than a Maunder Minimum
lsvalgaard says: October 30, 2013 at 8:16 am
Based on what?
************
SSNmax circa 50 for Dalton (2 Solar Cycles) and circa 65? for SC24.
But SSN’s for the Maunder appear similar to the Dalton and SC24 – also 2 SC’s circa 60.
So I stand corrected, I think.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 10:26 am
So I stand corrected, I think.
The point is that at the ‘entrance’ to the Maunder Minimum we also had similar low cycles so it is too early to tell.
Leif, your prediction of SSNmax for SC24 in ~2005 was quite good, about 70 as I recall.
In December 2006, NASA predicted SC24 would be an active one at ~160. A bit high.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
NASA in 2006 predicted SC25 to be very low. I have not found an update. From their graph, it looks like SSNmax of about 60.
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries..
May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”
Have you made any prediction for SC25?
Allan MacRae says:
October 30, 2013 at 11:38 am
Have you made any prediction for SC25?
A highly speculative one is here: http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
Come 2016 we should see the new polar field build and from then on I think we can predict with some confidence, not before.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
October 30, 2013 at 10:17 am
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 9:19 am
The solar large scale magnetic field has dropped 50% which by the way supports Lockwood’s assertion that it rose 50% from 1900 to 1985.
You are misrepresenting Lockwood. He claimed in the Nature paper you linked to that the field rose 130% [by a factor of 2.3]
William:
I did not misread Lockwood. There are two solar components that affect aa, the poloidal and toroidal fields. The poloidal field has dropped by 50%. The toroidal field (open flux) creates coronal holes and CME both of which create the solar wind bursts which removes cloud forming ions and also disturbs the geomagnetic field.
It appears the toroidal field is in the process of dropping, if it is, aa will continue to drop reaching a level that is a factor 2.3 lower than its peak retracing the rise.
The following paper assumes their two year observation of the sun represents normal typical solar activity. There are ignoring the fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly which is anomalous, indicating the sun is in a very unusual state. i.e. There needs to a physical explanation of why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.8422
Detection of Equatorward Meridional Flow and Evidence of Double-Cell
Meridional Circulation inside the Sun
It is necessary to explain why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Thinking in terms of the tachocline model where it is assumed the magnetic flux tubes are created at the tachocline, that model for the normal solar state uses the residual sunspots to move down to the tachocline to form the next cycle of sunspots. Now if the above paper is correct and the magnetic flux tubes are formed at the tachocline, then the residual sunspot magnetic flux is no longer travelling done to the tachocline.
As I have stated before it appears we are going to observe how a once in around 6000 to 10,000 year special solar magnetic cycle change causes a Heinrich event.
William Astley says:
October 30, 2013 at 11:57 am
I did not misread Lockwood. There are two solar components that affect aa, the poloidal and toroidal fields. The poloidal field has dropped by 50%. The toroidal field (open flux) creates coronal holes and CME both of which create the solar wind bursts which removes cloud forming ions and also disturbs the geomagnetic field.
Lockwood is talking about the Open Flux. You are confusing toroidal and poloidal.
It appears the toroidal field is in the process of dropping, if it is, aa will continue to drop reaching a level that is a factor 2.3 lower than its peak retracing the rise.
The open flux is already down to where it was in 1901.
Now if the above paper is correct and the magnetic flux tubes are formed at the tachocline, then the residual sunspot magnetic flux is no longer travelling done to the tachocline.
You are totally confused. The simplest explanation that fits the observations is that the flux tubes are not formed at the tachocline.
As I have stated before it appears we are going to observe how a once in around 6000 to 10,000 year special solar magnetic cycle change causes a Heinrich event.
It appears that there is no evidence for that. Especially since those events are not caused by the Sun in the first place.
Allan MacRae says: October 30, 2013 at 11:38 am
Have you made any prediction for SC25?
lsvalgaard says: October 30, 2013 at 11:43 am
A highly speculative one is here: http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
Come 2016 we should see the new polar field build and from then on I think we can predict with some confidence, not before.
DECREASING SUNSPOT MAGNETIC FIELDS EXPLAIN UNIQUE 10.7 cm RADIO FLUX
By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted
peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation
fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small
SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24
predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while
there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should
extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation
fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would
suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the
solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would
be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores. Such behavior
would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum
has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum. During
that period from roughly 1645 to 1715, few sunspots were
observed, although cosmic-ray studies suggest the Sun did have
a functioning magnetic activity cycle (Usoskin et al. 2001);
this is consistent with the scenario provided by our fit extrapolation.
A recent study of sunspot records suggests that the
Maunder Minimum began with two small sunspot cycles with
roughly the same amplitude as predicted by our extrapolation for
Cycle 25 (Vaquero et al. 2011). Finally, it is interesting to note
that there seems to be a strange lack of the normal precursors for
Cycle 25 as observed with helioseismic and coronal emission
line indicators (Hill et al. 2011; Altrock 2011).
************
Thank you Leif. You suggest, at a highly speculative level, that SC25 looks very weak.
You and NASA are apparently in approximate agreement, although it is still very early in the game.
This suggests that I should consider moving south – ‘way south.
Best regards, Allan
lsvalgaard says:
October 28, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Our colleague Tamitha Skov has been producing excellent space weather and forecasting videos on her own time. The latest involves the recent solar activity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrtIBja-Qs5
—-
That’s pretty cool stuff there Dr. S.
The linked video, describes four shocks, that were Earth directed at the time. How bout that. She uses some cool solar imaging that I have not seen before.
More about that stuff that doesn’t penetrate the supersonic solar wind. Or not..
Though this does not describe our star exactly, once again we have many similarities. In this model no external disk formed..but we do have a stronger quadrupole region for or example..
Full 3-D MHD calculations of accretion flow Structure in
magnetic cataclysmic variable stars with strong and
complex magnetic fields
Zhilkin A.G.1;2, Bisikalo D.V.1, Mason P.A.3;4
15 Oct. 2012
Abstract
.. Our models have an aligned dipole plus quadrupole magnetic field centered on the white dwarf primary. We find that for a sufficiently strong quadrupole component an accretion spot
occurs near the magnetic equator for slightly less than half of our
simulations while a polar accretion zone is active for most of the rest of the simulations.
For two configurations, accretion at the dominant polar region and at an equatorial zone
occurs simultaneously. Most polar studies assume that the magnetic field structure is dipolar, especially for single pole accretors. We demonstrate that for orbital
parameters and magnetic field strengths typical of polars, accretion flow patterns
are widely variable in the presence of a complex magnetic field.
We suggest that it might be difficult to observationally determine if the field is a pure dipole or if it is complex for many polars, but there will be indications
for some systems. Specifically, a complex magnetic field should be considered
if the there is an accretion zone near the white dwarf’s spin equator (assumed
to be in the orbital plane) or if there are two or more accretion regions that cannot be fit by a dipole magnetic field. For asynchronous polars, magnetic field constraints are expected to be substantially stronger, with clearer indicators of complex field geometry due to changes in accretion
flow structure as a function of azimuthal angle….
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.3999v1.pdf
I saw one of the first posters say, “I can already hear the Leif blower spinning up.”
I started laughing to myself when I saw that because I knew I wouldn’t get through this page without seeing “the Leif Blower” as it’s so accurately nicknamed, make an utter fool of himself and every looptard who tried to back science into a bottle and put in the stopper with this Magic Gas thing.
Here’s one I love from the Leif Blower: “A warm rock illuminated by a gigantic light, simply decides to cool and warm, utterly independently of known boundary constraints of proportionate physics; and screw that giant heat source.
“This is the era of Magic Gais, boys, who needs reality based thinkin! There’s GRANT MONEY, and the supply is only limited by the lies you’ll tell! It’s your lifestyle or your legacy, yew decide!”
====
I’ve grown so disgusted by bloviating hicks who tried to tell us all a giant light was on in the sky, and the sun isn’t the controlling factor of the temperature of the earth –
one thing occurred to me recently about ALL these LIARS:
They all make great claim that they’re the messenger of some light.
But wherever you look when you check the stories they told you, there’s only darkness.
They swore to you.
They censored your writings,
They made great pretense of potential “illegality” of expression of opinion,
The entire cadre of wackos associated with this world, cultural fiasco of crime fraud and pure evil,
assigned themselves gate keepers for you as to whether you have permission to know how a light works.
Well we all see, clearly, in the light of unfolding reality:
Nearly every last one of these “messengers of light” frauds has been proven utterly, utterly off in loon-tuneville from the
very
first
assertion.
People trying to claim a frigid gas bath warms, a warm rock immersed in it.
People trying to claim a nitrogen/oxygen frigid fluid bath with a one percent shot of phase change refrigerant – water – was the source of a mysterious light, nobody could understand but hicks whose work you wouldn’t sign your name to drunk.
A mysterious light was being given off by a class of gas, and we all had to shut up and “give the experts the respect they deserve.”
They deserve to be tarred and feathered, every one who ever claimed he actually believed in the giant magic gas light in the sky.
This fraud has cost humanity untold billions and just plain dignity, and anybody who’ll tell you they think there’s a giant magic infrared light on in the sky only believers can grasp, deserves to have his face spit into and mocked personally to his face.
The same goes for these wackos claiming the laws of physics got magically plundered for grant money’s sake, and the sun’s now, not even capable of holding up it’s end of simple, classical thermal/thermodynamic facts.
I guess we all see who the real “messengers of light” turned out to be
versus who the “messengers of darkness” turned out to be.
It’s just been a massive plunder of humanity’s trust in others. It’s been a massive plunder by people who have insulted the entire human race
claiming “we understand the magic light in the gas. You don’t.”
While billions of dollars have been bilked from us all and freedoms from freedom of speech to simply using fire,
have come under the thrall of evil, manipulative, Academics and media trash whose sole claim to importance is that they’re important because they’re important.
It’s been evil like nobody’s business and the creepy crawlies that infest the entire thing are only offset by a VERY FEW who told everybody from the beginning:
There’s no magic light
in the magic gas.
It’s a lie from messengers of darkness who swear to you, they are messengers of a light.
Well we checked.
The Magic Gas Light Liars Club
has had it’s face rubbed in it’s lying stupidity,
and sheer evil
not for the last time by a long, long shot,
There was supposed to be a period at the end of
“not for the last time by a long, long shot.”
Steven R. Vada says: October 31, 2013 at 8:18 am & 8:33 am
Sorry you missed your period Steve. 🙂
WTF are you trying to say?
Professor Mike Lockwood seeks to correct those who, like Paul Hudson, misrepresent his work: “Unfortunately, I now find myself in the position of being cited as predicting that the current rapid decline in solar activity will plunge the world into a “Little Ice Age”. This is very disappointing as it is not at all supported by the science.”
Read his article at http://www.carbonbrief.org/5162.aspx
I’ll see your “We’re all to vapid to know” and raise you
“Let’s see you find somebody who can do this.”
The twenty minute mark where he says …..this….black….line..
iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
Magic Gas believers have the credibility of carnival barkers.