Guest post by Alec Rawls
Nice hype by Matt Drudge, whose three linked quotes are all from the BBC’s one brief paragraph of text, but the accompanying video (full transcription below) is more substantial, with scientists talking about the likelihood of an extended Maunder Minimum type period low solar activity and the cold temperatures that coincided with the Maunder Minimum during the 1600’s.
Professor Richard Harrison from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is clear about the correlation [at 1:57]:
The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere. It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.
BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle doesn’t shy away from the possible implications today:
So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?
Best of all is Dr. Lucie Green from University College in London, who describes the unsettled state of the science [at 3:35]:
It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth’s atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.
Green then wraps up the segment by declining to suggest that anthropogenic warming can be expected to outweigh solar cooling:
… on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.
The weak link is solar physicist Mike Lockwood who makes irrational and unsupported claims about solar activity only affecting regional climate and not having a global effect.
The BBC voice-over sets up Lockwood’s unsupported speculation:
BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?
Lockwood [at 5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change, so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.
As Stephen Wilde has been pointing out for years, the wider meanders in the polar jet that seem to be associated with low solar activity can be expected to cause a net increase in cloudiness which would increase the earth’s albedo, having a global cooling effect. The jet stream follows the boundry where cold polar air slides beneath and pushes up warmer temperate air, creating storm tracks. Not only do wider meanders create longer storm tracks but the resulting cloud cover occurs at lower latitudes, where the incidence of incoming solar radiation is steeper, making the albedo reflection stronger.
Snow cover albedo effects would likely also be global, not just regional. A warmer Greenland has almost zero marginal albedo effect: it’s 98% white anyway. But a snow covered Europe and North America will reflect away a lot of sunlight. Also, the important thing over large parts of Asia and North America will not be temperature—it’s always going to be cold enough to snow during the Siberian winter—but the extent of the storm tracks, so that cloud and snow albedos both increase with the amplitude of the jet stream meanders, as seems to have been the pattern with the current solar lull. Here is a graphic showing the 21st century’s high average snow anomalies (from Rutgers, via Brett Anderson at Accuweather):
Lockwood is up against the paleologic evidence as well. He is suggesting that, while the Little Ice Age may have been induced by low solar activity, it was a northern-hemisphere-only event, but recent studies indicate that it was a global climate swing, as was the Medieval Warm Period.
Overall though, a very good report from the BBC. Have the recent revelations about top level BBC collusion with green propagandists reduced the power of the warming alarmists to censor other views? In any case, it is good to see them do some real reporting.
Full transcript (not provided by the BBC – is this unusual? – so I transcribed it myself)
BBC voice-over: The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with our star. The aurora borealis happens when the solar wind hits the earth’s upper atmosphere, but many of these displays may soon vanish. Something is happening to the solar activity on the surface of the sun: it’s declining, fast.
Professor Richard Harrison, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [0:28]: Whatever measure you use, it’s coming down, the solar peaks are coming down, for example with the flares. It looks very very significant.
Dr. Lucie Green, University College London [0:36]: The solar cycles now are getting smaller and smaller. The activity is getting less and less.
BBC: There is a vast range of solar activity: sunspots, intensely magnetic areas seen here as dark regions on the sun’s surface; solar winds and uv light radiate toward the earth; flares erupt violently and coronal mass ejections throw billions of tons of charged particles into space. Solar activity rises and falls in 11-year cycles and right now we are at the peak, the solar maximum, but this cycle’s maximum is eerily quiet.
Harrison [1:18]: I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. If you want to go back to see when the sun was this inactive, in terms of the minimum we’ve just had and the peak we have now you’ve got to go back about a hundred years, so this is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, it’s not something that a couple of generations before me have seen.
BBC: The number of sunspots is a fraction of what scientists expected, solar flares are half. Richard Harrison is the head of space physics at the Rutheford-Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. He says the rate at which solar activity is falling mirrors a period in the 17th century where sunspots virtually disappeared.
Harrison [1:57]: The Maunder Minimum of course was a period of almost no sunspots at all for decades and we saw a really dramatic period where there were very cold winters in the northern hemisphere [not only the northern hemisphere – A.R.] . It was a period where you had a kind of mini ice-age. You had a period where the Thames froze in winters and so on. It was an interesting time.
BBC: Rivers and canals froze across Northern Europe. Paintings from the 17th century show frost-fairs taking place on the Thames. During the “great frost” of 1684 the river froze over for two months, the ice was almost a foot thick. The Maunder Minimum was named after the astronomer who observed the steep decline in solar activity that coincided with this mini ice-age.
BBC science correspondent Rebecca Morelle [2:46]: The Maunder Minimum came at a time when snow cover was longer and more frequent. It wasn’t just the Thames that froze over. The Baltic Sea did too. Crop failures and famines were widespread across Northern Europe. So does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?
Dr. Lucie Green [3:04]: We’ve been making observations of sun spots which are the most obvious sign of solar activity from 1609 onwards and we’ve got 400 years of observations. The sun does seem to be in a very similar phase as it was in the run-up to the Maunder Minimum, so by that I mean the activity is dropping off cycle by cycle.
BBC voice-over: Lucie Green is based at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in the North Downs. She thinks that lower levels of solar activity could affect the climate, but she’s not sure to what extent.
Green [3:35]: It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth-atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.
BBC voiceover: Some researchers have gone way further back in time, looked into the ice sheets of particles that were once in the upper atmosphere, particles that show variations in solar activity. Mike Lockwood’s work suggests that this is the fastest rate of solar decline for 10,000 years.
Professor Mike Lockwood, University of Reading [4:20]: If we look at the ice core record we can say, “okay so when we’ve been in this kind of situation before, what’s the sun gone on to do,” and based on that, and the rate of the current decline, we can estimate that within about 40 years from now there’s about a ten or twenty, probably nearer a 20% probabilility that we will actually be back in Maunder Minimum conditions by that time.
BBC: Less solar activity means a drop in ultraviolet radiation. Mike Lockwood says this seems to affect the behavior of the jet stream. The Jet stream changes its pattern. This ends up blocking warm air from reaching Northern Europe. This causes long cold winters, but what about global temperatures as a whole?
Lockwood [5:03]: One has to make a very clear distinction between regional climate and global climate. If we get a cold winter in Europe because of these blocking events it’s warmer, for example, in Greenland, so the average is almost no change [a completely unsupported conjecture that is at odds with reason and evidence A.R.], so it is a redistribution of temperature around the North Atlantic.
Morelle: The relationship between solar activity and weather on earth is complicated but if solar activity continues to fall could the temperature on earth as a whole get cooler? Could there be implications for global warming?
Dr. Lucie Green [5:38]: The world we live in today is very different to the world that was inhabited during the Maunder Minimum. So we have human activity, we have the industrial revolution, all kinds of gases being pumped into the atmosphere, so on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.
BBC: So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum the future for Northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come, and we won’t even have bountiful displays of the northern lights to cheer us up.
They look at CO2 and assume the climate is controlled through it via vaguely described feedbacks, yet they are baffled how the sun has any effect whatsoever?
Thanks, Alec and Anthony.
The sun is doing it somehow and I think I have the most likely diagnosis so far.
Sorry this is off topic, but Goddard has a huge find regarding data tampering at NOAA / GISS:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/#comment-310458
Take a look and see what you think. If he is correct, it should get a lot of attention.
Could some of the effect be due to changes in charged particles impinging on the atmosphere? Is there any long term data on auroras that might show a correlation with climate change?
About time.
Britain lost 30,000 elderly to the cold last year’s winter.
I think it is time to buy some wood burning stoves before the EPA bans them.
Time to stack the wood high and long.
Paul
Barry W, there is a study of Nile River levels, from a time of reliable measurement and documentation, that correlates with Northern Hemisphere aurorae.
=====================
it’s the sun, stupid!
Ah, but the AGW is only on hold, and is building up in places where we have no ability to measure it, and after the freeze it will spring out all at once, temperatures will rocket,and the oceans will boil.
Or something.
Just ask James Hansen if you don’t believe me!
Great Post Anthony and Alec, and thanks Stephen Wilde.
It’s great to to see the extent of the Sun’s role being admitted finally.
Way ahead of you Paul! We’ve been heating our little farmhouse with wood for the last 10 years – no source of heat besides a single wood-burning stove. Cold in winter? We can typically have -25C at night, -10C during the day for weeks on end, and we’re so warm we have the windows open. Oh – we’re out on the Great Hungarian Plain BTW. Currently have 14 tonnes of best oak chopped and stacked. Seriously excellent investment, though does require some physical labour and you have to look after your fire. Lots of people we know have switched from gas to wood, though for purely economic reasons.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:15 am
Thanks, Alec and Anthony.
The sun is doing it somehow and I think I have the most likely diagnosis so far.
________________________________
If only some study had proven the link between Sun and climate… some have gotten close, but lose correlation at some point. There is too much we have yet to understand about Solar/planetary climate interaction. I disagree with much of what Professor Lockwood said, but he was correct that any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.
Latest version of my proposition:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“The sun causes latitudinal climate zone shifting with changes in the degree of jetstream zonality / meridionality by altering the ozone creation / destruction balance differentially at different heights above the tropopause. The net result is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator (relatively high) and poles (relatively low).
The cause appears not to be raw solar power output (TSI) which varies too little but instead, the precise mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun which vary more greatly and affect ozone amounts above the tropopause.
That allows latitudinal sliding of the jets and climate zones below the tropopause leading to changes in global cloudiness and albedo with alters the amount of energy getting into the oceans.
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
Some where I read that the chinese had been monitoring sun spot activity for over a thousand yeas and noted the effect on harvest yields.
If we do enter a LIA then this will test the idea whether LIA was regional or global. Furthermore, it would put to rest SkS’ idea that co2 is now the main climate driver. In fact that has been to to bed by 16 years of no surface warming.
No more excuses from the warmists.
Be cautious when the warmists start to accept the sun as a prime cause of climate change. Because they are going to use it and “natural variability” as just another way to excuse the fact that the earth is not warming, and that their climate models have failed miserably.
Don’t let the warmists keep piling the excuses on for why their models have failed. No. The models, along with the discredited hockey stick and the lack of a demonstrated causal correlation between CO2 & temperature, served as the foundations of their theory. Those things, the very foundations of theory, are now gone, but the rotten edifice of the theory still stands. Tell them that the failure of their models calls for not excuses, but for re-examining the very heart of what they posit, i.e. the 120 year old “established physics” on CO2. Yes, because the observed evidence doesn’t support their contentions about what CO2 should have done. It’s that simple. They have to go back to the drawing board.
Short of praying to the Sun there is no mechanism for power and control built into its role.. So they draw a complete blank.. Like trying to explain to a fish what fresh air tastes like..Its outside their realm of understanding..
The problem is our Universities have used government funding to sell green politically correct politics on campus.. A green light from the word go.. Not to much pop but lots of show..
We should feel sorry for our rich little darlings.. Fiction and non fiction in the science corner of the library has them demanding a new script almost weekly.. Like spoiled actors they wont come out of their trailer unless their demands are met..
I cant work under these conditions!!! >Truth<
HAL-9000 says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost ].
Question to all who know, if I may:
Several years ago (2008? 2010?) the Thermosphere collapsed. As I recall it was ‘an order of magnitude’ greater than anything they had seen before.
If I understand correctly, the Thermosphere absorbs ultraviolet light. The collapse suggests a change in the sun’s ultraviolet output. With all the other things the sun has been doing since 2006 (when I first discovered your site, the sun’s geomagnetic activity was one of the very first posts I read), I have to wonder if that plays a role in what they discussed on the BEEB?
Just waiting to see who is the first to pop up and ‘prove ‘ low solar activity is down to the all powerful and magic CO2 and therefore humans fault.
BIG YELLOW THING IN SKY !!! called the sun ???
BIG BLUE WATER THINGS OFF THE COAST !!! called the oceans ???
BIG WHITE THINGS UP IN THE AIR !!! called clouds ???
= CHANGES IN CLIMATE…. up down, up down, up down ….. warm, cold, warm, cold………!!!
Has been and will be ……. and no I am not in the pay of big oil.
Academic freedom had Nazi scientists digging up Aryan chicken bones so their invasion could be passed off as a home coming.. Science serving a political ideal, be it green or otherwise is no longer science..
Its propaganda in a lab coat..
Careful here, this is just a BBC safety valve to releive a little pressure on their behaviour, make them look impartial, normal service will resume shortly.
Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov has been on about another looming Little Ice Age for some time now. Only time will tell so let’s wait and see.
As has already been suggested, this is the BBC exit strategy.
“We were perfectly right about Global Warming, but now the Sun has spoiled our show. We never hyped a story, we never fudged the data, we never spread disinformation and propaganda – it was all true, until the Sun stopped it all……..”
There will be a new BBC 28-gate conference next month, entitled ‘AGW – an Arachne Exit.’
Ralph
The warmists may say that “the lack of warming is caused by a lull in the sun.”
The problem with accepting that as an excuse for why their models and predictions have totally failed is that it leaves open the corollary: that the established physics on CO2 is still at work, and as soon as nature gives them a break, the temperatures are going to skyrocket. So the doomsayers will still be able to contend that we should cut CO2 to the bone, even if temperatures are sharply in decline!
Yeah, it should be self-evident that the sun plays a major role here. But it’s also obvious that their models have failed beyond belief, that CO2 has NOT produced the results they said it would. Now the warmists can give all kind of complex epicycle type excuses for their failure, but the simplest explanation is that CO2 simply doesn’t do what they say it does.
“BBC: So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum the future for Northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come, and we won’t even have bountiful displays of the northern lights to cheer us up.”
So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm…..
BBC still shows all the signs of a drug addict in rehab program.
Let’s see how this develops.
Now with the recent Antarctic “Ship of Fools” scandal, a rising number of people who no longer believe AG is real and now the claim from the UN Climate Chief that Communism is best for fighting global warming, some people must start to realize from which direction the wind is blowing: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/un_climate_chief_communism_best_for_fighting_global_warming.html
“A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.”
Well, it isn’t really “detonating” — that would be a self perpetuating shock wave through a medium with a pressure initiated exothermic reaction.
There will be no available exits. They made it clear that co2 is now in the driving seat / the control knob and no back seat drivers allowed. This is how to paint yourself into a corner, you forgot to leave some rat holes open just in case.
Anyone got a link to the BBC show?
Afraid I am with the cynics here,BBC is doing some CYA, having gone all in on the magic gas they will now start pointing in every direction at all natural drivers of our climate, with the standard methods of a bureaucracy.
F.U.D.
Original claim, that atmospheric CO2 could increase to a point where this “greenhouse” effect overpowers nature.
Eric Simpson and Richard Bell, nail this consensus ineptitude.
Now as CAGW and the complicit media’s credibility spiral into the drain, desperation is setting in.
The tried and true methods of past liars, counting on collective amnesia from the public and selective amnesia by the Press, should fail in this internet age.
We are about to see.
Next stage selection of scapegoats.
Sorry people, I think we have to be very careful of taking this at face value. Bear in mind that the Little Ice Age was already cold, and the Dalton and Maunder minimums were just the icing on the cake, so to speak. If what happened then recurs now, then we will descend down to the temperatures we saw in the ’70s at best. That’s more than a “pause”, but hardly alarming.
If this gains traction, it gives the alarmists and the media an out for all their pronouncements on global warming.
They can legitimately say (in their minds at least), that they couldn’t possibly have predicted this.
They can hype this up as having the potential to bring us into another little ice age, and when it doesn’t (and it won’t), then say that global warming must be “worse than we thought”.
They can further say that once the sun gets active again, and it will, global warming will return with a vengeance, so we need to keep the pressure on on CO2.
It also allows them to say that if it had not been for this unprecedented event, then their models would have been validated. You and I know that they will be blowing smoke, but the public at large won’t.
This could end up being the worst of all worlds for people on the skeptic side of the argument. We can be painted as having been right (temporarily), but for the wrong reason. Ergo, we should continue to be ignored.
Let’s keep our eye on the pea under this particular thimble.
Silver ralph says: January 19, 2014 at 9:07 am
Could be. Quote from Dr. Lucie Green
Uhhg
….and note the emotive word ‘pumped’
You quote Dr. Lucie Green as follows:
“It is a very very complex area because the sun’s activity controls how much visible light the sun gives out, but also how much ultraviolet light and x-rays that the sun emits and they create a web of changes up in the earth’s atmosphere producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.”
Not to take anything away from Dr. Green but I often see the phrase “…that we don’t fully understand…” used by members of the climate science community to give the impression that a greater level of understanding exists than is warranted.
Policycritic says: January 19, 2014 at 9:26 am
The link is carefully hidden in the article. This was part of a Newsnight broadcast. You can watch the relevant excerpt here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
I think the BBC are too thick skinned to notice complaints about bias. For them anything that disagrees with their world view is wrong and therefore by their own definitions of balanced reporting biased.
What might have changed is the perception that the science is settled. The whole business of heat hiding in the deep oceans, the17year hiatus and spell of cold winters must have given even the most bigoted BBC executive pause for thought. (Maybe thought is too optimistic a word, lets just say their brains registered that their views are becoming dangerous to their long term careers).
“Green then wraps up the segment by declining to suggest that anthropogenic warming can be expected [to?] outweigh solar cooling: … on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.”
No, on the other hand, we also have historically during periods of low solar activity volcanic eruptions. The effects of large volcanic eruptions of ash can have further cooling affects on temps, and this is a huge vulnerability to agriculture. So not only is this a time to strengthen the energy sector with coal, it is a time to increase agricultural out put because of potential threats to the length of the growing season because of cool temps and volcanic activity. These have amplified eachother before.
Instead, what do we have? the precise opposite response!
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
HAL-9000 says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
“The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost ].”
The really intriguing issue in this post is the potential trail of TSI, to weather then on to climate. It would appear that the reduction in TSI, alone, is inadequate to explain, as you have said many times, such events as the LIA, but perhaps the small reduction in TSI leads to changes in weather that ultimately lead to longer term changes in climate. And since even these events are the result of relatively small changes in global temperature, such changes also still do not obviate Wilis’s theories regarding the “self regulation” of the earth’s climate. It is a matter of degree, no pun intended though there is one there I suppose, even unto a glaciation.
Comments?
Jimbo says at 9:25 am
“While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.”
———– ————- —————- ————–
Problem for us is that the doomers don’t need an escape hole. They just revise, and the MSM goes along with it. So when it seems to their advantage to say that natural variability is temporarily eclipsing CO2, they’ll say that. They are warming up to the idea of saying just that. So they said something different in the past. Previously they also said that “snow will be a thing of past.” But for most people that doesn’t seem to matter. The “established physics” on CO2 is what’s important. Eventually evil humanity is going to have to pay the piper.
All I’m saying is that we should start turning all our guns on rebutting the so called “established physics” of CO2.
And a major boon for us would be to get the public at large to see this very short but effective 3 1/2 minute video, which shows Al Gore knowingly repeating deceptions on CO2 in 2005 even well after the IPCC had conceded in 2003 that there is no evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 and temperature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
correction: “The effects of large volcanic eruptions of ash have led to further cooling, and this is a huge vulnerability to agriculture.”
And yet this is the response of the so-called scientists:
Paradigm Shift Urgently Needed In Agriculture
UN Agencies Call for an End to Industrial Agriculture & Food System
A rising chorus from UN agencies on how food security, poverty, gender inequality and climate change can all be addressed by a radical transformation of our agriculture and food system
Dr Mae-Wan Ho
So the response has not only been to profoundly mischaracterise the science of earth’s weather systems, but to also call for solutions which would repeat history’s most deadly episodes of mass murder, China’s Great Leap and Soviet destruction of agriculture. These are not scientists, they are Maoists.
Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:35 am
You are too pessimistic.
You are right that the current length of solar activity decline would only take us back to the 70s but what if it continues across the next several solar cycles ?
If the AGW proponents try to take advantage of a near future uptick in solar activity to salvage their ‘theory’ one can still point out that the sun caused the warming they were concerned about in the first place and the renewed more active sun would be again causing any observed warming rather than CO2.
The evidence for the level of solar activity being in control; is becoming overwhelming now that we have all observed the real world effects on global air circulation of declining solar activity that commenced around 2000 AD.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=1
How could they separate the AGW effect from the solar effect ?
AGW theory is dead.
An early return to high solar activity does not help them and a prolonged period of low solar activity crucifies them.
The fact is that the global air circulation pattern and the size, position and intensities of the permanent climate zones are a negative system response to any destabilising process that the universe (or humans) can throw at the climate system.
Compared to the climate effects of variability in sun and oceans our puny efforts count for nothing.
Human emissions do affect the global air circulation but to such a miniscule degree as compared to natural variability that we could never measure it.
Jim G says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:50 am
but perhaps the small reduction in TSI leads to changes in weather that ultimately lead to longer term changes in climate.
If those changes are cyclic we should [NOT] have a long-term [non-cyclic] change in climate, so the issue boils down to whether there is a long-term, non-cyclic ‘background’ in TSI [and all the other things that depend on solar magnetism: UV, solar wind, cosmic ray modulation, etc]. That is, at present, unknown [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf ], but the data seem to favor the view that there is no such background variation.
It always gets me that the GW folks, who have no clue s to why warming ceased, know exactly
why the warming occurred in the first place If you can’t explain the one, you can’t explain the other.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:00 am
If those changes are cyclic we should NOT have a long-term [non-cyclic] change in climate
Sorry for the slip.
BarryW says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:17 am
Could some of the effect be due to changes in charged particles impinging on the atmosphere? Is there any long term data on auroras that might show a correlation with climate change?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is an entire paper by Richard Feynman’s sister.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
The actual paper: Does the Nile reflect solar variability? by Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Yuk Yung
We have the paleodiet and now we have paleologic as well?
A delightful typo. We actually need lots more paleologic and it rolls off the tongue so beautifully!
Good analysis. Of course, Green is probably giving a nod to GCR’s as well.
GC, I thought she was his niece.
===============
That music from Star Trek was a nice touch.
Best line is from Dr. Green: “… producing effects that actually we don’t fully understand.”
HAL-9000 says @ January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am;
Huh. I coulda swore that was just a million-mile wide, brilliantly-incandescent compost pile. 😉
Don’t take any agricultural paradigms from China, esp. during a period of low solar activity.
“A gold and jade statue of Mao Zedong worth more than $16 million was unveiled Friday, in the latest example of Communist China’s indecision over how to commemorate its founding father’s 120th anniversary.
The statue, 80 cm (32 inches) tall but weighing more than 50 kilograms, was put on display in the southern boom town of Shenzhen, China National Radio (CNR) reported.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/16-million-gold-mao-statue-unveiled-in-china-2013-12#ixzz2qrvXRbJu
We are cooling and agriculture will suffer in the event of eruptions. These mass murderers have signed agreements with the DOA and the EU to transform agriculture in the next five years in the US and Europe.
Alan Robertson says: @ January 19, 2014 at 8:42 am
See the paper: Sun / dust correlations and volcanic interference
kim says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:07 am
GC, I thought she was his niece.
Sister
I don’t think Lockwood’s caution is unwarranted here. We don’t have a “slam dunk” that the LIA was global in extent, so it is reasonable to cast it, at this time, in terms of what we do know–which is that a cooler Sun seems to correlate with cooler Northern European temperatures.
What is actually a conjecture is that there is a global correlation, since at the moment, we simply don’t know.
Ah, thanks, Leif.
===========
richard says: @ January 19, 2014 at 8:45 am
Some where I read that the chinese had been monitoring sun spot activity for over a thousand yeas and noted the effect on harvest yields.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This may be it: Changing sun, changing climate – Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs
“As Stephen Wilde has been pointing out for years, the wider meanders in the polar jet that seem to be associated with low solar activity can be expected to cause a net increase in cloudiness which would increase the earth’s albedo, having a global cooling effect.”
Sadly there is no data to support this or even suggest it.
1. how is wilde measuring meanders ?
2. The measurements Ive seen suggest the otherwise.
3. There is no relationship between solar activity and cloudiness
4. There is no relationship between solar activity and cloudiness.
so, other than having no data to support the speculation there is no problem
Hint: Wilde has never posted a dataset in his life nor has he ever posted a description of any method much less code to support it.
Like the other sun nuts, you’d be wise to ignore him less the credibility of WUWT take a hit
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says: @ January 19, 2014 at 8:53 am
…Several years ago (2008? 2010?) the Thermosphere collapsed….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here are the NASA Articles:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
As temperatures stall and fall, we can assume the warmists are going to say that that is due to the sun, or whatever, and not to any deficiencies in their theorizing about CO2.
But beyond CO2, another effective counter to the warmist bs will be to get more of the public to see how the hockey stick was a false fabrication, and that without the hockey stick, there’s just nothing unusual or in any way alarming about the current climate or how we got here. Note the warmists continue to trumpet the hockey stick, and most of the public still believes it. This article, just out, is an EXCELLENT (the best I’ve seen) summary for the layperson on the hockey stick, spread the word:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html
And excerpt:
Two possible transcription errors:
First paragraph:
The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with out/ star.
could/should be
The wonder of the northern lights reminds us of the intimate connection we have with our/ star.
Harrison [1:18] missing “go”?
If you want to back to see when the sun was this inactive
could/shoud be
If you want to go/ back to see when the sun was this inactive
Warren
[Fixed, thanks. – Alec]
Zeke:
You conclude your post at January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am saying
Yes, I have been trying to explain that for years including on WUWT.
And e.g. Gail Combs has been pointing it out from the other end of the political spectrum from me.
The documentation is clear (as you have discovered). The matter is not some secret conspiracy: it is deliberate and openly declared policy.
However, the matter seems to be so outlandish that few believe it unless – like you – they discover some of the documentation for themselves.
Totalitarians are evil and they seem to be working towards their goals again.
Richard
Goddard? Correct
“Take a look and see what you think. If he is correct, it should get a lot of attention.”
it’s not even wrong.
I blew the bolding script.
Uffda
Warren
The sun , climate correlation is very hard to do because we have confounding variables of co2, ozone depletion, and dimming.
Sun activity drop causing cooling may need ozone but then again ozone layer was okay 100 years ago when sun activity was low.
Perhaps then another confounding variable of ocean cycles was in play.
Anyways it hard to say.
If maurander mininimum coincided with global change in climate of the levels seen in europe then solar activity is major driver of climate imho. The reason being is ozone layer was okay then and drop in temps so much that ocean cycles variable could not make such a temp change magnitude.
Ozone layer ties back into work being done by that university of waterloo researcher.
100 years ago solar drop affect might have been offset by ocean cycle.
All in all betting man would bet on sun then if maurander minimum temp drop was global. If not global and temps were up elsewhere to offset europe then I doubt sun activity is factor.
We fully do not know particle effects on clouds. Time will tell ! Next 40 years will be exciting if sun activity keeps dropping and if ozone layer will be okay. If though this hides co2 warming we could be on trouble when sun activity comes back. Which is why I suggest to be prepared and at least spend some time and money on planning geo engineering. Small investment. Think of it as insurance. Don’t do it but have plan ready to go quickly if needed.
There is a better BBC link from Rebecca Morelle:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
NASA has found that the entire atmosphere expands and contracts with the solar cycle. An active sun causes the atmosphere to expand, and thus produces increased drag on orbiting satellites:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0233
“Heating of Earth’s Atmosphere by Coronal Mass Ejections”? Of course, that couldn’t possibly have any effect on climate.
By the way, with low solar activity, potential for volcanic disruption further amplifying cooling, and organic-only transformations of agricultural output, are there any unforseen consequences we can think of?
And if agricultural advances in chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, horrors!), new cultivars, GM, and pesticides are eliminated, while simultaneously destroying the cattle and dairy farms because of the methane ghg regulations, how are you going to fertilize the tired soil?
http://nataliaphule.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/zillyzonkq.jpg
lsvalgaard says:
Thanks for the response and correction as you had me reading and re-reading your response several times. I did go to your link and have a question regarding “Webber et al. (2010) suggest that “more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to nonproduction related increases”. What would be possible definitions/causes of “nonproduction related increases” Have any been postulated? Extrasolar or local or both?
Comment vanished into the ether.
As Eric Simpson and Richard Bell say above, the BBC is attempting some old fashioned F.U.D.
Caught by the 28 Gate revelation’s and loosing public and political support, they will point in every direction, to draw attention away from their activities as CAGW propagandists.
This methodology has worked in the past, we will see if it still works in the internet age.
How does selective amnesia by our MSM compete with the wayback machine?
Ah, so the (EU) regime tries to save the Warmist dogma by postulating erratic local effects. Well, unsupportable; that lie will be retracted as it becomes untenable over the next years. Time for the cronies to squirrel away their ill gotten gains; retreat of the rent seekers.
Zeke:
At January 19, 2014 at 10:29 am you ask
Well, yes, the totalitarian horrors which you espouse in your post at January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am.
I have written in support of your post but my support is stuck in moderation. If my post does appear then I think this will then link to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/#comment-1541339
Richard
In the May 2007 issue of “Sky & Telescope” there arreared a short note by
me, mentioning a work by Scafetta and West, who said that the global warming
wast partly due to solar activity.
Bob Naeye reacted by writing the following to me on 2007 March 30:
> Greetings Jean,
> This is Robert Naeye, formerly of S&T, and now senior science
> writer in the Astrophysics Science
> Division at NASA/GSFC. I just received my copy
> of the May 2007 S&T and saw your letter. I wrote
> the short article about global warming. I should
> note that virtually every climate scientist in the world
> would strongly disagree with your letter. Your letter
> is good news to people who have an immediate
> financial incentive to maintain the status quo (and
> I view these people as having an extremely low
> moral character), who use arguments like yours to
> say that nations like the US should not have to live
> up to their responsibility in reducing greenhouse
> emissions. There is too much at stake (i.e. the
> future of humanity) to go against the consensus of
> the scientific community, as expressed recently
> in the UN report on climate change. I just spoke
> to a Goddard colleague who is well-versed in
> climate research, and he says that anyone who
> thinks the Sun is responsible for as much of the
> warming as claimed in the Scafetta/West paper
> is “delusional.”
> Best regards,
> Robert Naeye
So, according to Naeye, the warming is not due to the increased solar activity,
even not partially. It is for 100% due to the increase of CO2, and the non-believers
have immediate financial interest and have extremely low moral character.
Carrick says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:12 am
“I don’t think Lockwood’s caution is unwarranted here. We don’t have a “slam dunk” that the LIA was global in extent, so it is reasonable to cast it, at this time, in terms of what we do know–which is that a cooler Sun seems to correlate with cooler Northern European temperatures.”
What you are conjecturing is that a cooling Europe due to an inactive sun – which is plausible if there is e g an electromagnetic field strength link – is compensated for by local warming elsewhere, resulting in a constant average. There is no evidence that that ever happened and therefore it must be rejected as unsupported conjecture until evidence is presented.
gymnosperm says: @ January 19, 2014 at 10:05 am
…. We actually need lots more paleologic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We sure do!
Tossing virgins in volcanoes, or my preferred method: Celts ritually sacrificed their kings to the Gods.
With no hockey stick, the evidence is that the sun has in fact play a huge role in the climate of the previous centuries. Interesting thing about the hockey stick is that the warmists didn’t “need” it to make their case. They just wanted to make a more compelling case, as apparently no one was listening until they had the hockey stick as the centerpiece of their scare mongering. Indeed, the first ipcc chairman, Sir Sir John Houghton said ““Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” And, as Stephen Schneider said back in 1989: ““We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” The hockey stick in itself was the very picture of a disaster unfolding before our eyes, and sure enough, fabricating the bogus hockey stock was totally consistent with Schneider’s call to offer up scary scenarios, and to not be honest about it.
Now we need to thoroughly rebut the three false foundations of the warmist theory: 1) their obviously failed models, 2) the theoretical model and [lack of] evidence of CO2 as a significant cause of climate change, and 3) the hockey stick.
DirkH says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:45 am “What you are conjecturing is that a cooling Europe due to an inactive sun – which is plausible if there is e g an electromagnetic field strength link – is compensated for by local warming elsewhere, resulting in a constant average. There is no evidence that that ever happened and therefore it must be rejected as unsupported conjecture until evidence is presented.”
Global temperature always has been a statistical heaven for them.
BBC article carried on Google News:
Is our Sun falling silent?
The author hits all the juicy talking-points, with titillating quotes from leading Uni figures.
But she makes the same mistake that is virtually de rigueur in these articles.
That’s a fundamental mistake, because we are quite sure that fluctuations of output that accompany inactivity are too small to account for the cooler conditions (etc) that correlate with it.
That this is indeed the particular mistake that is being made, is underscored by the reference to a balancing-out of the putative anthropogenic warming component … likewise de rigueur.
No; we know this solar energy-decline that is seen with lower activity levels is too small to cause cooling on Earth … and it is also too small to neutralize the warming some credit to human activity. A quiet sun would not do that, as a direct result of being a touch cooler.
Articles like this are nearly always ‘pleading guilty to a lesser charge’. It is a sophomoric misstep, to account for The Pause, by pointing to the miniscule relative coolness of a quiet sun … but the alternative is to acknowledge that while on the one hand we really are perplexed at just how these solar variations are affecting Earth … otoh, the correlations pointing to a real relationship between reduced activity & a range of effects on our planet are quite strong & diverse.
Sunspots (“activity”) are dark, because they are cool. An “active” sun should logically be cooler. In fact, it is instead the spot-free sun, lacking cooler blemishes, that puts out slightly less energy. This is just another oddity to this overall situation.
Multiple lines of assessment & analysis point to the likelihood that when the real mechanism by which the activity-variations of the sun affect conditions on Earth is found, it will then become clear that this effect ‘powers right through’ other influences that play a role in tweaking our climate & ecology. Including the late-great (putative) AGW-driver.
And it’s not because the quiet sun is a wee bit cooler!
richardcourtney, I will look forward to reading your post when it is retrieved.
Yes was a surprising story to see on the Beeb, I thought it let itself down at the end with the claim European cold winters would push warm weather to Greenland. I think the Viking story doesn’t fit with that statement.
What is evidence that low sun activity causes global cooling mainly due to increased eruptions ?
What is all this nonsense about solar activity competing with human activity?
Are they suggesting that global temperatures would be even colder due to this weak cycle, if it wasn’t for anthropogenic activity?
Where is that part of the anthropogenic climate change theory published?
They have been wrong about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, so now they think that they peddle their views about the sun too!!
They can all take a long walk off a short plank.
Jim G says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:30 am
What would be possible definitions/causes of “nonproduction related increases” Have any been postulated? Extrasolar or local or both?
10Be is mostly generated far from the polar ice [the non-polar part of the Earth is much larger than the polar regions] so most of the 10Be found in the ice cores have been transported to to polar regions by atmospheric circulation, determined by weather and climate. If that circulation changes we get non-production related changes. These are as large [and at times, larger] as the solar-produced changes.
Zeke says: @ January 19, 2014 at 10:29 am
…And if agricultural advances in chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, horrors!), new cultivars, GM, and pesticides are eliminated, while simultaneously destroying the cattle and dairy farms because of the methane ghg regulations, how are you going to fertilize the tired soil?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They do not care because they want us dead! That is the entire point behind all that we see happening.
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” ~ Sir James Lovelock
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” ~ Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, and Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”/ ~ Maurice Strong, Chair First Earth Summit and Kyoto
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” ~ David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” ~ Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
More such quote HERE
Ted Clayton says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:50 am
Sunspots (“activity”) are dark, because they are cool. An “active” sun should logically be cooler.
Logic always fails when confronted with reality. Sunspot are associated with brighter regions [called faculae] which contributes more irradiance than sunspots take away, so the net effect is: more spots, more irradiance:
http://spaceweather.com/images2014/19jan14/hmi4096_blank.jpg?PHPSESSID=oc6okg9kphvglsmej7ie3ip385
Mosher said:
“Hint: Wilde has never posted a dataset in his life nor has he ever posted a description of any method much less code to support it.”
I have pointed to data sets of others.
My work is simply a reinterpretation of real world observations and is therefore superior to the AGW interpretation which has clearly failed..
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
The evidence is there, out in the real world, and just begs for a common sense interpretation.
Gail Combs:
Thankyou for providing your post at January 19, 2014 at 11:10 am which confirms an assertion I made about you in a post above. In case you missed it this links to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/#comment-1541339
Richard
The sun is in denial.
Naw, Txomin, the sun is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.
========
timspence10 says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:05 am
Expect more BBC relieving and pea shuffling.
Revealed: how Jimmy Savile abused up to 1,000 victims on BBC premises
NOAA manipulating/falsifying temperature data? Rather old news, methinks. But no less dangerous because their fabrications are the basis for der Fuehrer’s claims that the last ten years have been the hottest ever.
@clipe –
Sounds like the BBC has another Penn State/Jerry Sandusky on its hands.
DirkH says: @ January 19, 2014 at 10:45 am
…What you are conjecturing is that a cooling Europe due to an inactive sun – which is plausible if there is e g an electromagnetic field strength link – is compensated for by local warming elsewhere, resulting in a constant average. There is no evidence that that ever happened and therefore it must be rejected as unsupported conjecture until evidence is presented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the poit of view of human civilization it does not matter. If Steve Wilde is correct, and the evidence points that way, The Jets going from zonal to meridional will create major problems like blocking high heat waves, blizzards, droughts and flood. (Why do you think the clued in CAGW pushers switched to extreme weather) Cold snaps in late spring or early fall are enough to wipe out an entire crop as fruit tree blossoms freeze or plants die before reaching maturity.
We will see more headlines like this:
Mar 5, 2010, Cold snap decimates Florida tomato crop: Prices up fivefold after growers lose 70 percent of their yield
May 24, 2012 Wheat Fields Parched by Drought From U.S. to Russia
Apr 30, 2013 MISSOULA, Mont: Cold snap worries fruit tree growers
Unfortunately we will also see headlines like this> Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies… potentially undermining crop production and driving up prices at a time when the demand for food is expected to soar, scientists have found.
But the MSM never reports stories like this:
Want food security? Bring Back a National Grain Reserve
lsvalgaard says @ January 19, 2014 at 11:11 am;
Wow – thanks for the awesome picture of the sun on SpaceWeather! Yes, I can see where my logic ran afoul of the facts; the bright faculae are ‘sprayed’ around the groups of dark spots.
It does tend to get dicey, when we craft theories mainly in view of our narrative. ;8-|
Leif,
Please check your email – Anthony
@Julian in Wales
“I think the BBC are too thick skinned to notice complaints about bias.”
I second that. Also, hide-bound blithering incompetence is not actual lying. A liar has intent and the legal competence to know they are not telling the truth. The BBC does not exhibit all that much willful intent as a corporation though some of their guests could easily bear such a label. Climate competent they are not, however.
It seems the Brits have been teaching the Americans how to stand out in the noonday sun and declare themselves the leading lights of the civilized world. The term ‘hide-bound’ was often correctly applied to both the Imperial British institutional as well as personal attitude.
My take on this is that there is enough worry in the Beeb about the impending public humiliation of their years-long propaganda campaign supporting the AGW meme to force them into a CYA exercise so they can later say, “We told you so,” with a straight face even if their fingers are crossed behind them. Plonkers don’t have to be right in the middle, they only have to be right in the end, apparently.
Regarding the degree of jet stream zonality / meridionality this can be determined by the NAO. While the NAO is positive the jet stream is in zonality phase and when it is negative is in meridionality phase. Periods of negative NAO usually show significant Northern blocking with high pressure especially around Iceland/Greenland
What behaves similar to periods of negative or positive NAO related to climate?
The PDO while in its long positive mode usually leads to mainly positive NAO. The PDO in long negative mode usually leads to mainly negative NAO. The PDO resembles the ENSO in a way and this is the natural cycle of discharging solar energy around ocean surface currents. There you have the link between jet stream zonality / medridonality and solar energy.
Merionality has increased over recent years since the PDO went negative and this was incorrectly blamed on decreasing Arctic sea ice by some.
richardscourtney says: @ January 19, 2014 at 11:16 am
Gail Combs: Thankyou…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard, although my bias shows at times, I really hope people can see past the “Let’s You and He Fight” crap of the totalitarians. They use “Socialism” or “Capitalism” to push their goals of Global Governance but they actually are neither. “Socialism” just fits into their plans better. “Capitalism” has been dead for over 100 years if it ever really existed in the first place, but they use the term “Free Market” as if Capitalism was still alive.
As far as I can tell Socialism, Capitalism, and Anarchism all suffer from the same fatal flaw. The human race is a mix of predators, parasites and prey. The predators/sociopaths rise to the top of all governments because they have no morals and the amoral parasites tag-along to help them suck the lifeblood from the ordinary folk who are their prey .
Lockwood and Green are BBC stalwarts. Green’s uni is so far left they have fallen off our flat earth. Lockwood is still in the pay of gov grants and has been repeating the same meme whenever the BBC need him.
Anthony Watts says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Leif, Please check your email – Anthony
Done.
@Julian in Wales
“I think the BBC are too thick skinned to notice complaints about bias.”
It’s not hick skin it’s arrogance. You plebs know nothing so shut up and let us intelligent people get on with our work.
I remember several years ago when they introduced their current ‘fly around the country’ graphics for weather forecasts. There were a very large number of complaints but they simply said ” we have bought the software so we will use it. Even now you see the forecasters struggling with when the weather becomes problematic.
Expect more BBC relieving and pea shuffling.
Revealed: how Jimmy Savile abused up to 1,000 victims on BBC premises
Too late ! They have had their own, impartial (does that ring a bell) enquiry and all is well. Move along please .
“… on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.”
Uh, isn’t the theory that CO2 traps the heat from the sun?
So, less heat from the sun means less heat for the CO2 to trap, giving an overall cooling of some level.
Piers Corbyn Interview on BBC News Channel August 2009 – its the jet streams
[ http://youtu.be/C65hDa1qjnY ]
you know it figures that you would post the January snow anomalies, when the climate models predict higher water vapor in the atmosphere and more precipitation but couple that with an earlier thaw and an overall annual average snow anomaly that is in decline. Why do you post things that reflect a false reality? why is the January snow anomalies so important when the total annual average looks like this?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
Also posted at Bob Tisdales site.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-el-nino-events-likely-to-double-in-next-century-20140119-312sy.html
Sun, Sea & Soil, what more do you need to know??
regards
MattG said:
“The PDO while in its long positive mode usually leads to mainly positive NAO. The PDO in long negative mode usually leads to mainly negative NAO. The PDO resembles the ENSO in a way and this is the natural cycle of discharging solar energy around ocean surface currents. There you have the link between jet stream zonality / medridonality and solar energy.”
Correct.
The degree of meridionality / zonality is a function of the interplay between the top down solar effect on atmospheric chemistry (ozone in the stratosphere) and the bottom up oceanic effect (atmospheric heat content).
The circulation changes are a negative system response to anything that seeks to disturb the radiative balance between surface and space.
Convection balances the system energy flows between conduction and radiation to ensure that at all times (despite variations around the mean) enough kinetic energy is delivered to the effective radiating height to balance energy in with energy out.
Two critical points:
i) The sun being the only source of energy for the climate system the PDO / ENSO cycle is ultimately determined by the amount of solar energy that can get into the oceans. That, in turn, is affected by global cloudiness / albedo and that, in turn, is affected by the solar effects on atmospheric chemistry from above. The bottom up oceanic effect is simply an internal system modulation of the top down solar effect.
ii) In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe. Would AGW proponents please indicate how far our emissions could shift the jets and climate zones and show their work. I’d guess maybe a mile, if that.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
ii) In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe.
So your ‘theory’ is falsified if the jet stream does not move 1000 miles in latitude in the coming low-activity cycles. Finally a number from you.
for example, why don’t you also post the June anomalies?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=6
lsvalgaard said:
“So your ‘theory’ is falsified if the jet stream does not move 1000 miles in latitude in the coming low-activity cycles. Finally a number from you.”
Well it has already shifted about 500 miles in the Western European approaches since the late 20th century zonal times when the jets persistently ran between Scotland and Iceland whereas now they are now more often across the UK both in summer and winter.
If the sun stays quiet for long enough then the jets will dip more often towards the Bay of Biscay and Northern Spain which gives the required 1000 miles.
But wait, aren’t they often dipping that far already ?
Oh, look:
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/fotos/sociedade/1/343351
Anyway, I’ve given you lots of other measures of falsification but none have happened yet.
Your previous attempt to say that the trivial decline in solar activity from cycle 19 to 23 amounted to falsification was obviously a sign of desperation on your part since all that time the level of solar activity was higher than that needed for thermal equilibrium and only with the advent of cycle 24 did it drop below that needed for thermal equilibrium.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm
“In comparison to that natural variability the effect of human emissions of GHGs is miniscule. Natural variations from sun and oceans moved the jet streams up to 1000 miles latitudinally from MWP to LIA and LIA to date in the approaches to Western Europe.”
I was wondering where you got 1000 miles from, but it seems that is roughly the distance the jet stream did change during the Little Ice Age compared to now. When storms were usually hitting the UK and Western Europe instead of Iceland.
Based on 1000 miles human emissions seem to have played about 0.1 c contribution so if this was proportional to the warming since the LIA then this would be around 100 miles at most. though I doubt even all the 0.1.c AGW is from just CO2.
nevket240 says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/major-el-nino-events-likely-to-double-in-next-century-20140119-312sy.html
Wow, they clearly don’t understand how the natural ENSO mechanism operates. With this poor knowledge placed into models, it will only be wrong. CO2 has no observable affect on ENSO and that can also be shown by no strong El Ninos since 1997/98 while CO2 levels keep increasing.
jai mitchell.
The AMO is still near its peak which affects northern hemisphere snow cover.
Give it time.
Meanwhile global sea ice is above ‘normal’.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
having rapidly clawed back all the losses from the now defunct natural warming spell.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Well it has already shifted about 500 miles in the Western European approaches since the late 20th century zonal times when the jets persistently ran between Scotland and Iceland whereas now they are now more often across the UK both in summer and winter.
A link please to a careful analysis of this. And not just ‘more often’.
Your previous attempt to say that the trivial decline in solar activity from cycle 19 to 23 amounted to falsification was obviously a sign of desperation on your part since all that time the level of solar activity was higher than that needed for thermal equilibrium and only with the advent of cycle 24 did it drop below that needed for thermal equilibrium.
The whole notion of thermal equilibrium is nonsense. The system is always in equilibrium. The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.
How about the
October http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201310.gif
November http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201311.gif
December http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201212.gif
January http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201301.gif
February http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201302.gif
and
March http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201303.gif
That I just got done posting this morning. That is six winter months showing snow fall returning to “normal”
@Stephen Wilde
“You are too pessimistic.”
How I wish that were true. I cannot remember if I saw it in the Central England Temperature dataset or the ice core records. The Maunder minimum was about three cycles long and resulted in a 0.3C drop in temperatures. The Dalton Minimum was about two cycles long and resulted in a 0.2C drop in temperatures. Are you saying that the fall in the sun’s activity is going to be longer this time? It would be very interesting to get a hold of the Chinese dataset and see if there were longer periods of inactivity, but all I’m going to see is three cycles anyway (and that’s being optimistic:-)).
My pessimism is not about whether temperatures will drop, I believe they will, just not as much as most folks think. My pessimism is about the alarmists being able to live to fight again, so that my children, nieces and nephews will have to do this all over again. That is a truly depressing thought.
lsvalgaard said:
“A link please to a careful analysis of this. And not just ‘more often’.”
No one has done a ‘careful analysis’ despite my frequent recommendations that they do so over the past 6 years. Maybe someone has but I haven’t seen it yet.
Nonetheless the media and scientific comment is replete with comments about increased meridionality of late.
I first noticed the shift in 2000 and began drawing it to public attention in 2008.
And Leif said:
“The whole notion of thermal equilibrium is nonsense. The system is always in equilibrium. The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.”
Actually, I agree with that assertion.
I would just add that the equilibrium at any given time is represented by the average latitudinal position of the jets and climate zones.
And Leif said:
“The ‘trivial’ decline from 19 to 23 is about a factor of two as is that from 23 to 24.”
So the decline from 23 to 24 (a single cycle) is the same as the decline from 19 to 23 (4 cycles) which is obviously a substantial increase and in the process it crossed the line between net energy accumulation and net energy loss for the Earth system.
You have omitted to acknowledge that the UV and EUV changes involved are proportionately far greater than the changes in TSI.
You know that I aver that it is wavelength and particle changes that make the difference and not TSI alone.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:48 pm
No one has done a ‘careful analysis’ despite my frequent recommendations that they do so over the past 6 years. Maybe someone has but I haven’t seen it yet.
So just hearsay and anecdotes.
it crossed the line between net energy accumulation and net energy loss for the Earth system.
this is just plain nonsense.
You have omitted to acknowledge that the UV and EUV changes involved are proportionately far greater than the changes in TSI.
Just as the day-to-day changes of the loose change in a billionaire’s pockets are much greater than those in his total wealth. The changes in energy are minute compared to TSI.
Turns out 2+2=4 not 5, just as active Sun = warmer Earth and inactive Sun = cooler Earth.
There are some things man controls through brute force and psychological manipulation, manifesting a consensus opinion putting us on the verge of an Orwellian society. Thank God the thermostat of the Sun is not one of them.
Do most of the academia researchers that study climate science have a bias towards environmentalism ? Do students who have a pre conceived view on co2 go into climate science more than students that have no opinion on the matter ?
What I’m getting at is there a fundamental bias in research that is looking to prove what the researchers want to be true.
Much of this type of bias exists in journalism because most people that go into journalism are left leaning to begin with. I would like to know political leanings of graduating journalist students. I have heard that fox news has a hard time even finding conservative journalists to hire. There just are not that many. I wonder if the same bias that exists in journalsim exists in climate science? Is this called population bias or sample bias ?
Believe whatever you like, Leif.
Some of us prefer to watch the real world.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Some of us prefer to watch the real world.
You are not convincing, but as you said one can believe what one will.
“You are not convincing”
I don’t need to be.
We propose but Nature disposes 🙂
I haven’t checked all the comments, but has anyone pointed out that not all winters in the Little Ice Age were cold in England? For example, according to http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat the winter of 1685/86 was pretty mild. As is the present winter here in England – but I wouldn’t bet on a whole run of warm winters in the coming years.
Rich.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“You are not convincing”
I don’t need to be.
Peddlers of false notions have no need for that, you are correct on that one.
“Thanks, Alec and Anthony.”
Eric Simpson and some other contributors talk about “the so called “established physics” of CO2.”
= = = = = = =
Problem is that, not all but most AGWarmists, believe (no evidence needed) that CO2 does have some warming effect on the Troposphere. They (nearly all) point to an 1859 experiment done on various gasses, including CO2, by John Tyndall (J T). When I hear – or read – J T’s name mentioned it becomes clear quite quickly whether they have actually read up on the experiment or not. If you read up on it you’ll soon find that Tyndall found that actually proved that CO2 is opaque to temperature or IR radiation. In other words CO2 does not absorb IR radiation but it stops it dead in its track.
Why?
Because J T used – in short – an apparatus consisting of a dual Thermophile, a 3 foot long brass tube – each end covered/plugged with a disc/plug made from rock salt. This tube also had nipples through which he could pump out (evacuate) the air and replace it with CO2. A Galvanometer (GM) was also used. And not to forget two cans of boiling water (100 deg. C)
With the normal air inside the tube or no air at all, the thermophile saw the water can’s temperature as it registered on the GM but when the air was replaced with CO2 the GM flicked back to zero and, as far as I can see, it never crept back up, which it should have done if the CO2 in the tube had absorbed the IR radiation, got warmer and re-radiated it. The CO2 temperature (T) in question would have increased if it was absorbing radiation from a can with boiling water. But It did not
The back radiation from CO2 story, by the way, was invented by Svante Arrhenius back in 1896, or thereabouts.
Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
bbc science reporter Rebecca Morelle’s twitter page – not much on the sun story, but revkin, shukman & other tweets may prove interessting to those who can navigate the twittersphere!
https://twitter.com/rebeccamorelle
Alan Robertson says
“any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.”
Wrong. Sunspot and solar flare activity correlates well. The claim is that it weakens after 1970 while temperature goes up but any number of systemic factors could cause that and we notice that sunspots and solar flare activity correlate with the recent cold circumpolar vortex/wandering jetstream.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
Carbon Brief’s spin:
17Jan: Carbon Brief: Roz Pidcock: BBC’s Newsnight ponders whether low solar activity “has consequences” for global warming
In other words, the slight drop in global temperature coming from a drop in solar activity may be just about detectable if we weren’t having a much bigger impact through carbon dioxide emissions. While the BBC could perhaps have been clearer on that point, Morelle concludes:
“So even if the planet as a whole continues to warm, the future for northern Europe could be cold and frozen winters for decades to come.”
So the report strikes the right note at the end, highlighting that colder winters in Europe aren’t inconsistent with a world that’s warming up on the whole. Let’s hope everyone stayed tuned in till the end.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/01/bbc%E2%80%99s-newsnight-ponders-whether-low-solar-activity-%E2%80%9Chas-consequences%E2%80%9D-for-global-warming/
Leif “lsvalgaard says:{ [HAL-9000 says:A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.]
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap “} — Even if true at the level of energy production per unit volume — this is a totally disingenuous statement — show me the million mile cube of compost — and I’ll show you one Heap of Heat Production. Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan
So Northern Europe will have significantly cooler winters, but globally average temperatures (due to human activity) will be warmer. Britain is pushing up the costs of its energy bills to save the world from the costs of warming. If successful in reducing the global average temperature rise, it will be successful in making the cold winters worse. Much better for Britain to push up its emissions by switching to cheaper coal. The costs of the extra winter fuel will be much reduced, and the actual temperatures with be a tad warmer as well.
If on the other hand it makes no difference to global temperatures whatever Britain does unilaterally, then switching to the lowest cost forms of power is the best policy. Alternatively, if it acts against its own interest to benefit humanity, then it is only fair that the UK is compensated by more than the costs. To kick off, who in Australia is willing to send me on an annual fee of $200 now, rising to over $2000 by 2030? This is to cover both the extra costs per unit of the UK switching to renewables (to save you from frying) and the extra power to keep my family warm in the colder winters.
WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan
But almost all of its mass is involved as most of the mass in in the core of sun, so the volume thing is itself a bit disingenuous].
I was pointing out that the exploding hydrogen bomb image is incorrect [and so its intended emotive impact]. The gentle solar compost heap puts out a lot of heat simply because it is big.
“BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age”
“Overall though, a very good report from the BBC”
“In any case, it is good to see them do some real reporting”
No, not getting it. Not getting it at all. As Dr. Svalgaard has pointed out repeatedly, the current solar conditions were predicted over a decade ago. Think about why the BBC (the nexus of all these recent reports) is just pushing this now. Think!
Points to remember –
1. Current solar conditions predicted over a decade ago.
2. Even knowing of these predictions IPCC repeatedly claims no solar influence.
3. BBC has provided years of support for IPCC dogma.
4. If a yet unproven solar mechanism is about to mask CO2 warming, could not this unproven mechanism have cause the claimed warming?
Those who thankfully do appear to be getting it –
Eric Simpson says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:50 am
timspence10 says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:05 am
Silver ralph says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:07 am
john robertson says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:35 am
MikeB says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:41 am
DirkH says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:39 am
Crispin in Waterloo says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm
To my fellow sceptics I say this – no matter how gratifying it may be to have other possible climate influences discussed after all these years, DO NOT LET THE BBC OFF THE HOOK.
They must pay for what they have done. It is far, far too dangerous to let 28Gate and the ClimategateII evidence of collusion with the “Team” go unpunished. The BBC shamelessly attacked science, reason, freedom and democracy. If they get away with this they will just do it again. You will have a UN “global fresh water crisis” on your hands before you know it. The BBC must take a fall with the global warming inanity. They must lose mandatory UK TV licensing.
Leif:says {: lsvalgaard says:[Jim G says:What would be possible definitions/causes of “nonproduction related increases” Have any been postulated? Extrasolar or local or both?]
10Be is mostly generated far from the polar ice [the non-polar part of the Earth is much larger than the polar regions] so most of the 10Be found in the ice cores have been transported to to polar regions by atmospheric circulation, determined by weather and climate. If that circulation changes we get non-production related changes. These are as large [and at times, larger] as the solar-produced changes.}
These transport factors effecting Be-10 in ice cores is very difficult to quantify since we can’t really measure the production of Be-10. Since there is no real-time Be-10 data that I’m aware of — we are stuck with ice cores.
However, we can see real-time variations in neutrons and muons that anti-correlate with solar activity on all timescales. Further, C-14 should behave the same way as Be-10 and it can be measured in real-time wherever you want to with just a mass spectrometer
The Sun is a variable star – “February 5, 2010: For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.”
“‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth’s reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
“Add it all up and you get a lot of energy,” says Lean. “How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate.”
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/science/timescale.php
WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:14 pm
However, we can see real-time variations in neutrons and muons that anti-correlate with solar activity on all timescales. Further, C-14 should behave the same way as Be-10 and it can be measured in real-time wherever you want to with just a mass spectrometer
The real-time measurements give us no information about the relative proportions of solar and climate contributions in the past, which is where the problem is. C-14 is further hampered by a long residence times in the various reservoirs which have to modeled to extract a production rate.
The sun is big and its difficult to beat this excellent comparison.
.http://www.4to40.com/images/fastforward/feb2007/earth_with_sun_3.jpg
Carrick says:
The one think I could say in Lockwood’s defense is that he might not have been intending to address the global warming question. That is how the editing set is up: the presenter asks what the implications for global warming are and then cuts to Lockwood talking about the distinction between regional and global climate. If he was not actually meaning to address the global warming question then his remark that “the average is almost no change” takes on a rather different meaning. Almost no change relative to the magnitude of the regional change can still be an important change at the global level, so it is possible that Lockwood was taken out of context here.
Stephen, what really matters is ice/snow levels during sunlit months. Not global total. This is because snow is about 95% more effective in reflecting sunlight. In the winter, as you know, the poles do not get any sunlight so ice/snow levels do not contribute to albedo.
((They must pay for what they have done. It is far, far too dangerous to let 28Gate and the ClimategateII evidence of collusion with the “Team” go unpunished. The BBC shamelessly attacked science, reason, freedom and democracy. If they get away with this they will just do it again. You will have a UN “global fresh water crisis” on your hands before you know it. The BBC must take a fall with the global warming inanity. They must lose mandatory UK TV licensing.))
do not forget the ABC in OZ and the ABC in the USSA for their International Socialist involvement. Paying these clowns our tax dollars is sheer madness. It is like a rape victim compensating the Rapist for bad sex.
regards
I was enjoying the science up until Lockwood started using progressive/socialist buzz words like “redistribution” and then suddenly the BBC collusion with green propogandists came back into sharp clarity.Paul was right…stack the wood high and long because the BS being put out is stacked much higher: redistribution of temp. X fear = redistribution of wealth.
Leif: — I think we are essentially agreeing now that the compost heap model is based on a very large and hard to imagine compost heap — the rest is detailed speculation — lsvalgaard says:{WestHighlander says:[Thankfully for life on the earth only a small fraction of the sun’s volume is actively in the fusion business otherwise we would be talking about global warming of Titan]
But almost all of its mass is involved as most of the mass in in the core of sun, so the volume thing is itself a bit disingenuous].
I was pointing out that the exploding hydrogen bomb image is incorrect [and so its intended emotive impact]. The gentle solar compost heap puts out a lot of heat simply because it is big.}
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise — All we really know is that the sun put’s out a measurable amount of visible, IR, UV, X-ray — {TSI orTotal Solar Irradiance) and some amount of charged and neutral particles in the solar wind — all the above is driven by Thermonuclear Fusion in the core — but reaction rates are really a guess as no-one can make a lab experiment based on gravitational confinement
so far the attempts to directly measure neutrino fluxes from the core are associated with very large error bars
PS: my reference to Global Warming and Titan was associated with a presumably Red Giant Phase of Solar evolution when the volume of the Sun was substantially larger to enable H burning in the region outside the current postutlated core and He burning in the “traditional core”
O. H. Dahlsveen says: @ January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm
….Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is already gone. There is only this comment
“He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. “
I imagine that information will be wiped and older books mentioning it burned…. Our local libraries are selling books off or dumping them in the trash.
jai mitchell says: @ January 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Stephen, what really matters is ice/snow levels during sunlit months. Not global total. This is because snow is about 95% more effective in reflecting sunlight. In the winter, as you know, the poles do not get any sunlight so ice/snow levels do not contribute to albedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest you read Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
And then read what RACookPE1978 has to say.
jai mitchell says:
I was a little careless there. The June anomalies are in the Brett Anderson post that I linked. He suggests that they are not the important measure, since they do not measure snowfall but just the rate of spring melting, which of course is high because we are at the peak of the Modern Warm Period (just passing the peak in my estimation). Ideally I should have footnoted those details in the post but better late than never.
WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise
We do know [in considerable detail] how much is involved.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
so far the attempts to directly measure neutrino fluxes from the core are associated with very large error bars
No, not at all. The directly measured fluxes match very well the flux calculated from the known reaction rates.
So now we are doomed because the sun is taking a rest?
Gail Combs says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:59 pm
O. H. Dahlsveen says: @ January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm
….Please read the full story in Wikipedia by just writing John Tyndall in your search engine. – But be quick before it gets redacted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is already gone. There is only this comment
= = = = = = = = = =
Gosh Gail, you are right. They sure do not waste much time those warmistas, do they?
jai mitchell says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:42 pm (replying to Stephen)
Funny you mention that ….
See, since 1959, the DMI has been recording actual temperatures at 80 north latitude every day of the year. And, across those 55 years of ever-increasing CO2 levels in the very high Arctic, summer temperatures – when, as you so clearly point out above – the sun IS shining and CO2 “should be” critical in reflecting long-wave infrared radiation LWIR BACK towards the surface – surface temperatures have been ….. declining.
Yes, the 2013 average Arctic summer temperature IS lower than it was back in 1959 … And it was lower than than every year since 1959.
Worse, the error in those summer months is very, very small! Less than 1/8 of one degree std dvt for every day that temperature is over 0 degrees C.
Further, the ONLY time when Arctic temperatures could be shown to rise is the winter, when the running average is higher some years, on average other years. But the winter std deveiaiton? 5-6 degrees C!
“Latest version of my proposition:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“The sun causes latitudinal climate zone shifting with changes in the degree of jetstream zonality / meridionality by altering the ozone creation / destruction balance differentially at different heights above the tropopause. The net result is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator (relatively high) and poles (relatively low).
The cause appears not to be raw solar power output (TSI) which varies too little but instead, the precise mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun which vary more greatly and affect ozone amounts above the tropopause.
That allows latitudinal sliding of the jets and climate zones below the tropopause leading to changes in global cloudiness and albedo with alters the amount of energy getting into the oceans.”
Stephen Wilde
That is pretty close to the conclusions I have come to from studying it all over the years!
@Leif
In various places, I have read that UV and high energy light constitutes between 6 and 10 per cent of incoming energy. Is that true?
I’ve also read that UV light has gone down by 10 per cent over the last few years. Is that true?
I have looked, but most of the stuff that I’m finding seems more concerned about our exposure to UV light rather than quantifying the actuality.
Paul Hanlon says: @ January 19, 2014 at 5:26 pm … UV light …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out this article by NASA: SOLAR IRRADIANCE
lsvalgaard says: “The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap”
You have forever altered my view of that great compost heap in the sky.
RoHa says @ January 19, 2014 at 4:35 pm;
Very cold winters? Check. Mississippi iced-over … at New Orleans? Occasionally. Doomed? Nah.
Oh – you mean the computer simulations? Doomed … puts a happy-face on it.
We can handle cold winters, even crappy summers (though that’s a less-clear factor).
What is doomed is the climate-bogeyman game. It, and former adherents to it who don’t sprint sufficiently quickly & convincingly away from it.
Paul Hanlon says:
January 19, 2014 at 5:26 pm
In various places, I have read that UV and high energy light constitutes between 6 and 10 per cent of incoming energy. Is that true?
Gail’s link is good, except tha the UV from 300 to400 nm is missing from the table. If you include that, the 6-10% is about right, but that part hardly varies and is not very energetic.
I’ve also read that UV light has gone down by 10 per cent over the last few years. Is that true?
Again, the wavelength band must be specified. The high-energy part has decreased about that. But the total energy involved is minute.
Carrick says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:12 am
“I don’t think Lockwood’s caution is unwarranted here. We don’t have a “slam dunk” that the LIA was global in extent, so it is reasonable to cast it, at this time, in terms of what we do know–which is that a cooler Sun seems to correlate with cooler Northern European temperatures.
What is actually a conjecture is that there is a global correlation, since at the moment, we simply don’t know.”
Dear Carrick, Dr. Lockwood, and others that are prepared to accept the “local” climate nonsense. Here is picture showing the size of the sun relative to the planets (scroll down three pictures). You will be fully informed on the matter. Perhaps Lief, too, would comment on the likelihood, given these relative dimensions that Europe (smaller than Quebec) would only be affected by some activity of the sun. I know Lief doesn’t buy the variations of the sun are important but I’m sure if there was some feature of the sun that did have a significant effect that it wouldn’t just effect an area the size of Quebec. The trouble with the whole debate is the outlandish poppycock that gets real time in them.
http://www.relfe.com/07/solar_system_sun_earth_size.html
Leif Svalgaard & others:
I don’t think that HAL-9000’s characterization of the sun is what’s important about what he said. What’s important is that he and many others like him speak as if the mere fact that the sun heats the earth, not its variation, is what matters. This would be unbelievably stupid, of course, but they speak this way so much that I find it almost impossible to believe that they don’t actually believe it.
Smoking Frog says @ January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm;
Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
Kinda tough to lay a smokin’ million mile wide characterization-egg, then try to walk away from it like it ain’t yours. Which HAL-9000 himself didn’t try to do …
@Gail and @Leif
Thanks for the information / link.
Another thing I was given to believe is that UV light penetrates deeper into the oceans than ordinary light.
I remember Willis posting up the actual values of energy received in the tropics, which in the middle part of the day could be as high as 1100W/m². Applying the middle value of 8% = say 88W, which is a little bit more than chump change to be fair. Applying another 8% for the loss in energy = 10W less of UV energy going into the tropics. The area of water between the two tropics is equivalent to the land area of the Earth. That’s a massive amount of energy not now going into the oceans and it is cumulative over time. And if it is penetrating deeper into the oceans, it is energy that would otherwise stick around and have a climatic effect. That surely has to have some impact, no?
“Oh, look:
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/fotos/sociedade/1/343351”
What does this is supposed to mean? Rain in Portugal? So? In case you don’t know in sunny Lisboa it rains more than in London.
Ted Clayton says @ January 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
I don’t agree at all, not even a little bit. If HAL-9000 and many others like him think that the mere fact that the sun warms the earth (as opposed to changes in how much it warms the earth) makes it important in global warming, this is really, really stupid, far worse than any error about the amount of heat that it provides. You wouldn’t need to know a blessed thing about global warming to see the misconception.
Kinda tough to lay a smokin’ million mile wide characterization-egg, then try to walk away from it like it ain’t yours. Which HAL-9000 himself didn’t try to do …
Who do you think did try to do it? Me? I did not. If you don’t think anyone tried to do it, why do you bring it up? I think your whole message is irrational.
Ted Clayton says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm
Actually, I thought his “characterization” was the main value in his remark; deliberately, um, bombastic, even. And Leif Svalgaard clearly thought so too, trumping HAL-9000 – hilariously – with his own equally-colorful “compost heap” characterization.
To put some numbers to it: at the center of the Sun each cubic meter generates 280 Watt. I, sitting in my chair, generate 100 W, and my volume is about 0.1 cubic meter [100 kg/1000 kg], so I am 3 to 4 times more efficient in generating energy than solar fusion. An active compost heap of moderate size generates about the same amount of heat as I do [we are both ‘full of it’].
BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age
Well, It’s a start…..
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:13 pm
To put some numbers to it: at the center of the Sun each cubic meter generates 280 Watt. I, sitting in my chair, generate 100 W, and my volume is about 0.1 cubic meter [100 kg/1000 kg], so I am 3 to 4 times more efficient in generating energy than solar fusion. An active compost heap of moderate size generates about the same amount of heat as I do [we are both ‘full of it’].
Dr. Svalgaard,
Aren’t we all??!!
‘We are stardust. We are ……compost.
We are billion year old carbon
and we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden!’
Thanks for the laugh!
Mac
http://youtu.be/Mz5F8JEcLzE
This might give people some idea of the heat contained within a compost heap :-).
Zeke says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:57 am
“These are not scientists, they are Maoists”.
Whatever political link, they’re mass murderers, that’s for sure.
sabretruthtiger says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:33 pm
Alan Robertson says
“any discernible differences the Sun makes in our climate have been small.”
Wrong. Sunspot and solar flare activity correlates well. The claim is that it weakens after 1970 while temperature goes up but any number of systemic factors could cause that and we notice that sunspots and solar flare activity correlate with the recent cold circumpolar vortex/wandering jetstream.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html
sabretruthtiger says:
January 19, 2014 at 2:35 pm
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/
_____________________________
Big deal. I’m not wrong. Did you read what you quoted from me?
How is showing a graph with a .07% discernible change showing anything other than a small change?
OT…but of interest. The Oulo NM shows a huge spike from 6 hours ago. In the short time that I have been paying attention to Oulo,s movements a large move would be 5 or 6 units of the scale. Most movement has been in the range of 1 to 3 units. Six hours ago it shows a very large spike. The third hour shows the largest peak, which is around 82 units of scale. The average for the entire period is shown as 32 units. That is still 10 times greater than an average day,s movement on their scale. What is that showing in relation to solar output and influences?
goldminor says:
January 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm
OT…but of interest. The Oulo NM shows a huge spike from 6 hours ago.
Instrumental problem. Not real.
Thanks, Dr Svalgaard. I had thought of that, but still wanted to hear from someone with greater understanding.
Lockwood simply does not want to rock the AGW boat. This is evident when you read his publications of the last 5 years.
O. H. Dahlsveen January 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Gail Combs January 19, 2014 at 3:59 pm
.
Are you people feeling quite well? The works of John Tyndall are well known to all scientists in this field and no one is able to remove the important contribution he made. The fact that you don’t understand it will make no difference to that. The Wikipedia article is still there, so is the diagram of his apparatus which is referred to and, if you click in on it, a detailed description of his actual experiment.
Some other howlers from Mr. Dahlsveen:
“Tyndall found that actually proved that CO2 is opaque to temperature….”
“In other words CO2 does not absorb IR radiation but it stops it dead in its track”
“When the air was replaced with CO2 the GM flicked back to zero” – where does it say that?
Come on, you people are in danger of making ‘AlecM’ look sane.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Gentlemen discussants , long time and I’m in finding the underlying causes of climate change and following it with a discussion about including this in this forum . I have something important to point out, of course , if one of you and other interested parties have the desire and the ability to solve this enigma . Almost every term that you remarks, which may affect climate change , it is not even close to the same cause , but only occurs as a result of what is the cause of all these phenomena. Science has not yet realized it , and it seems there is no desire to listen to this as I am . EVERYTHING HAPPENS TO THE SUN has one basic cause. I have some indicators to prove the most occurrences, but it is very difficult for me that I resolved without the powerful program , astronomical data and material resources . Since this is a decision the greatest enigmas related to the whole of humanity , and much worth, I offer collaboration to try to solve , but only under contractual obligations . Sunspot cycle of 11.2 years are changed up to 17.5 years , but there are some legality as well as the butterfly diagram of 123 years ( 11×11 ) , and so on . My findings can be used for the occurrence of an earthquake . You should try it, and if it proves true, this will be my way to justify the costs if he understood . My e – mail is : majstor.n @ hotmail.com ; nmilović483@gmail.com ; nikolamilović26@jahu.com
I expect a call , even though I was an unknown , see the discussion on Linkedin.com
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
HAL-9000 says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost ].
Yeah right, my compost heap is 15 MILLION degrees centigrade – even the worms at the top have fused into helium..
JohnWho says:
January 19, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“… on the one hand we’ve got perhaps a cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that and I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and what the consequences then are for the global climate.”
Uh, isn’t the theory that CO2 traps the heat from the sun?
No, the AGW theory is that we do not get any heat from the Sun so CO2 gets heat from the Earth.
The AGW energy budget claims shortwave mainly visible light with about 1% shortwave infrared from the Sun heats the Earth – they have taken out all the real direct beam beat from the Sun which is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared aka radiant heat. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, we cannot feel it as heat.
We get both light and heat from the Sun, these are not the same thing.
This idiotic claim by AGW that we get no direct heat longwave infrared from the Sun is contradicted by traditional science as NASA still teaches:
Here is traditional teaching from direct NASA pages: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control. ”
We have known since Herschel’s momentus discovery that the great heat we feel from the Sun is invisible, we now know that it is longwave invisible infrared and we call it thermal meaning ‘of heat’ to distinguish between it and near infrared which is not heat energy. We know the difference between light and heat..
This traditional real world empirically well tested knowledge as given direct from NASA cannot be ignored.
The AGW energy budget of Trenberth et al with its ‘cold Sun of 6,000 degrees C giving off no longwave infrared heat’ is ridiculous.
That is a blazing STAR in the sky and we can feel its geat heat 93 million miles away.
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%) these are sunspotLESS days:-)
from spaceweather pages..
I was watching this while copenhagen crap was happening and wondering why? no one was mentioning it.
comment way above re Thermosphere collapse ties IN with this approx timeframe too.
Matt G says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm
The sun is big and its difficult to beat this excellent comparison.
.http://www.4to40.com/images/fastforward/feb2007/earth_with_sun_3.jpg
If you were to make a scale model of the solar system, making the sun 12″ in diameter, the earth would be about 35 yds. from the sun; and Pluto would be almost a mile away (4,238 ft or 1.3 kilometers)
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap but I have seen incandescent lava lakes and incandescent gases. Their dynamics and radiance flux are slightly different and the variability is also rather dissimilar. Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap
Let me just mention that if you had a compost heap the size of the Sun, it would be incandescent
I wonder if Erl Happ got to hear the BBC maunder on about the magic of ultraviolet radiation.
‘The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry-violet rays’.
H/t Plum & NC.
==========
Does this mean that to the lexicon of “Climate Skeptics”, “Climate Realists” and “Climate Alarmists”, we can add “Quiet Sunners”?
Aw shucks Leif, y’ain’t callin’ our sun, the light o’ our lives, a compost heap? Rully!
Gail Combs says:
“Want food security? Bring Back a National Grain Reserve.”
U.S. Government interference in farming practices in the 1930’s was one of the causes of the dustbowl. Read the book, “The Worst of Times”. Government price supports for wheat helped make it very profitable to plow up 12000 year old buffalo grass root systems and plant wheat. Temporary wet times in the Texas/Oklahoma corner allowed it to work well…….for a while. As usual, the end effect was the old Midas touch in reverse for the government, turning everything they touch to shit.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
“Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.”
___________________________
The opposite of that statement is even more true:
Sometimes metaphors should be employed if you want to understand a thing itself.
In my opinion, Dr. Svalgaard’s metaphor was a very effective training aid.
***
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:20 pm
WestHighlander says:
January 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Well in reality we don’t know how much of the core is involved volume or mass wise
We do know [in considerable detail] how much is involved.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
***
Thanks for the link. Interesting as always.
***
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap but I have seen incandescent lava lakes and incandescent gases. Their dynamics and radiance flux are slightly different and the variability is also rather dissimilar. Sometimes metaphors should be avoided if you want to understand a thing itself.
***
The nascent sun was incandescent before fusion even started, simply from compressive heat. The “compost heat” from fusion added enough heat to maintain that & prevent it from cooling once infalling matter (and thus compression) ceased.
When compost was used to warm homes in winter, it occasionally started fires.
Smoking Frog said @ January 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm;
Here is the characterization you made, @ January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm:
Here is the entirety of what HAL-9000 has said here, @ January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am:
That’s quite a leap, from HAL-9000’s words, to how you posed them. (Mis)characterized them. Laid an egg.
=====
I can tell you had something you want to say, explore. But you tried to point at HAL-9000, and pin ownership of your pet idea, on him. It’s too much of an overload, to hang that baggage on the few rhetorical-characterization words he actually wrote.
Ted Clayton says January 20, 2014 at 9:19 am
Smoking Frog said @ January 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm;
Who do you think did try to [lay a million-mile wide characterization-egg]? Me? I did not.
Here is the characterization you made, @ January 19, 2014 at 7:01 pm:
What’s important is that [HAL-9000] and many others like him speak as if the mere fact that the sun heats the earth, not its variation, is what matters.
Here is the entirety of what HAL-9000 has said here, @ January 19, 2014 at 8:44 am:
A million-mile wide eternally detonating hydrogen bomb in the sky affects temperatures? Stop the presses.
That’s quite a leap, from HAL-9000′s words, to how you posed them. (Mis)characterized them. Laid an egg. I can tell you had something you want to say, explore. But you tried to point at HAL-9000, and pin ownership of your pet idea, on him. It’s too much of an overload, to hang that baggage on the few rhetorical-characterization words he actually wrote.
I don’t see how your interpretation of what I wrote makes any sense at all. I don’t even know what you think my “pet idea” is, unless it’s what I said: that HAL-9000 and many others speak as if the mere fact that the sun warms the earth, as opposed to variation in the degree of warming, made it likely to be a cause of global warming. If that’s what you think, you should have said so. I certainly didn’t try to “pin” it on him – he wouldn’t say, “I speak as if the mere fact that the sun warms the earth, …” He’d be suggesting that his own idea was stupid!
Maybe you think my “pet idea” is that the mere fact that the sun warms the earth … But that would be illogical. Why would I suggest that my own idea was stupid?
Don’t walk into the sun without supplemental oxygen and a masque.
=========================
“The weak link is solar physicist Mike Lockwood who makes irrational and unsupported claims about solar activity only affecting regional climate and not having a global effect.”
He talks about the effect on the jet stream, seems to forget that there is more than one of them. Perhaps he believes the sun doesn’t work on the others.
lsvalgaard says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:27 am
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:07 am
I’ve not seen an incandescent compost heap
Let me just mention that if you had a compost heap the size of the Sun, it would be incandescent
A gas ball of sun’s size, density and composition would also be incandescent, no? From the spectra if I wish to understand and describe it’s dynamics a ball of compost isn’t going to get me far. Apologies, I’m jaded by mainstream style-over-substance which uses metaphorical gimmick to avoid or more or less discourage real examination. Which implies a practical payoff comes from not.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:55 am
A gas ball of sun’s size, density and composition would also be incandescent, no?
The point was that solar fusion is actually a very gentle affair. A compost heap and you for that matter are as or even more efficient in releasing energy than the fusion going on in the Sun, so no ‘exploding hydrogen bombs’.
Is it true that the Delaware has frozen over for the first time since the Maunder minimum?
Any discussion of long term past CET cooling should also look at what was happening to the oceans and not just the sun.
If we hind cast a detrended Atlantic SST graph noted below per Bob Tisdale ( Atlantic Ocean SST, pole to pole, about a 70 year cycle ) , we find that major Atlantic Ocean SST troughs like those of 1905/1910 and 1975 could have also happened in 1835, 1765,1695, etc
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/figure-72.png
These cooler Atlantic Ocean SST periods correspond to the historic low CET temperatures and just happen to occur during the Maunder, Dalton and Modern Minimums of 1645-1715, 1790- 1820, and 1880-1910. In another words the reason for the low CET temperatures could have been the cool Atlantic SST and not because of the low solar cycle during each of the three major solar minimums. If you then add the major [level 5 or more] volcanic eruptions[6 during Maunder Minimum alone ] , then is it possible that the sun may not have been the prime cause of the CET cooler weather during Maunder Minimum.
1870 to 1910[Minimum 1880-1910]
1800 to 1835[Dalton minimum 1790-1820]
1730 to 1765
1660 to 1695 [Maunder minimum 1645-1715]
1590 to 1625
1520 to 1555 [Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
1450 to 1485 [ Sporer minimum 1460-1550]
This changing Atlantic Ocean pattern and the various troughs can be seen in this Reconstructed North Atlantic SST between 1567 and 1990 with the courtesy of Bob Tisdale’s web page
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.ca/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
Sceptics often ask ‘warmers’ how long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or negative before the CAGW hypothesis could be rejected. This is not an unreasonable question, so I’d like to ask those who support a strong solar-climate link a similar question.
How long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or positive before the solar-climate hypothesis could be rejected?
John Finn says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm
How long would the global temperature trend need to remain flat or positive before the solar-climate hypothesis could be rejected?
The standard sun-nut answer is that is a background variation [of unknown origin] in solar activity which can be computed as just that variation that reproduces the observed temperature variation.
John Finn says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm
The question was posed to ‘warmers’, after they began to publish projections of future conditions themselves, based on computer simulations of climate … to test whether the programs actually work any better/different than ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall’.
There are no (well-known) computer simulations of the sun-climate relationship, and no need to test whether they can say anything other than ‘You are the fairest of all’.
Testing the computer simulators, furthermore, was an appropriated request to make, because supporters of the results obtained were asking that major surgery be performed on society, based on what the mirror program had to say.
lsvalgaard says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:00 am
The point was that solar fusion is actually a very gentle affair. A compost heap and you for that matter are as or even more efficient in releasing energy than the fusion going on in the Sun, so no ‘exploding hydrogen bombs’.
___
The exploding hydrogen bomb metaphor is also entirely inappropriate, and you’re right to point that out (and I did get your point), but so is a compost heap inappropriate. That metaphor was chosen and constructed to be equally extreme but in the other direction. OK? That should be fairly clear now. The formation of an upper mantle melt magma is also gentle, but what it can then do certainly is not. I’m yet to see a compost heap with similar dynamics, to that or to a star. It’s a ball of gas and plasma and we can see from its visible and measurable dynamics and a limited indirect window on its interior that it isn’t gentle. Making a new shadow shape on the cave wall doesn’t help me see or comprehend the thing that cast the shadow. Our observation of the interior of the Sun is already via indirect methods thus the theory-based house of cards is the result, the interpretation of the shadows, and not the shadow caster, so as little indirectness or misleading metaphor is what’s appropriate in the absence of direct observation.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 5:44 pm
Our observation of the interior of the Sun is already via indirect methods thus the theory-based house of cards is the result
No, that is not correct. We can directly see what is inside the sun. That we see with sound instead of with light is as direct as seeing a baby in the womb with sound, or fish in the ocean, or oil in the ground.
Even radar imagery of the ground needs to be ground-truthed to know exactly what you’re looking at. Pretty sure the total lack of direct ground-truthing, in the Sun’s interior, or in Earth’s core for that matter, means we’re still ‘looking’ indirectly through a filter of falsifiable theories about what’s acoustically sensed. The womb analogy is also not reasonable, the possible interpretive options are limited, and we can use laparoscopy for a direct confirmation if there’s any doubt. The fish likewise, we have copious direct visual confirmation for fish also. Same applies for oil traps, we have both drill core and exposed outcrop as direct confirmations.
But we have no confirmation for what’s in the sun so remote sensor derived ‘knowledge’ is thus indirect and conjectured from theory alone. Thus of shadows, and not of the shadow caster.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 8:34 pm
But we have no confirmation for what’s in the sun so remote sensor derived ‘knowledge’ is thus indirect and conjectured from theory alone. Thus of shadows, and not of the shadow caster.
This is because you do not realize how it is actually done. We can see sunspots days before they erupt on the surface. The ground-truth is that the spot actually erupts where it was seen. Similarly, we can see through the Sun and see spots on the backside. The ground-truth is that the spot becomes visible when it rotates into view. You are too hung up on the false notion of ‘conjectured from theory alone’. The seeing is not a theoretical construct, but a direct observation of travel times of sounds waves. There are no ‘falsifiable theories’ involved.
We can observe a geothermal gradient flux and magmatic tremors and predict an eruption with useful accuracy as well, but that does not mean >95% of our sub-crustal knowledge of the interior of Earth is not indirect, unconfirmed, and constructed based on theories.
Same applies for 99.9% of the interior of the Sun where there’s no direct surface expressions of phenomena below. Such ‘knowledge’ is indeed based upon theoretical interpretation alone.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Same applies for 99.9% of the interior of the Sun where there’s no direct surface expressions of phenomena below. Such ‘knowledge’ is indeed based upon theoretical interpretation alone.
I think you have no idea about the meanings of theory and observation. An example: we observe at the Earth a certain neutrino flux. As we can determine the direction from where the neutrinos come we note that that is direction to the Sun. From that we know that the Sun is the source. Now, you could argue that perhaps the neutrinos come from another source and it is only a coincidence that they seem to come from the Sun. I consider such a view perverse. We can measure the energy distribution of said neutrinos and from our knowledge of nuclear reactions deduce the temperature of the matter where the neutrinos are generated. This is a direct measurement of the temperature of the interior. Now, there could be some unknown process that redistributes the energy, destroying our measurement of the ‘real’ temperature. I consider such a view to be perverse as well, especially since the measured temperature matches that which determines the directly measured sound speed. To claim that those are ‘shadows’ only, is also perverse, and so on. People who cling to such perversities usually have an ulterior motive for doing so, like ‘I distrust models because their implications clash view my worldview’ or perhaps something even more nefarious.
AGW mucked around historical climate records and derailed climate studies and funding of valuable programs, into a cul-de-sac of AGW consensus building that very reason. Namely people believed the models and theories must be right, and that the anti-thesis, or null hypothesis was the perversity, so tried to counter-productively enforce acceptance of it, despite its unconfirmed basis as unsettled modelling, pretending to be settled science. Or in your terms it’d be perverse to not buy into the model?
I don’t care to try and account for your self-selection of what constitutes ‘perverseness’ to you (nor your apparent borderline paranoia or in-built presumption with regard to the above comments for your “ulterior motive” fantasy), but I do know how to distinguish between a direct confirmation and a theoretical supposition that was merely derived from and indirect and remote observation.
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 9:58 pm
but I do know how to distinguish between a direct confirmation and a theoretical supposition that was merely derived from and indirect and remote observation.
Apparently, you do not know this as the examples I have shown you [there are many more] are direct observations and not theoretical suppositions.
I’m pleased to hear you’ve managed to dispense with all that tedious theoretical interpretation of remote non-confirmed observations and jumped directly to belief system. That’s quite an accomplishment, it must be wonderful to have 100% confidence and none of that messy interpretation stuff.
lsvalgaard says:
January 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
The Sun is not a detonating hydrogen bomb. Its energy production is comparable to that of a compost heap
Hello Leif, please, when you get a compost heap producing megawatts/m^2 output at its surface, please let me know, in such case I would have a serious business proposal for you.
At this moment I don’t have for sale nothing more than a nice old castle in Europe for very reasonable price, maybe you could be interested?…
And until the compost revolution in energetics will happen and with all the respect I’m still not too sure even 1.13×10^28 cubic meters of compost heaps (- amount even being perhaps astronomically massiver than is the sphere where in fact the thermonuclear reactions are really going on in the Sun and even if it would somehow not kill itself and/or became the first compost class star, I mean perhaps before it would descend beyond the event horizon) would have the thousands of degree temperature at its visible surface. Not speaking about its interior – where I somehow would bet the conditions for you would be quite simmilar as if you detonate a hydrogen bomb next block, only they will last billions of years, unfortunately you’ll not have much chance to enjoy the warmth, because your life I would bet would last not longer than in the case of the next block small hydrogen bomb nuclear mishap…
So it somehow occurs to me the energy production per mass unit in a compost heap perhaps could be astronomically smaller than that in the Sun. But of course, I’m not a solar scientist, so I don’t really know what’s the beef.
Nevertheless a compost fermentation somehow to this days I never was able to see produce temperatures, energy radiation density and spectras of the kind the Sun arguably produces by the nuclear reactions in its core. But maybe I’m too empirical and barmy to believe in ETs only when I have chance to talk to them and therefore I was never able to invent the compost bulb.
A comparison of the Sun to a compost heap, however in certain sense maybe factual, looks to me like a bit inadequate oversimplification which has not much a base in useful reality nor helps to understand the nature of the processes going on in the Sun – at least not to me.
But it sometimes happens the Wikipedia doesn’t help so.
As you can check the energy output per square meter of the solar surface is perhaps over 15 megawatts and I note that’s really way above the places where the energy in the Sun is really produced – a distance you perhaps barely could be able to walk through in whole your life even at the old cold Earth…
Never mind, a small heap from old wise heapie say with just 1 megawatt/m^2 output would be enough for me, really, I don’t need much, just tell me where it is, how are you doing it and how I can make it last for just couple of decades (the billions would be anyway too wasty for me) – the castle could be yours 😉
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:48 pm
it must be wonderful to have 100% confidence and none of that messy interpretation stuff.
It helps to know what one is talking about.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
January 20, 2014 at 11:25 pm
So it somehow occurs to me the energy production per mass unit in a compost heap perhaps could be astronomically smaller than that in the Sun.
Even you could do the math. Here is one way: solar energy output http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity 3.939×10^26 W, solar mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass 1.98855×10^30 kg. Energy release per kg: E = 3.939×10^26/1.98855×10^30 = 0.0002 W/kg. Since not the whole Sun is involved, but only perhaps a fifth, you can increase E by five to get 0.001 W/kg so even you can see that the energy production per unit mass in the Sun is astronomically smaller than that in a compost heap. Per unit volume the Sun does better as the matter at the center is 10 times more dense that gold, but still the compost heap wins out. Can I have that castle now?
helps to understand the nature of the processes going on in the Sun
The understanding is that the mutual electrostatic repulsion between protons is so strong that it only very rarely is overcome resulting in fusion, meaning that fusion is a very inefficient process. Only because the Sun is so big does the extremely feeble energy release rate add up to something.
Unmentionable said January 20, 2014 at 9:58 pm;
AGW was at the dawn a product of professional politics and diehard activism. Al Gore and James Hansen intellectually copulated on the floors of Congress … and it went down the scientific from there … scientifically speaking.
What we see with AGW, is not a case of the limitations of the methodologies (which do certainly exist), but of the purposeful misuse of the tools of science as political weapons.
Your characterization works only for the blind following the blind.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 said @ January 20, 2014 at 11:25 pm;
That nicely summarizes your basic difficulty.
Models & modeling are not about duplicating, replicating or even simulating reality. “Oversimplification” is the essential (but sometime counter-intuitive) skill that yields a quality, useful model.
Smoking Frog said @ January 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm;
You said it. HAL-9000 didn’t. That makes it your baby, not his. Child-support payments fall to you; not him, or us.
You shouldn’t to be a deadbeat (intellectual) dad.
The same persistence that is parching the US West Coast is building ice on the Canadian Shield. Let us hope this is not as bad as it looks.
James at 48 said January 21, 2014 at 8:09 am;
Seasonal snow & ice are not bad. They are an agriculture & environmental asset in many situations … and especially so in low-precipitation regions like central Canada and the Prairies.
Perennial snowpack, however, causes rapid ecological damage. A single summer with persistent snow on the ground starts the process, and in a very few years everything is dead.
We don’t have to let that happen, though. We have the technology to get rid of snow that threatens to last too long into the summer growing season.
But to be most effective, we must not wait. Having plant-life on the ground is itself a big part of keeping the area snow-free in the summer. If we let the snow kill the ground-cover (‘arguing about it’), that’s a big setback.
We should be ready to move “promptly” with aerial soot-dusting, etc. We have all the parts & pieces laying around handy. It’s just a matter of being prepared – between the ears – to make the move in a timely way.
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 6:06 am
Unmentionable says:
January 20, 2014 at 10:48 pm
it must be wonderful to have 100% confidence and none of that messy interpretation stuff.
It helps to know what one is talking about.
___
Your self-satisfaction and intellectual arrogance is common, but surprising. I find your assertion that you directly know what happens deep inside the Sun, sans any form of theoretical interpretation, as absurd as it’s clearly false. You’ve leave no choice but to dismiss you.
Unmentionable says:
January 21, 2014 at 8:49 am
You’ve leave no choice but to dismiss you.
Just like the people who did not want to look through Galileo’s telescope to verify for themselves what he saw. Willful ignorance is of the worst kind.
And BTW, we do interpret the direct observations theoretically, because data without theory are barren and do not lead to understanding. The proof that we have some understanding comes when the divers direct observations tie together in a coherent theoretical framework. The important point is that direct, remote observation is possible.
Unmentionable said January 21, 2014 at 8:49 am;
Good luck with that dismissal.
We saw The Bomb, before it lit up the Nevada night.
We saw the Smallpox disease-organism, before it was identified.
We saw the New outer planets … in the orbits of the Ancient inner planets.
We see the oceans most clearly, through the steel hulls of submarines.
And on and on and on and …
You’ll need some very special luck there.
Analogy of the Cave by Plato (ca. ~400BC)
The difficulties described by Unmentionable, relating to sensing, perceiving and knowing, have been keenly noted and explored for millenia.
Well Plato hated democracy and was suggesting the need for philosopher-king (perhaps himself), so he overinflated the role and importance of the philosopher in society quite a bit.
It is probably the source of the entitled attitude of the “intellectuals” and “revolutionaries” who don’t really produce anything, and as Karl R Popper noted, they never ever get their intended results. Look at the 1900’s in China and Russia.
Ha, you two are terrific. Your responses caricature a zealot discovering an ‘unmentionable’ sacrilege within the temple. Look, it’s not personal, I detect from the comment exchange that you’re 100% convinced you know things which you don’t. If you desire fawning agreements and deference I’m really shocking at that stuff. I’ve a requirement to reject things which don’t pass muster after examination.
You can release the verbal Kraken now, I won’t reply from here on.
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 9:49 am;
Democracy at the time was a “theory”, or more accurately, a philosophical construct.
As well, Greek Democracy was extended only to “citizens”; most were not citizens, and citizenship existed almost exclusively within cities. Citizenship, voting and Democracy were mainly a ‘tool’ of the City State, used to dominate, subjugate & exploited the ‘hinterlands’ (everything outside the Walls).
That the words “citizen” and “city” are similar, isn’t incidental … is why we Blue-Urban and Red-Rural … and”Phil Robertson for President” bumper-stickers.
But the problems Unmentionable experiences, grappling with Science, were clearly recognized by Plato, his associates, and less well-recorded (less wealthy & powerful) people in a long line before them. One can make a lot more progress with these difficulties, by knowing that the issues have been long-studied, and building on past work.
=====
Yes, current Academia, and Intellectualism such as it now exists, have their issues. In decades & generations not at all distant, the actually issues were very different. Beware looking at the frailties of Academia today, and mistaking them for the ‘core problem’.
… Because, to substantial degrees, there are actually more-foundational difficulties in play. Mary Shelley and others of her time & circles sketched these matters. But they aren’t really the complaints we often see leveled at Science & Scientists, today. The Frankensteing we know, is largely the product of Hollywood & Co.
Unmentionable says:
January 21, 2014 at 10:40 am
discovering an ‘unmentionable’ sacrilege within the temple
rather just an ill-informed, willfully ignorant, agenda-driven person, but if you are done whining, good riddance.
Ted Clayton says, “Democracy at the time was a “theory”, or more accurately, a philosophical construct. As well, Greek Democracy was extended only to “citizens”; most were not citizens, and citizenship existed almost exclusively within cities. Citizenship, voting and Democracy were mainly a ‘tool’ of the City State, used to dominate, subjugate & exploited the ‘hinterlands’ (everything outside the Walls).”
All very well, however, that is not why Plato objected to democracy. He objected to it because democracy was a source of change and conflict – two of the greatest societal evils, in his mind. The state ideally would prevent all change and preserve order.
Regarding and the system he preferred, he placed the philosopher-king in absolute control, and a permanent aristocracy around him. The other class would not be allowed to possess certain goods and capital, such as horses, chariots, art, and other luxuries.
And thank you for pointing out the interesting way that Unmentionable was using the shadow analogy. In his use, the theories are the shadows.
Unmentionable said @ January 21, 2014 at 10:40 am;
Not every zealot has discovered either the True Truth, or an ‘unmentionable’ sacrilege.
Most zealots never get beyond zealotry for its own sake. Just as it is the occupational hazard of the Rebel, that he is in most cases Without a Cause. And always, aggrandizing anything that might be, in his own mind.
We tolerate zealots, even though so many never find a real cause (or sacrilege), because compliance, and yes consensus, are so deadly to institutions … perhaps especially Science.
… But “us two” are hardly going to prove to be the Guardians of Sacrilege; the crusader’s prize.
Leif,
In a discussion on a different thread, You posted this paper,
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
In the paper you discussed Rudolf Wolf’s Planetary Sunspot Formula, and stated “At the end of his life [1893] Wolf remarked that this research (by him and others) never produced any really satisfactory
results”.
I’ve been Looking at Rudolf Wolf’s formula, and I’ve noticed an obvious reason why it does not hold, the “coefficients are mass/distance/squared” therefor his formula does not correctly represent the positive and negative interactions of mass between two or more planetary bodies at aphelion and perihelion or the increase and decrease as positive and/or negative variables between aphelion and perihelion.
i.e When you square a negative integer value you get a positive result.
e.g [-5 * 5= 25] or [-5 * -5 = 25]
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:30 am
I’ve been Looking at Rudolf Wolf’s formula, and I’ve noticed an obvious reason why it does not hold, the “coefficients are mass/distance/squared” therefor his formula does not correctly represent the positive and negative interactions of mass between two or more planetary bodies
Mass and gravity are always positive and there squares [even more so] and cubes are always positive.
Before going to expire during the sun and its system of ultimate knowledge that : these are the true causes of these phenomena on the sun and the solar system . There are many natural and logical approach to the solution of the puzzle , but it is now used ( computing and ” divination ” or divination and prediction ) . Researchers forget that there is simply a logical and natural solution . And that is that the solar system can no more influence from the outside , but what is happening in the mutual action .
Usually the question : how much would it cost and how much would be worthwhile to pay someone who can provide the right solution . ? Organize and offer that to solve the problem and give him a price and you will see that they will soon find someone who ‘s going to solve it. Thus there are thousands of different ” solutions ” and none of them are solvable . Too many participants without bidding requirements . Who can do it and I will take part in the contest.
Please all discussants to think about it and that it does not consider the idea of not , no matter who offers (known or unknown in science ) . And many Nobel Prize winners have been left behind are confusing and ideas .
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 11:02 am;
Plato’s big running-theme, is his objection to having the unqualified discharge important roles in society. Over & over, he uses the role of Ship’s Captain, and Doctor to point to the costs of letting role-assignments be filled by people who don’t know what they’re doing.
And that’s the root of his low opinion of Democracy. People without knowledge, skills or ability, casting ballots on matters in which those assets count, toward success.
Modern Democracy, and the degree to which it has enjoyed some success, dates to the emergence of the affordable Printing Press. And for the very powerful reason, that it enabled common people to acquire drastically increased amounts of information, and even elements of an education.
Plato could see plainly, 2,400 year ago, that an education (the exclusive prerogative of Aristocracy, then) made all the different, in being qualified for many of the roles that exist.
And 2,400 years later … the qualified, the educated, the skilled & practiced can indeed see into the sun & understand it … whereas those who lack those assets, as Plato accurately noted, can’t.
====
There is an undercurrent of ‘political correctness’ going on here; that it is ‘unfair’ or ‘unsavory’ or otherwise an undesirable condition, that some people have abilities (and qualifications) that others don’t have. That there is something faintly scurrilous, that can even be justifiably attacked, about the possession of qualifications that … not everyone possesses.
That whatever one’s grievance … it’ll do to glare at the astrophysicist.
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 11:35 am
“Mass and gravity are always positive and there squares [even more so] and cubes are always positive.
Wolf’s formula is squaring orbital parameters distance without assigning which variables represent the positive and/or negative vectors of aphelion and perihelion of two (or more) planetary masses orbiting around a third body. Basically, he factored in the planetary orbital distance from the sun and squared it over time, removing any interaction/relationship between solar activity and planetary orbits.
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:10 pm
he factored in the planetary orbital distance from the sun and squared it over time, removing any interaction/relationship between solar activity and planetary orbits.
Gravitational and tidal interactions depend on those distances which are always positive.
Leif,
This (red) trend line is one half of aphelion and perihelion and the orbital distance between Uranus and Jupiter without factoring in the suns distance.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sunspot_area_1875-2012-ju.gif
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm
This (red) trend line is one half of aphelion and perihelion and the orbital distance between Uranus and Jupiter without factoring in the suns distance.
And proves nothing at all. What is seems to be the trend of [the blue and pink dots] does not match the sunspot data in the first place.
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“Gravitational and tidal interactions depend on those distances which are always positive.”
I understand what you are saying, My point was not about Gravitational and tidal interactions.
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm
I understand what you are saying, My point was not about Gravitational and tidal interactions.
There are no other that we know of or that are plausible.
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:31 pm
And proves nothing at all. What is seems to be the trend of [the blue and pink dots] does not match the sunspot data in the first place.
It is the trend of the blue dots (only), observational data of when Jupiter is moving away from Uranus towards aphelion, The blue line is the sunspot numbers.
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:47 pm
It is the trend of the blue dots (only), observational data of when Jupiter is moving away from Uranus towards aphelion, The blue line is the sunspot numbers.
the blue triangles and the pink squares do not follow the sunspot curve in the first place.
Sparks said @ January 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm;
No. It’s froze-over, but it happens in modern times.
‘Frozen rivers’ gets a little involved. For how long? How deep & hard? I don’t see anybody cavorting out on this ice. NOOoooo….
This last was a ‘brief’ arctic outbreak. There is talk of another building in. The Great Lakes probably froze-over, and that will help even a weaker next outbreak.
When these outbreaks are just marchin’ down outa the North like ol-time coal-trains outa Tennessee … they don’t even have to be anything Day After Tomorrow, to lock the river up good & deep.
It’s the “persistence” of the pattern, that counts most.
Hi dr. Svalgaard
Our last exchange ended on positive note, so I wonder if you could help with the aurora data after 1965, when your Danish colleagues’ records ended.
Either way thanks.
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“the blue triangles and the pink squares do not follow the sunspot curve in the first place.
Have you an idea why they are similar?
Ted Clayton says,
“Plato could see plainly, 2,400 year ago, that an education (the exclusive prerogative of Aristocracy, then) made all the different, in being qualified for many of the roles that exist.”
True, Plato “could plainly see 2,400 years ago that an education made the [difference].” Perhaps, he even knew that maintaining a changeless, stable state meant there could be no education, horses, chariots, private land, weapons, and even pastries (!) for the lower class. In fact, his view of the purpose of education was to produce philosophers who were alone fit to rule.
Sparks says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Have you an idea why they are similar?
1: they are not similar
2: they may look similar because Jupiter’s period is close [but not quite equal] to the solar cycle period
vukcevic says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm
so I wonder if you could help with the aurora data after 1965, when your Danish colleagues’ records ended.
I’m always willing to help if I can. I’m afraid that there are no auroral records after 1965. Or at least auroral records that are calibrated and can be compared. Various amateur organizations observe aurora [e.g. the British http://www.britastro.org/aurora/ and some German ones] but not systematically enough to be useful. And we have more direct indices today, e.g. Ap and Dst.
It is a strange world, today in what once was the cradle of civilization, education of women is frowned upon, and yet nearly two and half millennia ago Plato said:
Women need to be educated in same way as man, if expected to think and do as men (approximate translation from my Logic science syllabus from decades ago).
Women were only to be educated if they were within the Guardian Class, in order to support the Philosopher-king.
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm;
Plato believed the sensible world (and therefore society) is non-real. That what the senses apprehend & report (‘what goes on in the world’) is but shadows on the cave wall. In his conceptualization, what is Real is completely invisible, but can be apprehended by an act of Pure Mind. The ability to Know the Real can be cultivated.
His Real (but invisible) world is intrinsically changeless. Of Perfect Form, and Immutable. (The immutability/indivisibility notion/principle was a general feature of Greek thought, and also underpins the work of others to whom we now reference modern Atomic Theory … and astrophysics.)
Plato disdained what his lessors (and we) take to be ‘reality’. To him, the normal world is constantly changing, but in meaningless, valueless ways. And this pattern of change is both unpredictable and beyond control, because it is merely the fleeting shadows of eternal forces that are only barely known, even to such as himself. What the eyes see, the ears hear, is but Chaos; pay no Mind.
To him, the world, worldly affairs, society, the State, was all simply Unworthy.
And besides, people like himself were wing-nuts, in the Halls of Power of their day.
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm:
Sparta accorded many of the elements of societal empowerment, to women. The status & stature of their females is something of a (to-delight-in) scandal among their Greek contemporaries. (And beyond Greece…)
In Athens, meanwhile, women made do with a somewhat more-than-typically derogatory status. In some debatable part & degree, this is accorded to their (form & style of) Democracy. That what we see of the unfortunate parts of the female estate in Athens, arose through the Democratic Process, as cultural biases & prejudices within the population became codified through the ballot box. (As predicted by Plato…)
Interestingly, the low status of ‘hard/modern science’ (that a Greek intellectual would stoop to a “hypothesis & test” protocol was an embarrassment) seems to have aided & abetted the occasional female author of ‘real science’, within the Classic Greek literature. (‘Oh, don’t worry about it – she’s just a woman!)
… Sooo, had Greek Science & Democracy not fizzled, it might now be disproportionally females who declare that they can see into the sun! 😉
Thank you.
PS
I am surprised your “soot dusting” comment (@8:09 am) to control snow cover in a cooler climate did not raise more eyebrows than it did. Of course, particulate matter from coal and farming is a concern to the EPA and is being blamed for mortality rates. It is being claimed that it is part of the “social cost of carbon.” We now have a slew of PM 2.5 regulations, also being used to outlaw home fireplaces in Alaska.
Ted Clayton says, “Sparta accorded many of the elements of societal empowerment, to women.”
Women of Sparta had their sons seized from them at very tender ages for training in the military. Women could wrestle with men. I am afraid I remain unconvinced of Spartan women being empowered in any desirable sense of the word. There is absolutely no accounting for taste. (;
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm;
Although I call it ‘soot’, it would be and would have to be immaculately clean & pure … ‘carbon-black’ is a better but less-familiar name.
Soot pollution is the result of ‘incomplete combustion’ of common fuels, and as such includes an ill-defined, unpredictable & uncontrollable ‘sh*tload’ of unpleasant and nasty stuff, besides just the carbon. This would be too ineffective & inefficient, in the effort to dust snow and melt it.
To melt snow that we fear would stay through the summer, we must wait until snowfall has ended. It won’t do, to dust and than have fresh snow come down & cover it.
But we don’t want to delay, either, because the longest days occur early in the summer, and we have to get the snow off promptly, so plants can have time to grow decently. It won’t do, to use most of the summer to ‘finally’ get the snow melted off. The ecosystem will already have been damaged.
So dusting-planes have to go up at just the right time; fly around the clock with multiple crews onboard; refuel & reload with dust-fuel, in the sky.
The duster-generators on the planes must produce an exquisitely defined & controlled carbon-product, so that it descends to the ground in a known, predictable & controlled manner. Otherwise, yer just kidding yerself.
Fortunately, we know how to make this kind of carbon-stuff. It was a HUGE industry, throughout the 19th C, and generating “atomically pure”, fantastically-defined carbon particles remains very important, for critical modern technologies. Carbon is a semiconductor, and heavily relied upon in electronics … where uh-huh, it is precision-defined & controlled, literally at the atomic level.
There will those who oppose this kind of effort. But Canada, Russia and Scandinavia know that their butt is on the line. And they’re cultivating allies.
Zeke said @ January 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm;
Sparta does often set jaw-muscles clenching, for reasons unrelated to the relative or absolute status of their females.
It’s hard to smile graciously, as redeeming & attractive attributes of Sparta come into view, with the face already twisted into a reflexive grimace.
But our kids obviously know better. Many of us come through school as Spartans. School Admins, suggesting a name change during an attack of Political Correctness, are often chagrined at how well the schoolyard ‘Spartans’ understand & emulate the essential determination of their (in)famous namesake.
Recent-history has seen Athens thrust onto a pedestal, and Sparta made the goat.
The – highly literate & numerate – women of Sparta were encouraged to enter the crass & worldly forms of engineering & science (too many men not around to do things) … at which more elite Greek intellectuals looked down their nose. To use “hypothesis & test” protocols was the mark of an inferior Mind, in their game.
Had the great diversity of cultural traditions in Ancient Greece not unraveled, not only would women be over-represented in Astrophysics — a distressing portion of them would be Spartan. ‘And y’all best do something with that look on yer face … stat‘. 😉
But then, glancing in the mirror, it is hard to avoid discovering that, like Neanderthals & Denisovans, Sparta is meaningfully alive & well.
About ten years ago, I think, a American female scientist stated after an extreme cold winter that we only need 15 years of extreme cold winters to realise we are headed towards another mini ice age. That’s the Northern Hemisphere not down under. She added that interglacials are generally separated from cold periods by 10 to 15 k warmer periods, but they decrease naturally depending on the sun and our orbit. Other than in Africa because they never evolved into cold weather homo sapiens. We humans have only been in an agrarian state for around 10,000 years, before they had not been able to grow crops or domesticate wild live stock because of the weather. I think if another mini ice age came, like it did from the 14th century until mid 19th in Europe, with our populations governments do not want us to know yet what might be in store for us. Certainly the southern hemisphere would be more popular to live in.
As far as Australia is concerned there were no known glaciers on the main continent, but only one in Tasmania. Although the rainforests were depleted somewhat and tree levels on elevated spots were lower down. But we were joined to PNG and off shore islands, including Tasmania.
Sparks, your discussions and information that are relevant to the mowing ground orientation has dezorjentisanje science, seeking to address the true causes of phenomena that are discussed for years, with no logical conclusions.
Here’s how the planets affect all these phenomena, given the strength of the effect:
Neptune 1. 1953 Mercury; Uranus 2.090 ; Mars 2.450, Earth 52.928 ; Saturn 55.367 ; Venus 82 .454 , and Jupiter 621. 803 times
So the planets was a major factor!!
bushbunny said @ January 21, 2014 at 8:06 pm;
Although I hesitate to vouch for the government, the main concern about a new mini ice age appears to be agriculture. Will we be able to grow enough food, as the weather ‘goes crazy’?
Canada exports a lot of food, from world-class breadbaskets that experience Little Ice Age winters, every year. If the USA finds a lot of unaccustomed Canadian winter-weather arriving as a new routine, they will look to Canada for the crop-varieties and farming-practices that are already proven to work, under Little Ice Age conditions.
There are concerns about a drop in total annual precipitation, under a colder climate regime. And there are questions about summer-conditions, during a LIA, which aren’t as clear to us as the winter-conditions. Is spring – and summer itself – delayed? Does the summer stay meaningfully cooler? Are there wet spells when rain will damage ripening crops? Does fall come too soon? We are not sure.
We all know that modern crop varieties are more-productive than those of the pioneer days. We generally assume that, well, you know, people just weren’t quite smart enough back then, to do any better. Actually, there are some significant errors involved in that interpretation.
Formerly, folks had to grow food-stuffs near where they lived … “everywhere” … whatever their local conditions might be. If it was wet, windy, droughty, hot, cold … they still had to grow a crop. Not just on the fine prairies like we do now, but everywhere. And they did. The varieties of grains they used were selected & proven, to be highly adaptable to all kinds of growing conditions (including crappy kinds).
The old-timers traded-off maximum productive, for maximum adaptability to the full range of environmental conditions, everywhere that humans live. Their grain varieties were often very large & robust grass-plants. They grew spaced-out more, so they had better ventilation & dried out better. They shared the sun better. They had heavier & deeper root-systems that provided better mechanical anchoring, and gave them better resistance to drought. The stems were massive, and resisted ‘lodging’ or falling over from wind & rain.
We still have those old grain-varieties, today: heirlooms, they’re now called. They’re in the Seed Banks. We grow them at University agricultural facilities; commercial breeders keep them, for crossing; there are large networks of amateur growers who maintain them and adapt them.
Therefore, in the worst case, in which summers become unpredictable & poor, we actually have the kinds of grain varieties that were bred to perform under those conditions.
Indeed, the grains we had as we entered the early modern & pioneer days, we had bred & selected during the immediately preceding Little Ice Age. Our heirlooms grain varieties derived substantially, in fact, from the actual Little Ice Age varieties. Born & bred. And we still have them.
Although the sudden onset of new mini ice age is a serious matter, it by no means has to be an out-of-control food-disaster, or famine. Populations should remain ‘reasonably’ secure.
Nikola Milovic says:
January 22, 2014 at 2:25 am
Apologies, I cant make out what you are saying!
lsvalgaard says:
January 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm
“1: they are not similar
2: they may look similar because Jupiter’s period is close [but not quite equal] to the solar cycle period”
The trends Lief, the trends are Identical.
Sparks says:
January 22, 2014 at 11:31 am
lthe trends are Identical.
1: your fitted curves look the same
2: since there is only one undulation, the correspondence could be spurious
3: the details don’t match
4: not convincing at all.
Sparks, you have the right you can say that you can not decipher what I said. The first reason is my bad English, and the other much more difficult, because the data that I gave to the planet, few understand, because no one thinks about who and how to cause the changes in the solar system. I gave the order of the magnitude of the impact of the sun, of all the planets. For this my second observation is not yet ripe to be understood.
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 11:38 am
There is no “fitted curves”
There are two separate observational data-sets.
The separate trends do match.
Why do they match?
Sparks says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Why do they match?
Because you fiddle with things until you find something you like
Dr. Svalgaard! (just a quick off-topic note — saw your name in the recent post list so, seized the opportunity)
Last Monday, I finished reading this!: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Gray_etal_1.pdf
It was, indeed, a “good read.” And it turned out to be much easier to comprehend than I had feared, for it was written to non-physics people as well as to physicists. AND it was only 42 (not 53!) pages for the last 11 pages were the Bibliography (hurrah!). My main reason for reading it, atmospheric chemistry of UV – ozone influence on climate (thanks to Mario Lento’s great questions about that) was answered only in the negative, mainly, i.e., the upshot was: “We just don’t know a whole lot about this yet.” The End. Well, at least they know that. LOL, that’s far more than any of the AGW “scientists” know.
Just thought, being the caring teacher that you are, you would be gratified to know that your student followed your advice.
Gratefully,
Janice
(okay, NOW BACK ON-TOPIC WE GO!)
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Because you fiddle with things until you find something you like
What was fiddled with?
The Sunspot area data is as published from Greenwich observatory and has not been altered in anyway!
The planetary data, is of date and distance compiled by myself over months, each date and distance value can be independently verified by any astronomer, I cant change where a planet was or is on a specific date, or change the distance between two planets on a specific date.
I have no problem in posting the data where you or anyone else can verify that the planetary data is correct and that the Sunspot area data has not been modified or altered in anyway.
lsvalgaard says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:37 pm
The Sunspot area data is as published from Greenwich observatory and has not been altered in anyway! The planetary data, is of date and distance compiled by myself over months, each date and distance value can be independently verified by any astronomer, I cant change where a planet was or is on a specific date, or change the distance between two planets on a specific date.
But that is not what you plot. You plot your interpretation [or selection or combination or some other concoction] of the data.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:42 pm
But that is not what you plot. You plot your interpretation [or selection or combination or some other concoction] of the data.
I’m showing what is in the actual data, it’s a long way from “Fiddling” with the data.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I’m showing what is in the actual data
No, you are not showing the actual data, but something you see in the data. You could see many other things, but have found something you like and show that.
Do you want to see the actual data? what I’m showing will still be there. In the actual data.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Do you want to see the actual data? what I’m showing will still be there. In the actual data.
I know the actual data. Tell us what you plot. And how you calculate the ‘trend’.
Leif,
Are there any papers know of or recommend on relativistic timing of orbiting planetary bodies?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Are there any papers know of or recommend on relativistic timing of orbiting planetary bodies?
Not sure what you mean. The relativistic corrections to the orbits are extremely small. The biggest one [for Mercury] is 42 arcseconds in a century. The subject is also highly technical, an example is http://www.leif.org/EOS/Gen-Rel-Planets.pdf which I take will not be very useful for you, except perhaps for the numeric example between equations (22) and (23) on the last page.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm
…
Not sure what you mean. The relativistic corrections to the orbits are extremely small.
Thanks,
I’ve been looking into orbital timing and I was wondering, if we had three synchronized clocks one on Earth, and we put one on Jupiter and another on Neptune, the two clocks on Neptune and Jupiter should theoretically become unsynchronized with the clock on Earth, due to relativistic changes during aphelion and perihelion when the planets either speed up and slow down, Therefor wouldn’t the timing of solar observations made on Jupiter or Neptune be different than solar observations made on earth? I’m interested in this change and differences.
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Therefore wouldn’t the timing of solar observations made on Jupiter or Neptune be different than solar observations made on earth? I’m interested in this change and differences.
Clocks run slower in higher gravity, so a clock on the Sun would run slower that a clock on any planet. But the effect is too small to have any effect you can measure. In accurate orbit determinations [and in GPS] those [tiny] relativistic effects are fully accounted for.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm
…the effect is too small to have any effect you can measure. In accurate orbit determinations [and in GPS] those [tiny] relativistic effects are fully accounted for.
Are relativistic effects between the planets accounted for in the Solar observation records?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:11 pm
Are relativistic effects between the planets accounted for in the Solar observation records?
The only ones that need to be corrected are for the effect between the Sun and the observer and they are indeed corrected for, when the matter, which most of the time they don’t. For example: a photon climbing out of the the Sun’s gravitational field loses a little bit of energy [so looks tiny bit more red]. This is corrected for in the calculation of the Total Solar Irradiance [but is very tiny].
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“The only ones that need to be corrected are for the effect between the Sun and the observer and they are indeed corrected for, when [they] matter, which most of the time they don’t.”
So, if it’s assumed very small, unknown or that there is no relativistic effects between the planets and the sun, then they would not be accounted for.
For example, if relativistic effects between the planets had an effect on the behavior of the Solar dynamo, they would not be accounted for, correct?
Sparks says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:52 pm
So, if it’s assumed very small, unknown or that there is no relativistic effects between the planets and the sun, then they would not be accounted for.
It is not assumed to be anything. Relativity is a very precise theory and the effects can be calculated with utmost accuracy, so we know that these effects are very small.
Interesting thanks…
Zeke says @ January 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm (posted in wrong thread)
No, heirloom crops and local-only policies would spell disaster…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Referring to Ted Clayton says: @ January 22, 2014 at 6:44 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will agree that the local only policies are disaster. Cornell Univ. is working on the concept and they are called Food Sheds.
Heirloom crops are another matter entirely. They need to be kept for the genetic diversity that is important in survival if conditions change.
Back yard/homestead farmers that preserve the older varieties need to be encouraged. For example there are no new wormers in the pipeline and parasites are becoming resistant. Certain heritages breeds of sheep are much more worm resistant so the genetics may be needed for crossing into the more modern breeds. (This is what I am doing)
Gail Combs said @ January 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm;
Thanks Gail!
No, Zeke, I’m not talking about local-only policies, not using modern machines or any of that atavistic stuff. I’m pointing at crop varieties that do better under variable/unpredictable conditions; not using them exclusively or anything … they’re an ‘ace in the hole’, if a cooling climate generates ‘wild’, undependable weather … which I am also not convinced is the most likely way it would unfold.
… I’m working in woods for a few days guys, and only got a few minutes. I will look the messages over better in the morning, but will be gone early again. Money is good. 😉
@ Sparks and Isvalgaard from your mutual discussion , I see some illogical conclusions , but you ‘re used to serve the theories that have been proven in them is believed , although not based on natural and logical conclusions . The first question is : how to drive your clocks work , if they are set on the planets and the sun ? Would spring -hour battery or some nuclear plants were affected by the large magnetic field . ? Perhaps it would have been destroyed , but in any case the time could not change .
Another question : Are you sure that there are other relevant factors that affect climate changes except those small relativistic changes . ?
Are you sure that the planets move in ellipses in accordance with Kepler’s laws? If so , there is a hidden truth , and those laws should be corrected . Also, I said the order size planets influence the changes in the sun , but it never interested .
Nikola Milovic says:
January 24, 2014 at 8:28 am
…
What are your thoughts regarding a hypothetical relationship between the suns activity and planetary orbits?
Try and keep to basic points, exactly what you are trying to say is getting a bit lost in your translation.
I give you top marks for your attempt. 🙂
I have a degree in archaeology and palaeoanthropology. The full glacial period ended around 12,000-8000 k ago depending on which hemisphere one lived in. Land bridges generally disappeared around 8,000 years ago but varied. But the earliest agriculture like domestication of livestock and crops really didn’t take off until about 8k ago in the middle east, and never occurred in Australia as the Australian Aborigines had no cereal crops to adapt. Nor any cloven hoofed mammal. But the end of our glacial period brought in the monsoon weather in the top end, and the aboriginal tribes up there, lived mainly around estuaries and the coastal areas. There is evidence to suggest that our present Homo sapiens sapiens came up from the African continent to Europe around 40000 years ago. As the Neandertals were adapted to cold weather biologically and physically, they eventually disappeared. They had adapted to a mainly protein diet like the Innuits who had a diet low in carbohydrates and metabolic system that we don’t have. But the mini ice age did affect parts of Europe badly. Then we had the black death of course that wiped out millions. We cannot live for long times in cold weather like them. We need our carbohydrates to produce energy and BSLs as the need of carbohydrates increases in cold weather. And the amount of sunlight we need, as frozen areas have shorter daylight hours like in the Arctic circle and Antarctica.
A mini ice age would affect growing crops anywhere. Colder weather does not produce the same amount of precipitation. A full glacial period would see parts of the Northern Hemisphere populations drift to the southern hemisphere. And although we Aussies love you Americans and Brits, we don’t have the water and fertile lands to support a large population. That’s why most big cities are built around the ocean and rivers.
But with modern technology and methodology, we could adapt food wise. Maybe ration certain commodities, like petrol and annual crops. Humans can adapt to weather and climate change, or we wouldn’t be here now. But it is the source for energy to drive electricity or motor vehicles that will be a source of contention between countries. And have we not considered, that this AGW is just a sham to avoid the inevitable that would cause more harm than good to humanity?
As far as solar activity is concerned, it does affect the formation of clouds as galactic sub atomic particles are diverted away from our atmosphere. Low activity usually means we get more rain.
Parts of Canada that is affected by permafrost, found that increasing the organic material in soils prevents them totally freezing up.
Gail Combs said @ January 23, 2014 at 5:45 pm;
That’s very cool. In Australia, at U?
Icelandic sheep are a new heritage breed here in North America.
bushbunny says:
January 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm
“There is evidence to suggest that our present Homo sapiens sapiens came up from the African continent to Europe around 40000 years ago. As the Neandertals were adapted to cold weather biologically and physically”
Humans of our present form (identical to us now) have existed for over 100.000 years, Neanderthals Lived in Europe 200,000 years ago and disappeared around 30,000 years ago, It’s a simple case of evolution from a common ancestry.
Very interesting subject!
bushbunny,
There is no evidence that modern man interacted with Neanderthals.
@ Sparks, you’re talking about the difference of time that occur in clocks that are set on Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun. I ask simply. Which would you drive built into the clock: springs, batteries or a new system, for example, atomic operation. The question “How the magnetic field of the sun and planets can change the display time of the clock for each type of energy that powers the clock. Think it’s absurd that this can happen. How are your clocks then you meant to do, whether it’s Einstein Drive or any of your Newly fabricated?
Nikola Milovic,
Relativity?
Earths orbit speeds up and slows down and this is apparently “compensated for”. the relativistic changes during aphelion and perihelion of all the planets including the sun are insignificant.
All Hail Leif.
Sparks seems to be a most powerful tool in science uses the theory of relativity , in order to ” neutralize ” other logical evidence . Relativity can not be changed neither cause nor effect. Everything is going according to predetermined rules. You explain a relativity as she was the cause of slowing and accelerating the planet to perihelion and aphelion . This ruling completely different causes . Science has not found a cause that causes the planets spin and not figured out why this happens. In this unsolved problem is the answer for various speeds of movement of the heavenly bodies . Is relativity a special energy or force that causes certain effects? According to you , it seems so. Irregular and retrograde movement and the formation of spin , can be seen if corrected Kepler’s laws . Wherever the reasons set out allegations of ” marriage ” of space- time that is lost every logic and natural laws are ignored .
Nikola Milovic,
What is the meaning of a “spooky action at a distance”?
Sparks’
THIS IS AN IGNORANCE AND ESCAPE FROM ANSWERS !
Sparks acclaims @ January 25, 2014 at 2:52 am;
HALE!!! All hale the Conquering Science General! Hale!
(Funny name, tho, Gen … Svalgaard? East African Arabic for ‘snail-eater’?)
(I noted the other day that the WUWT Test page displays Ancient Greek nicely. I’ll have to try a choice quote in Younger Futhark.)
(Back tonight folks … after a good day beating plow-shares into swords.)
Nikola Milovic says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:55 am
THIS IS AN IGNORANCE AND ESCAPE FROM ANSWERS !
That is an excellent translation.
bushbunny said @
January 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Yes, there seems to be both insulating & antifreeze effects, from humus & decayed organic matter.
Following extensive fire in Interior Alaska, researchers went into areas burned by low-intensity fire that crept along on the ground, burning mainly just the moss & forest-litter (leaving the trees largely unharmed), and tracked a number of changes in the soil, including increased frost-penetration.