Readers may recall the contentious discussions that occurred on this thread a couple of weeks back. Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released. But that aside, there is good news.
David Archibald writes in to tell us that the model has been released and that we can examine it. Links to the details follow.
While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.
I have not looked at this model, but I’m passing it along for readers to examine themselves. Perhaps I and others will be able to get to it in a few days, but for now I’m passing it along without comment.
Archibald writes:
There is plenty to chew on. Being able to forecast turns in climate a decade in advance will have great commercial utility. To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:
David Evans has made his climate model available for download here.
The home for all things pertaining to the model is: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
UPDATE2:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understanding, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
The most important factors in my opinion in determining the climate are as follows:
Initial Sate Of The Climate
How far from glacial if in inter-glacial and vice versa which means the given variability of an item that causes the climate to change does not have to be as large when the initial state of the climate is near threshold inter-glacial/glacial values or conditions.
Milankovitch Cycles –
Where the earth is in relation to these cycles. Low obliquity, low eccentricity and precession (when earth is closest to sun during N.H summer) all favor colder conditions. Milankovitch Cycles are favorable for cooling and should remain so for the next 4000 years.
Earth’s Magnetic Field Strength –
The weaker the more it will enhance solar effects. A weakening earth magnetic field /solar magnetic field favoring a colder climate. We have at present a weakening earth magnetic field.
Solar Variability –
Through primary and secondary effects. Solar variability already recently showing quite a range in the brief but severe solar lull from 2008 through the end of 2010. Solar activity going forward looking quite weak.
I have listed the many secondary effects and studies which support those effects many times.
Ranging from a solar/volcanic connection, to ozone /solar connection and thus atmospheric circulation changes, to cosmic rays /solar connection and thus low cloud formations to solar irradiance changes tied into ocean heat content changes to site a few examples.
correction when the earth is farthest from the sun during N.H. summer it should be. thanks
“Figure 4. Variations of mean UV spectral irradiance in 3 wavelength bands: FUV, 120–200 nm (left); MUV, 200–270 nm (centre) and NUV,
270–400 nm (right) (respectively, SFUV, SMUV, and SNUV): the monthly means shown in the top panels in black are composites using only
zero-level offset corrections to the raw data (as illustrated by figure 1), whereas those shown in mauve use an additional gain calibration for
the SORCE SIM instrument (as illustrated by figure 3). The mauve curves are also shown by the grey filled areas in the lower panels. The
lower panels also show the best least-squares linear regression fits of the McMurdo neutron monitor GCR counts, M (in orange); the open
solar flux FS (in blue) and F10.7 (in mauve). Correlation coefficients,r (with significance levels in parentheses) with F10.7, FS and M
respectively, for SFUV are 0.95 (99.9%), 0.71 (87.4%) and −0.89 (94.4%); for SMUV are 0.81 (92.9%), 0.80 (92.2%) and −0.89 (94.2%); and
for SNUV are 0.82 (99.6%), 0.83 (89.8%) and −0.87 (99.7%).”
http://pl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=svj6g5&s=8#.U8Fw91V_suo
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf
Joe D released this today – http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/welcome_back_to_the_1950s_and_soon_the_1960s_70s_and_then_18001/
His view on imminent long-term cooling and my view are similar. Yesterday I provided an analysis of previous solar cycles to give perspective to the amount of recent solar variability, cycle to cycle, and indicated that SC24, with an average daily F10.7 flux of 100 so far, is headed towards being the least energetic cycle in my lifetime. Should that come to pass, we will cool, and many have claimed we are already are cooling.
At this point we know at least some things for sure: the sun’s output varies a lot over time, and is the source of heat and light we survive on, and we should therefore strive to understand it all more, for our own good.
From Leif’s light link: “How can atoms become excited? Generally, in one of two ways: They can become radiatively excited by absorbing some light energy from a source of electromagnetic radiation, or they can become collisionally excited by colliding with another particle–an atom or a free electron, for example.”
It begs the question, “where does the energy come from that creates the light that atoms absorb that in turn create more light, or causes atoms or free electrons to move & collide in the first place?”
So while the word “acceleration” was not used in the article, the phrase “they can become collisionally excited by colliding with another particle” is another way of saying the particles are moving before they collide, and movement is always associated with acceleration/deceleration.
So the point I made about charge acceleration causing light still stands. That light causes more light can be construed as circular thinking, on the face of it. Where and how did the first ray of light ever come into existence?
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
Thank you for responding. Since already the thread moved forward a lot, I’ve copied your reply: #BobG says:
#July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
#My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
lsvalgaard replied: “To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″”
I actually read this paper before from your website. I don’t think it addresses my point. The point is that 2008-2009 is a minimum in recent history. It is not all that low when compared to the years 1650 to 1700 within the Maunder Minimum. The paper you cite presumes that TSI during the Maunder Minimum can be estimated based on the 2008-2009. Going through the paper, there are so many guesses made by the author that the paper in my opinion is completely worthless to use in estimating what TSI actually was. The first guess is, “Therefore,the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009.”
You know much better than I do that some aspects of the recent minimum were not predicted by anyone such as changes in solar magnetism and the solar conveyor. I’ve never seen a paper that had any good theoretical explanation for why solar activity becomes very low during periods like the Maunder Minimum. The lack of theoretical understanding of the sun means to me that predictive skill is very low.
I can provide a counter hypothesis to the paper. Changes in sun spots can be used to estimate TSI until the number of sunspots drop below X over a Y months period . At which case the drop in TSI is non-linear to changes in sun spots. Why would this possibly be? If there are many spot free days, ability to use sun spots as a reference to solar activity necessarily becomes less accurate. In other words, solar activity could drop much more than current solar physicists think it did and historical sun spot numbers can’t be used to determine if it did or didn’t due to the lack of sufficiently consistent reference (sun spots). When there are long periods of no sun spot, there might be chaotic events that happen in the sun that give rise to the occasional small sun spot or small cluster of spots. This chaotic activity does not provide all that much information as to how active on average the sun is during that period when it is very inactive especially given there was no one with good instruments monitoring the sun in 1650 to 1700. Therefore, when the number of sun spots drop below X for Y time the ability to estimate solar activity based on sun spots is not good. Perhaps the number X and Y will be determined by observation if the next solar cycle is smaller.
I am in complete agreement with Joe D’ Aleo and yourself.
Joe Bastardi also of Weatherbell Inc. is in agreement.
As he has said the triple crown of climate change – solar-volcanic – oceans.
It is very apparent from many studies that solar variability during the Maunder Minimum was much greater then the 2008-2010 solar lull.
It was much longer and the depth of solar readings such as the aa index, solar wind speed ,IMF were greater then what occurred during this recent solar lull.
ren says
Abstract
During the descent into the recent ‘exceptionally’ low solar minimum, observations have
revealed a larger change in solar UV emissions than seen at the same phase of previous solar
cycles. This is particularly true at wavelengths responsible for stratospheric ozone production
and heating. This implies that ‘top-down’ solar modulation could be a larger factor in long-term
tropospheric change than previously believed, many climate models allowing only for the
‘bottom-up’ effect of the less-variable visible and infrared solar emissions. We present evidence
for long-term drift in solar UV irradiance, which is not found in its commonly used proxies. In
addition, we find that both stratospheric and tropospheric winds and temperatures show stronger
regional variations with those solar indices that do show long-term trends. A top-down climate
effect that shows long-term drift (and may also be out of phase with the bottom-up solar forcing)
would change the spatial response patterns and would mean that climate-chemistry models that
have sufficient resolution in the stratosphere would become very important for making accurate
regional/seasonal climate predictions
henry says
interesting paper!
I am amazed that somebody [besides myself] had it also figured out.
Just remember that ozone is only one of many chemicals produced TOA which differ from place to place, i.e. more peroxides above the oceans, more ozone above the mountains, etc.
it is quite a mix up there
It is those chemical reactions TOA that protect us from any harmful radiation coming from the sun. It is a firm reminder [again] of intelligent design
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Below are the most recent findings by professor Lockwood which confirm much of what we have been pointing out when it comes to solar variability. I am in complete agreement.
I am giving a summary and introduction. Read below.
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 781:L7 (5pp), 2014 January 20 doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L7
C
2014. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECENT LOW SOLAR MINIMUM FOR THE
SOLAR WIND DURING THE MAUNDER MINIMUM
M. Lockwood and M. J. Owens
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, RG6 6BB, UK; m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk
Received 2013 November 18; accepted 2013 December 5; published 2013 December 23
ABSTRACT
The behavior of the Sun and near-Earth space during grand solar minima is not understood; however, the recent long
and low minimum of the decadal-scale solar cycle gives some important clues, with implications for understanding
the solar dynamo and predicting space weather conditions. The speed of the near-Earth solar wind and the strength
of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) embedded within it can be reliably reconstructed for before the advent
of spacecraft monitoring using observations of geomagnetic activity that extend back to the mid-19th century. We
show that during the solar cycle minima around 1879 and 1901 the average solar wind speed was exceptionally
low, implying the Earth remained within the streamer belt of slow solar wind flow for extended periods. This is
consistent with a broader streamer belt, which was also a feature of the recent low minimum (2009), and yields a
prediction that the low near-Earth IMF during the Maunder minimum (1640–1700), as derived from models and
deduced from cosmogenic isotopes, was accompanied by a persistent and relatively constant solar wind of speed
roughly half the average for the modern era.
Key words: solar–terrestrial relations – solar wind – Sun: activity – Sun: corona – Sun: magnetic fields
Online-only material: color figures
1. INTRODUCTION
During the Maunder minimum (MM), almost no sunspots
were detected, as shown by Figure 1. In recent years we have
started to gain some insight into the space weather conditions
during this interval and that is helping to inform predictions
for the future (Barnard et al. 2011). That solar activity was
very low in the MM has been confirmed by observations of
high abundances of cosmogenic isotopes, namely 14C and 10Be
stored in terrestrial reservoirs (Usoskin 2013). These isotopes
also show that this was the most recent of a series of “grand
solar minima” (Steinhilber et al. 2010) and our understanding
of the solar dynamo will be inadequate until we understand how
these grand minima arise. The cosmic ray flux that generates
cosmogenic isotopes is higher when the open solar magnetic
flux (OSF, the magnetic flux leaving the top of the solar corona
and filling the heliosphere) is lower and so also varies inversely
with the heliospheric magnetic field. From the theory of this
relationship, the average near-Earth interplanetary magnetic
field (IMF) in the MM has been estimated to have been B =
1.80 ± 0.59 nT (Steinhilber et al. 2010), considerably smaller
than the average observed by spacecraft over the last four solar
cycles (≈6 nT). Models using the sunspot number to quantify
the emergence rate of open magnetic flux from the Sun (Solanki
et al. 2000) reproduce the variation deduced from geomagnetic
observations (Lockwood et al. 1999; Lockwood et al. 2009), and
Figure 1 shows a modeled variation, Bm, that averages about 2 nT
in theMM(Owens & Lockwood 2012). This model allows for a
base-level emergence of OSF in continued coronal mass ejection
(CME) release during the MM at the rate that was observed
during the recent long and low minimum to the decadal-scale
solar cycle. In addition, a cycle-dependent loss rate of open flux,
set by the degree of warping of the heliospheric current sheet
(Owens et al. 2011), explains an otherwise anomalous phase
relation between the isotopes and sunspot numbers at the start
and end of theMM(Owens et al. 2012). However, none of these
studies tell us about the speed of the solar wind, VSW, which
was incident on the Earth during the MM.
2. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IMF AND
SOLAR WIND SPEED SINCE 1868
A variety of geomagnetic indices have been derived which
monitor different parts of the magnetosphere–ionosphere current
system induced by the flowof magnetized solarwind plasma
past the Earth (see recent review by Lockwood 2013). An important
insight is that a dependence of geomagnetic activity on
the solar wind speed VSW is introduced by the substorm current
wedge (Finch et al. 2008), a fact well explained by the
effect of solar wind dynamic pressure on the near-Earth tail of
the magnetosphere (Lockwood 2013). Consequently, geomagnetic
indices such as aa and IHV that are strongly influenced
by substorms, vary as BV n
SW with n close to 2. On the other
hand, interdiurnal variation indices such as IDV and IDV(1d)
(recently introduced by Lockwood et al. 2013a) are dominated
by the ring current and give n ≈ 0. These differences in n
are statistically significant (Lockwood et al. 2009) and hence
combinations of indices can be used to infer both B and VSW
(Svalgaard et al. 2003; Rouillard et al. 2007; Lockwood et al.
2009). The interplanetary data used here are for 1966–2012,
inclusive, and correlations are carried out on annual means.
The geomagnetic indices used are aaC, IDV, IDV(1d), and IHV
(see descriptions by Lockwood 2013). Svalgaard (2013) has
pointed out that the IDV(1d) index for much of solar cycle 11
is too small and we here use the IDV(1d) series presented by
Lockwood et al. (2014) that uses St Petersburg data and a comparison
of k indices with the aa index to make the required
correction.
The peak linear correlations of each index with BV n
SW, r,
and the optimum n values, are given in Table 1. The largest
correlation possible for annual means and n = 0 is 0.95 (and
for n = 2 is 0.97) because geomagnetic activity is driven by the
1
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 781:L7 (5pp), 2014 January 20 Lockwood & Owens
Bm (nT) & R/30
R/30
Bm
MM −4
−3
−2
−1
1
Therefore we conclude that solar wind speeds
would be relatively uniform in theMM(between about 250 and
275 km s−1, i.e. roughly half the average seen in modern times).
The above is the conclusion from Professor Lockwood (his 2014 conclusion) of what the likely solar wind speeds were during the Maunder Minimum. I concur completely and have maintained this to be the case for many years.
This is great news for us who believe in solar variability.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:41 am
At this point we know at least some things for sure: the sun’s output varies a lot over time
It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.
It begs the question, “where does the energy come from that creates the light that atoms absorb that in turn create more light, or causes atoms or free electrons to move & collide in the first place?”
That energy comes from the nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun, from where it after a journey of hundred of thousands of years finally arrive at the surface.
another way of saying the particles are moving before they collide, and movement is always associated with acceleration/deceleration.
At the atomic level Maxwell’s laws don’t apply. This was Niels Bohr’s great discovery. What happens is that when an electron moves from a higher orbital to a lower one, a photon is emitted with an energy equal to the energy difference between the orbitals. If the matter is not a plasma then the electrons are ‘bound’ and only discrete values of energy differences are possible and we get a spectrum with lines only at discrete frequencies. In a plasma some electrons are not bound, but are free to move around. They can therefore have any energy [depending on the temperature] and when they settle onto a lower orbital [and becoming bound for a very short time] the photons emitted do not have only certain discrete frequencies but can have any frequency and so form a continuous spectrum which we call ‘sunlight’.
Where and how did the first ray of light ever come into existence?
Everywhere at 13.6 billion years ago. It is still around [called the Cosmic Microwave Background]. How: “let there be light”.
BobG says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:45 am
@ur momisugly lsvalgaard
The paper you cite presumes that TSI during the Maunder Minimum can be estimated based on the 2008-2009.
No, it shows by physical arguments that it can.
You know much better than I do that some aspects of the recent minimum were not predicted by anyone such as changes in solar magnetism and the solar conveyor.
I don’t think there were any changes that were not predicted. The recent minimum was just like minima in 1901 and 1912, and the prediction of the current maximum is spot on.
I’ve never seen a paper that had any good theoretical explanation for why solar activity becomes very low during periods like the Maunder Minimum.
We know from cosmic ray modulation that the solar dynamo was still active and that the solar magnetic field cycled as usual. So ‘solar activity’ cannot be used as a broad term. The correct question would be: “why in spite of observed solar magnetic activity were there no visible sunspots?” Today we know that sunspots form by the re-assembly and compaction of the many small pores and magnetic elements that resulted from the shredding of magnetic flux tubes by the convection in the outermost solar layers as they rose to the surface. One possible explanation of the lack of visible spots could be that the process that compacts those magnetic elements was not operating as efficiently during Grand Minima as now. Granted that we do not [yet] why, this is a very plausible explanation. In this way the sunspot number then was no longer a good measure of ‘solar activity’. What is comparable, though, is the situation when there are no spots now. This is then no different from the situation then. The paper also calls attention to observations of the sun’s emission [measured by the temperature] from areas where there are no spots. Livingston found [Figure 2] that that was constant [does not vary with the solar cycle] and there is no reason to believe that this was any different during the Maunder Minimum. So we do not need to determine any X and Ys.
Let’s look at last month of solar activity. Especially at FORCE flares.
http://www.solen.info/solar/indices.html
Please note the chart F10 7, which corresponds to UV radiation.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lockwood+implicatins+of+recetn+low+solar+activity
The Lockwood study 2014
Bob says
..is headed towards being the least energetic cycle in my lifetime. Should that come to pass, we will cool, and many have claimed we are already are cooling.
Henry says
Hi Bob, fancy meeting you here. You are right what you said there. From 1972 until 2016 is straight down. I say it is cooling [from 2000].
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Don’t trust all the official results, especially not anything related to BEST. They are all trying their best to try and hide that is in fact already cooling.
They had not even seen that it is significant cooling in Alaska as well
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
-0.5K/decade
Leif is right, the variability of the sun is small. What he means [to say] is that the variation in the distribution of radiation from the sun under curve is small [talking about the surface under the curve, i.e. the integral of the function for that curve]. But there is some apparent shift of that curve, due to declining solar polar field strength, which results in relatively somewhat more energetic particles leaving the sun. These are [luckily] caught in the upper atmosphere, causing ozone, HxOx and NxOx compounds. In turn, these deflect more light to space, when there is more of it, hence the cooling effect.
Have you figured out yet what this graph
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
will look like in the next 5 decades?
Have you figured out yet what this graph
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
will look like in the next 5 decades?
Perhaps better not to know, but if you insist ….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm
The Lockwood study 2014
is seriously flawed, see Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
@vukcevic
Your mathematics is good! I could not do that – trigonometry was not my strongest subject
I am sure the function is correct, at least until 2015/2016.
However, my investigations seem to suggest that all the functions will come to a dead end stop in or around 2016. I am expecting to see something special on the sun, 2015/16, like another polar switch. From then onward the function must go opposite, like a mirror. Same function with a negative sign [if that is possible] ?
Pam – thanks for being there and paying attention. No one is perfectly right or wrong, but we try.
Henry – nice compilation of temp data done even-handedly in the spirirt of truth.
ren- if we could all just speak the same language communication would go easier! thanx for being persistent in showing cosmic ray/ozone/stratosphere/solar and temp info in a way no one else does.
vuk – that graph is scary man! if we all live long enough to see that come to pass- you get the prize!
Leif – see http://www.amazon.com/The-Earths-Electric-Field-Sources/dp/0123978866 – If the Earth can have both a magnetic and an electric field, why can’t the Sun?
Salvatore – how did you arrive at the various solar output criteria you often post? Are you the “Southwest Weather”-man?
Personally I hope the sun has reached it’s last peak for SC24, but it has a mind of it’s own.
Leif – “It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.” Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation? How do you know that for sure? If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
If I can develop a bottom-up F10.7cm model that closely estimates the measured TSI, I’ll buy in to the TSI measures. Until then I’m skeptical. If it’s “good”, then it will incorporate all changes of F10.7. I am skeptical of how a fairly invariant TSI incorporates accurately an F10.7cm flux magnitude that varies considerably over many time scales.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm
If the Earth can have both a magnetic and an electric field, why can’t the Sun?
Because the Earth’s atmosphere is an insulator that does not conduct electricity and thus prevents shorting out the electric field, and the Sun is conducting plasma that instantly would short out any electric field. We see that in solar flares which are precisely what happens when an electric field builds up as a result of twisting magnetic fields.
Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation?
Yes, there seems to be general agreement on this.
If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
The yearly averaged peak values are around 1362 W/m2 from a low of 1360.5 W/m2 which is 0.18%, with a more typical variation over the cycle of less than that, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Long-Term-TSI.png we are resonably sure of that as throughout the space age meausrements of TSI varies pretty much as the sunspot number [or F10.7] does.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm
If I can develop a bottom-up F10.7cm model that closely estimates the measured TSI, I’ll buy in to the TSI measures.
See for yourself on this compilation of several solar indices since 1960
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Indices-1960-2014.png
They all vary in sync. As they all are simply different manifestations of the Sun’s magnetic field.
Bob Weber says:
“It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.” Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation? How do you know that for sure? If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
“The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.”
Is sufficient to low radiation continued long enough.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFex.htm
You can already see the effects.
ren says
Is sufficient to low radiation continued long enough.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFex.htm
You can already see the effects.
henry says
Vuk’s graph can also be summarised (averaged) by a polynomial of the second order [i.e. a normal quadratic function] and I am sure it will show that we will come to the bottom [of solar polar field strengths] somewhere around 2016. My initial results for the drop in maxima showed a sine wave type of curve which was confirmed by another set of data I had from Anchorage going back to 1942. Maxima are read only once per day and there is not much that can wrong with that.
Note the 2 [two] graphs here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
It looks like every place on earth is on its own sine wave curve depending on the compostion prevalent TOA.
Warming started decelerating in 1972, and, looking at energy in, we started cooling in 1995.
There was a 5 year delay before average temperatures [energy out] started falling as well.
What I have been saying is that you can correlate the deceleration of warming [maxima] exactly with falling solar polar filed strength.
So, come 2016, we will start the uphill battle again. Unfortunately it will not start warming until at least 2038. Hence, the weather from 2016-2038 will be similar to the weather from 1927-1951
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
HenryP
Farmers in the high latitudes should be high be insured. An example is the sudden snowstorm in October 2013 in South Dakota. Such sudden waves jetstreamu can destroy the crops even in summer.