The Iceman Cometh?

Could a quiescent sun portend a new little ice age: a chilly era for humanity and agriculture?

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

President Obama, Al Gore and other alarmists continue to prophesy manmade global warming crises, brought on by our “unsustainable” reliance on fossil fuels. Modelers like Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt conjure up illusory crisis “scenarios” based on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate change. A trillion-dollar Climate Crisis industry self-servingly echoes their claims.

But what if these merchants of fear are wrong? What if the sun refuses to cooperate with the alarmists?

“The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken the blinding yellow orb. “The main driver of all weather and climate … has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. Not since February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots.”

“Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles that have had a lower number of sunspots during their maximum phase,” Dorian continues. This continued downward trend in solar sunspot cycles began over 20 years ago, when Earth stopped warming. If it continues for a couple more cycles, Earth could be entering another “grand minimum,” an extended period of low solar activity.

That would mean less incoming solar radiation, which could have a marked cooling effect – as happened during previous decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The “Maunder Minimum” lasted 70 years (1645-1715), the “Dalton Minimum” 40 years (1790-1830); they brought even colder global temperatures to the “Little Ice Age.”

Solar activity is in free fall, Reading University (UK) space physicist Mike Lockwood confirms, perhaps “faster than at any time in the last 9,300 years.” He raised the likelihood of another grand minimum to 25% (from 10% three years previously). However, he claims a new little ice age is unlikely.

“Human-induced global warming is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles,” Professor Lockwood insists. That warmist mantra may keep him from getting excoriated for even mentioning solar influences. But it ignores Earth’s long history of climate change.

And what if Lockwood is wrong about human influences and the extent of a coming cold era? Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. (See pages 18-21 of this report.) That would be LIA #19.

A couple degrees warmer, with more carbon dioxide in the air, would be good for humanity and planet. Crops, forests and grasslands would grow faster and better, longer growing seasons over larger areas of land would support more habitats, wildlife, agriculture and people – especially if everyone has access to ample, reliable, affordable energy, especially electricity, and modern farming technologies. Most people, including the elderly, can easily handle such warmth, especially if they have air conditioning.

But a couple degrees colder would bring serious adverse consequences for habitats, wildlife, agriculture and humanity. Though geologists say we are overdue for one, this does not mean another Pleistocene ice age – with glaciers obliterating forests and cities under mile-thick walls of ice across North America, Europe, Asia and beyond. Maybe Lockwood is right, and it won’t be a full-blown Little Ice Age déjà vu.

However, Antarctic sea ice just set a new April record. Ice conditions are back to normal in the Arctic. Winters have become longer, colder and snowier. With less meltwater, sea levels are barely rising.

Moreover, a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats. Agriculture would be curtailed across Canada, northern Europe and Russia, putting greater pressure on remaining land to feed hungry families without turning more habitats into cropland. Governments might even have to stop mandating corn for ethanol and devote the land to food crops.

Our ability to feed Earth’s growing population would be seriously impaired, especially since the same factions that wail about fossil fuels, fracking and “dangerous manmade climate change” also despise the chemical fertilizers, insecticides, biotechnology and mechanized farming that would enable us to get far more food per acre under colder conditions, even if crops are starved for plant-fertilizing CO2.

Generally colder conditions can also bring more unpredictable storms and cold snaps during shortened growing seasons. That happened frequently during the last Little Ice Age (1350-1850), resulting in frequent crop failures and bouts of hunger, malnutrition, starvation and disease in much of Europe.

Worst of all, cold kills. Modern homes and buildings with affordable heat make it easy to survive even brutal winters in comfort. However, carbon taxes, restrictions on coal and natural gas, renewable energy mandates and other ill-conceived programs have sent electricity and home heating prices soaring.

When energy is rationed, expensive and unpredictable, businesses lay people off or close their doors. Forced to go on welfare, people’s health and well-being suffer. The elderly are especially susceptible. In Britain, many pensioners now ride buses or sit in libraries all day to stay warm, while others burn used books in stoves (they are cheaper than coal or wood). Thousands die of hypothermia, because they can no longer afford proper heat.

In Germany, Greece and other countries, rising energy costs have caused a surge in illegal tree cutting, as desperate families try to stay warm. Hungry, unemployed families are also poaching wildlife. Meanwhile, forests of wind turbines generate minimal expensive electricity but do slaughter millions of birds and bats every year, leaving crops to be eaten by hordes of insects, across Europe and the United States.

These realities portend what will likely happen on a far larger scale, if we do enter another prolonged cold era under anti-fossil fuel rules imposed in response to global warming hysteria. The specter of widespread turmoil, rising death tolls and climate refugees by the millions could become reality.

And still alarmists say, even if temperatures aren’t rising, we should force developed nations to curtail their energy use and living standards – and modernize developing countries in a “sustainable” manner. We should use the “climate crisis” to “move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”

As though wind, solar and biofuel energy and widespread organic farming are sustainable, under any objective standard. As though government elites have a right to tell poor countries what level of development, what energy technologies, what farming methods they will be “permitted” to have – and what level of poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death they must continue to suffer.

Ending this insanity must begin with the climate scientists and modelers. They are taking our tax dollars and promoting constant scare stories. They owe it to us to be objective, transparent and willing to discuss and debate these issues with those who question human influences on climate change. They owe it to us to get the predictions right, so that we can be properly prepared, especially if the iceman cometh again.

That means basing their models on all the forces that determine global temperature and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other natural forces, as well as the 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere that is carbon dioxide. It means comparing predictions with actual (non-averaged, non-manipulated) real-world observations and data. If the improved models still do not predict accurately, it means revising hypotheses and methodologies yet again, until they square with reality.

Meanwhile, our politicians owe it to us to start basing energy and environmental policies on reality: on how Earth’s climate and weather actually behave – and on how their policies, laws and regulations affect job creation and preservation, economic growth and opportunities, and human health and welfare, especially for poor and minority families, and even more so for the poorest people on our planet.


 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Westhaver

Paul,
It truly is the sun.
🙂

It truly is the Sun in combination with the oceans.

Brute

What could the oceans do without the sun?

Freeze.

Bart Tali
richardscourtney

Dennis Kuzara
You say you missed the 500 year long Little Ice Age (1350-1850).
Well, of course you missed all of it unless you were born before 1850.
But I give you credit for making the daftest troll post so far today.
Richard

Mike

Ice conditions are back to normal in the Arctic.

There is no “normal” in an ever-changing climate system. This term is just alarmist propaganda terminology used to imply de-facto and without any justification that any deviation from the average conditions of some totally arbitrary period “abnormal” and thus caused by humans.
Saying Arctic is “back to normal” accepts that the previous changes were not “normal” and plays to AGW alarmism.

Normal ice conditions, normal precipitation, normal snowfall, normal temperature…
Shouldn’t these climate critters be using everything we know to date?
I could almost accept normals if all the data for this interglacial were included with error bars.
We should be looking at how climate changes throughout this interglacial and attempting to comprehend the climate process.
Using the last 120 years of climate and ignoring 90% of this period we call an interglacial is proving to be a man made catastrophe.

Stephen Richards

There were a few million that missed the coming warmth. They all died.

Probably the distribution of radiation from solar forcing changed during past ice ages more than the amount of radiation because of changes in the Earth’s orbit. Now this is actually another kettle of fish. Literally less solar radiation hitting the planet during a solar minimum. Scary.

trafamadore

So, to put it all together, is your idea that the “minimum” is what is slowing the warming, and as soon as that is over, the warming will increase again? I mean, certainly you know that surface temps are breaking record this year, and there is no indication of cooling.

trafamadore says:
…certainly you know that surface temps are breaking record this year, and there is no indication of cooling.
Totally wrong. But I’ve stopped counting. Some folks refuse to believe any evidence that contradicts their MMGW beliefs. Even if it’s satellite evidence — the most accurate data we have.

Since AGW is based on CO2 heating up the Troposphere, and satellites RSS/UAH measure temp in the Troposphere, why do NOAA/NASA rely on ground temp stations (putting aside all the negative conditions of those temp stations and all the Gov’t funded agencies/NGO’s Adjusting and Homogenizing the data).
NOAA/NASA/CRU, etc. should be using satellite data.

trafamadore

Surface is surface, troposphere is troposphere. (The satellites use a model to calculate temperate. Ooo. Bad.) And I don’t see it as being the most accurate, it fluctuates weirdly. You and Lordy Mockton like it because it is overly sensitive to El Niños where as the surface temps aren’t, and you can still get a negative slope off of ’98, the fav starting point. But you know that.
In any case, why do you bother saying that I am paying attention to the 4 surface records (which is where we live) when you are doing the same thing with the two satellite records? Hypocrisy doesn’t really bother you? Maybe you and I should average all the records ourselves now that WfT isn’t doing it anymore?

Alan Robertson

traf… explain please, how the surface/oceans could actually warm without warming the atmosphere? All of your machinations fall apart with the barest scrutiny.

trafamadore

So shouldn’t you answer that? Look, the oceans are warming, they are just thermometers out there recording, but you think it is a conspiracy? Then you only trust a record that was just in one month completely adjusted, based on the model of the month? And in 98 and 10 the troposphere was warmer than the surface, what about that?
If you take the long view from 1980, the records are roughly parallel. I think the troposphere is overly sensitive to the ENSO, more than the surface.

trafamadore says:
(The satellites use a model to calculate temperate. Ooo. Bad.) And I don’t see it as being the most accurate, it fluctuates weirdly. You and Lordy Mockton like it because it is overly sensitive to El Niños where as the surface temps aren’t, and you can still get a negative slope off of ’98, the fav starting point. But you know that.
All wrong. Satellite data is the most accurate global temperature data. That’s why scientific skeptics like it. If there was another set of data that was more accurate, we would prefer that, because knowledge is what’s important to skeptics. And it doesn’t “fluctuate weirdly”; that’s just your “say anything” response, because you have no credible evidence. Also, if you had bothered to notice, the chart I posted didn’t start in 1998 as you believed, either; the chart I posted began in 2002. But if I had started it in 1997 or 1998, it would still show a cooling trend.
Global warming stopped many years ago. Even the IPCC admits that now. And since alarmists like you want to use ‘consensus’ as your argument, then just look at all the comments here contradicting you. You have no consensus, only your personal belief.
That isn’t good enough. Your side cannot even produce one single measurement quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW). After more than thirty years of searching, and wasting $billions, all you can say is, “Trust us. Just take our word for it that MMGW exists in any meaningful way.”
No. Because if you can’t quantify something that you insist is happening, Occam’s Razor says to take the simplest explanation: MMGW is so minuscule that it cannot be measured.
Data is everything. Measurements are data. That, along with the fact that global warming STOPPED many years ago makes your argument a losing proposition. So now, the MMGW scare is simply a mixture of politics and religion. The climate alarmist crowd has decisively lost the science debate. That’s what the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is clearly telling us.

Alan Robertson

trafamadore,
Thought so. You don’t have the first clue…

TYoke

trafamadore,
You completely ignored a very important point made by kokoda. The AGW models first and foremost predict heating in the TROPOSPHERE. The satellites measure the temperature precisely in that location.
Now you try and tell us that the troposphere temperature measured by the satellites do not matter because we don’t live there. In that case the AGW models don’t matter either, since they are also concerned with the troposphere temperature.
You are trying to have it both ways, and it is hard to see how that could be any more intellectually dishonest.

Gary Hladik

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall one of the unanswered questions in climate science is why the lower troposphere doesn’t show warming amplified by about 1.2 over surface warming, as predicted by theory.

Mike

Lack of the hot spot is simple. Negative feedbacks in the tropics limit the amount of INCOMING energy. The missing heat is not missing, it never got into the system.
Cloud ‘parameters’ in models are speculative and the evidence is that they are wrong.
If the heat trapped by GHG had to be evacuated by increased increased convection in the tropics and heat transport to the poles, there would be a hot-stop.
There isn’t.
So the obvious conclusion is that the incoming energy is reduced by small changes in cloud cover and that the strong>guestimated parameters fed into models are wrong.

Sceptical Sam

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend
Oh no! Even the manipulated data shows a cooling trafamadore.
13 years and falling.
Quick. Get your comrades to adjust that will you please.

Surface is surface
===========
nope. ocean temps are not measured at the surface, they are measured under the surface. Similarly, land temps are not measured at the surface, they are measured above the surface. So, even surface temps are not surface temps.

AGW models first and foremost predict heating in the TROPOSPHERE.
=========================
correct. AGW theory requires that the lower atmosphere warms first, then the surface. without a warming lower atmosphere there is no increased “back radiation” to the surface, thus no warming surface.
the satellites measure the lower atmosphere and show no warming, thus surface warming cannot be due to AGW. The observed surface warming must be due to some other cause.
Climate science and the IPCC assume that the surface warming must be due to AGW because they cannot find any other cause. They even admit this publickly. Gavin said so on TV, when he would not debate Spenser. However, this sort of reasoning is a logical fallacy. It assumes that you know everything there is to know.
https://youtu.be/V96k4BO2sBw?t=143

look at the adjustments in UHA
when the version was 5.6 you said it was most accurate.
now comes version 6.. vastly different.
Satellites dont measure temperature. They measure brightness.
After you apply MODELLING and Adjustments and assumptions, you can DERIVE an estimate of temperature.
dont oversell the certainty or you notion that the issue about accuracy is settled science. show a bit more skepticism.

Steven Mosher says:
Satellites dont measure temperature. They measure brightness.
OK, they measure brightness. But really, that’s not important. Neither is any particular temperature point.
What is important in this context is the temperature TREND. Satellites measure that very well.
When the 1997 – 98 anomaly was recorded, as usual lots of folks extrapolated that into the indefinite future. They believed that global T would continue to rise inexorably, flooding Manhattan and Florida, sinking Tuvalu and Mali, melting the Polar ice caps, and causing runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
But of course, that never happened, and in fact satellite temperature trends show flat to declining global T for many years now. So when you say, “show a bit more skepticism,” that’s what most of us do. It pays to be skeptical of claims that a one or two year fluctuation will become a one-way only trend.
As usual, Steven, skeptics were right. There’s nothing unusual or unprecedented happeining. It’s all good! Don’t worry, be happy! ☺

MarkW

traf:
1) The models used to adjust satellite data are openly available and widely accepted as accurate.
2) It really is funny that you reject the satellite data, just because the super cooked data from your allies shows what you want to believe.

MarkW

traf, if you honestly believe that is possible for a few hundred randomly placed sensors to measure the temperature of the ocean to less than 1 thousandth of a degree, then you truly will believe whatever you are told to believe.

MarkW

Mosh, when problems are found with the data, real scientists figure out the problem and fix it. What do you do?

Menicholas

Hey, we do not live in the ocean either traf, so why bring that up?
Even if one did somehow become silly enough to believe that thermometers that measure to half a degree resolution could detect two one hundredths of a degree of warming, using one thermometer for every 340, 000 cubic kilometers of ocean and measuring every ten days each and only sampling the top 2000 feet of water even then?

Amazing how surface temperatures keep doing that. It’s as if the homogenization algorithms took into account rising CO2. Wish RSS and UAH would get on board.

Bruce Cobb

Given that “the warming” stopped some 18 years ago, your continued belief in “the warming” is quite daft. There was some warming in the 80’s and 90’s, after a cool period lasting several decades. Big deal. Now we are back to cooling, apparently. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with CO2.

sarastro92

Yes. And what drove the 80s-90s warming were two large el Ninos (one a “monster”)… since them temperatures have plateaued. Natural warming trends going back 20K years will continue for the foreseeable future. That is, barring, of course, a new Solar Minimum that works as some (but not all … ie the formidable Leif Svalgaard) believe it does.
In any case, CO2 is not and has never been the climate control knob … even in the era of recorded history back two millennia, global climate was much warmer and much colder than it has been for the past century or so. CO2 levels, meanwhile were fairly constant until around 1950.

Natural warming trends going back 20K years will continue for the foreseeable future.
Actually the trend has been steady cooling the last 10K years…
http://addins.waow.com/blogs/weather/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/11000-yr-temp-graph-300×200.gif

Christopher Hanley

@ lsvalgaard at 3:53 pm.
Out of interest I searched the origin of that graph and found this un-truncated version:
http://addins.waow.com/blogs/weather/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/11000-yr-temp-graph.gif
Now most here can see the absurdity and downright skulduggery at work here including splicing what looks like a concertinaed ‘hockey stick’ onto a graph smoothed to many hundreds of years but it’s typical of what CAGW fraudsters get away with as in “… Research published in 2013 suggests the current global average Earth temperature is close to if not the warmest it has been in 11, 300 years …” which contradicts many paleo-climate and archeological studies:
http://addins.waow.com/blogs/weather/2014/09/a-look-at-earths-temperature-over-the-past-11000-years

Actually Lvsalgaard, I think you misspoke on this one. The trend had NOT been steady cooling, perhaps overall gradual cooling perhaps. The smoothed graph clearly shows warming periods intermixed with cooling periods. Also looks more like the cooling didn’t really commence until about 5000 yrs ago, not 10000. It appears to have plateaued for 5000 yrs. prior to the onset of overall cooling.

James Strom

@Christopher Hanley 9:53 pm @ lsvalgaard at 3:53 pm. To amplify what Hanley says, the graph is recognizable as the one produced by Marcott, perhaps edited a bit by NOAA. It’s worth recalling that under questioning Marcott conceded that the terminal hockey stick is a fabrication. Marcott didn’t quite use the word “skulduggery” to describe his own work, however!

sunsettommy

Surely you are joking,since it has been COOLING for the last three months:
2015 1 +0.261
2015 2 +0.157
2015 3 +0.139
2015 4 +0.065
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/uah-v6-0-global-temperature-update-for-april-2015-0-07-deg-c/
It has been COOLING the first 13 plus years of this century too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend
Where have you been?

jl

“Surface temps are breaking records this year…” Even if true, it would only mean it’s a “record” since 1880 or so. The other 4 billion years, we have no comparable records. And of course even if it proves nothing as to the cause of such record. You have many miles to go.

jl

“and of course even if it’s true it proves…..

Brute

@trafamadore
Are you saying that warming has continued to increase as predicted by models (using man-made CO2 as the irrevocably fundamental agent of change)?
Please explain in coherent detail.

ironicman

‘…there is no indication of cooling.’
Antarctic sea ice continues to expand and the southern ocean is becoming cooler, there is also an indication that this snow season in the Australian Alps will be a shocker.

toorightmate

Ironicman,
This is all due to global warming.
You see, the more the planet warms, the more ice and snow we get. Also, as the planet warms, the temperatures become colder.
Don’t you understand global warming?
Are you daft?

Thanks for that, Patrick. I’d better go and have a look at Lake Eyre while I’ve stil got the chance.

TedM

Gives us plenty of time to go and have a look Patrick.

Mark from the Midwest

Surface temps will continue to rise as long as one out of every 8 surface stations is located within an expanding urban heat island. Look at where they get the official temps for Chicago, and tell me that they should reflect an unbiased trend since 1950.

J

We haave the USCRN (Climate reference network), the most accaurate meaqasssurement faor the US.
Pristine rural sites, caligrated tripple redundant platinium aspirated sensors.
NO hoky adjustments…and the result
Only ten years of data so rar, but on average, temps in the USA, dead flat, no warming trtend, agreeing with the RSS, no warming.
I hope the systems and data handling is secure, so there are no corruption of this resource for political reasons.

Yes the surface is hotter, thats why i wear shoes on very hot days, the blacktop gets very hot.

Yes, and CRN matches all those “faulty” biased corrupt records.
so you have a choice:
a) conspiracy theory and CRN is being corrupted.
b) the other stations are actually pretty good.

Duster

Steven Mosher
May 11, 2015 at 11:07 am

You know quite well that the data-adjustment questions are primarily about the adjustments to the historic record prior to WWII, not the present. The next most important question is the homogenizing of existing stations where there have been no changes to the station that justify the adjustments applied to the data from the station. Why are stable stations weighted so lightly that UHI effects overwhelm stable or cooling signals from otherwise unmodified stations?

Steven,
You mean to tell me that your stepped on, cooked books actually show the US cooling since the late ’90s, as does CRN?
I didn’t know that about BEST.

markl

trafamadore commented: ” I mean, certainly you know that surface temps are breaking record this year, and there is no indication of cooling.”
So since the end of the last LIA how many surface temperatures were broken every year? 100’s?? 1000″s? I am always amazed at how alarmists use the last 50 years as some kind of touchstone.

MarkT

trafamadore:
blah blah blah. Same crap from you everytime. It’s obvious you have zero analyical skills to look at the data yourself, so why don’t you just go away? Sattelite data is from ‘models’? wtf? It’s measured directly from mmW sensors. Explain these ‘models’ you speak of, Einstein?

PiperPaul

The illusion of competence is greatly enhanced by computers and software.

surface temps are breaking record this year

We must remember that surface temperatures are untrustworthy. NASA said in 1990 that surface temps were unreliable. Source: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963

A report issued by the U.S. space agency NASA concluded that there has been no sign that the greenhouse effect increased global temperatures during the 1980s. Based on satellite analysis of the atmosphere between 1,500 and 6,000 metres above sea level, the report said that the study found “a seemingly random pattern of change from year to year.” While several government and university meteorologists around the world have concluded that average surface temperatures have increased significantly in recent years, the report’s authors said that their satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.

So … if the surface temperatures were unreliable in 1990, what changed to make them more reliable today? The surfacestations.org website shows that most US weather stations fail to meet NOAA’s requirements for proper siting. In fact, 70.6% were within 100 feet of something man-made that could skew temperature readings warm. The US has some of the best weather monitoring in the world. If the majority of its weather stations fail to meet the requirements for accurate measurements, what about the rest of the world? Furthermore what about the places with little surface station coverage, like Africa? The surface measurements assume the temperature is the same for hundreds of miles. How can such data be accurate? Finally, why have past surface temperatures been adjusted down even though there was less urbanization and thus less of an effect due to the urban heat island effect?
My point is that the surface temperatures about as trustworthy as a Soviet propaganda film. The only surface temperatures I trust are raw data from stations that at least 100 feet from any man-made object in an open field with a long history. Those are few and far between. While satellite measurements have their problems too, those problems are little compared to the problems of surface stations.

Also surface data was lost. That is, certain original data sets are missing and never to be verified or challenged.

Has no one heard of inertia? Or lag? Synchronicity? Delta T? Mass? Specific Heat?
How long does it take for cooled or warmed water sinking in the northern oceans to reappear in the southern oceans? 10 years? 100 years? 500 to 800 years to reach temporary equilibrium?
If TSI drops a bit, it may be seen almost immediately in the atmosphere – we know that. But what about the rest of the heated mass of this planet.? Surely there is some lag time?
http://www.eeweb.com/blog/andrew_carter/heat-and-temperature-change-specific-heat-capacity
Maybe I am dumb, but I have never seen much about the lag times with respect to the heating or cooling of the earth by the sun – or other planets for that matter.
Perhaps I am just a dumb engineer that fails to understand the complexity of the climate?

Crispin in Waterloo

At least you are asking intelligent questions. That is a sign of a real investigator.

Menicholas

Well, the earth was colder in the past, both the recent past and the dim distant past, so it should be no surprise if indeed the water is warming.
My swimming pool is still warming up from last winter.

Alcheson

Funny how the surface temps after adjustment, show warming, yet fall comes early, winter lasts into May and I barely have to run my air conditioner in summer the past two years here in Southern CA, and yet they keep telling me it the hottest ever. Think Id prefer to trust the satellite data…. agrees much better with what my own observations have been telling me.

urederra

Don’t forget that the South pole ice coverage record was beaten last year.
I’d rather trust ice coverage measurements than temperatures. They seem more difficult to “adjust”.

Menicholas

“I’d rather trust ice coverage measurements than temperatures”
Yeah, but, that ice is caused by warm, I mean cold, I mean wind blowing off of, I mean onto, I mean around the southern ocean, melting land ice which then mixes with salt water, moves a few hundred miles closer to the equator, and then refreezes. Because it is hotter now.

MarkW

Was that before or after the raw data was cooked by the super secret methods?

jones

“Human-induced global warming is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles,” Professor Lockwood insists.
Well thank God we had the foresight to create AGW in the first place then…
So what’s the worry in that case?

kokoda

With Gov’t bureaucrats in charge, what could possibly go wrong.
Boston Bombing – culprits handed to Keystone Cops, er FBI, by Russia, and they failed spectacularly.
War on Drugs – another spectacular failure (at least it wasn’t based on a lie).
War on Poverty – another spectacular failure (at least it wasn’t based on a lie).
War on terrorism – the only terror is by our police state against its citizens.
Global Warming – now that is based on a lie.

xyzzy11

You could add:
War on DDT – based on a lie
War on CFCs – based on a lie

Crispin in Waterloo

The war on drugs is a sham. The CIA was setting up drug distribution rings to raise money to send weapons to wars in Central America that the Congress wouldn’t fund. One of the kingpins admitted in court he had handed over $1.5bn in such profits. No wonder the war was always short staffed and underfunded.
There is even a movie about the west Coast reporter who exposed it. He was found with two bullets in the head in what, about 2005? Ruled a suicide. There’s your war on drugs.

mark

War on fat. (Nutrition)

Stephen Richards

Lockwood has been on that gig for some time. He was the idiot that forecast a major solar cycle24 then had to continually change it to realign his prediction to reality.

pochas

“Moreover, a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats.”
No problem. They’ll just move in with us.

Happy Mothers Day!

Latitude

Meanwhile, our politicians owe it to us to start basing energy and environmental policies on reality:……
good, I would like to see everyone stop adding fuel to the fire by pretending we can predict anything
Nothing neuters global warming faster than admitting how little we really know, and how stupid global warming “scientists” really are.

They are far from stupid – they know exactly what they are doing.

Stephen Richards

+++++++50

exSSNcrew

The climate alarmists suffer from the same “Pretence of Knowledge” as many economists:
www . nobelprize . org / nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

I’m as skeptical of this speculation as I am of disastrous global warming claims.

At least this speculation is based on historical data. There is good reason to view this line of reasoning as a most likely scenario. Unless one is to think that all of the science based studies of past Earth changes are worthless. The only contrary thought that I would add is that it is unknown just how cold it will get. That could mean a mild cold/good skiing weather, or it could be the lead into a Dalton level cold, or a Maunder level cold.

Or no cold. Because we simply cannot predict where we cannot survey. The tech does not yet exist to provide proper coverage, and climate science is too weak a baby to stand up and start telling us our future. I don’t listen to fear either way, be it fear the cold or fear the heat. I live in f’ng Winnipeg, Manitoba: our temp fluxuates 😯 C over 4 seasons. We adapt.

I am in agreement with you on the “no fear part”. Our technology and modern tools enable us to live where ever we wish. That doesn’t mean that there should not be some level of thought given to what if the past repeats with another multi-decade long cold spell.

jbird

Historical data provides us with facts. If the historical data shows a repeating pattern of warming and cooling, that pattern becomes, in my opinion, a more reliable predictor of a future trend than a computer model.
Computer models make too many unproven assumptions to be anything more than theory. Yet, somehow we have raised up these theories (models) to be as real as historical data. Somehow, we continue to squander vast amounts of our taxpayer dollars on the creation of theories. Imagine how different the world might look to us if even a fraction of the money was spent on studying the very real possibility of global cooling.

MCourtney

Exactly what I was going to say.
There is no (certain) evidence that a quiet Sun leads to a colder Earth.
The Maunder Minimum lined up with the Little Ice Age. But one event is hardly correlation – certainly not proof of causation.
Svensmark may be right But we don’t know.
I’m sceptical of this speculation also.

toorightmate

and I’m sceptical about anyone who is sceptical about this speculation of scepticism.

gnome

Though I am just as sceptical, I am a lot more concerned about bit of cooling than I am about a lot of warming.

TomR,Worc,Ma,USA

That makes two of us. A lot of it seems like speculation to me.

It is over the top speculation

Menicholas

Has anyone seen my spectacles?

Bill

” “The sun is almost completely blank,” meteorologist Paul Dorian notes. Virtually no sunspots darken the blinding yellow orb.”
Paul, the debate is not helped by parroting false claims. “The sun is almost completely blank,” Nonsense! The sunspot number today is 110; yesterday 95; the day before 102.
See for yourself at this link: http://sidc.oma.be/silso/
It is true that, we are in a “weak” solar maximum, similar to that in the early years of the last century, but Dorian’s hyperbole, just makes us look like purveyors of BS

Ian H

There have been one or two blank days recently which is unusual near maximum, however I agree that the language is overstated. We have only just passed solar maximum for this cycle after all, so it is ridiculous to be talking of the sun being completely blank, even if it is an unusually small maximum.

Also, as previously noted on another thread: counting sunspots is not the same as measuring the suns outgoing radiance over time.

It is actually pretty close. The sunspot number is regularly used as input to reconstructions of TSI [solar output] because that works quite well.

Alan Robertson

Total Solar Irradiance doesn’t vary that much anyway, regardless of the sunspot number. We’re talking around 1.5 Watt/square meter variance, from max/min sunspots. If Svensmark’s hypothesis of cosmic ray influence over clouds is correct, then low sunspots would mean more cloudiness. Whether or not a general increase in cloudiness acts more to reflect incoming solar radiation and thus causes general cooling, or acts more as a reflector of outgoing LWIR radiation, thus increasing surface temps is unknown. We don’t know which of those phenomenon is globally (there’s a concept) dominant, except locally, on a time of day/cloudiness basis and then we only know a little.

I agree with this. Even if we get a couple of weak cycles, we would just be back to the level of a century ago and interestingly enough the Total Solar Output is actually going up even as the cycle is weak:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003.png

Crispin in Waterloo

Why is this chart of TSI so different from that in the Russian’s paper in THERMAL SCIENCE?
It shows TSI at 1366 Watts and dropping as predicted by Abdussamatov’s 2003-2007 publications.
It is on page 18 of 23, Exhibit 14. The link was given above. What is shown there is a far cry from the chart above. How can that be? Do the Russians have different equipment on the ISS?
He is calling for a 1.2 degree drop globally by 2100.
“Prof. Abdussamatov’s climate model incorporates the sun’s 200-year cycle plus the feedback effects from greenhouse gases released by the oceans, and how these forces have acted in the Earth’s previous 18 Little Ice Ages. What he has found in his work is that all of the 18 previous Little Ice Ages experienced during the past 7,500 years were entirely caused by the 200-year cycle of total solar irradiance (see Exhibit 14, page 19) and the feedback effects from the release of greenhouse gases. The new paper contains a forecast for temperature changes during the next 100 years.”

“It shows TSI at 1366 Watts and dropping as predicted by Abdussamatov’s 2003-2007 publications.”
It (Dr Ab) doesn’t show it dropping as predicted. It shows it with the prediction (his “bicentennial component”) added in. He cites as his source Frohlich, which is the same as Leif.

Crispin in Waterloo

Thanks Nick. Why the discrepancy of 5 Watts/m^2?

The absolute level of TSI has been scaled down by 5 W/m2 as the older instruments were plagued by extra scattered light: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf

MRW

Bill, the complete opening paragraph on http://sidc.oma.be/silso/ under a title of Sunspot number series: latest update puts things in context.

Now that we completed the definitive sunspot numbers for 2014, we can conclude that the maximum of solar cycle 24 was reached in April 2014, with a maximum of the 13-month smoothed sunspot number at 81.8. Since then, solar activity has steadily declined (monthly mean sunspot number now around 40), but remained above 70 over many months, probably indicating that the annual mean for 2014 will also mark a yearly maximum at 78.9. Those values exceed the first peak of activity in cycle 24, which occurred in February 2012 but was short and only reached 66.9.
Therefore, cycle 24 proves to be 30% weaker than the previous solar cycle, which reached 119.7 in July 2000, and thus belongs to the category of moderate cycles, like cycles 12 to 15, which were the norm in the late 19th and early 20th century. […]

Wasn’t Dorian’s comment about the sun on April 30th, 2015?

Yes, things have picked up since then. SILSO’s data so far this month has the SSN going from 15 to 110:

2015 05 01 2015.330  15   3.9  24  30
2015 05 02 2015.333  21   6.2  26  33
2015 05 03 2015.336  34  12.8  17  23
2015 05 04 2015.338  74  11.3  22  28
2015 05 05 2015.341  73   7.5  29  36
2015 05 06 2015.344  85  11.6  29  37
2015 05 07 2015.347  99  11.9  32  41
2015 05 08 2015.349 102  12.6  24  33
2015 05 09 2015.352  95  14.5  21  29
2015 05 10 2015.355 110  15.9  26  33

There’s a lot to be said for averaging SSNs over a rotational period of the Sun.

xyzzy11

lsvalgaard May 10, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Here you go:

Sorry Lief – I get a 404 error attempting to access that link 🙁

try again…

Yes, the sun was so blank on Apr 30th that spaceweather saved an image, see
http://spaceweather.com/images2015/30apr15/blanksun.jpg
I tried to find the URL Leif meant to post but I failed. Oh wait – Leif made the URL work, thanks.

Bill

MRW, excellent comment; you are probably right about the date of the zero count, and if so, that inclines me to give Dorian the benefit of the doubt on the question of motive. However, what actually happened next was that the news industry picked up the comment and the wider world was treated with headlines and short blurb pieces about the sun going blank and another ice age is in the offing. (My wife wanted to know if there was something wrong with the sun)
Here’s the thing. We are in the midst of a huge debate wherein our objective is to win the minds of thinking people everywhere regarding an issue which has gigantic resource allocation implications. We win such a debate with reasoned factual persuasion, which consistently applied, earns us credibility. Hyperbole has no place in a winning strategy. It behooves us all to keep that in mind.
Now, when Mr. Driessen begins a post with ” ‘The sun is almost completely blank,’ meteorologist Paul Dorian notes.” and fails to clarify that it was on one day only, and further, that such events happen periodically, he leaves the impression that his intent is to sensationalize and exaggerate the facts. If his desire is to persuade regular WUWT readers, he succeeds. However, if his intent is to give us persuasive arguments we can use to convince the undecided, he fails.

Just a week or two ago, there were no sunspots on the surface. http://www.daculaweather.com/images/2015_05/sdo.jpg

jorgekafkazar

I don’t see a lot of spots here:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_4500.jpg
Is this the sun? Or the 1 ball down at the pool parlor?

Ernest Bush

It’s a tennis ball or an overexposed shot of the sun. The SOHO viewer app on my iPad shows plenty of sunspots across the middle of the sun. There was a brief period when they were not showing on the surface facing earth, but there are always sunspots on some part of the sun. The number of them is just down from previous solar cycles.

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team”
He isn’t anything like that. He is head of a subsection of the Pulkovo observatory in St Petersburg. Here is their management page. And here is his project. Not global warming.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research team, is convinced another little ice age is on its way. (See pages 18-21 of this report.)

I note the correction to this quoted sentence by Mr. Stokes above (May 10, 2015 at 3:11pm). It is appreciated for the sake of accuracy, however, it does not appear germane to my observation. Which is…
What a strange juxtaposition for me. My youth was during the latter half of the Cold War Era. It is disconcerting to me to have to see repeatedly that it is in Russia where scientists are able to state openly and publicly with confidence their disagreement with modeled projections of continued warming, whereas here in the western countries, your academic or government agency career is pretty much over if you utter an opinion contrary to the script. I for one am always left wondering then, whether the western scientist is being intellectually honest with quotes like the following or whether they are trying to continue sucking at the government teet, or if they are just trying to stay employed. I rarely conclude that it is the first choice.

“Human-induced global warming is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles,” Professor Lockwood insists.

And speaking of accuracy…

Ice conditions are back to normal in the Arctic.

I don’t believe I see the data that supports this sentence. Yes, I am happy the ARCTIC trend is back towards normal over the last three years and we’re about where we were a decade ago in the ARCTIC (sea ice extent and volume), but it appears to me that we are presently below the 1979-2008 sea ice extent “normal” by an area about the size of the US state of Texas. This point may sound pedantic, but I think accuracy is important.
Bruce

A C Osborn

“but it appears to me that we are presently below the 1979-2008 sea ice extent “normal””
is an artificial “normal” as there can’t possibly be a “normal” with so much climatic variation over the last few billion years.

Yeah, I know that and that’s why I used quotes around “normal”. But my interpretation was that the author wrote “normal” but really meant “1979-2008 average”. What else could that have meant since, as you say, none us know really what “normal” is.
If the author meant “1979-2008 average”, then my point stands.

Farmer Gez

Do we really know the level of solar activity just prior to the ice ages? Our comfort in the constancy of the sun may simply be based on the minimal log we have of solar activity. Is the sun capable of deeper troughs than we suppose?

cnxtim

I disagree with this statement;
“Ending this insanity must begin with the climate scientists and modelers.”
No it must end with those that approve public funding for this nonsensical (C)AGW theory…
If nutters want to fund their own theories i agree entirely with their right to do so, in the best democratic support for free speech. but NOT on the public purse.
Sod off and play your fanciful games with your own funds.

Applause

David Archibald

Maurice Newman wrote an article with a very similar title nine months ago:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/were-illprepared-if-the-iceman-cometh/story-e6frg6zo-1227023489894
It is a good article because he starts off by quoting me.

MRW

😉

Mariwarcwm

‘The Pleistocene Ice Age ended 11,000 years ago.’ Ended? It has been going for 2.5million years, with warm Interglacials like the one we are in now every 100,000 years or so. The Interglacials start out warm, and gradually sink in temperature over 10,000 years just as Svalgaard’s graph shows, and then it’s back to deep ice over North America, Europe and Russia. Why should a 0.01% increase in a minor gas alter that persistent pattern? The Holocene Interglacial could be drawing to a close right now.

The solar image in the WUWT reference page is nearly blank, it displays from
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_4500.jpg
However, from that directory, these links all go to what should be going on modulo excessive color and other processing:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_HMII.jpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_HMIIC.jpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_HMIIF.jpg
The 4500 image is for 4500 angstroms, which is visible light and is from the AIA instrument, Atmospheric Imaging Assembly. HMI is (Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager)
Is there an instrument failure? Did the Livingston and Penn effect take a big jump?
The SILSO image looks okay, albeit a bit pale. http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/uset/png/2015/05/UPH20150510161447.png

Hmm. Whenever I post a URL for an image, the image doesn’t display – I just posted an image with too many URLs so it’s in moderation. I see images in the “awaiting moderation page”. I just have to try this, sorry I’m not doing this on the test page.
Visible light image from SDO AIA 4500 channel: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_4500.jpg

Yeah, I was going to say before I was rudely interrupted by dinner (which I had to cook, too), that the version from SDO looked overexposed. This one looks a lot better, but it also looks like the optics and imager are showing their age. Those sunspots sure look pale, though at this point all the image processing that can go on these days make me think the only good observations are direct observations through the eyepiece or projected on to paper.

PiperPaul

[Note to Moderators / Anthony] I think the test page should be split – it’s already monstrous and takes a long time to load.
[Noted. Thank you. Any other ideas for improvements? Put them in the Tips page, and repeat this comment there. .mod]

Andrew S

Outstanding article. The conversation we won’t have – but need to.

Pamela Gray

The main sources of global warming are the oceans. Unfortunately they are not warming. Not in the true sense. They are giving up stored energy. They are warming us, we are not warming them. Stored warmth is rising to the surface and escaping their watery nursery. The only way they warm deeply is when the Easterly Trade winds blow strong enough to blow all the solar reflecting thunderheads towards the West to pile up against coast line of Southeast Asia. When the Easterlies lie dormant, the oceans naturally calm and when they do, warm layers rise to the surface, allowing that heat to escape. We have had a series of such layerings. So again, it is clear the oceans are warming us, we are not warming them.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/elnino/en97/en97.html
I think we are seeing the same mechanism that led to the medieval warm period. And to its eventual collapse. Why? While disgorging heat, the oceans were not given open access to solar insolation. The thunderheads spread across the calm warm equatorial band reflected the potential recharge from happening, thus predicting cold regimes. The oceans had given up their heat and there was not enough left to continue to keep the planet in its hayday of human expansion and wealth.
It is the Earth’s own mechanisms that bring about warm and cold periods.

Bruce Cobb

It is both the sun and the oceans. Sometimes working against each other, and sometimes working together.

Agree with Bruce and Pamela. See post up thread on “inertia”.

Theo Goodwin

Good science followed by an interesting hypothesis. Thanks. It will prove to be unintelligible to Warmists.

Mike M.

Pamela Gray,
But the data show that the oceans are getting warmer, so they are taking heat from the atmosphere, not giving heat to the atmosphere.
El Nino’s certainly produce warming. But that appears to be due to changing patterns of cloudiness, not heat flow from the ocean.

David A

Why not taking heat from the sun, instead of the atmosphere. Truly though we do not even know if the oceans are warming. We do know the oceans are on average warmer then the land, and we do know the land T follows ocean T.

Pamela Gray

No. The data is showing the ocean surface is warming. If you visited the link I included in my post, you could see that process for yourself. The oceans contain multiple layers of warm and cool currents. And sometimes warm current stay below while cool current are above, usually under windy choppy seas but not always. When the oceans are calm, that heat collects by rising to the surface. So it certainly looks like things are warming, but the source is very likely from the ocean stores themselves, not by some additional amount provided by the anthropogenic portion of downwelling infrared radiation. That measly addition would not be detectable in such a noisy system. Besides, the oceans are likely warming (slowly and over a very long period of time) as a natural process related to the last post ice age influx of quite cold water. But that process has a natural end to it, owing to the fact the ice sheets from the last ice age cold period are mostly gone.

Crispin in Waterloo

Mike M
You mention the oceans are taking heat from the atmosphere. I am wondering what mechanism you can cite for this.
The reason I ask is there have been a number of proposals for how the air could heat an ocean but none are viable. If you have noted something that could work, I would be interested to hear about it.
If you are referring to back scattering IR from the atmosphere, not the heating of the water by the air itself, there is a problem because backscattering IR won’t heat water, At best it evaporates it from the ‘skin’ (top few microns).
The total energy lost from the oceans into space and the atmosphere can be calculated quite easily by totalling the evaporation mass p.a. It’s not much compared with insolation which is a very interesting fact of life.

Hmmmmm. Reading this article by Paul Driessen (PD) made me think of Stephen Schneider’s “unless we announce disasters no-one will listen”. PD has disasters aplenty: crop failures, starvation, disease, hypothermia, etc, etc, …….
Trouble is, Stephen Scheider was probably right. But I would still prefer to push for climate scientists to face the reality that their models don’t work, and for politicians to face the reality that fewer and fewer people are prepared to vote for the destructive Green BS. I think the path of reason is slowly winning, and I’d be happier to stick with that. But having said that, there is regrettably more than an element of truth in what PD is saying, and it would be a very good thing if a few more people woke up to that too.

Mark Luhman

Actually cnxtim we fund to much nonsense across the board, the AGW crowd is on one of the hogs at the trough, explain to me why the working man must pay taxes to build sports stadiums for millionaire owner so millionaire player can play in them, same is true for bike path why does fuel tax go into bike paths, should not the use pay? I would support 15% to 20% excise tax to do it yet my fellow biker say no way. As a hunter and fishing person I have watch the water skiers damn near run the fisherman over when the fisherman paid for the boat landing again with an excise tax paid on fishing gear, where any proposal to do the same on water skiing equipment no way say the water skiing community, the reality is far to many people want a free ride and to top that off far to many people want to be elitist and tell the rest of us what to do, while they ride the wagon while the rest of us are pushing. AGW is just a symptom of the disease that running rampant throughout modern society.

PiperPaul

If the middle class really IS being “hollowed out” due to outsourcing, offshoring, automation and a generally poor economy, I think there will be a push for greater job security in the form of demand for more government funded employment. Now there’s a feedback loop.

Yes, the signs are multiplying, the Antarctic ice pack more than 1.6 million km2 above normal, the 41st daily record for 2015. Here are eleven signs of cooling. A new little Ice Age coming?
http://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/

trafamadore

And the arctic record this year, to be ignored.

Sorry, trafamadore, but Arctic ice is recovering strongly:
http://36.media.tumblr.com/b835c0fc2b0a25b008f736419e545cf6/tumblr_inline_nnty350Cn51qij8k6_500.png
Global ice cover is at a multi-year high. Stop with the misinformation, please.

sunsettommy

trafamadore,
He he, you focus on a few days,while the year and past years back to 2007 show a slow trend upward,especially in the amount of multi year ice build up since then.

Even with the Arctic ice-pack being 750000 km2 below average the global ice-pack is at the 3rd highest level recorded, more than one sigma above average. This in spite of the soot coming from China that lowers the Arctic albedo.

Alan Robertson

trafamadore, what Arctic “record” are you talking about?
Not only is there a large area of 5+ meter thick ice North of Nunavut and Greenland, but there remains a large area of Northern Hemisphere snow/ice cover on land.
Check the Sea Ice Page… http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

trafamadore

And the arctic record this year, to be ignored.

So, please explain why the “arctic record this year” should be remarked upon.
Tell us what difference a long, slow maximum of almost 100 days means, and why you fear it so much.
See, historically, a low spring arctic ice extent means a high fall, and a high spring arctic sea ice level means a very low fall sea ice extent.
Sereze’s fears of an arctic death spiral are – simply – dead wrong, and proven wrong by the record since 1979.

@ RAC…trafamadore is refering to the amazing record setting drop back in early to mid March when the sea ice fell below -2sd. All of the warmists got their hopes up high that this was the promised lead in to an ice free Arctic. Unfortunately for the warmists, it was only a fluke moment in time and so bitter disappointment once again has set in as the sea ice steadily moved sideways for 7 weeks to almost regain the median trend line, dashing the warmists Last Great Hope for redemption of their philosophy.

J

Great lakes ice is verh hight he past two years alos, resulting incool wet late springs in the midwest.

Chris

dbstealey said : “Sorry, trafamadore, but Arctic ice is recovering strongly:”
Strange that you showed data for 2014, when we are well into 2015. Arctic data for 2015 is not showing any kind of recovery compared to 2012, nor the 30 year average: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Chris,
The latest full year of data we have is 2014. The Arctic won’t start to get colder until around September 2015, when sea ice begins to grow again. Right now we’re approaching Summer in the Arctic.
As we see in this real-time chart, global polar ice is above its long term average (the red chart line; click in chart to embiggen):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Climate alarmists cling to Arctic ice like a drowning man clings to a stick. Why can’t you just admit that none of your wild-eyed predictions have happened? That’s what a true scientific skeptic does. He admits it when he’s wrong. That’s the path to scientific knowledge.
If Arctic ice was vanishing as incessantly predicted, skeptics would acknowledge that, and take it into account. We would alter our understanding. We would admit that you were right. That’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists, and it’s a BIG difference.

MarkW

@traf: Whenever a blast of cold artic air travels down to the US, it is replaced by warm Pacific air. It just so happened that one of these blasts occurred right at the time of max ice this year. In reality, your so called record is nothing more than timing. Especially considering the fact that ice coverage recovered so quickly.
Once you take the time to understand what is happening you stop looking like such a deluded fool.

Re: “This continued downward trend in solar sunspot cycles began over 20 years ago, when Earth stopped warming.” So, is the pause now supposed to have started over 20 years ago? I see it as a stretch to say the pause started 18 years and whatever months ago, because a nonpositive linear trend in the lower troposphere datasets can be found over a period that starts shortly before a century-class spike.

richard verney

The pause (in the sense that there has been no statistically significant warming) may well be over 20 years in duration, perhaps even as much as 27 years, See
“Werner Brozek (May 4, 2015 at 9:58 am)
April Update for UAH and RSS…..
With respect to statistically significant warming, that is obviously going to increase greatly.
With version 5.6, Dr. McKitrick had it at 16 years while Nick Stokes had it at 18 years and 8 months.
For RSS, Dr. McKitrick had it at 26 years while Nick Stokes had it at 22 years and 3 months.
But with the pause being 18 years and 4 months on version 6, I would say Nick’s time would increase by 4 years to over 22 years.
As for Dr. McKitrick, notice that most of the points for RSS since last April when he made his calculation for RSS are below the trend line. So if he were to calculate RSS today, he could get 27 years. I have no clue about UAH6, but I would not be surprised if it would be similar.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1988/plot/rss/from:1988/trend

richard verney

Whilt I agree with Pamela that it is the oceans that drive the climate, of course, the oceans are energised by the sun. For practical purposes, and ignoring geothermal influences, the only energy absorbed by the oceans would appear to be solar. So if there are changes in the amount of solar being received by the oceans (whether due to changes in cloudiness, which would include the changes in the formation of storm clouds, or by some other mechanism) then the oceans will gradually become cooler.
Whilst there is some evidence of a link between sunspot numbers and temperatures, I think that the jury is out on this one. It is likely that we may well know and learn a lot more in the coming 10 to 20 years when we willl have a better knowledge of how the solar cycles and oceanic cycles pan out, and we may then observe to what extent they may impact upon temperature against the background of ever increasing CO2 levels (CO2 emissions are not going to be cut any time soon so it will not be that long before we see data covering 50% of all manmade CO2 emissions).

Pamela Gray

No. The method of measurement isn’t total heat, it is anomalous heat. And at different layers. These layers can be cooler or warmer than their, what I consider to be short term, climatological average. When the layers “relayer”, especially under El Nino conditions but at other times too, it appears the oceans are being warmed externally. However it is more likely the oceans are warming due to their collection of stored heat rising to the surface. But that is the “warning”. When all that heat is at the surface, we are loosing our stored heat, not gaining it.

Menicholas

“Ending this insanity must begin with the climate scientists and modelers. They are taking our tax dollars and promoting constant scare stories. They owe it to us to be objective, transparent and willing to discuss and debate these issues with those who question human influences on climate change. They owe it to us to get the predictions right, so that we can be properly prepared, especially if the iceman cometh again.”
On the contrary, they are doubling down on the insanity of their predictions, going so far as to make James Hansen’s prediction of “boiling oceans” seem like a calm and reasonable analysis by comparison.
Hard to believe?
Yes it is, but just look:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3353247/Climate-change-study-predicts-refugees-fleeing-into-Antarctica.html

Okay, you win.

David A

Yep, “Climate change will force refugees to move to Antarctica by 2030, researchers have predicted”
==================================================================
Fifteen years from now! CAGW is beyond parody.


Pointman

History is oft changed to suit political paradigms, but real evidence does seem to avoid being lost. The LIA is a case in point, that it happened is beyond doubt. The period in history that it occurred in was also the start of a major flowering of scientific endeavour.
The sun was observed and it’s machinations recorded for history, that old Sol had a sabbatical during this period is beyond question, it would seem prudent to connect the LIA to the sleepy sun.
Those that place our sun in the sky as an unvarying radiant heater are not only ignorant of history, but bereft of real scientific process. Much proxy evidence has been growing in volume that shows the earth’s temperature has changed rapidly in times past, usually in the cooling direction.
Warming in the past has never been a problem for our dear little blue planet, cold has always caused huge changes and a threat to much of nature. Science needs to look seriously as to why the sun changes, if that can be determined we will have a real predictor of past, present and future climate.
The music of the spheres would be a good place to start.

The Sunspots are not overall Solar energy; they are a proxy for Solar output. A better proxy for Solar output is the energy actually reaching the Earth: this is approximately measured by the 10.7cm Flux. It is a measurement of the re-radiation of Solar output that “excites” the atmospheric molecules and direct Solar energy at 2,800 M Hz. [This is only a little above the 2,450 M Hz {12cm} of your microwave oven!!!]
http://www.spaceweather.ca/solarflux/sx-6-mavg-eng.php
Note: 1970s and 2012s!

richard verney May 10, 2015 at 4:02 pm
I agree. Let’s not try to make an equation of Earth’s temperature based on Sunspots: let’s use the FLUX [force…!].

This is completely wrong. There is no energy to speak of in the F10.7 flux. The F10.7 flux is measured in SFUs where one SFU is 10^−22 W m−2 Hz−1. F10.7 is a good proxy for the Extreme UV and for the Sunspot Number, which in turn is a good proxy for the total energy we get from the Sun.

Again, you continue to amaze me! You say I am completely wrong, but then say yes I am right by your example. As you stated it is a good proxy for the Extreme Solar UV, “and”, the Sunspot Number: so why use the Sunspot number!!! Just use the “FLUX”.

The F10.7 flux and the sunspot number vary very much the same:
http://www.leif.org/research/Rotation-Avg-SSN-F107.png
The problem with the F10.7 flux is that it only goes back to 1947, while the sunspot number goes back to 1610. That is why we use the SSN.
And where you are wrong is to believe that the F10.7 flux as such has any effect at all. The energy in the total flux is 100,000,000,000,000 times smaller than that of ordinary sunlight. Even if you broaden the bandwidth a hundred times you only lop 2 zeroes of that big number.

jlurz, you said:

A better proxy for Solar output is the energy actually reaching the Earth: this is approximately measured by the 10.7cm Flux.

First you say a better proxy for solar output is not a proxy at all, it’s solar output.
Then you say the solar output is approximately the 10.7cm flux, when the majority of solar output is in the visible and UV bands, not microwave.
Perhaps what you should have said “A better proxy for solar output is the 10.7 cm flux which corellates well with TSI.”

and with the sunspot number

Clearly anthropogenic CO2 results in fewer sunspots.

Seasons In The Sun
by Terry Jacks (1974)

MarkT

Ahh yes….
We had joy we had fun, we went streaking in the sun,
But the cops they had guns, and they shot us in the buns…
That was stuck back in my brain from 1975 or so. Thanks Max!

Yuck….sorry

old construction worker

If do go into another little ice age, I vote to call it “Gore’s big folly”.

Old woman of the north

No, that is giving him an historic memory that is totally unwarranted.

sunsettommy

Ok, I have to push back at you Trafamadore,since you appear to be here to just babble and little else. Your latest unsupported drivel:
“Surface is surface, troposphere is troposphere. (The satellites use a model to calculate temperate. Ooo. Bad.) And I don’t see it as being the most accurate, it fluctuates weirdly. You and Lordy Mockton like it because it is overly sensitive to El Niños where as the surface temps aren’t, and you can still get a negative slope off of ’98, the fav starting point. But you know that.
In any case, why do you bother saying that I am paying attention to the 4 surface records (which is where we live) when you are doing the same thing with the two satellite records? Hypocrisy doesn’t really bother you? Maybe you and I should average all the records ourselves now that WfT isn’t doing it anymore?”
Attack satellite data,without basis.
Drag in Viscount Monckton, over something he didn’t say.
Complain that we use the best official data,because you can’t handle it.
Meanwhile you completely Ducked Mine and dbstealeys replies to you about your ignorant claim that this year is now going to be and I quote you, “I mean, certainly you know that surface temps are breaking record this year, and there is no indication of cooling.”
It has been COOLING for the last three month,how come Media is missing it?
Here is my reply, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/10/the-iceman-cometh/#comment-1930726
Where is YOUR reply?

gnomish the clearsighted

nice example of the power of meme repetition disabling perception:
” the blinding yellow orb”
every day for years and decades, you have seen this orb and it was never yellow.
the sun is white. that’s how you know wtf white is = the solar spectrum is the definition of white.
now back to the reddish green bean bran of academia…

it is a bit more complicated than that, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
The Sun is a G2 star and is actually a bit yellow.

Kelvin Vaughan

When I was young and lived in East London UK there was so much pollution in the air the Sun did appear yellow. Probably due to sulphur from coal fires.

Eliza
Mike M.

Paul Driessen,
You wrote: “That means basing their models on all the forces that determine global temperature and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other natural forces, as well as the 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere that is carbon dioxide.”
But the models do that (well, not cosmic rays, since nobody can tell the modellers how that works) along with a whole lot of things you don’t mention. It is true that the sun does not produce much variance, but that is because the models include only the solar physics that is actually known. It does seem that the models have a problem with variations in the oceans (presumably associated with variations in the MOC) but again, the problem is that nobody can really say what needs to be done differently.
I do agree that the modellers test too little and predict too much. And because of that the models fall far short of what is needed for predicting.
You say it is the sun. That is an assertion, not science. What evidence do you have? How do we test that hypothesis? The Maunder Minimum occurred during the Little Ice Age, but that might be just a coincidence since the latter was much longer than the former.

In reply to the idea that the models should be based on “all the forces that determine global temperature and climate fluctuations: the sun, cosmic rays, deep ocean currents, volcanoes and other natural forces, [and CO2]“, Mike M says “the models do that“, but then admits that cosmic rays, the sun, and the oceans are not catered for because “nobody can really say what needs to be done differently“. Well, that’s the problem. No-one knows how these things work – they can’t predict solar cycles (of any length), they can’t predict cosmic rays, they can’t predict ocean cycles, they don’t even know how any of these things affect climate, so they can’t reproduce past climate and they certainly can’t predict climate. An early IPCC report spelled that out : “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.“. [TAR 2001 142.2.2, p774]
On this point I’m in agreement with the IPCC. So the correct statement is “The models can’t and don’t do any of that“.

bushbunny

Spot on Paul, great rationality. I know from studies I did for my Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology degree at UNE. During the last glacial period, people lived in Australia and survived. Precipitation patterns were different, there was a reduction of tree cover especially on the higher altitudes, and also fewer rain forests up North of Mainland.Australia. But no glaciers except in Tasmania and also possibly in the Alps. However surface water, lakes etc., lasted longer, with less evaporation, sea levels were much lower. We were joined to PNG and off shore islands and Tasmania. But indigenous Australians changed their nomadic regions and survived. Lake Mungo in SA Australia was one of their living sites. It’s no longer there. After the glacial period finished they adapted more to live around estuaries and the sea and developed in some parts seasonal camps. They didn’t farm as such like in Europe and the Americas, because no native grasses to evolve, and no mammals, other than the dingo arrived from SE Asia about 4,000 years ago. You can’t farm kangaroos being marsupials and they control their breeding depending on the state of the environment. The big males can kill people too did you know, often attack people now, and killed a lass last year. So for Australia we were pretty OK with regards allowing humans to adapt during the last ice age, but there was no monsoons at the ice age maximum. I don’t and hope that won’t happen if another LIA occurs it didn’t the last time, but who knows. Australia is a large continent and 2/3 is desert now, although lots of subterranean aquifers. Let’s say that I believe that the cities will not get as cold obviously and they have the desalination plants, but inland, we need water for agriculture if the rain patterns become even more erratic as they are now.

William Astley

The cult of CAGW has another paradox, the Holocene temperature conundrum.
The conundrum is the IPCC’s bogus general circulation models (GCM) show that the planet should have warmed in the last 10,000 years as CO2 levels rose 20 ppm and as the greenhouse gas forcing function is logarithmic the first CO2 increase has the greatest effect.
The conundrum is observations unequivocal support the assertion that the indicated that planet significantly cooled in over the last 10,000 years.
Also observations indicated there was cyclic warming and cooling which correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html

A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate? (William: For the last 10,000 years)
Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating.
These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.
We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”
The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. The 9 warming and cooling periods coincide with solar cycle changes.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

The 9 warming and cooling periods coincide with solar cycle changes.
You have not shown that. Only asserted something without showing any evidence.

Here is your Greenland Temperatures and the Cosmic Ray Intensity plotted on the same graph. There is little or no correlation, even if you invert one of the curves:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-Greenland-Temp.png

William Astley

Leif,
Your proxy solar data is not correct. Your life goal appears to be push incorrect data about the sun.

Go argue with these people:
9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:
Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jose A. Abreu, Jürg Beer, Irene Brunner, Marcus Christl, Hubertus Fischer, Ulla Heikkilä, Peter W. Kubik, Mathias Mann, Ken G. McCracken, Heinrich Miller, Hiroko Miyahara, Hans Oerter, and Frank Wilhelms.
Figure 3B in http://www.leif.org/EOS/PNAS-2012-Steinhilber.pdf

William Astley

An 18 year plateau of no warming can be waved away (the cult of CAGW do not have a physical explanation for the period of no warming) with the assertion that fairies and other magic little people are causing the pause in the warming and there will be future warming.
The other scientific explanation is the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to changes in the solar cycle. Scientific proof for the second hypothesis is that the solar cycle has abruptly changed and the planet is now starting to cool.
Significant dangerous global cooling will be a game changer. There will be public panic and immediate media discussion. It will be interesting to watch as specific cult of CAWG scientists and politicians as they desert their cult. It will be also interesting to listen to the lamebrain explanation for global cooling that try to keep CAWG on life support.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

The solar cycle has not ‘abruptly changed’. It is on its merry way just as cycle 14 was, and as predicted more than a decade ago.

Glenn

On its merry way implies a timeline, does it not?
” we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (~2011 maximum)”
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

indeed there was a local maximum in 2011 and just like cycle 14, there are several more local maxima to follow.

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Mike Lockwood :”He raised the likelihood of another grand minimum to 25% (from 10% three years previously). “

William Astley

There are hundreds of papers linking solar cycle changes to planetary climate change.
As noted above the planet has started to cool in respond to the recent abrupt change to the sun.
The issue of how much of the warming in the last 70 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 as opposed to increase in solar activity will be resolved by observations.

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.full.pdf+html

Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates by Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation
above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 plus/minus 500 years (William: Plus/minus in the case of the Bond cycle is 950 years, 1470 years, and 1950 year cycles). The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.
Unfortunately that appears not to be the case as pointed out in this peer-reviewed paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
“The recalibrated series indicates that 11-yr peak SNs during the 18th and 19th century were comparable to those observed during the recent interval of strong activity during the second half of the 20th century. […] the vanishing upward trend over the last 250 years questions the existence of a modern “Grand Maximum” in the 20th century (Solanki et al. 2004; Abreu et al. 2008; Lockwood et al. 2009; Usoskin et al. 2012, 2014), which resulted primarily from the erroneous transition between Wolf and Wolfer in the Hoyt and Schatten GN time series. As this “Grand Maximum” concept rests on the occurrence of out-of-range amplitudes of the solar cycle, it is definitely contradicted by the re-calibrated and reconciled SN and GN series.”

William Astley

Re-issued to fix quote problem.
There are hundreds of papers linking solar cycle changes to planetary climate change.
As noted above the planet has started to cool in respond to the recent abrupt change to the sun.
The issue of how much of the warming in the last 70 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 as opposed to increase in solar activity will be resolved by observations.

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.full.pdf+html

Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1257
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates by Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 plus/minus 500 years (William: Plus/minus in the case of the Bond cycle is 950 years, 1470 years, and 1950 year cycles). The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations.
We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

Your link says:
“we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”, so solar variability does not seem to be a dominant climate driver, at least according to you and your reference. Or perhaps you disagree with your link?

William Astley

The link is correct that total solar radiation (TSI) did not change (the sun did not get hotter) to cause the planet to get warmer.
The solar changes did however cause the planet to get warmer by reducing cloud cover in high latitude regions.
As noted in peer reviewed papers it is paradox that the majority of the warming of the earth in the last 30 years has been in high latitude regions.
There has been no warming of the tropics. The general circulation models predicted that the most amount of warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space.
The pattern of warming observed supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 30 years was caused by solar cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover.
An observation to support that assertion is the sudden increase in sea ice both poles that coincides with the abrupt change to the sun.
http://www.eoearth.org/files/115701_115800/115741/620px-Radiation_balance.jpg
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

trying to evade the issue?
Your link points out [correctly] that solar activity has not been a driver for several cycles now.

There are hundreds of papers linking solar cycle changes to planetary climate change.
There are hundreds of papers linking CO2 to planetary climate change…

Patrick

Any that do not use the output from a computer model?

for example the very first one in the 19th century…

Astley: The link is correct that total solar radiation (TSI) did not change (the sun did not get hotter) to cause the planet to get warmer.
In spite of solar activity being the highest in 8000 years? Perhaps you can see the glaring inconsistencies here, or perhaps not.

Patrick

But you said hundreads. Can you list the hundreads, that do not use computer models?

Brian H

Since the retreat of the Ice sheets due to orbital changes (?), it has unsteadily been cooling from that first warm pulse. There have been a series of warm recoveries from that “trend”, each lower than the last. Warming is the last thing we should be concerned with.

Mariwarcwm

My thoughts exactly. Hasn’t anyone heard of the Pleistocene Ice Age? We should be so lucky as to get warming this late in the Holocene Interglacial.

Village idiot

The ‘Imminent Catastrophic Great Cooling’ snowball gathereth pace (again)

Village idiot,
Nice strawman there. But no one is predicting imminent cooling. A question was asked: Could a quiescent sun portend a new little ice age?
Anything is possible, but no one knows the future — although I recall endless, confident predictions of accelerating global warming that never happened. Those endless predictions were made by the alarmist crowd.
In fact, exactly none of the alarming predictions from your side ever happened. They were all totally wrong. Every one of them failed.
So now you’re trying to paint skeptics into a corner. But you’re just not smart enough to do that. So why not just observe, and maybe learn something for once? That would be a novelty for you.

“Moreover, a 2-degree drop in average global temperatures would shrink growing seasons, cropland and wildlife habitats.”
A modest quibble. It is more “move” seasons and habitats than “shrink”. Much of it can be adapted to via swapping crops. This is a large and complex topic (basically most of what farmers do) so only a couple of short examples.
1) Phoenix Arizona. The “down season” for gardens there is mid summer. It’s hard to grow things in July, August, and sometimes September. So what to do? They grow heat adapted varieties, or plant heat sensitive things in winter, spring, and fall. Now, as things cool, summer “hard time” becomes “good time”. I’ve pointed this out going the other way: That growing crops is not heat limited until a place is as warm as Phoenix Arizona. I.e. about 120 F+ or about 50 C+. In this case of cooling, Phoenix in summer becomes available for growing crops other than those particularly suited to a hot desert.
2) Iowa. At present, it grows a LOT of “field corn”. Field corn is not eaten by people (other than a few hardy souls …) and is a tough hard grain mostly fed to chickens, pigs, etc. It can easily take 100 to 120 days to mature and it really likes the heat. If the summers get cooler, there are cooler crops that can be grown. Go more north, you get more wheat. Above that, rye. Eventually you run into barley and buckwheat. BTW, you can also grow barley in Arizona… just adjust your season. Think on that for a minute. Barley is grown in Alaska, and Arizona… Think you can get it to grow in a 2 C different average?…
http://ethnoleaflets.com/leaflets/barley.htm

Barley is very adaptable to various environments. In fact, it is the most adaptable of the cereals. Barley is an annual grass that has two growing seasons, winter and spring. It does best in the spring in a temperate zone with a 90 day growing season, it can also be found growing in sub-arctic regions, like in Alaska or in Norway, with very short growing seasons . Barley also has a very good resistance to dry heat compared to other small grains. This feature allows it to grow near desert areas such as North Africa.

You don’t need 90 days. There are some very short season barleys. Historically, it was far more common that corn, but over the last century, corn has taken dominance. Why?
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/grains__oilseeds/barley-profile/

U.S. producers harvested 2.24 million acres of barley in 2011 with an average yield of 69.6 bushels/acre. Total production was 155.8 million bushels, which was the smallest annual production level since 1936 and approximately one-half of the 2000 production level. Much of this decline can be attributed to increases in corn production in northern climates that have historically produced barley. The advent of shorter-season corn varieties, coupled with record corn prices, has caused production substitutions away from barley towards corn.

Because of “short season” varieties of corn. Unlike the original Indian Corn that was typically a 75 to 100 day corn even for eating as roasting ears, I have in my seed archive a 45 day sweet corn. Yes, it’s a bit of sellers puff in that where I am it takes more like 50 to 55 days in reality, but still, it’s a whole lot faster than it was.
http://moongrow.com/vegetable_planting_guide/barley.html

Grow and plant barley as you would wheat. Some varieties are spring planted and some are fall planted. Barley ripens sooner than wheat; spring-planted barley ripens in 60 to 70 days, fall-planted barley about 60 days after spring growth begins.

So as “growing season” shortens from 120 days ( or in some places even up to 270 days ) we can substitute other shorter season crops. Such as Barley. (This glosses over an important point: In many cases we have gone to ‘double cropping’ as the season length of the main crop has shortened… so barley is now often grow in addition to corn. So for this double cropping to continue, we would need shorter crop cycles, as we have developed for many crops over the years…)
We don’t grow barley all the time because we want corn more, for a variety of reasons from having the corn drilling and harvesting equipment to being familiar with it to liking the sound of “corn fed beef”… but barley is fine for cattle feed too and we can eat it (or drink it 😉 if needed.
So is that IT? Just barley? Well, no. Ever hear of “buckwheat cakes”? Yeah, we don’t eat them as much now, as we have SO much excess wheat it is silly. But Soba noodles in Asian cooking and buckwheat pancakes are still pretty good.
http://www.hort.cornell.edu/bjorkman/lab/buck/guide/whygrow.php

Why Grow Buckwheat?
Buckwheat is a short-season cash crop with properties that can make it fit specific situations on your farm. While it is unlikely to be your main crop, it can be a worthwhile part of your overall farm plan.
Reasons to grow buckwheat
Fits into rotations at a time when fields might otherwise be idle.
Can be grown as a catch crop where another crop failed.
The check arrives within 90 days of sowing.
Inexpensive to grow because it requires no pesticides and little fertilizer.
Can be grown with equipment available on most farms.
Requires little attention during the growing season.
Mellows the soil and suppresses most weeds.
Easily raised organically, at a premium price.

Notice, in particular, that line about the check? From seed in the ground to delivered to the customer for payment in under 90 days. It really likes about 70 F as ideal. So until Iowa has summer temperatures under 70 F and a growing season less than 2 1/2 to 3 months, we can grow grains there.
And don’t even get me started on kale… Siberian Kale has been harvested from under light snow… Historically, Amish farmers (my ancestors, BTW) grew various beets and turnips for cows. Why? They grow in the cold reasonably well, and keep very well in very cold conditions. (Sadly, many kinds of “fodder beets” are being lost as varieties since we now just grow warm season feeds like corn, soy, and alfalfa hay… but some folks have kept a few of the varieties around.
http://sustainableseedco.com/heirloom-vegetable-seeds/a-ca/beet-heirloom-seeds/red-mammoth-mangel-beet-seeds.html

Fodder beets have been around since the 1400s if not earlier. These beets were prized as nutritious animal feed that was easy to store. Fodder beets are hardy, adaptable and palatable. They are ideal for planting in late summer for use as a winter and spring crop.
Red Mammoth Mangel Beets produce an incredible mass of edible beet leaves and a large root up to 20# or more in size! These beets prefer deeply tilled, free draining, sandy soil to achieve full size. Simply allow your animals to graze on the tops, cut the tops for feeding or harvest the root.
Surprising how juicy and sweet these giant beets are!
1940 Oscar H. Will Pure Seed Book says…
“The heaviest yielder and most popular of all Mangels the light red roots are pinkish fleshed and grow well out of the ground. Yields run as high as fifty tons to the acre.”
This is a sure way to put away enough food for your animals as they face the cold winter. Leave them in the ground and harvest as needed. Unless you are covered with snow, then I suggest you root cellar them.

So there are many “old ways” of getting through a very long winter with a short season for growing things that are only expecting mild warmth. You can harvest these things at about 60 days, but 90 days gives a better yield for cows (a bit fibrous for people then).
It’s a long list of such things…
But the basic idea is really pretty simple: We grow what we grow now not because it is the best product, or the fastest, or produces the most, or is the most cold tolerant. Mostly we do this because it is what we want. If things got tough, we could rapidly want something else that was faster… or more cold tolerant. Instead of “corn puffs” for breakfast, we could go back to buckwheat cakes… Until Iowa is under 70 F in August…
So, IMHO, there isn’t nearly as much disaster looming on the crop front as this paints. Yes, it would be a big problem to lose the northern bands of Canada and Siberia. Yet we would be gaining growing time in Arizona and Mexico.
There is a real problem with the change, but it isn’t the loss of crops to cold. It is the loss of crops to rain and wind.
During the LIA, much tall wheat was lost to “blow down” or “lodging” as the gusty strong winds blew it over. Newer short stem varieties can help with that, but not stop it. Similarly, it does no good to say “we have a shortened growing season from 180 days to 90 days, so go plant barley” if the fields are full of mud. Excess rains were a big problem for crop production in the LIA. So look more at the winds and rains (and mud). That’s where there will be a problem.
For simple cold, crops will all just move southward a couple of hundred miles in terms of who grows what where (with some far north corn moving to south Texas where they grow sorghum and millet in the heat…) and for shorter growing season, varieties will shift to short season types that match the available time. In severe cases, folks will swap to the traditional “catch crops” like buckwheat.
And none of this is even getting close to “exotic” methods. California provides most of the table vegetables for the USA (and fruits and nuts for the USA and for export). Anyone could replace California in that role at slightly higher prices using greenhouses. California uses a lot of them already. (You get about a 5 x to 10 x increase in yield per acre, but with higher costs. For things like lettuce, the increased quality means folks will pay up for it – so many specialty lettuces are now hydroponic greenhouse grown. Look for butter lettuce in plastic containers with a clear root lump still attached as an example.) Greenhouse tomatoes are taking over the world, and in Saudi Arabia they grow a lot of “truck vegetables” in greenhouses using desalinized water. All you really need is sand and ocean to grow loads of vegetables at reasonable rates – just not quite as cheaply as in Mexico or California dirt in most years. See: http://seawatergreenhouse.com/ for example). So in a real “aw shit” you would find Arizona and The Outback of Australia and The Sahara and… all putting in pipelines to the ocean and building greenhouses. Yes, costly. Your dinner salad might cost you a $1 more… depending on how far you are from an ocean and desert….
Who suffers from that? The cows and chickens and pigs who wanted Cow Chow and Pig Chow made from heat loving corn and soybeans (which we grew in the first place because Iowa in August is more like 105 F than 70 F) and instead have to eat barley and buckwheat, or the ‘slash’ from our greenhouse vegetables instead. Then again, pigs and chickens like that rather a lot and cows are quite fond of beet tops…
We are up to our eyeballs in food in the USA and it just isn’t going to make a bit of difference to us. (Folks with dysfunctional governments, like just about every country in Africa and the Middle East other than Israel will have a very hard time of it as they get drought when things get cold and do not have the stability to do much more than basic ag and certainly will not be making greenhouses fast enough… they depend on the USA for wheat, corn and soy to far too high a degree, so they will suffer.)
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/grains-and-why-food-will-stay-plentiful/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/knowing-beans-and-lentils-and-peas-and/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
(BTW, it isn’t just grains… beans too. Tepary beans grow in the desert heat, peas and favas in cold and wet. Just changing which to grow is enough for everywhere but the very edge, and what is lost at the very cold edge tends to be added at the too hot edge…)
Yes, a long rant. But Dad grew up on a farm, and I grew up in farm country, and I really do wish folks would talk to farmers before saying that a couple of degree change is going to end farming and food supply… Cattle can graze from scrub desert to frozen Canadian north, too, so it isn’t just grains and beans…

Mr. Smith,
Thanks! That was a very interesting and enjoyable read. And your fundamental point is profoundly simple: there is an astonishing variety of plants that can be grown; humans are phenonenally adaptable (in no small part because we have the widest palate of all creatures); and as climate naturally varies, people can switch what they grow in given regions to fit that region at that time.
Of course, fixed thinkers cannot conceive of changing with change.

Oops … my mistake.
That’s Richard Gere with a paper mache model of Julia Roberts that he wistfully made during art hour at the old folks’ home.

Gary Pearse

EM Smith, a wonderful post on the real effects of warming or cooling. You also bring back some nice memories. I’m from Manitoba (I’m sure you know its north of North Dakota) and we grew a copious garden in our back yards with good variety and, even though we were city dwellers, laid in a good supply of potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips (swedes -the orangy flesh inside with a magenta top and yellow bottom skin) that I later was informed in England and much later in New Zealand were inedible for humans. We Manitobans have been called inhuman by some.
In New Zealand, my late father in law and I were coming up from an estuary on the south coast where we were spearing flounders that came upstream with tide (the skill is in gauging the refraction of the spear image as it enters the water. You had to aim below where you could see the tail of the flounder lying on the bottom to be sure to hit amid-ships which made it look like you were aiming for your toes). We crossed a field grown packed with swedes that the old man told me were used to break up newly cleared fields, and, he added they make good fodder for cattle. I said they make pretty good fodder for people too. He argued that I was thinking of a different vegetable called a turnip. I pulled one up, took it home, peeled it, diced it and to make it more acceptable to a critic, I chopped up some carrot with it. We cooked it, put a bit of butter on it and the verdict was it was quite good!! During the final years of the war in Germany, citizens and POWs were eating mostly turnips and complaining a lot. I’m sure any Manitoban or Saskatchewanite didn’t mind it that much.
I also saw the result of transplanting different kinds of crops in unusual locales. I spent 3 years with the Geological Survey of Nigeria and friends of mine smuggled in sweet potatoes and sweet corn. He sprouted the sweet potatoes, cut them up and planted them in his garden and put in several rows of corn. It was in plateau country in Northern Nigeria a cooler spot surrounded by Sahel, still quite hot but a lot wetter. Soon huge cracks zig zagged across the red earth over the s. spuds and in about a month or so, the corn had jumped up and the cobs ripened but they were only about 4 inches long – I often thought that it was my friend’s invention that we now find in Chinese food – little cobs that you eat whole. Meanwhile, he began digging up the sweet potatoes – man they were a couple of feet long and weighed 4-6kg each but were fine textured and sweet as I remembered them. In the Yukon, cabbages grew at least a foot and a half in diameter -enormous. The growing season was short but the days were 20hrs or more in mid summer.
We had a garden in Jos Nigeria for which we were shown how to plant European vegetables. You dug a trench about a foot or more deep in a shady spot for salad vegetables and for the rest you hoed furrows, but planted the veggies in the troughs instead of the peaks. An English colleague planted Cox’s Orange Pippins, a fine apple in the shad of a bunch of mango trees. The trouble with malthusian thinkers is that they leave out the most important factor in human survival – ingenuity. Poor Thomas believes his grave, by now, is buried under 100ft of horse manure.

Agriculture is such a science that they can schedule harvesting for optimum use of agricultural machinery. You can read about it in a book called “Operations Research for Management” by Hopkins. Published in 1954. They discuss (among other things) a climatic slide rule, designed to optimize the growing season. It explains why your 45 day corn takes 50 or 55 days. Time of planting (day, month).

James Strom

E. M. Smith, fine post, and you didn’t even get around to the creation of new varieties through hybridization or –gasp!–genetic modification.

That happened frequently during the last Little Ice Age (1350-1850) …..
Really? We had a 500 year long ice age?
I must have missed it.

Dennis,
It’s possible that was a typo. From the article:
The “Maunder Minimum” lasted 70 years (1645-1715), the “Dalton Minimum” 40 years (1790-1830); they brought even colder global temperatures to the “Little Ice Age.”
I’m not sure, maybe the author can clear it up.

Bart Tali

Thanx, Bart. I guess I asked at the wrong site.

Contrary to public opinion, the Maunder Minimum matches the Little Ice Age only if you adjust the timing of the LIA. People have made a case that we’re still coming out of the LIA, at least up to several years ago.

GregK

Re: Patrick
Read this and have a laugh…
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-predict-lake-eyre-and-murraydarling-basins-wont-exist-in-30-million-years-20150510-ggx1x7.html
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A statement of the obvious……Australia is moving northerly at about 5.5cm/year…….. although hardly relevant to cooling/warming in any immediate human future

Patrick

That is indeed true. But what I thought was the laugh was the 30 million year prediction. Sure, in 30 million years who knows what the planet will be like. I suspect humans won’t feature.

John Bills

RSS and UAH may be using a model to calculate the atmospheric temperatures but the groups that use surface stations also calculate the global temperature with the help of models.
Ask Mosher how Best calculates the global temperatures before 1880.
Ask Gavin how the temperatures in the arctic are derived.
Search for the global (!) coverage of continuous temperature stations before 1920.

G. Karst

Warming IS the fail-safe direction. ANY cooling retracts benefits which enabled our (taken for granted) food surpluses. But then, resource scarcity is exactly, what is on top, of the anti-CO2 agenda. GK

You left out GMO. Which might be quite helpful in case of rapid climate change.

Mike

Ice conditions are back to normal in the Arctic.

There is no “normal” in an everchanging climate. This term is alarmist terminology used to imply defacto and without any justification that any deviation from the average conditions of some totally arbitrary period “abnormal” and thus caused by humans.
Saying Arctic is “back to normal” accepts that the previous changes were not “normal” and plays to AGW alarmism.

Crispin in Waterloo

Besides, it is plagiarism. The alarmists lost their lost ice and they what their ice loss back.

davec

If warmists expect us to believe their wild unsubstansiated claims about 2 deg warming then surely skeptics can respond with similar claims for 2 deg cooling

jim heath

For God’s sake buy a hat, a woolly jumper and a pair of sun glasses and you got it covered.

ren

Currently, only one spot is quite active.
http://solarmonitor.org/

I’d agree with you if you said one region is most active. You could say that any day the sunspot number is over 10. (11 means one region with one spot.)
That would be region 12339, that site says it has “35/40” spots. (I’m not sure if those are different counters or counts at different times of the day). It also says the region is responsible for six C class flares. Don’t worry about those, M and X class flares are the exciting ones. That region is responsible for the X2.7 flare a few days ago.