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.

288 thoughts on “The Iceman Cometh?

    • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

  1. 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.

      • 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?

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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! ☺

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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…

      • @ lsvalgaard at 3:53 pm.
        Out of interest I searched the origin of that graph and found this un-truncated version:

        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.

      • @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!

    • 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?

    • “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.

    • @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.

    • ‘…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.

    • 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.

      • 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, 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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?

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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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”.

      • “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.

  2. “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?

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

    • 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 8O 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

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

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

  5. ” “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

    • 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.

    • 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:

      • 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.

    • 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.

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

        Sorry Lief – I get a 404 error attempting to access that link :-(

      • Yes, the sun was so blank on Apr 30th that spaceweather saved an image, see

        I tried to find the URL Leif meant to post but I failed. Oh wait – Leif made the URL work, thanks.

      • 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.

    • I don’t see a lot of spots here:

      Is this the sun? Or the 1 ball down at the pool parlor?

      • 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.

  6. “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

      • “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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

    • ‘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.

  9. The solar image in the WUWT reference page is nearly blank, it displays from

    However, from that directory, these links all go to what should be going on modulo excessive color and other processing:



    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

      • 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.

    • [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]

  10. 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.

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

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    • 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.

      • Sorry, trafamadore, but Arctic ice is recovering strongly:

        Global ice cover is at a multi-year high. Stop with the misinformation, please.

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

      • 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):

        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.

    • @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.

  13. 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.

    • 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

  14. 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).

    • 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.

  15. “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

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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:

        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.”

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

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

  19. 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, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/10/the-iceman-cometh/#comment-1930726

    Where is YOUR reply?

  20. 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…

  21. 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“.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    • 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:

      • 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.”

  26. 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?

      • 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://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/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

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

      • 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.

  27. 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.

    • 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,

      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.

  28. “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.

      • 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).

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

  29. 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

    • 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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

  32. 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.

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

  33. 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

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

    • 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.

  35. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    There are many who refuse to consider the possibility that a “threatening climate change” is not due to atmospheric CO2 increases, of any cause, let alone man-made.
    This lack of consideration may turn out to be a cause of a great deal of “egg on face”, according to this article.
    Of course, we can expect the response that the world control agenda is still required, irregardless of the fact that the claimed basis for it is actually fictional.

  36. There are multiple papers that outline how solar cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover. One of the principal mechanisms is solar wind bursts caused by coronal holes.

    http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/TinsleyYuAGU_Monograph.pdf

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate, By Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707001135

    The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity
    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming.

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity (William: Closed magnetic field) and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity (William: Short term abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field caused by solar wind bursts, which are measured by the short term geomagnetic field change parameter Ak. Note the parameter is Ak rather than the month average with Leif provides a graph for. The effect is determined by the number of short term wind bursts. A single very large event has less affect than a number of events. As Coronal holes can persist for months and years and as the solar wind burst affect lasts for roughly week, a coronal hole has a significant effect on planetary temperature) which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data. ….

    …The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868- 1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira
    et al. 2001).

    …In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    It is interesting that the current observed cooling and wet weather, that coincides with the sudden change to solar cycle is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

    Little Ice Age
    The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….

    Europe/North America
    ….The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps caused by fluorosis after the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783.[20] Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early 15th century), as crops failed and livestock ….

    …. Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier …

    ….Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]

    Historian Wolfgang Behringer has linked intensive witch-hunting episodes in Europe to agricultural failures during the Little Ice Age.[36]

    Antarctic
    Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note “other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear.”

    • I’m a bit confused. You say:

      It is interesting that the current observed cooling and wet weather, that coincides with the sudden change to solar cycle is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.

      But then you quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

      Little Ice Age
      The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….

      This implies that the “sudden change to solar cycle” occurred at different dates “which varied according to local conditions.”

      The Maunder Minimum was in something like 1645-1715, perhaps you’re referring to a different sudden change in the solar cycle.

      • There current solar cycle 24 is a sudden slowdown in the solar cycle.

        The Maunder minimum was preceded by a series of weak cycles.

        The complication is the sun is significantly different that the standard model. The solar changes cause a change to both the orientation and magnitude of the geomagnetic field which takes hundreds of years to dissipate and equalize which explains why the climate change can occur for hundreds of years after the solar cycle change.

        The geomagnetic field specialists have found the geomagnetic field has changed abruptly in the past and the changes correlate with solar cycle changes.

        As noted in my below comment the Northern geomagnetic pole drift speed increased by a factor of five starting in the 1990s. This is consistent with a the start of a geomagnetic excursion. There is no physical reason why the geomagnetic field would suddenly in the mid 1990s start to abruptly change.

        As a result of other abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field the European launched SWARM a set of three satellites in tight formation that enable almost real time measurements at laboratory accuracy of the magnetic field strength of the entire earth.

        The SWARM data indicated that geomagnetic field intensity is now dropping at 5%/decade, ten times faster than its previous rate of fall of 5%/century. A fall of 5% per decade is ten times faster than a core based movement liquid can cause (a back EMF is generated which resists rapid field changes which is the reason why geomagnetic field flips were assumed to take 1000s of years to happen), regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism that can cause sudden and massive movement of liquid in the earth’s core.

        The only possible physical mechanism to cause what is observed, very. very, rapid geomagnetic field changes is a massive change of electric charge on the earth’s surface.

        The abrupt unexplained changes to the geomagnetic field correlate with the abrupt climate changes and the termination/initiation of the interglacial period.

        http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf

        Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël,
        Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey
        We review evidence for correlations which could suggest such (causal or non-causal) connections at various time scales (recent secular variation approx 10–100 yr, historical and archeomagnetic change appox. 100–5000 yr, and excursions and reversals approx. 10^3–10^6 yr), and attempt to suggest mechanisms. Evidence for correlations, which invoke Milankovic forcing in the core, either directly or through changes in ice distribution and moments of inertia of the Earth, is still tenuous. Correlation between decadal changes in amplitude of geomagnetic variations of external origin, solar irradiance and global temperature is stronger. It suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when “anomalous” warming becomes apparent. The most intriguing feature may be the recently proposed archeomagnetic jerks, i.e. fairly abrupt (approx. 100 yr long) geomagnetic field variations found at irregular intervals over the past few millennia, using the archeological record from Europe to the Middle East. These seem to correlate with significant climatic events in the eastern North Atlantic region. A proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries. Intensive data acquisition is required to further probe indications that the Earth’s and Sun’s magnetic fields may have significant bearing on climate change at certain time scales.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/pdf

        What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?
        The north magnetic pole (NMP) is the point at the Earth’s surface where the geomagnetic field is directed vertically downward. It drifts in time as a result of core convection, which sustains the Earth’s main magnetic field through the geodynamo process.

        During the 1990s the NMP drift speed suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers per year by the decade’s end. This acceleration was all the more surprising given that the NMP drift speed had remained less than 15 kilometers per year over the previous 150 years of observation.

        Why did NMP drift accelerate in the 1990s? Answering this question may require revising a long-held assumption about processes in the core at the origin of fluctuations in the intensity and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field on decadal to secular time scales, and hints at the existence of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic.

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…than-expected/

        Earth’s magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm. While changes in magnetic field strength are part of this normal flipping cycle, data from Swarm have shown the field is starting to weaken faster than in the past. Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, (William: The ‘flip’ would occur in less than a century, the geomagnetic field intensity in the Southern Atlantic has dropped 60%) as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner. Floberghagen hopes that more data from Swarm will shed light on why the field is weakening faster now.

        http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/

        Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?

        Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

        Duration
        Most estimates for the duration of a polarity transition are between 1,000 and 10,000 years.[9]
        However, studies of 15 million year old lava flows on Steens Mountain, Oregon, indicate that the Earth’s magnetic field is capable of shifting at a rate of up to 6 degrees per day.[19] This was initially met with skepticism from paleomagnetists. Even if changes occur that quickly in the core, the mantle, which is a semiconductor, is thought to act as a low-pass filter, removing variations with periods less than a few months. A variety of possible rock magnetic mechanisms were proposed that would lead to a false signal.[20] However, paleomagnetic studies of other sections from the same region (the Oregon Plateau flood basalts) give consistent results.[21][22] It appears that the reversed-to-normal polarity transition that marks the end of Chron C5Cr (16.7 million years ago) contains a series of reversals and excursions.[23]
        In addition, geologists Scott Bogue of Occidental College and Jonathan Glen of the US Geological Survey, sampling lava flows in Battle Mountain, Nevada, found evidence for a brief, several year long interval during a reversal when the field direction changed by over 50°. The reversal was dated to approximately 15 million years ago.[24]

      • The complication is the sun is significantly different that the standard model.
        No, not at all. As I have demonstrated the standard solar model is an excellent description of the structure of the Sun [and stars].

        The only possible physical mechanism to cause what is observed, very. very, rapid geomagnetic field changes is a massive change of electric charge on the earth’s surface.
        This is complete nonsense. The main geomagnetic field is generated deep in the core, thousand of miles below the surface.

    • William, you display not only a priori biased assumptions, but are producing a type I error, the most egregious research error in my book and is often caused by bias. This error is attributing an observation to something that is, in fact, not the cause. How do you avoid such an error? By ruling out all other possibilities and by demonstrating a plausible new mechanism. First get rid of your bias, then rule out all other possibilities. Since you seem quite convinced of your thesis, how have you ruled out the other possibilities? I would be interested in hearing about your work on that all important first step following an observation.

  37. Over the last few years I have come to realize that very few have any clue as to what causes real climate change as verses the fake change that is done by falsifying the data sets. I have also come to realize that well known examples are swept under the rug by some climate “scientists”; for example, the Roman Warming or the Little Ice Age. I suppose that any data that goes against theory must be tossed aside in this post-real-science age.

    Only the foolish would argue that the sun is not a major player in climate on the planet earth. On the other hand, only the foolish would claim that the sun is the sole driver of climate on the planet earth. I would give my pet theory of climate … but it is just that … a theory … not enough to make governmental policy to cripple our industrialized society.

    If we step back a moment from the political climate wars we would see that mankind at this point in time is a long, long way from knowing what drives the climate on this planet. I understand that the climate models (computer toy games) don’t even consider wind patterns, cloud patterns, ocean currents moving heat around, and so on with any realism. Oh my God! And they want to destroy western civilization without even knowing what really causes climate???

    When I was young and in grade school, we were told there was little chance our civilization would survive a nuclear holocaust in a war with the USSR. Now we are telling the young that there is little chance civilization can survive climate change. What a load of manure to heap upon the young. We just don’t know what is going to happen next; and that my friends is the truth.

    • ‘…mankind at this point in time is a long, long way from knowing what drives the climate on this planet. ‘

      Our star is the main driver and when its on the blink the oceans become cooler. If you take the time to read William Astley’s comment above its patently clear.

      • I have often said that the big ball of fire in the sky is damn important. But the whole weather system is far more complex than a simplistic — ‘it is only the sun’.

        As I said, we are a long, long way from knowing. (guessing we do well)

    • Mark

      If there is significant variability in the suns output then it would of necessity be the major driver of climate change. Leif argues there isn’t, the question is whether he is correct or not.

  38. Variations in the total column water vapour in the atmosphere since July 1983. The upper graph (blue) shows the total amount of water in the atmosphere. The green graph shows the amount of water in the lower troposphere between 1000 and 680 mb, corresponding to altitudes up to about 3 km. The lower red graph shows the amount of water between 680 and 310 mb, corresponding to altitudes from about 3 to 6 km above sea level.

    Clearly drop of water vapor in the troposphere, especially the top. Therefore, the temperature will drop (with increased air ionization and precipitation).

    Figure 2. Idealized portrayal of global deep cumulus rain and cloud areas. The left diagram illustrates the upper-level sinking mass coming from the raining deep Cb cloud. This sinking acts to dry and warm the upper troposphere. The right diagram shows water-vapor and cloud particles being advected from the same high rain areas. Observations indicate that the sinking-drying in the upper troposphere is greater than the water-vapor and cloud water replacement by moist air outward advection and evaporation. Enhanced Cb convection leads to upper-level drying and extra IR loss to space.

  39. In shorter periods of time TSI change by more than 1 W / m ^ 2 depending on solar activity.

  40. None of this is an issue if you remember your dealing with the ‘heads I win , tails you lose ‘ approach to science. So even an new ice age would be ‘prove ‘ CAGW .
    Given one question the alarmists cannot or will not answer is , what in your eyes would disprove CAGW ?, you can see how it works.

  41. Again, to combat the narrative of CO2, use the proper definition of “ice age”. We’re IN an ice age. We have alternating periods of glaciation and a bit of warm(th). The intent is to force the alarmist narrative away from “warming” have the public think they’re supporting a return to glaciation.

  42. ‘So-called climate change on Earth is a naturally occurring process from the Sun-Earth electromagnetic relationship.

    Richard Moore

  43. Speculation on the the Maunder for cooling, etc. is exactly of the same kind as speculation on the warming. If the sun isn’t the factor, then it is an unknown cause and the recovery to some point is something of the same. However, the cause of the warming as posited by proponents is inferior thinking simply because recovery from the LIA must be some factor in the warming and proxy-based levels (yeah I know!) for CO2 appear to have been higher in the LIA than in the MWP and, in the latter, higher than all the previous Holocene.

    Skeptical scientists, certainly most geologists, have for a couple of decades been telling proponents of CO2 -caused heating that natural variability IS larger than they think, and for at least a decade, that agents resisting the warming (my favorite Le Chatelier Principle as my “model”) that should be caused according to the simple CO2 radiative physics are evidently significant. It took the 18yr, and counting, pause – virtually a period as long as the main warming that has been agonized over. Critics of this will say that anthropo warming is 150 or 200 years long, but this major shift in the goal posts from the 1950s was a desperate addendum when the much hated UK’s Daily Mail reported that global warming had stopped:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    They all knew this (Phil Jones had commented on it in 2007 in climategate emails) but they sat in dreaded silence and deep hope for resumption of warming until the Mail reported on a quiet press release from the Met Office of a 16 yr ‘pause’ and Lord Monckton dropped this bomb on the CAGW meeting of ostriches in Doha in the Emirates. This resulted in a number of proponents succumbing to a deep clinical depression known as the climatology blues (these were honest believers, now in DNile in the original clinical use of the term). In the anger and anguish, the real ideological agenda behind it all came out and today, they make no pretense otherwise.

  44. Are we headed for another ice age? That is always a possibility for sometime in our future but not very likely in our near term , although during the past winter and in particular during February , it sure felt like it when the coldest temperatures and the highest snow fall ever recorded were experienced in many parts of eastern US and Canada
    I believe that we are headed for another global cool phase like we had 1940-1980 and it begins in North America. That cool cycle stared as follows
    • Arctic starts to cool after 1938
    • PDO pattern starts to decline from mostly warm( positive ) phase pattern after 1941
    • Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
    • Contiguous US temperatures start to fall after mid 1930’s
    • Canadian National temperatures start to decline after 1940
    • Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
    • PDO goes mostly negative 1944
    • AO goes mostly negative 1950
    • Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 except a brief cold 1939/1942)
    • Asian temperatures start to fall after 1945
    • Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
    • AMO goes negative 1965-1995
    • Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
    • No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s

    A similar slightly modified pattern has already started since about 1998 but more in earnest after 2007 when PDO went again to a negative pattern and especially since 2014. North American temperature anomalies have been declining since 1998. AMO has been declining now for a decade and is currently negative .
    I think this cycle has very little to do with solar cycles or climate change caused by global warming but due to natural earth cycles mostly due to ocean SST patterns and deep ocean currents

    • I don’t look at a list of things or even patterns. I am proposing a dynamic mechanism. I rather am thinking about how the oceans store and cough up heat, and how they re-charge. I think it is possible that we are in store for either more warming or a stable elevated warm period while the Oceans disgorge what is left of their heat, which inadvertently encourages cloud formations and disallowing recharge balance, eventually leading to colder regimes. An interglacial cold period perhaps but we have a ways to go yet.

      If the medieval warm period was just such a result of this ocean heat release mechanism, it stands to reason it will happen again, and that at the final peak of that warmth, we will begin another slide down to colder patterns (which by the way, serves to clear away the clouds and allows recharge to once again commence). Given the size of the oceans, it would stand to reason that this imbalanced process takes many hundreds of years, possibly thousands. And given the wont of massive volcanoes to go off now and then within such a long period of time (purely coincidental of course), a jagged cold era would be the result if those volcanos shoot off after the oceans peak and have given up their heat stores.

      This cycle would be less hardbound than the Sun and thus much harder to pin down in terms of predictions. Its boundaries could easily differ by thousands of years. The increase in CO2 stands to reason in that a warmer world produces more green areas thus more CO2 emitting fauna, especially insects eating away at that banquet.

      Fascinating really.

  45. In reply to :

    Pamela Gray May 11, 2015 at 7:04 am
    William, you display not only a priori biased assumptions, but are producing a type I error, the most egregious research error in my book and is often caused by bias. This error is attributing an observation to something that is, in fact, not the cause. How do you avoid such an error? By ruling out all other possibilities and by demonstrating a plausible new mechanism. First get rid of your bias, then rule out all other possibilities. Since you seem quite convinced of your thesis, how have you ruled out the other possibilities? I would be interested in hearing about your work on that all important first step following an observation.

    William,
    Yes. bias thinking makes it impossible to solve a problem. A person must follow the solution where every it leads. Follow where the evidence leads. I have done that.

    I have solved the puzzle. As we are getting closer to the in your face abrupt cooling, this is a Coles notes explanation. Trying to follow and understand this particular paradigm, as opposed to giving me advice how to create other paradigms.

    I have solved the puzzle what caused the glacial/interglacial cycle, why did the planet warm in the last 50 years, how the sun and stars are different than the standard model, what is currently happening to the sun, what and why the geomagnetic field is currently changing, and what is going to happen next to the earth’s climate, the geomagnetic field and the sun.

    I did not guess. I am quite sure I am the only person who does cross discipline research at a specialist level (I have textbooks from multiple fields, I read the text books and studied the papers to understand the issues) and who understands how to solve constrained holistic physical problems (I used the same method as used by Michael Faraday, I read a half a dozen books on Faraday analysis results and his analysis methodogy).

    When I say the sun and stars are different than the standard model there are hundreds of astronomical observations in peer reviewed papers to support that assertion. I looked for and found observational evidence in peer reviewed papers to support a line of thought, a different paradigm. I found peer reviewed astronomical papers and books written by specialists looking at the same anomalies with possible solutions which I leveraged off of. I did not guess. The paradox and anomalies go away with the correct solution.

    The current and past geomagnetic field changes must have had a physical cause. The glacial/interglacial cycle must have had a cause.

    There is a very, very, short list of astronomical bodies that could cause a massive charge change on the surface of the earth, the sun is suspect number one. What is stopping people from considering the sun as the cause of what is observed is the sun would need to be significantly different than assumed to cause what is observed.

    Now as there were burn marks on the surface of the earth at multiple locations in the Northern hemisphere when the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling change occurred and I found evidence of burn marks on the surface of the earth at an earlier period of time that coincides with another cooling event, the hypothesis appears to not be not out in left field, has the hypothesis/paradigm appears to have legs.

    During the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. The Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event lasted for 1200 years. There is an abrupt change in the geomagnetic field that correlates with the Younger Dryas event. Come on man. The observations are screaming out the solution.

    The general public and people in this forum do not understand the implications of abrupt climate change. The interglacial periods end abruptly not gradually. The planet resists forcing changes hence an abrupt change in planetary temperature requires a massive forcing change. There are no earth systems/mechanisms than can cause a massive cyclic climate change both hemisphere. The sun causes the massive cyclic climate changes. The sun can cause the massive climate change as the sun is different than the standard model. The sun changes in a manner which we currently do not believe is possible.

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/2000QuatIntRenssen.pdf

    Estimates for the increase in Delta 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40-70%/% within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30-60% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50} 80&in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70& in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0001433812080063#page-1

    The Gothenburg geomagnetic excursion as a chronological marker for the Allerød interstadial in the Central Russian Upland

    • I have solved the puzzle what caused the glacial/interglacial cycle, why did the planet warm in the last 50 years, how the sun and stars are different than the standard model, what is currently happening to the sun, what and why the geomagnetic field is currently changing, and what is going to happen next to the earth’s climate, the geomagnetic field and the sun.

      You seem to be afflicted with a bad case of the D-K syndrome
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      • William, while your response has its own golden nuggets into your thinking, you failed to answer my question. Please elucidate the rest of us on your review of the research literature showing neither Earth’s oceans store of heat, nor CO2 can be the cause of significant warming or cooling.

      • With regard to your prediction in 2004 concerning solar maximum in 2011, were you referring to “a” local maximum? And if so, have I missed the part where that is made clear?

      • The prediction was for the size of the cycle, not for the time of maximum. The 2011 number was included for illustration only of when solar activity would be high again, and indeed it was [in the northern hemisphere] while going to even a bit higher in 2014. Such swings are typical for weak cycles.

  46. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    We are past the 1991 millennial peak in solar “activity” (figs 14 and 13) and 12 years past the corresponding temperature peak in the RSS data in 2003. See
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
    The general cooling trend will likely continue to the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. This trend will be modulated on the way down by the shorter term temperature periodicities ( De Vries , Gleissberg and 60 year cycles)

      • From one of your posts to the subject referenced below:

        “Not only that but the group sunspot number is just plainly wrong. Progress has happened since 2010. Here is the current status [btw Usoskin is member of our team too”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/

        Here is Usoskin in response to your participation in that thread:

        “Thus, I consider Leif’s comments ungrounded and offensive as publicly discussed behind my back. I advice everyone to ask experts first if you think some data are wrong, not just claiming the data wrong because they don’t support someone’s idea.”

        https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/ilya-usoskin-vs-leif-svalgaard-oulu-neutron-monitor-data-quality/

        Usoskin makes no mention of you in a recent article:

        “Therefore, the Grand Maximum in the 20th century is not a unique event but a rare event. ”

        http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Blog-Ilya-Usoskin-def.pdf

        I suspect that the “modern” or “grand” maxima of the 20th century is not really challenged by many except maybe by you: Usoskin: “The very existence of the Grand Maximum is not questioned by others I think”.

        What above do you mean by Lockwood being wrong “about this”?
        .

      • I suspect that the “modern” or “grand” maxima of the 20th century is not really challenged by many except maybe by you
        You could do well to acquaint yourself with the recent literature, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf and http://www.leif.org/EOS/apj2015-Riley-Maunder.pdf
        Usokin is a co-author of the Riley paper so presumably he agrees with it.

        Here is a Figure from that paper:

        And here is now it agrees with the assessment of the expert participants of the SSN workshops:

        so as you can see, you are not up to date.

      • Leif For the solar – climate ( temperature ) connection I rely on the 10 Be flux data For a good illustration see the N Grip Be flux data in Fig 11 at my post linked above The Maunder minimum,( Flux Max) Dalton minimum ( Flux Max) and 20th century activity rise ( Flux Min) are clear and obvious . For shorter term correlations see Fig 10 B C D
        TSI periodicity is about 2400 years and the amplitude change is small enough to be difficult to pick out from the effects of the greater percentage changes in the cosmic ray flux EUV variability etc.
        As to the mechanisms I say in the post
        “NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

        Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
        a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)

        b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
        c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.

        The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.

        Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”

      • The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved
        Except that the cosmic ray record is severely contaminated by the climate itself, so is not a good proxy for solar activity

      • Leif. If you are trying to understand the relationships between the multiple variables of a complex interacting system – the emergent properties of one variable depend on the state of the system as a whole. There is no contamination – it is all information which requires understanding and pattern recognition. Look at the differences between the Dye 3 and N Grip 10 Be flux data for example. These are no doubt due to local weather and climate differences. However what you do is to take bits of one and bits of the other and cobble them together to make a coherent illustration of what is going on with regard to any particular variable.
        In geology this is done all the time to produce composite logs of a particular area. Some sections are designated type sections which best illustrate the geological history of a particular area or time. I’m sure to someone with a background in physics and maths this is seen merely as cherry picking- but it is really the only were to work with complex open systems. Some people are better cherry pickers than others. This can only be determined by checking everyone’s forecasts against future outcomes. I’ve made some forecasts – we will see.

      • There is no contamination – it is all information which requires understanding and pattern recognition. Look at the differences between the Dye 3 and N Grip 10 Be flux data for example. These are no doubt due to local weather and climate differences. However what you do is to take bits of one and bits of the other and cobble them together
        That is, indeed, cherry picking.
        Study http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
        “This is a particular problem for historical projections of solar activity based on ice core measurements which assume a 1:1 correspondence. We have made other tests of the correspondence between the 10Be predictions and the ice core measurements which lead to the same conclusion, namely that other influences on the ice core measurements, as large as or larger than the production changes themselves, are occurring. These influences could be climatic or instrumentally based.”
        and http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
        “The distribution of yearly averages in the 10Be concentration level in the data from the Dye-3 ice core in Greenland for the time period 1939-1985, contains a “spike” of high concentration one year averages which is not seen in the production calculations. These and other features suggest that galactic cosmic ray intensity changes which affect the production of 10Be in the Earths atmosphere are not the sole source of the 10Be concentration changes and confirm the importance of other effects, for example local and regional climatic effects, which could be of the same magnitude as the 10Be production changes.”

        and http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf
        “the regional nature of the 10Be signal in ice cores is confirmed. The good long-term agreement between 10Be variations in both cores reflects a regional response to production and climate changes, but the disagreements in the earlier parts of the two records suggest that 10Be should be measured in ice cores from locations with non-complex ice flow regimes. […] We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [the past 600 years].”

        So, lots of contamination.

      • Leif Your quote says
        ” We observe that although recent 10Be flux in NGRIP is low, there is no indication of unusually high recent solar activity in relation to other parts of the investigated period [the past 600 years].”
        Whether it is unusual or not is a question of semantics. The fact is that the recent low 10 Be flux in the NGRIP core implies a level of solar ” activity” that is clearly usefully measurably higher than that shown by the high fluxes from 1680-1700 and 1815 – 20 which mark the peaks of the Maunder and Dalton minima respectively.
        This general correlation between solar activity and temperature is good enough to build a working hypothesis on. At this time we don’t know enough about the processes involved to come up with a neat little
        equation to quantify the relationship. You should consider the possibility that in complex systems such equations between two variables cannot be found because the interrelationships depend on the state of the system as a whole and are inherently incomputable. Forecasts can still be made however on the basis of pattern recognition and reasonable projection of these patterns forwards.

      • I don’t think you should second guess what the authors themselves have to say. It could well be that the higher flux has other reasons [e.g. global warming or instrumental drift].

        This general correlation between solar activity and temperature is good enough to build a working hypothesis on.
        I don’t think so. You are misled by confirmation bias, and for that there is no cure.

      • Leif You’ve got it backwards the NGRIP and DYE 3 flux data don’t conftrm a working hypothesis – they produce it.
        While were are here . My approach is very transparent.
        1.Would you agree that Figs 5-9 at the linked post suggest that there is an approximate millennial cycle in the temperature data and that
        2. Fig 9 is a useful time series showing the NH temperatures over the last 1000 years. and that
        3. The same Fig suggests that we are approaching, just at, or just past a millennial peak in the late 20th century or the first decade of the 21st century. and that
        4 Figs 14 and 13 indicate that there has been a decline in solar activity since 1991 with a notable break to the downside in 2005-6. and that
        5 It requires no great leap of the imagination to equate the switch to the downside of solar activity since 1991 to the millennial temperature peak – with a variable lag time from the driver peak in 1991 to the different climate metrics as measured in different regions. The NH data looks like a useful subset since the variations there are greater and more obvious than over the globe as a whole.

      • the NGRIP and DYE 3 flux data don’t confirm a working hypothesis – they produce it.
        Makes no sense, as they disagree

        1.Would you agree that Figs 5-9 at the linked post suggest that there is an approximate millennial cycle in the temperature data
        No as for example the peak is missing in Figure 9 at year 0, and the peaks disagree in Figure 8 and 9, and Figure 7 looks like random noise, there is an extra peak in Figure 5 at 1600 yrs BP.

        2. Fig 9 is a useful time series showing the NH temperatures over the last 1000 years
        No, as there is no peak at year 0, and the time frame is 2000 years, unless you cherry pick just the last 1000, and that the peak now may be man-made [in one way or another].

        4 Figs 14 and 13 indicate that there has been a decline in solar activity since 1991 with a notable break to the downside in 2005-6
        The decline is no different from the ones in 1870 and 1770 or 1640, so nothing special about 1991

        5 It requires no great leap of the imagination…
        I think that your imagination is running wild, so will disagree with your claim that you have made no great leap.

  47. Global warming has been the subject of arduous debates for more than 20 years. And most of the claims say that modern civilization is responsible for the higher atmospheric temperatures, which were caused by man-made greenhouse gases. The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun.You can find more at http://www.1ocean-1climate.com on the ‘Booklet on Naval War changes Climate’.

  48. Paul Driessen
    We have already seen through 2009-2013, negative AO/NAO values not seen since previous solar minima, despite a higher global mean surface temperature. Following the pattern of the last two minima, there should be a sharp increase in negative AO/NAO and El Nino episodes/conditions, roughly between the sunspot maxima of the first two weak sunspot cycles (+1yr), e.g. 1807-1817, 1885-1895, and 2015-2025. The increase in negative NAO will cause a renewed and strong warming of the AMO and Arctic through the next ten years. Continental interior drought will increase globally, with more maritime regions like NW Europe becoming wetter and much colder.
    Note the lack of Aurora sightings in the colder years of the Dalton Minimum on CET:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf

  49. In reply to:

    Pamela Gray May 11, 2015 at 9:26 am
    William, while your response has its own golden nuggets into your thinking, you failed to answer my question. Please elucidate the rest of us on your review of the research literature showing neither Earth’s oceans store of heat, nor CO2 can be the cause of significant warming or cooling.

    William,
    OK just for fun I will repeat three of the logical arguments (I have three more logical arguments but what is the point) which supports the assertion that the primary cause of warming of warming in the last 30 years is not the due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    When a hypothesis/model fails the next step is to relook at the hypothesis/model to see which assumptions in the modeling/hypothesis are incorrect. The CO2 mechanism has either saturated and/or is counter acted by increased movement of latent heat and increased cloud cover in the tropics.

    Critical analysis is different than ‘skepticism’ or being a ‘denier’ or being contrary. Critical analysis looks at what a theory predicts and then compares the observations to what is observed.

    The observations do not support the assertion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was the principal reason for the increase in planetary temperature.

    1) Latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox (Strike 1)
    The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 50 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.
    The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that it emitted to space prior to the increase.
    As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere (ignoring very heavy or very light gases which biases the altitudinal distribution in the atmosphere), the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

    The amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long waver radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
    There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    2) The 18 year pause without warming (Strike 2)
    As atmospheric CO2 is increasing with time, the delta T (increase in planetary temperature due to the increase in CO2) should also be increasing with time. As we now that there has been a period of 18 years with no warming when atmospheric CO2 has increasing for each and every year we know that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC general circulation model calculated warming due to CO2 is orders of magnitude too high.
    3) The tropical tropospheric 8km no hot spot Paradox (Strike 3 and the CAWG is disproved)
    The IPCC’s general circulation models predict that most amount of warming on the planet should occur in the tropics at 8k above the earth’s surface. The long wave radiation from warming at 8 km then warms the earth’s surface by of course radiation.

    At the earth’s surface there are more CO2 molecules and there is more water vapor. The amount of CO2 warming decreases as the number of molecules increases and as the frequencies that water absorbs long wave radiation overlaps with the CO2 absorption frequencies, the most amount of warming on the earth due to the increase in CO2 theoretically occurs in the tropics at 8km above the surface of the planet where there is less water and less CO2 molecules and the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Does everyone understand the above? No, why not? Help me out.

    The signature of CO2 warming, the tropical tropospheric hot spot at 8km is not observed which is consistent with the observational fact that there has been almost no tropical region warming. The
    The following peer reviewed paper provides the strike 1 and strike 2 observational data and specifically states the observations support the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 30 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    P.S. The fact that there has been almost no tropical tropospheric warming also rules out an increase in TSI (total solar radiation) as the cause of the warming, in addition to the fact that TSI has not significantly increased. If TSI did increase the tropics will warm more than the poles of the planet.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth

    The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.

    The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.

    If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

    An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.

    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.

    The following is the paper that supports the assertion that there is no tropical tropospheric hot spot at 8km which is strike 3 for the CAGW theory.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.


    • P.S. The fact that there has been almost no tropical tropospheric warming also rules out an increase in TSI (total solar radiation) as the cause of the warming, in addition to the fact that TSI has not significantly increased.
      Hooray, you have seen the light: solar activity [as it increases TSI, UV, magnetic fields, etc] is not the cause of the warming.

      • Duh, the sun causes high latitude warming by changing the amount of low level and high level cirrus clouds.

        As I have noted there are cycles of high latitude warming (both hemispheres) that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.

        There is a cottage industry of people trying to flatten out the past cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record and trying to hide the fact that solar cycle variance correlates with the cyclic warming and cooling.

        Hint: Where and who did we hear from the Maunder minimum did not happen and that the Little Ice Age did not happen?

        No worry. We are going to experience in your face global cooling. At that point the gig is up for the cult of CAWG.

      • I haven’t found your reference to Owens et al 2014 yet, but have found this:

        “[4] The last 5 or 6 solar cycles, which includes the space-age, have displayed higher average sunspot numbers than the rest of the record, suggesting grand solar maximum (GSM) conditions [Solanki et al., 2004], in agreement with geomagnetic [Lockwood et al., 2009; Lockwood and Owens, 2011] and GCR reconstructions of the HMF [McCracken, 2007; Steinhilber et al., 2010]. However, over the last 2 or 3 solar cycles, the solar magnetic field has declined, suggesting the current GSM is ending [Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009, 2012]. From the GCR record, around 10% of previous GSM exits have resulted in Maunder Minimum-like conditions within 50 years [Steinhilber et al., 2010; Lockwood, 2010; Barnard et al., 2011].”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1029/2012GL053151/full

        You might want to check the level of *your* pants. Do you insist that the little ice age is a myth?

      • Owens did.
        Slide 9 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Owens-MM-Talk.pdf
        And slides 34 ff might be of interest too.
        Perhaps you should try to understand the issues rather than why Lockwood et al. are flailing around. As I mentioned [slide 5] of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
        “After a Decade of Struggle, Lockwood et al. (2014) are Fast Approaching the Svalgaard et al. Reconstructions of 2003. This is a healthy development and they should be congratulated for their achievement”

        Slide 24 might be of interest, showing how they are realizing that the open flux for the past three centuries is essentially the same in each [within the uncertainty].

      • If the TSI for 50 years will fall by 0.2 W / m ^ 2 less how much energy reaches the oceans? The greenhouse effect turns away. The amount of water vapor in the air will decrease.

      • “Owens did.”

        I asked if *you* insisted there was no “little ice age”, not whether Owens did.
        People with their pants down often behave in such a manner.

    • And now onto oceans and their variability in storing or disgorging heat over very long time scales. It is a very unbalanced system poorly measured. Very hard to predict. Have you ruled that out? Review of the literature please. And good luck. Because it is hard to predict and hard to develop proxies without large error bands, you will struggle to rule it out. But one thing can be said for sure. It has a plausible mechanism and the energy necessary to bring about climate regimes, be it warming, or cooling regimes.

  50. Man has indeed contributed to climate change in the seventies.
    Interfered in the most sensitive place climate – in the ozone layer. Stratospheric nuclear tests have caused a dramatic increase in atmospheric ionization.

  51. One strong piece of evidence for greenhouse warming is that we have had 13 of the 14 warmest years during this period of low solar radiation.

  52. My message to the climate change / global warming community, “A real scientist can admit he made a mistake”. We are wasting valuable time and resources chasing CO2 as the cause for climate change. The truth is, the coming mini ice age will force the country to unite and solve the pending food crisis. We can beat this phenomenon of solar hibernation but we must act now. Only technogy can provide an answer to feeding 7 billion people in a mini ice age. I urge everyone to become a “denier” and start looking for answers to the pending crop losses and how we can grow the food needed to feed ourselves.

Comments are closed.