h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jumped over to the Newsweek site a minute ago, and no mention of the UK Met Office story. If they decide to cover it, hope they assign Zoe Schlanger.
What they call “experiments,” aren’t experiments at all. They are just
runs of an “ocean-atmosphere climate model” (HadGEM2-CC) into which
they feed data generated by the Naval Research Lab Spectral Solar
Irradiance Model output. Consequently, there is nothing at all
empirical about this work, which the word “experiments” suggests.
The model itself exaggerates the CO2 impact while diminishing the
solar impact for starters, e.g., by not taking into account the
Svensmark’s effect, so its predictions as to the impact of the
expected solar minimum are likely to be heavily undercooked in turn,
as has been its failure to predict the lack of warming in the past 20
years for much the same reason.
In other words, if the sun was to enter another Maunder minimum like
period, it would get a lot colder in Europe and in the US than the
authors predict. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, global
temperature rose by about 0.7C–most of it, if not all, due to high
solar activity throughout the whole 20th century. The return of the
activity to Maunder level would then likely erase the whole 0.7C.
This will be fun. It appears (97% certain) we will have a front row seat to watch the most important scientific event in the history of science: A solar cycle interruption. How will the cult of CAGW respond to in your face cooling? How will science change? How will the climate wars end? How much and how rapid will the planet cool?
We truly live interesting times.
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2012/01/swsc120019.pdf
Summer insolation at 65N is currently the same as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial period. The glacial period could start next week if summer insolation at 65N was the cause of the glacial interglacial cycle.
Summer insolation at 65N is not what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle. The cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle is an abrupt change to the solar cycle (when the solar cycle restarts) at a time when the orbital position of the earth amplifies the effect of the restart of the solar cycle on the geomagnetic field (Remember the burn marks on multiple continents that correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change? The planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold for 1200 years after the Younger Dryas event. Note there are cyclic abrupt climate change events in the paleo record. The massive cyclic temperature changes on the earth correlate with massive changes in cosmogenic isotopes which requires a massive change to the geomagnetic field.).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
And here come peddler number three.
Is there any observational change to the sun or to the earth’s climate that could change your mind? Is it possible for you to change your mind or have you long past the point of time for mind changing? For Lord Kevin the last mind changing occurred in his early twenties. If there is unequivocal planetary cooling and evidence that the solar cycle has been interrupted will you issue a public apology? Will you do penance? You need to understand the implications of what is going to happen next. Have you looked at the paleo climatic record? Try to imagine abrupt planetary cooling. Try to imagine the glacial phase for 100,000 years. Can you?
A cult retains a theory when observations have proven it to be incorrect. A scientist looks at observations and adjust standard theory or replaces the standard theory to explain observations. The observations of massive objects does not support the theoretical models of massive collapsed objects. That is a fact.
Scientists do not ignore paradoxes and anomalies. Part of the problem is anomalies and paradoxes are not included in text books. There is no attempt to organize anomalies and paradoxes which would show linkage and common themes, there is no formal effort to develop new competing theories or re-look at old competing theories which explains the astonishing ignorance of specialists concerning paradoxes and the Lord Kevin like attack on competing theories. The entire effort appears to be to try to bend theories to explain anomalies and to ignore paradoxes.
What causes cyclic and cyclic abrupt climate change which we know occurs in the paleo record? Why do interglacial periods start and end abruptly? What caused the burn marks on multiple continents that correlate with an abrupt change to the geomagnetic field and an abrupt climate change event? Why are there cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field that correlate with cyclic abrupt climate change events?
There are dozens of fundamental theories that are all tied together and all incorrect concerning how the sun can change, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, how galaxies form and evolve, what are quasars, what cause cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field, what caused the burn marks on the surface of the earth that correlate with massive changes to the geomagnetic field and abrupt climate change, all related to the correct answer to the question and the mechanisms associated with the correct theory: Is the universe eternal or did the universe start 13.7 billion years ago?
Of course the solar cycle can be interrupted if the sun and stars are different than the standard model.
Attached below is a link to a book (second book published by the same senior astronomer, Halton Arp, who has now retired) that provides dozens of in your face paradoxes and anomalies all of which were published in peer reviewed papers over the last 30 years which unequivocally supports the assertion that the stars (including the sun as the sun is of course the nearest star), galaxies, and quasars all are fundamentally different than the standard models.
Arp’s book provides observational evidence and analysis to support the assertion of baby quasar ejection (which explains the discovery of naked quasars which are quasars that do not have a host galaxy), quasar evolution, non velocity redshift, and so on. All of this phenomena are related to the physics of what happens when massive objects collapse and how massive collapsed objects evolve and change with time. Arp’s book is interesting as it provides a detailed explanation of the observations that support his assertions and provides details as to how the observations and paradoxes were initially blocked from publishing and then later ignored by theoreticians.
In the 15 years from the time Arp’s second book was published there are now over a hundred paradoxes and anomalies concerning every logical pillar of the big bang theory. It is comical/sad/astonishing how long a field of science (big bang theory, cosmology) can ignore paradoxes and anomalies that support the assertion the entire theoretical basis for the field in question is incorrect.
The following is a new observational paradox – quasars’ spectrum does not exhibit time dilation, does not change for quasars of higher redshift – that supports Arp’s assertion than the quasar redshift is almost entirely due to non velocity reasons, super high charge imbalance which of course is directly related to what is currently happening to the sun. Super high charge imbalance will cause redshift of emitted spectrum. Super high charge imbalance will gradually dissipate which explains how the redshift of newly formed quasars and companion galaxies changes with time dropping down closer to the redshift of the parent galaxy and the parent galaxy’s quasar.
As everyone is aware, as the universe is expanding, astronomically distant objects are moving rapidly moving away from us. The greater the distance of the object from the earth the greater the velocity difference between the object in question and the earth.
Due to basic physics objects that move away from us very rapidly will all exhibit velocity redshift in their spectrum where the spectrum is shifted due to the velocity which they are moving away from us, to the ‘red’. The phenomena is the same reason why a train whistle sounds lower in pitch when a train is moving away from us and higher in pitch when the train is moving towards us.
It is assumed by astronomers that almost all of the redshift of astronomically distant objects is due to the velocity caused redshift. Measuring the amount of red shift of an object is then used to determine the object’s distance from the earth observer. The subject of Arp’s book is dozens and dozens of observations that support the assertion that a significant portion of the redshift of astronomical objects, (particularly quasars) is due to non velocity reasons.
A second effect of very, very high velocity is time dilation. Time dilation which is a fundamental part of the special relativity theory is the name for the slowing down of physical processes, including atomic processes when an object moves at a very, very, high velocity. People call the phenomena time slowing down or time ‘dilation’, which is confusing as time does not change or ‘dilute’, something physical changes when an object moves at a high velocity which in turn causes physical processes to occur at a slower pace. Time ‘dilation’, is experimentally proved/observed on the earth as the half life of unstable particles is significantly longer when they are moving at very, very high velocities (near the speed of light) in a particle accelerator.
Quasar electromagnetic spectrum is primarily non-thermal, caused by the movement of charged particles in a massive in extent and massive in strength magnetic field. This type of non thermal radiation, synchrotron radiation, follows a power law and is produce on the earth by the movement of charge particles in a strong magnetic field. The very distant quasars’ spectrum should require a very large correction for velocity time dilation (the correction is very large, non trivial), the quasar spectrum should not follow the power law without the significant correction for time dilation directly dependent on the redshift of the quasar in question and hence the very large velocity of the quasar in question is moving away from the earth.
The quasar spectrum even of the most highly redshift quasars follows the power law without correction which is a paradox. The explanation for the quasar does not exhibit time dilation paradox is not that the related calculations have been done incorrectly, there really is a paradox that cannot be explained. The two papers confirming that quasars do not exhibit time dilation (one published in 2001 and the second in 2010) were written by a senior very theoretically conservative quasar researcher. The analysis is not particularly complicate or controversial.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
On time dilation in quasar light curves
This is link to the published 2001 paper.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/553/2/L97/fulltext/015104.text.html
This is a link to the preprint of the published 2010 paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
This the link to the published 2010 paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x/abstract
Is there any observational change to the sun or to the earth’s climate that could change your mind?
Of course, bring them on. So far, I have not seen any. And I have studied this for half a century.
the solar cycle has been interrupted
since you never have defined what you precisely mean by that, the question does not have a meaningful answer.
The rest of your comment is just muddled nonsense.
An example of your muddled nonsense:
Due to basic physics objects that move away from us very rapidly will all exhibit velocity redshift in their spectrum where the spectrum is shifted due to the velocity which they are moving away from us, to the ‘red’.
The red-shift of galaxies is not caused by moving through space at high velocity. The galaxies are effectively sitting still [only moving a little bit in random directions because of gravitational perturbations by neighboring galaxies]. What is happening is that space is expanding and that stretches the light waves which then look redder.
Never mind, good news for the staff at the temperature adjustment departments – “more overtime guys we need to go over the last century again.”
The MET just bought itself a 50 year “pause”. No matter how cold it gets, the story will be that the sun is saving us for now, but in 2065, watch out, we’re all doomed. Unless, of course, we adopt the teachings of Karl Marx.
Yup, was waiting for this comment.
RH said:
“Unless, of course, we adopt the teachings of Karl Marx.”
Actually RH, most of them are Groucho Marxists, plus a few Harpo Marxists.
http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtmlhttp://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtml
A reminder, both to the contributions of amateurs, as well as how short a time we have been gathering some of the data being discussed. There are many factors involve and in is easy to grasp just some of them and jump to conclusions.
This solar minimum may be just a one hit wonder for all we know. best to seperate what one believes from what one knows.
Sigh,, ready aim fire..
michael
http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/hist_jansky.shtml
Oops
Carol Williams says (Climategate Email 0700.txt) .
Cretin. She apparently does not know what S/N ratio is , ie have not even looked at the words. You may accuse someone of LOW S/N ratio and ask for stronger signals, Duh !
If you don’t understand something that basic what the hell are you doing at a meeting discussing Polar Climate Research? Making the tea?
Pamela Gray
June 24, 2015 at 11:44 am
Salvatore apparently does not understand well-regarded Earth-intrinsic explanations (or chooses to ignore them) of long term and short term weather pattern variations and climate regime shifts.
My reply – terrestrial changes are not going to be able to accomplish the drastic and many abrupt climatic changes the historical climatic record shows. It has to be much more involved then just that.
Even with your long list of decision points, taken all together there is not enough change in solar energy across the spectrum, cosmic ray, and magnetic measures to drive a 60 year or greater weather pattern or climate regime shift. Unless of course you have an unnamed amplifier. Funny that. So do the CO2 folks. There are plenty of powerful processes intrinsic to Earth that can out do solar changes.
Here are a few:
Cloudy water
Cloudy skies
Serial volcanic pulses
Overturning and ENSO regimes with long term ups and downs within longer term ups and downs
Oscillating oceanic-atmospheric pressure system cycles outside of ENSO
Pamela that is your opinion. I think all of the items you mention are correct but I also think they are all secondary effects associated with solar variability.
For an example sea surface temperatures must be linked to solar variability since it is the light from the sun that penetrates the skin of the ocean. If so then that in itself would amplify the small change in solar irradiance many times over. This in turn will influence ENSO, and maybe sea ice concentrations.
If not that then there is the data that shows a solar/major geological connection.
If not that then there is the linked between ozone concentrations/distributions which said to be tied to solar activity which there is much evidence, that then changes the atmospheric circulation which then would change ocean currents ,not to mention any changes in solar activity are going to effect the chemistry of the atmosphere.
If not that then there is the potential cosmic ray /cloud correlation.
If not that even Leif admits a change in solar irradiance of .1% does have a .1c to .2c effect on temperature. So it solar irradiance happens to change by .2% there is at least a .2c drop in temperature which is 40% of my .5c drop in temperature even if all the other solar factors are 100% wrong.
If not that then one has to consider the geo magnetic field and how that may enhance (when weak) solar variability or( moderate when strong)given solar variability..
If not that one has to consider galactic cosmic ray concentrations in the vicinity of the earth at the times of solar variability which maybe have given solar variability/cosmic ray correlations giving different outcomes, or maybe a impact form an asteroid or a random super volcanic eruption when super imposed with the slightest of solar variability could push the climate over the threshold, or maybe as you suggest at times they could do it themselves. My problem with that is maybe at times but the multitude of abrupt climatic changes to my way of thinking is to much for those kind of events to be the reason..
If not that one has to consider the state of the climate, the ice dynamic, the land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, the phase of Milankovitch Cycles, the pole to equator temperature gradient, how far the initial state of the climate is from threshold inter glacial-glacial conditions and reconcile those items to given solar variability.
If not that maybe lunar /solar relationships exert an influence on the earth which changes the climate or aids in that change.
There are more but these are the notable ones I can presently think of. Pam, even the Met Office thinks there is something to solar/climate relationships.
This is not simple and in the end I only need to be correct on one of the solar /climate connections when combined with even the smallest decrease in solar irradiance to be correct. Pam even the Met Office thinks there is something to solar /climate relationships which is saying much when coming from a pro AGW source.
Then again you could be correct Pamela, I could be wrong, only time is going to gives us the answer.
Again I have said if my low average solar parameters are met or even come close to being met and the global temperature response is not down I will admit I was wrong. How much clearer could it be.
Let us see what happens. Pamela you do have some good thoughts and much to add to this dialog.
.
happens to change by .2% there
The variation of the solar output is caused by its changing magnetic field. Therefore the Sun’s output cannot fall to less what it is at solar minimum, so a progressively less active sun cannot fall 0.2% under what it was at minimum. The only way you can have a sustained 0.2% change in TSI is to have a much higher level of solar actiivity.
Ocean water cloudiness (turbidity) is such a powerful variable in SST modeling that it is considered a greater source of resultant SST than solar variation. Simple experiments carried out for decades using a variety of measuring techniques demonstrate this clear order of power. Here is just one link. There are many. And they all contend that turbidity (which can be suspended particles or just choppy seas) affects solar heating of oceans far greater than solar radiance changes do. So the ball is in your court with just this one variable. Demonstrate that changes in any one of your parameters, or any combination, is greater than just ocean turbidity. And I haven’t even begun to challenge you on the others I have listed.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2004/kara-jpo-2004.pdf
Is water clarity not also a function of plankton blooms, which are also related to solar insolation?
It’s only weather until the desert or glaciers show up in Michigan.
In the last 2 million years it has been regular long bouts of mile thick ice.
What is all this tripe about the sun not varying??? What on earth not only launches long Ice Ages but also melts the glaciers at regular intervals but only for a short while? There is no mechanism for this wild variation that hammers the Northern Hemisphere.
It has much smaller effects on South America and Africa at the equator, of course.
The MET has now produced a logical inconsistency which it can’t reconcile. It clearly accepts that a “grand solar minimum” would result in a lowering of temperature, all other things being equal. Implicitly, therefore, they accept that an extra active sun, a “grand solar maximum” such as we have experienced over the past half century, would have raised the temperature, etcetera paribus. Now, they appear to say that a one degree drop would be compensated by antropogenic warming, but that implies that the warming due to a grand maximum would be of the same order, that is about one degree, a temperature increase similar to the one seen over the 20th century. But then they can not possibly claim that any warming at all during the last 50 years was due to anything other than solar variation. In other words: they implicitly claim that the purported antropogenic warming of the past century was small compared with the solar influence, if it existed at all! Which invalidates their conjecture that antropogenic global warming will save the day for us for at least a while.
We are doomed, but not in the manner as we knew it!
No, no, no. The solar reduction will only lower local temperatures. CO2 will cause the global temperature to continue soaring as it has for the past 18 years!
/sarc
Isn’t it obvious that since Germany and Great Britain have led the way toward renewables, and are suffering the greatest from their leadership, that they should should get the first benefits of the mitigated heat. Fear not the cold, Europeans, it is your reward!
==============
Ed Zuiderwijk. Excellent remark.
It turns out Met Office is significantly faster than Royal Society.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/16/royal-society-it-will-take-another-50-years-without-warming-before-we-admit-we-were-wrong/
Looks like they slowly catching onto the importance of UV rather than TSI. That means stratospheric cloud cover.
Only over the poles in that hemispheres winter (~ MS85C required) – and that will feedback surface warming with a small GHE.
Also UV is b***er all in terms of W/m^2 and results in a greater prob of a -AO and REGIONAL cold.
“On a regional level, the study found a bigger cooling effect for Europe, the UK and eastern parts of North America during winter. For example, for northern Europe it was -0.4C to -0.8C.”
That is NOT global as in GW. Result – maybe 0.1C reduction in AVE global temps as a result of a GM that may lead to a ~1.5 W/m^2 reduction in TSI.
NO Ice Age began on the equator. Indeed, the effect of al Ice Ages on the equator were quite minimal.
These DID begin at Hudson Bay and Scotland, for example. So any weather pattern showing these regions cooling down greatly are definite possible Ice Age indicators.
I rather doubt that. Why? Many oceanic/atmospheric systems teleconnect with one another. Which came first: A stuck negative AO then an El Nino, or a prolonged El Nino then a negative AO? I haven’t figured that one out.
emsnews June 24, 2015 at 4:07 pm says:
Not quite true. The lack of heat at the equator led to less of a thermohaline current and probably smaller Hadley cell heat engine so the equator was maintained in homeostasis but the temperate latitudes and the poles received less heat and probably temperate zone cloudiness increased with latitudinal jetstreams with large looping Rossby waves.
So while the effects would have been seen in the higher latitudes the equator receiving less heat could be the driver.
“A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …”
I thought the science was settled.
Like everything related to climate science the politics are just as important. The Met Office has been heavily criticised for a decade of forecasts based on overheated climate models. Their predictions of BBQ summers became a joke.
Now that solar effects suggest cooling, the Met Office is hedging its bets. Note the caveats about global warming continuing whatever else happens.
The Met Office may be right for once, but they deserve no credit whatsoever. They are just covering all possibilities while reinforcing the global warming scare.
And if the temperature falls more than 1-1,5 degrees what will be the excuse then?
Then there will be no room for a human part in the latest warming
Two alarmists are standing on the Gulf of Mexico northern ice shelf 50 miles South of New Orleans, they are watching the Mississippi glacier calve into the Gulf of Mexico.
Kicking at an ice ridge one alarmist says – “When this ice melts it’s going to get really really hot!”
Put a poncho, a sombrero, and Cheech in that joke.
If we do have significant cooling, I expect the Met Office will claim that (a) it is temporary (b) due to the oceans absorbing heat (c) Evidence of global warming (d) evidence that warming will be devastating when it returns imminently.
All I can say is the MET office has come a long ways. Don’t you all remember this from 2000?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
BTW where the hell is that Bozo now days? Why isn’t he being tared and feathered in the UK press? Oh, I know; Because most of them sold out to that silly crap also!
.2 from the high level mark between 1950-2000 is what I mean.
Dr. Theodore Landscheidt predicted this scenario back in about 2003.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Go to Topic 9.
This material is presented in a confusing manner. The paper says that: “The solar forcing is based on the most rapidly declining Lockwood solar activity SCENARIO (reference 2) and uncertainty in future levels of ultraviolet is explored with two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet spectral irradiance.”
The 1.5 W/m2 reduction is a change in irradiance, not solar forcing. Solar irradiance is about 1367 W/m2 arriving at a disk the diameter of the earth. Forcing is calculated for the surface area of the earth which receives an average 342 W/m2, one-fourth the irradiance. If you want to compare anthropogenic forcing (6.0-8.5 W/m2 by 2100 w/o mitigation, approximately 3 W/m2 now) to solar forcing, the reduced irradiance must be divided by four to produce a solar forcing of about -0.4 W/m2. So the forcing from projected decline in solar activity is about 10% of the forcing for the projected increase in GHG and aerosols.
The future temperature changes in Figure 2 are the reductions in future warming (GMST +4 degC, worst case scenario for RCP 8.5) IF solar activity declines to Lockwood’s estimate of “Maunder Minimum level of solar activity. These modest temperature changes are from a climate model with high climate sensitivity.
Of course, all Wm2 are not created equal. Reductions in UV effect production of ozone and apparently have effects even at the surface despite UV being mostly absorbed in the stratosphere. However the difference between EXPT-A (reduction at all wavelengths) and EXPT-B (all reduction in UV) is still modest.
The biggest value I have seen for the Maunder Minimum is a solar forcing of -1 W/m2 (vs. -0.4 W/m2 in this paper). I have no objection to the idea that changes in solar activity can have a big impact on our climate. However, I can’t understand why forecast of possible future solar changes in TSI of this modest magnitude cause any excitement.
“Winter is coming”
“You know nothing Jon Snow”
All part of a spin cycle leading up to Paris. We will see more of this talk about some minor cooling but the CAGW will be the the big scary thing we have to afraid of.
Leif does believe in Milankovitch Cycles, land ocean arrangements , +.1 c to -.1c drop due to solar irradiance, so he is in a sense not strictly a solar /climate connection denier.
I will ask him this question. I hesitate but here it is. What influence do you think the geo magnetic field has on the climate if any and why ? Do you feel it moderates solar activity ? Thanks. Your opinions do matter to me even though we tend to disagree on solar/climate secondary I emphasize secondary relationships.
Again when it comes to the sun you are among the best and not many would share the knowledge you have on a web-site such as this. hat has to be appreciated. I do appreciate it. I do not care how much we may disagree, your contributions are very good. That is what I have learned if nothing else. I think Leif is real not fake. I hope you are around for many years to come.
so he is in a sense not strictly a solar /climate connection denier.
You are confusing solar activity and earth orientation influence.
What influence do you think the geo magnetic field has on the climate if any and why ?
None, as such. If the cosmic ray hypothesis should turn out to be valid [observations show that it is not] then the geomagnetic field can modulate the number of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere of the Earth.
Do you feel it moderates solar activity ?
I don’t ‘feel’ things like that, but the answer would be ‘no’.
Thanks. I do not see it the same way but still I value your opinion.
lsvalgaard,
What’s your view on what will happen to our climate over the next 20 years or so?
I have no idea.
The one and only possible correct answer…..
Because nobody knows.
I expect two decades of cooling from the concatenation of cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations. If the Cheshire Cat sunspots auger cooling, we may cool for a century or more.
==================
well you’d think all the possibilities are known. It’s either going up, going down, staying the same, or some combination of those in some sort of sequence.
Hey folks. Words matter. It is NOT the last Ice Age. We’re still in an Ice Age. Should be “glaciation”. Makes a lot of difference when you’re debating the warmists and you ask them why they’re against having warmth in the middle of an Ice Age?