So Constant And Unspotted Didst Thou Seem1
Guest essay by David Archibald
The image of the Sun today is spotless.
This is the first spotless day of the 24-25 solar minimum. Not a great deal can be read from that. According to Wilson, for cycles 9-14, sunspot minimum followed the first spotless day by about 72 months, having a range of 62-82 months; for cycles 15-21, sunspot minimum followed the first spotless day by about 35 months, having a range of 27-40 months. So we could still be six years from minimum making Solar Cycle 24 about 13 years long. Longer is weaker in the following cycle, and colder.
When the Sun goes blank we still have what the professionals use – the F10.7 flux:
Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
Figure 1 shows that the F10.7 flux has been in a couple of parallel downtrends since early 2015. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field is still going the other way though:
Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2016
Cloud droplet nucleation initiated by galactic cosmic rays has been getting a favourable press again, so let’s see how that’s going:
Figure 3: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
Figure 3 shows a strong rise in the neutron flux that has its source in the constant flux of galactic cosmic rays entering the solar system. The count is now higher than that during the downramp of Solar Cycle 20 of the 1970s cooling period – very promising.
Solar wind flow [pressure] is one of the factors that modulates that constant flux:
Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2016
Solar wind flow pressure appears to have peaked for this solar cycle. Perhaps the most interesting story with respect to the Sun at the moment is the increasing hemispheric asymmetry. The following graph shows that using very fresh data up to 2nd June:
Figure 5: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere 1976 – 2016
Asymmetry has reached a new peak for the modern instrument record and is still climbing:
Figure 6: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength Differential
Polar magnetic field strength is translated into sunspot number and sunspot area. Unfortunately NASA hasn’t updated hemispheric sunspot area since December 2015 with that data shown in this post. They may be too busy on Muslim outreach to do basic science.
- Shakespeare in the movie adaptation of Henry V
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery)
The SC4 sunspot count for May 2016 in the ‘classic’ numbers has gone up from April’s 27 to 36
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0516.gif
Wolf’s SSN is shown in blue, the left hand scale. The ‘new’ annual Svalgaard’s numbers are shown in red, right hand scale.
SC24 started late, the formula I devised in 2003, published Jan 2004 was predicted low value contradicting every scientific view at the time with exception of Dr. Svalgaard who published his estimate a year or so later, sometime in 2005 (if I remember correctly) in the low 70s + or – few points.
At the time, not only NASA but most of solar scientists were forecasting for the SC24 high or highest ever. Some 3 or 4 years later an international panel of scientist, under a pressure from Dr. S decided to come to a ‘consensus’ view of medium strength for SC24.
Since it is unlikely that the SC24 is going to bounce to values above those reached in 2014, it can be safely assumed, for all practical purposes, that both Dr. S. and I were correct.
You may have noticed that formula calculation for the annual SC24max, came to exactly same value (78.9) as one calculated from observations by the World Data Center for the sunspot index. I was expecting it to come close but to a decimal point, it came as a bit of surprise, one might say an ‘incredible coincidence’.
Of course my calculation requires independent verification, preferably more than one, so if anyone is inclined to have a go at it, all details are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Vuc, sometimes you just hit things right on the head. Congratulations. The elements of prophecy that work best always involve being slightly ahead of the curve.
Is it too soon to give us a number for the next cycle? Is there a temperature drop that goes with it, between now and then?
The MSM is in full cry milking what little warmist news there is from the El Nino, now almost completely disappeared. That was fast! I would like to do some long term planning for Asia. Knowing what to expect in terms of temperature would be helpful.
Crispin
Thanks. I have looked at the CET, that is expected to cool a bit, I would prefer if it didn’t, as far as Asia is concerned, I have no idea. As a well travelled man you probably know far better than many.. Enjoy your journeys.
From all appearances it looks like it is more than the sunspots which have disappeared. SpaceWeather,com has just revealed that June 4th also disappeared…from SpaceWeather “Something interesting is happening on the sun. Yesterday, June 3rd, the sunspot number dropped to 0, and the solar disk is still blank on June 5th.”
This could be serious, or not!
Evidently it is not just the sunspots which have disappeared. SpaceWeather.com now states that June 4th also disappeared. From SpaceWeather “Something interesting is happening on the sun. Yesterday, June 3rd, the sunspot number dropped to 0, and the solar disk is still blank on June 5th.”
This could be serious, or not!
There is a spot! A small one to the upper-left!
Sorry, false alarm. That was a dried coffee droplet on my screen.
But seriously, the photo of the sun looks out-of-focus. Is there a link to another source of solar images for the date of June 4th?
This site has an archive of every day. I visit this site frequently, have done for many years…great site:
http://www.solarham.net/regions/june2016.htm
http://www.solarham.net/pictures/archive/jun4_2016_disk.jpg
That one above is the fourth. The page has a amplification button to embiggen the image iffen you need a better view of nothing.
Here is June second, just as the last spot was rotating out of view:
http://www.solarham.net/pictures/archive/jun2_2016_disk.jpg
I read your comment and appreciated your efforts. I went to the link in your comment and used the information there to acquaint myself with what you have done. I did take the time to verify what you did and I explored alternatives.
In the first instance I used your equation and values to try and duplicate your efforts devoted to each individual peak. The results of my efforts are given in the link below:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A14244340288E543!15910&authkey=!ACqbTVTWZJYPnck&ithint=folder%2c
You can see the SSE and the correlation coefficient in the table.
Using your formula and the constants you identified I tried to determine if further improvement was possible. I used your formula as modified below:
y[i] = b[1]*abs(Cos(2*pi()*(x[i]-b[2])/b[4])+Cos(b[3]+2*pi()*(x[i]-b[2])/b[5]))
The b values will be guesses to see if improvement is possible. The initial guesses for the b values were your values. The program went through a number of iterations. The link below furnishes the results:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A14244340288E543!15911&authkey=!AEtKU83UbZKdPSs&ithint=folder%2c
Some improvement was yielded. Your first estimation as good and beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
My next attempt was to perform an Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT) analysis of the raw data. I have made use of the OFT in analyzing the NINO region data, RSS, and Hadcrut4 and get correlation coefficients above 0.9 for all that data when I try to further refine with a Marquardt based analysis. It did not work out that way in this case. The SSE and correlation coefficient are much better from the OFT alone. The link is below:
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A14244340288E543!15916&authkey=!AOlpT-dfFRlv1fc&ithint=folder%2c
BTW, I often follow your other comments.
I have not tried your enveloping equation yet.
Hi there, tanks for your extensive comment and effort you put into its content
Many people when they look at my paper may not initially realise what is meant to communicate.
It is a simplified ‘model’ of the solar activity broken in three elementary parts described by three simple formulae:
1. periodicity – where it comes from? Numbers used are from astronomical orbital properties, these although obvious are not identified, since this was one of the reasons the paper was initially turned down on account of such. The fact that there is a long term waveform undulation very similar to that as it is found in the actual data, is almost coincidental, but indicated that initial assumptions could be correct.
2. anomalies – in order to identify number of anomalous dips in the real data the second formula was derived. It would be wiser if it was plotted without ‘abs’ function, or just shown as the waveforms zero-crossings to be understood as the ‘anomalies identifiers’.
3. amplitude envelope – was created for the purposes of ‘verifying’ future variability based on the past information.
It is plainly obvious that for all three equations their graphic representations end in the year 2003, i.e. to the point in time what was known to be the case. Initially, all three graphs were extrapolated to 2050, but this also had to be dropped in order to get publication.
Why? All three: the coincidental undulation in 1. the zero crossing identifier in 2. and the amplitude envelope in 3. were indicating for the next cycle (SC24) whenever it occurs it is going to be low. However in 2003 (year of the paper submission) this was in a total contradiction with the NASA’s top experts views as well as the views of the solar science’s establishment. This was second reason why extrapolations were abandoned beyond what was already known. And as it turned out the NASA etc, were wrong but the formulae were correct.
Your effort to increase accuracy are appreciated, but in my view make no sense, since it appears that parameters representing orbital properties, are doing a reasonable approximation, since they are most likely principal drivers. However, internal solar events have strong random and chaos behaviour (as defined in science, when small changes in the initial conditions set by the drivers, produce vastly different result).
In my view trying to account for the random or chaos behaviour by introducing extra ‘fudge factor’ (as Einstein called his Λ – lambda) it would detract from the importance of understanding the principal cause of the shorter and longer term solar variability.
“Solar wind flow pressue is one of the factors that modulates that constant flux:”…Should be “pressure” ?
…Your welcome !! :o)
“…Your welcome” should be “You’re”.
You’re too 😛
And right now the solar wind is down, no ripples to speak of, and the barometric pressure (here at my house) is 29.90 “.
Its pretty steady!
Yore pedantic?
David – if you plotted the asymmetry of the solar polar magnetic field strength as south divided by north (instead of minus) then the asymmetry (ratio) would be even more striking.
both fields are vectors. So the cross product of those assymetric vectors may torque the plasma magnetic bundles to make some likely Big CMEs in the next few years.
surf’s up!!! get your aluminum foil hats.
randomness in the solar cycle
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2767274
There was already a spotless day, on 2014 July 17, shortly after the sunspot maximum.
Jean
Well-spotted!
The SORCE TSI plot below should be for 6-Mar to 28-May, updated 4-Jun, today, if not, click on it.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
Imagine a red line across the plot at 1361.25, the equivalent TSI to F10.7cm flux at 120 sfu, the HadSST3 ‘global’ warming threshold I established two years ago, details forthcoming in my solar model paper.
TSI has been below this warming line since March 13. The small upward excursions since have powered some short-term warmth and extreme events (rain and tornadoes) in the US and elsewhere, but the world is now experiencing a dramatic TSI-driven climb-down from the heights of February’s TSI-driven record heat.
Cold-related weather extremes from across the world are rising, even as we near the NH summer solstice.
It is no coincidence that OHC, SSTs, RSS, and UAH have been falling rapidly for three months.
The sun via TSI has an iron grip on our weather and climate.
Many wouldn’t believe that when I said that in 2014/15 when the sun was “hot”, maybe now they’ll believe it when it’s not. It’s the way it is, like it or not. Remember that 2015 had the highest annual TSI since 2002, and that’s why 2015 was a hot year, following several years of progressively higher TSI until the SC24 TSI max in Feb/March 2015.
We are now in for a real fast ride down in temps folks. The USAF 45day F10.7cm forecast is at 80 sfu for the next two months. Of course they’ll be off some, but F10.7 will go lower and lower as the year progresses, and TSI will follow, as will temps, and is the real driver behind this quickly deepening La Nina.
If the SWPC SSN and F10.7 monthly predictions for the rest of this year pan out, according to my F10.7-TSI-SST model, this year will close out cooler than last, which is what I predicted in January here at WUWT.
My prediction is directly in Gavin Schmidt’s face, as he predicted 2016 will be another record year. I said in January that 2016 will not be a record year because of insufficient TSI in 2016. Of course it can still be ranked high in the overall annual rankings, but the year won’t be warmer than 2015.
Then we’ll just get colder and colder from 2017 through to the upswing of SC25.
If SSNs jump higher this year, F10.7 will jump, then TSI, followed by temps – that’s if the sun decides to wake up from it’s long-awaited and hard-earned nap.
Bob,
Any idea what the W/m^2 variation at a terrestrial location would be? or a reliable atmospheric location over the same time period?
Bob Weber – You say “The sun via TSI has an iron grip on our weather and climate.. Please can you provide data that demonstrates this.
You’ll see all the important details on TSI in my upcoming solar paper.
Given the first 5 months of 2016, you would need the rest of the year to be near normal to avoid it being the warmest in the CFSR Record. June will not be a warmest June on record, but likely a top 5 which will solidify the 6 month mean as the warmest 6 months on record in NCEP CFSr. I suspect Dr Roy will be very close with that too WIth the oceans as warm as they are, I seriously doubt that the drop to avoid this you are counting on the sun for will happen. This is well forecasted ENSO spike that used the warm PDO and AMO in tandem to really ramp things up ( along with the Indian ocean which was way warmer this year than in 1998, the deck was stacked. I do expect the global temps to hit normal in running 30 day means later this year and next and fall below after, . That has been posted dozens of time since last year with the second graphic in this article, which shows the temps nicely
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/38793
But 2016 will rank in the top 5 satellite and may be warmest ever in CFSR as the the first 5 months have blown away any 5 month opening to any year in its record.. and its not even close. That being said, there is a large collapse coming but I think you will see its in line with collapses after the past 2 el ninos, with the la ninas, plainly seen in the temperature record
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
peace
I don’t understand why this is such a big deal with some folks. If you claim the rate of temperature increase in the first half of the last century is not dissimilar to the increase in the second half, shouldn’t “warmest years on record” be expected if the overall trend was positive, whether or not CO2 was a factor?
Bob you are batting 0.900.
Wow.
Very impressive, and I will be following earnestly your further developments. Please don’t forget us, the readers who do not have your skillset.
My prediction is directly in Gavin Schmidt’s face, as he predicted 2016 will be another record year. I said in January that 2016 will not be a record year because of insufficient TSI in 2016. Of course it can still be ranked high in the overall annual rankings, but the year won’t be warmer than 2015.
The surface-based datasets have such a big head start, that they’ll need a major crash to avoid setting records. For the 8 months May-to-December 2016…
* HadCRUT4 will have to average below +0.625; I’m projecting May to be +0.834
* GISS will have to average below +0.70; I’m projecting May to be +0.96
* NCEI will have to average below +0.7774; I’m projecting May to be 1.0005
The picture will look even worse after the May data get in. The satellite data is in for May. It has a better chance to avoid setting records. For the 7 months June-to-December 2016…
* UAH will have to average below +0.349
* RSS will have to average below +0.405
I *THOUGHT* I had blockquoted the first paragraph of my reply.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Looking at the plot’s 1964-today lower section: as solar output diminishes, the neutron-CR flux increases.
We are currently at the same level of neutron count as the solar minimum conditions of SC20, and nearly at the same solar minimum conditions post SC21 and SC22. There’s clearly further solar radiation reduction ahead as we go into this post-SC24 minimum, since the current neutron count is still 5% less than post-SC23 minimum levels, and we’re still at least 3-4 years away from the predicted minimum.
Will the sun’s output go lower than post-SC23?
“The sun via TSI has an iron grip on our weather and climate.”
Hi Bob,
not that I would disagree with the sense of the phrase, hydrogen or helium may not sound as good as ‘iron’ but might be far less evocative of a certain hypothesis /sark
Hi Vuk. You’re right. I was going to say a “plasma grip” but it just doesn’t invoke the same imagery.
OmG…lol
i got that
How exactly did the sun eject the heavy elements the must have concentrated at its core during formation?
Would they remain heavy for long?
All explained at earthchanges.org and suspiciousobservers.org
All images from space originate from NASA? Why is that?
Was that spotless picture taken with the Kubrick lens?
Sol, thy complexion is so fair.
“Polar magnetic field strength is translated into sunspot number and sunspot area. Unfortunately NASA hasn’t updated hemispheric sunspot area since December 2015 with that data shown in this post. They may be too busy on Muslim outreach to do basic science.”
LOL!
Thanks for the updates – invaluable
After an unusual early bout of persistent winter rain we have dropped into some early frosts. The record string of frosts in my living memory was in the very early 80’s: 30 in a row. Some years bring only 3
Being in a high rainfall sub-tropical region we can grow grass during winter but frosts stop it dead. I will be in trouble if this happens as I will have too many mouths on. Livestock don’t mind dry cold, even the new-born. Its cold rain that kills them. But, they still need grass
This rapid change in global measured temperature in a sensible world should bring something home to the sensationalists: that measuring temperature in an environment of varying proximal temperature difference is about measuring flux – not a persistent state – rather like measuring flow rates in a river over time by having instruments in confined locations. They can’t think far enough to realise that an El Nino is a cooling event
Michael, What part of the country are you in please?
Wow. Archibald, with follow-ups by Vukcevic and Weber all got to post without
the usual snarky comments from the “expert” who persistently quotes himself.
The battle for attention and plaudits has been on-going since the last leg of Cycle 23.
Watch this space for the good Dr. to lash out and touch someone.
Mr. Brown
I ‘met’ Dr. S about eight years ago. I frequently acknowledge his skill in predicting SC24. “You may be right but for a wrong reason” is the nearest he came about acknowledging mine.
I am travelling so don’t have time for the usual debunking. As the polar fields now are as strong as before the previous minimum and surely will increase a bit more, we can already now forecast a cycle 25 being a bit stronger than cycle 24, so people who predicted a small SC24 and an even smaller SC25 were correct about SC24 for the wrong reason.
Hi doc
Nice to here you are well. As far as SC 25 is concerned, using the ‘Svalgaard ‘ theory yes you could be right, but as you yourself said SC24 is behaving oddly, so if it turns a bit lower than SC24, you could be ‘wrong for the wrong reason’ . The equation says it should in low 50’s in the old numbers, depends on time of its max
The equation says it should in low 50’s
So, if it isn’t, the equation is wrong. As it was for several cycles in the past, e.g. SC20.
Dr. Svalgaard
we are a decade away, lets wait and see, fair enough.
A decade ago
NASA said: strongest ever.
Svalgaard said: around 70
vukcevic equation said: around 80
If you know your cycles you will say, every ‘grand max’ solar activity overreaches itself and blows out of steam, it happened in 1750, 1860, 1970
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CS.gif
The major CS appears to drift getting longer (by 4yr/century), while the minor CS appears to be ‘rock steady’ at 110 years.
If you bother to take a look at my paper, that is an anomaly, described and taken care of by my equation No.2, while the SSN envelope is No.3.
Once a well known scientist, defending some of the problems with his theory (1 in 100 probability) said
sun is a messy place but when it is suitable, he expects from the opposing views to accept that the sun works as accurately as the Harrison’s Chronometer.
Apparently not too early to offer excuses for why formula doesn’t work…
Brett Keane
“And he also states that this solar cycle has become abnormal…”
The real world cannot be “abnormal” unless something new is acting upon it. If there is nothing new, then this is simply something we haven’t seen before, unsurprising given our youth and lack of knowledge.
I hope we are all here, on scene and in good health, in ten years to mull it over and chew the fat on what did happen.
Be well and safe travels to all.
“… usual snarky comments from the “expert” who persistently quotes himself.”
What would a comment section be without the internet twits? They add color and laughter to the threads. I know the good doctor has cause much mirth at this location. 🙂
@markstoval
June 4, 2016 at 2:13 pm : To be fair, Dr S. works from observation as a scientist should, not speculation. And he also states that this solar cycle has become abnormal, as a scientist will comment when the evidence demands.
@ur momisugly Brett: Speculation is part of science. It can drive discovery, if used properly.
jorgekafkazar, oh indeed! It’s this bit of science that Mr S continually forgets. Well, that and being polite. I’m a person who usually believes that evidence is everything. However, you can have an idea – then gather the evidence to support your idea. You can be right for the wrong reason, and it turns out you were right for the right reason…when all along they said you were wrong. The future holds everything except memories.
@Brett Keane
“To be fair, Dr S. works from observation as a scientist should, not speculation. And he also states that this solar cycle has become abnormal, as a scientist will comment when the evidence demands.”
Be that as it may, he sure does think he is correct and that the sun has no effect on climate variation. My view is that history will prove him dead wrong. Time will tell, but until we know much more, it would be proper for the good doctor to be a tad less arrogant. (especially since the other side is going to win) 🙂
..markstoval….+ 199 stars…( 200 would have been pushing too far )
R.S.Brown June 4, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Wow. Archibald, with follow-ups by Vukcevic and Weber all got to post without
the usual snarky comments from the “expert” who persistently quotes himself.
_____________________________________________________________
Have you ever visited Dr. S’s, website? A lifetime of solar studies. And much, much more.
Many of us visit his site when directed, because we want to learn something. Give it a try. You might be pleasantly surprised.
http://www.leif.org/research/
Dr. S., might expect certain commenters to do better, and keep pushing and learning more. Snark gotten and given by a whole lot of people, if you haven’t noticed.
Hoping everything is well with Dr.S. and V
Ok so onward and upward in the land of the ubiquitous magnetic field. From the galactic mother, thru Ol Sol and down to the Earth.
There are a few here that have been intrigued by solar magnetic flux tubes or flux ropes that connect sun and earth, during magnetic reconnection events..
But .. we are now able to seeeeee……. “cylindrical density structures/field aligned ducts,” in Earth’s plasmasphere/ionosphere dynamo system, of the magnetosphere. Must be linking to the terrestrial magnetic field to …..
The author list… watch out… these guys are excited for sure..
to follow
Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere
Authors
Shyeh Tjing Loi, Tara Murphy, Iver H. Cairns, Frederick W. Menk,
Colin L. Waters, Philip J. Erickson, Cathryn M. Trott, Natasha Hurley-Walker,
John Morgan, Emil Lenc, André R. Offringa, Martin E. Bell,
Ronald D. Ekers, B. M. Gaensler, Colin J. Lonsdale, Lu Feng,
Paul J. Hancock, David L. Kaplan, G. Bernardi, J. D. Bowman,
F. Briggs, R. J. Cappallo, A. A. Deshpande, L. J. Greenhill,
B. J. Hazelton, M. Johnston-Hollitt, S. R. McWhirter, D. A. Mitchell,
M. F. Morales, E. Morgan, D. Oberoi, S. M. Ord,T. Prabu,
N. Udaya Shankar, K. S. Srivani, R. Subrahmanyan,
S. J. Tingay, R. B. Wayth, R. L. Webster,A. Williams, C. L. Williams
25 May 2015
Abstract
Ionization of the Earth’s atmosphere by sunlight forms a complex, multilayered plasma environment within the Earth’s magnetosphere, the innermost layers being the ionosphere and plasmasphere. The plasmasphere is believed to be embedded with cylindrical density structures (ducts) aligned along the Earth’s magnetic field, but direct evidence for these remains scarce. Here we report the first direct wide-angle observation of an extensive array of field-aligned ducts bridging the upper ionosphere and inner plasmasphere, using a novel ground-based imaging technique. We establish their heights and motions by feature tracking and parallax analysis. The structures are strikingly organized, appearing as regularly spaced, alternating tubes of overdensities and underdensities strongly aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. These findings represent the first direct visual evidence for the existence of such structures.
4. Conclusion and Outlook
Despite the seeming ubiquity of field-aligned ducts in magnetospheric systems (e.g. IoJupiter
[Imai et al., 1992] and the Sun [Duncan, 1979]), self-organization processes in
plasmas have been difficult to isolate observationally. Our results demonstrate that wide-
field radio telescopes such as the MWA are powerful quantitative tools for studying their
formation, dynamics and morphology. Radio telescopes differ fundamentally from many
approaches for probing the ionosphere and plasmasphere in that they measure density
gradients rather than absolute density. Their insensitivity to the constant offset component
of the TEC makes them particularly suitable for studying plasma density disturbances/irregularities and permits them to probe regions above the peak electron density
with ease, since they are not significantly shielded by the denser underlying plasma.
The ground-based feature tracking and altitude triangulation capabilities we have
demonstrated here offer valuable opportunities for the real-time, regional-scale monitoring
of inner magnetospheric structures and dynamics on a near-continuous basis, unconstrained
by the limitations of spacecraft orbits or the propagation of whistlers. Unlike
ground-based whistler observations, which only allow for radial motions to be measured,
the MWA can track both radial and horizontal motions, thereby allowing bulk plasma
drifts to be characterized in three dimensions. Its potential to perform 3D reconstruction
of density structures can provide empirical constraints on the plasma distribution both
along and across magnetic flux tubes. This may be useful, for example, for specifying
appropriate boundary conditions in simulation studies of global plasma flows [Tu et al.,
2006].
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.06470.pdf
This has opened up a whole new world…woweee
Thank you Carla, I am grateful for the time he gives to his website and the blogs. It has been fascinating to follow his research. He has made excellent contributions to science IMHO.
Remember the trash compactor scene from Star Wars? Luke being dragged under by an unseen monster? Who promptly let go after some thrashing about. Then it became apparent that the monster let go because the compactor was about to start compacting. That is a cultural template we can apply to life. Thus the disappearance of Dr Svalgaard from these pages may mean that the whole global warming thing is over. You know the whole deniers-are-in-the-pay-of-the-fossil-fuel-companies thing that the warmers go on about? Transference! They know they are doing it so they accuse others. The reality is the that the fossil fuel companies are too stupid to look after their own interests. Shell sold out of its coal assets because it actually believed in global warming – how stupid can you get? Perhaps the flow of money from the Soros Foundation has stopped – we have no way of knowing. Sad. But having Dr Svalgaard around for the last ten years has kept us on the straight and narrow. He succeeded in his quest to hammer the sunspot record flat but he couldn’t fiddle with the F10.7 flux. You may remember that a decade ago Judith Curry appeared on these pages ideologically committed to the warmer cause but then had a Damascene conversion on further examination of the science and came over to the Light. Dr Svalgaard could yet follow. Pray for his soul.
[probably the most ridiculous comment ever about Dr. Svalgaard, he’s a climate skeptic, he just doesn’t think the sun (TSI, spots, etc) has much to do with it -mod]
Archibald you are way off.
I have a lot of time for Dr S. He has limitations like everyone else. So what? His approach is very conventional save for the areas in which he is innovating. This is not unusual in science. We work against a background that is constant, or at least bestows constancy.
Vuc is not like that. He is quite at ease with tossing the entire standard models and going for new mechanisms and insights. There are several initiatives like this in climate science, I won’t list them. But the manifestations are novel approaches that are poorly rooted in theory as others understand them. That is the source of the comment (often repeated) “You can’t say that because you don’t have an explanation for how it works.” Huh? Observations are not as good as theories for making predictions? That idea is a bit shaky.
I think there is a classical error there which is not listed in the seven standard logical errors. If a medieval scientist watched a modern physicist turn copper into gold, he could conclude that it can’t be done because there isn’t a mechanism he understands that allows for it, even as he watched it happen.
Vuc’s formula works. I don’t care too much why because I am more interested, as a casual observer, in the answer, not the derivation of the formula.
I am preparing a paper at the moment on a fundamental breakthrough in combustion analysis. I have to derive all the formulae and prove that my assumptions are reasonable in order to be acceptable to the regular mob. So, suddenly, I become very conventional and push my little boundary from within the circle and develop everything from first principles. Dr S does the same. We are not ‘trapped’ but it may seem that way to outsiders.
Over a cup of tea we might both entertain wild-eyed methods that work as well. No harm in that. Vuc’s formula is, ultimately, inductive reasoning which is viewed in a poor light by deductive minds. That sets up a perpetual stress between those who, like me, are ok knowing only the answer, and those who insist on knowing why before accepting.
Historically, the world is influenced most by those who are right, rather than those who know why they are right. Humans do a lot of things based on faith.
He succeeded in his quest tore is hammer the sunspot record flat but he couldn’t fiddle with the F10.7 flux
Here is the F10.7 flux since 1840s:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107.Flux-Reconstruction.png
from: http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
WP strikes again. Here is the graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/F107-Flux-Reconstruction.png
“Those will be known to have believed at the start are those that will be found to have endured to the end.”
Solar Science casts about for a paradigmatic shift somehow making sense of the data, abused or otherwise.
Not looking good for those whose careers are in valedictory: at some point the massage will leave off.
How accurate, in terms of engineering tolerance, was 70s, 80s, 90s – heck, even last year’s – data instrumentation, compared to today’s?
We are entering a 30-50 50 period known as the Maunder Minimum. Stock up on firewood folks because it’ is going to get a lot colder before it gets warmer.
I would be surprised if we are, I would think that a Dalton type minimum is more likely
I would even be surprised by a Dalton type minimum. Everything indicates SC25 should be similar to SC24 and then back up again in SC26. This period of lower solar activity is likely to have more solar activity than the early 20th century.
All in all it probably means that Solar activity is not going to contribute to global warming for the next 2-3 decades, so probably there won’t be any global warming. There could be a slight cooling but not for solar causes. Since Roman times there hasn’t been such a good outlook for solar activity. We might be looking at several centuries of warm nice weather.
See:
Periodicities in solar variability and climate change: A simple model
Any cooling in the next 2-3 years is attributable to La Niña, not to solar activity.
Why do you say that? The major trend that led to that possibility, sunspot contrast and brightness has stabilized over the last several years. Some like a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is as far out on the branch I’ll go.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Perhaps someone can explain what drives umbral magnetic field.
It seems to be a good measure of solar internal dynamics.
A less dynamic sum would presumably have less convective heat transport.
Couldn’t find a chart of the solar average surface temperature trend. That would be interesting one would think.
An article on umbral magnetic fields and sunspots:
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Penn2.pdf
“Couldn’t find a chart of the solar average surface temperature trend.”
It is relatively stable (around 5,778 K give or take a degree) , but raises to few million degrees in the corona. Corona is about 500 km above the photosphere, which in the solar diameter terms is just a trifle.
It is relatively stable (around 5,778 K give or take a degree) , but raises to few million degrees in the corona.
http://i.imgur.com/mb2H96U.png
I don’t know why we bother to plot the Earth temperature. It is relatively stable (288 K give or take a degree). but drops to 116 Kelvin in the outer atmosphere (400 km).
I hope you don’t live in Canada. It is becoming illegal to burn wood.
Something very bad is going to happen real soon.
meh. something bad is always going to happen real soon. Something wicked this way comes. 🙂
Excellent reference to ‘The Scottish Play’ and the outing of damn’d spots.
Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard?
Nigel, you can say ‘Macbeth’! Actors sometimes refuse to say it within the world of acting (showing off), but mentioning it out of that sphere is ok, you know? It’s not like some terrible thing is going to strike me as I’m
Carrington X40 events are probabilistic black swans. 3 could happen in few years and then none for centuries.
better to use a Magic 8 Ball for forecasting.
It is decidedly so.
I see above: “We are entering a 30-50 50 period known as the Maunder Minimum.” and another responded, “I would think that a Dalton type minimum is more likely”
It is really irrelevant how deep the temperatures will go over the next 10 years or so, the fact that cooling is coming is what really counts.
If we can all stay out of jail until NASA/NOAA has to admit that CO2 is going up while temperatures are going down then the entire CO2 warms the surface delusion may be over. (or not, as man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest)
Modern man can live through a “little ice age”, but I don’t know how many of us can live through the dystopia that will come if the governments get their hands on total control of all aspects of our lives in order to “save the world” by destroying the industrial societies of the west.
…Canada would cease to exist in a next “Little Ice Age” !!
Maybe Canada should hold a vote to become part of the USA…That way all the canucks can move south for the winter, like the geese. :))
..Quack Quack !!!
“…Canada would cease to exist in a next “Little Ice Age” !!”
That claim is – I’m really sorry to say – somewhat alarmist in style…
Let’s leave this idle sport to the IPPC folks. A new LITTLE ice age would be inconvenient for Canada of course, but not devastating. Don’t forget, Canada was settled by Europeans during the Maunder Minimum…
Ooops – IPCC folks were meant – Oh these mean typos lurking around every corner… 😉
“React, adapt, overcome.” Our friends north of the parallel are not insane, they are simply confused at the moment. Not surprising: they are even more heavily propagandized than down here.
If and when the slide really kicks in, they will probably wake up before the idiots down here in more “resilient” climes do – and start erecting the gibbets a bit earlier.
Canada would still be there. It may have more ice and snow, but it would still be there.
“…all the canucks can move south for the winter”
I sure met quite a few in Phoenix last winter. Be better if they didn’t need visas.
From my perch in Fort Myers, it appears a sizable percentage, perhaps the entire populace (how many hundred people live up there these days?), of Canada is already coming here on a seasonal basis.
I think we need a wall or something…
You won’t get Mexicans to build it, they’ll be busy elsewhere, I hear Chines are good at building walls.
‘Wall made in China’ has a certain ring of durability to it.
Mr. Austin, according to one theory, Canada would only be there is someone is there to observe it being there. Other wise, it may or may not be there. At least until someone goes looking for it. That is how the North Pole came to be where it is.
When you think about it Canada wasn’t there not that long ago, only came to be there when the huge lump of ice melted. I’ve got some close relatives there, every winter they migrate to Fort Lauderdale.
South River Independent, are you saying Canada is the Cat in Schrodinger’s box? :))
Antarctica the continent still exists. It’s hidden under 9000 feet of ice, but it’s still under there.
That is the issue in a nutshell!
Sun has nothing to do with the extra greenhouse gas concentrations, which have been building up for a long time because of human activities. What that actually helps is that if the solar output is less than it was the earth will cool less, because the gases will store more energy than before.
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
The new CO2 measuring Satellite cannot even see “Human Activity CO2”, only Nature’s CO2.
You obviously have never lived in a desert, where CO2 does absolutely nothing to keep you warmer at night.
And just to be clear why did the Temperature not rise, but actually fell around 1 degree between the 1940s and 1970s when Human CO2 was continually rising?
Please do not refer to the current Adjusted Temperature Data Set to say it didn’t happen, because the historical data shows that it did.
“Sun has nothing to do with the extra greenhouse gas concentrations, which have been building up for a long time because of human activities. …”
Good! We need more CO2. And as many have demonstrated, it has nothing to do with the global average temperature. CO2 goes up after the temperature goes up. I hate that, because I wish we really could make the temperature go up by releasing CO2. The planet is too darned cold!
And we would all be better off with a greener world of more plants and trees, which needs less water.
And having all of our food crops grow faster and more bountifully would not be a bad thing by any way of reckoning.
Of course, if one is of the opinion that having large areas of our planet being perpetually frozen wastelands is somehow a good thing, and having those areas somewhat less frigidly frozen and lethally cold is somehow a disaster…well, there is always psychiatry.
Just like every Spring and Summer, my skin is compensating for any missing Sun spots.
Good stuff !
Hadn’t heard of the F10.7 measure before . Is it a good proxy for the TSI and entire solar spectrum ? Does the spectrum just get hotter , or do some bands get more hot that others ? ( not that I’ll have time to do anything with the info . )
I continue to wonder how TSI and the corresponding gray body temperature ,
f( 1360.95 1361.55 )f 4. _f %f P>Tsb |>| 278.31 278.34for the range in the graph above , are not just — the word which comes to mind is deflated in the sense of a seasonal deflator — removed from any “model” before any other explanation is invoked .
They are not optional . They are the data which must be matched by any explanation of estimated mean surface temperature . And they are about the only parameters which are known to 4th and 5th decimal place accuracy of the 0.3% variation this whole state cult has been conjured over .
Excellent work. Now you all must be taxed for excess co2 production and join the global warming religion or be jailed. So sez herr lefties.
On this basis I predict the following. No UK tmeperatures over 25 degrees C this summer and minus 10 degrees C as average this winter ( Dec- Feb 2017). No El Nino to warm the global atmosphhere. Call me wrong in Feb 2017.
It will be 26C this week.
!
Intellicast has a forecast of 26C for Wednesday. Afterwards the temps drop back to low 20s on their ten day forecast…http://www.intellicast.com/Local/Weather.aspx?unit=C&location=UKXX0085
UK’s highest temp was 27.6 on Monday 6th June.
The only good thing about this ridiculous prediction is that we didn’t have to wait long for it to be falsified.
We can safely pour scorn on the winter prediction too
Glad to see Svaalgard has not posted nearly always wrong hahaha LOL just joking
…Please don’t get him started, because then that gets me started…and then I get banned !!! LOL
Not at all versed in the solar stuff, so seldom comment. Interesting hypotheses based on shaky data (e.g. early solar cycles, Dalton min). So am content to let solar prognostications play out over the next decade or so. Lots of easier to understand non-solar indicators like Asakofu’s Arctic ice cycle (essay Northwest Passage), the stadium wave hypothesis, ocean cycles… suggest no warming until the mid to late 2030’s. If solar is important, it probably means distinct cooling over that period. We shall see.
What is most important is honest (not Karlized) observation leading up to AR6 in 2019. How much walkback will be needed compared to AR4? AR5 fudged and obfuscated. AR6 won’t have that luxury.
Yes Ristvan, everything in skeptic theory points to lack of warming or even moderate cooling for the next couple of decades: the 60 year-cycle, AMO and PDO, Arctic ice cycle, Stadium wave theory, solar activity. Meanwhile the CO2 hypothesis requires constant increase in warming for as long as atmospheric CO2 increases. These two trains are set to crash and what happens to climate will invalidate at least one hypothesis. The CO2 hypothesis cannot withstand two more decades without warming, while the skeptic hypotheses cannot withstand a resumption of strong warming within the next decade.
Javier: You misunderstand what skepticism is when you say –
If there is a sceptic/skeptic hypothesis, it goes something like this: “Climate is an extremely complex system that is only partially understood, and we distrust any theory that purports to explain all climate variation as a function of a single variable”
That, basically is what scepticism is – distrust of the easy answer. In my opinion.
The solar people obviously have a lot to say because (surprise!) the sun provides almost all the heat that reaches the earth’s surface. Do they have ALL the answers? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.
The CO2 hypothesis is doing very poorly because it fails to explain why T went up from 1910 to 1940 and didn’t go up much from 1998 to 2015 despite CO2 being a lot more abundant. Resumed warming in the next decade won’t breathe life back into CO2 except in the minds of its proponents where it never faltered anyway.
“If there is a sceptic/skeptic hypothesis, it goes something like this: “Climate is an extremely complex system that is only partially understood, and we distrust any theory that purports to explain all climate variation as a function of a single variable”
Except that’s NOT the theory.
Here is the theory.
A) The earth system responds to Forcing.. in simple terms it responds to Watts.
B) The response is complex and chaotic in the short term.
watch here please . The pendulum example will help you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU
C) all Watts are roughly equal, whether they be increased Watts from the sun
or decreased Watts from cloud cover, decreased Watts from increased albedo
decreased watts from volcanic Aerosols, or increased Watts from Ghg gases like
H2O, Methane, C02, … roughly speaking Watts can just be summed.
D) if the Watts increase. the system will respond, over time, by increasing temperatures. Thisdoesnt happen smoothly, doesnt happen in every place the same way.. the trajectory wanders, but over time it will wander upward. If the watts decrease the system will eventually cool.. not uniformly in space or time. Climate science, for example, says
that If you turn down the TSI from the sun, the planet will cool.
E) There are MANY factors that can increase or decrease Watts. These are all covered
In the IPCC Ar5. C02 is only ONE factor: Other include, Land use change, Black carbon, methane, S02, black carbon on snow, etc. We think we know all forcings. we could be wrong.
Here is a chart of the KNOWN FORCINGS ( RF stands for radiative forcing)
F Note THREE THINGS about the forcings: C02 is largest. There are negative forcings ; the uncertainty on some is High. C02 is NOT the only forcing. C02 is important
because it is dominant ( now) and because it stays around, unlike say Methane.
G; the TOTAL excess forcing is somewhere between .6Watts and 2.4 Watts.
That is a huge spread. The best guess is around 1.6Watts
H. The Theory says the climate is driven by the SUM TOTAL of all these forcings.
I. C02 plays a dominant role, Now. It has not always played a dominant role. We have a choice about controlling c02.. We could also control the sun, but it would be really
expensive to “shade” the earth. The point here is that the geo enginering schemes
should show you that the science DOESNT think that c02 is the only factor.
Next: Over the past 150 years the temperature has increased about 1C
Forcing has increased about 1.6Watts. From that we can estimate Lambda
Lambda = 1/ 1.6 or about .65 C per watt
That is the temperature has gone up about 1C after a 1.6W increase. This is a measure
of sensitivity.
Doubling c02 gets you 3.7 watts.. or an increase of about 2.3C.
( thats a rough and ready guess.. see Nic Lewis for a more detailed and accurate
approach)
if you want to criticize the science there is Plenty in A-I to question. BUT note that the science doesnt “purport” to explain all of the climate by c02. factually wrong.
[
hmm
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ar4_fig_spm_2.png
dropped from my comment
“These two trains are set to crash”
Not really, as that’s why it was revised to “climate change” as CO2 can now cause cold, warming, no rise or even the next ice age. And of course a lack of baseline standard guarantees that the grant monies will go on and on and on…………..
Mosher is so wrong about Watts. You cannot sum this energy. Mixing two gasses at same temp are not double. Try looking at frequency not wavelength. UV is about 70 Times mote intense than IR. Hence no sunburn from backradiation at night.
“C) all Watts are roughly equal”
the biggest joke of all time.
Solar Watts can do work.
GHG Back Radiation Watts can’t do any work whatsoever.
Ask any warmist how we can use GHG Watts the same way we can Solar Watts and see what answers you get.
Mr. Mosher says,
=========================
” all Watts are roughly equal, whether they be increased Watts from the sun
or decreased Watts from cloud cover, decreased Watts from increased albedo
decreased watts from volcanic Aerosols, or increased Watts from Ghg gases like
H2O, Methane, C02, … roughly speaking Watts can just be summed.
===========================
IMV this is a huge misconception. I think a proper understanding of energy residence time as a universal factor in all thermodynamic processes is useful.
I have, on the basis of residence time, questioned the veracity of the proposition that, if the watt per square meter down welling LWIR due to clouds, is equal to the same watt per square meter down welling SW , sans clouds, then they make the same contribution to earth’s energy budget.
The greater the increase in residence time of the energy, the greater the potential energy accumulation. Understanding the disparate affect of different WL on the materials encountered relative to residence time of energy is always informative of a gain or loss in a defined systems total energy. Understanding that an equal flow of wattage, does not equate to an equal amount of energy within a defined system, is conducive and useful to understanding the energy budget of our earth
I postulate that the SW radiation will enter the earths oceans to depth, having far longer residence time. I postulate that the LWIR will expend much if its energy in accelerating the water cycle, be lost in evaporation, and released at altitude, to be liberated by GHG molecules, the more numerous, the more likely to be quickly liberated from our “system” I assert that (as an example) 10 straight days of SW pumping into the tropical ocean, will accumulate for the entire 10 days, losing little to space; whereas 10 days of LWIR from clouds, will lose far more total energy to space while reducing the longer term s/w surface energy entering our oceans. I postulate that the residence time of the WL of radiation, as well as the materials encountered, are the reason the residence time and total accumulated energy within the system varies, despite an equal wattage flow per square meter.
This can be summarized as a law.
(1) “Only two things can change the energy content of a “system” in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in residence time of some aspect of the energy within the system.”
.
..and its corollary…
(2) “Residence time depends on both the materials energy input encounters, and the WL of the input under consideration.”
For purposes of CAGW discussion we are defining the earth’s atmosphere as our system existing between two vastly larger inputs, the earth itself, including the oceans, (bottom up) and solar insolation (top down)
Over four or five large solar cycles if there is an increase in the SW penetrating deep into the oceans, then over four or five solar cycles that increase may accumulates every day for forty or fifty years!! (Curiously of course this longest residence time input increase, is potentially balanced out by an increase in albedo, the shortest residence time input factor.) The point is we do not know! To therefore assume no change in what is fundamental to long term change, is tantamount to a blind man refusing to admit he is blind.
Leif S has admitted we do not know the residence time of disparate solar energy entering earth’s system, but we do know it varies from micro seconds to centuries! Some enters and leaves at the sped of light, some penetrates hundreds of meters into the ocean. We are likewise ignorant on solar affects at the top of our atmosphere, including ozone affects and jet stream patterns.
Many historical observations, short term and long term, indicate that CO2 is not the control nob you appear to think it is.
So sayeth —- Smart Rock – June 4, 2016 at 6:15 pm
Well now, maybe your problem is that you are looking at the wrong temperature graph for 1998 to 2015.
Here is the one you should be looking at, to wit:
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/8_28_13_andrew_oceanheat_1050_704_s_c1_c_c.jpg
When the Ocean Heat Content starts to decrease then the yearly average atmospheric CO2 ppm will follow suite.
And 2ndly, the “CO2 hypothesis” is crappy junk-science if it postulates that “an increase in atmospheric CO2 directly causes an increase in average near-surface air temperatures” because ….. CO2 increases/decreases always “track” behind temperature increases/decreases.
“Skeptic hypotheses” would also be known as the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis needs to be proven? Only in pseudoscience.
Steven,
You wrote
“C) all Watts are roughly equal, whether they be increased Watts from the sun
or decreased Watts from cloud cover, decreased Watts from increased albedo
decreased watts from volcanic Aerosols, or increased Watts from Ghg gases like
H2O, Methane, C02, …
There are advantages to pursuing degrees in English Lit and Philosophy at Northwestern and UCLA.
Alas, understanding science is not one of them.
Are all watts roughly equal? Decidedly not. Put a plant seedling with adequate water and CO2 under 1000 W/m^2 12 hrs/day for 1 month of the following spectra of electromagnetic radiation:
1. Gamma radiation
2. X-irradiation
3. Ultraviolet radiation
4. Infrared radiation
5. Microwave radiation
6. Radio/television spectrum radiation
Will the plant grow? No, it will die.
Put the plant under a visible light source of 1000 W /m^2, such as a Gro-light, and voila! the plant will grow.
CO2 has absorption/emission properties at 15-18 microns. This is a low energy band. At high enough ambient temperatures, the IR-photon-activated molecule cannot even transfer energy to surrounding molecules after absorbing IR photons. Tyndall and Arrhenius didn’t understand this, because quantum mechanics and photonic energy had not been elucidated.
Not really. The null hypothesis is just the opposite of the hypothesis and usually does not constitute a hypothesis “per se”. If the hypothesis is that CO2 increase is responsible for most of the warming, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not responsible for most of the warming, but it says nothing about what is causing it.
“Skeptic hypotheses” try to establish that most of the warming is due to other specific causes, like oceanic cycles, increased solar activity, post-LIA rebound effect, and so on.
Most “Skeptic hypotheses” are incompatible with a resumption of a strong warming within the next decade or two, because their proposed causes are diminishing, not increasing.
Mosher– The silly CAGW hypothesis hilariously assumes CO2’s logarithmic forcing can somehow generate EXPONENTIAL warming through some mythical “runaway positive feedback loop” involving water vapor, which is NOT happening (except in the comical CAGW model runs)..
If anything, any added ocean water vapor from CO2 forcing simply increases cloud cover, which acts as a negative feedback effect.
The empirical evidence, math and physics have already shown this spurious CO2 runaway-positive- feedback-loop dog don’t hunt…
CAGW model projections are ALREADY off by 2 standard deviations for 20 years and will soon exceed 3 standard deviations for 25+ years once the 30-year PDO cool cycles cools the planet, the weakest solar cycle since 1790 starts in 2022 and the AMO enters its 30-year cool cycle around 2020…
CAGW is already dead.
Steven M states that the rise in CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. But that is directly contradicted by real world observations. Prof Feynman stated that when your ‘theory’ is contradicted by observations, your ‘theory’ is wrong. “That’s all there is to it,” he added.
And Javier misunderstands the climate Null Hypothesis regarding the CO2=AGW claim. In effect the Null says that if no changes are discernable due to the extraneous variable (CO2), then the Null Hypothesis has not been falsified. It does not state that there cannot be any possible effect (since every change has an effect, no matter how minuscule), but only that there has been no measurable effect. In particular, no past temperature parameters have been exceeded.
Javier also says:
The CO2 hypothesis cannot withstand two more decades without warming, while the skeptic hypotheses cannot withstand a resumption of strong warming within the next decade.
Almost correct. Here’s the quibble: skeptics don’t have a hypothesis. Skeptics have a job: to deconstruct hypotheses. They have done an outstanding job with the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ claims, and with various pharmaceutical claims, etc. Skepticicm in science is not limited to any one particular debate or field.
Finally, a “resumption of strong warming” is vague, and indistinguishable from the planet’s natural strong warming following the LIA. To convince skeptics that human emissions are the cause, accelerated warming and a verifiable connection to the rise in emissions is necessary. Other than those points, we probably agree.
True
I see it as a simple test (I’ll go by my graph, mid to late 2030s)
– GT rises: CO2 rules, solar is a bit player
– GT extended pause: CO2 vs sun is a draw
– GT falls: solar rules, CO2 is the bit player
“AR5 fudged and obfuscated. AR6 won’t have that luxury.”
I wouldn’t be too certain about that, even Einstein introduced a fudge factor Λ (lambda), knowing full well that it was wrong to do so.
Vukcevic, even with a dalton minimum type situation, isn’t solar activity relatively high as compared to several hundreds of years ago? It seems a little too simplistic to rule out the sun (based on current solar activity)…
p.s. why is Dr. Sv. so mean (to you)?
Dr S is mean to everyone. He is a dismissive character (you come across them in life every so often). It comes from a feeling of superiority (real or imagine), a personality trait. You can check that trait by at least being nice and polite. Alas, Dr S also possesses another personality trait, that of being curt and impolite. As I explained to him before, he lacks social skills. We can’t have everything. We are blessed with some things, cursed with others, and seemingly sometimes cursed with both.
fonzarelli
Dr. S is Ok in my book.
Never underestimate the fudgers and obfuscators. They were pretty creative during AR5. The major victory (not deep ocean heat for which there are no measurements) was hiding the absence of the hotspot. There are literally millions of measurements proving there is no tropical Hotspot. The greatest sleight of hand to date was screwing up the clear evidence with ‘homogenization techniques’ and then declaring that the data were not good enough to show it, but the Hotspot is probably there.
That is professional quality fudging and obfuscation. For AR6 they will be papering over their asses and hiding declines as never before. Literally. We will be inundated with stories about ‘rebounds’ and ‘coiled springs’ and the ever-worsening consequences for the poor fragile planet that will, of course, be unprecedented. Soon.
Dr. Svalgaard does sometimes seem dismissive, sarcastic or even “mean”. But I for one am very glad that he posts because he is the expert on the subjects he comments on. He forces those who push various hypothesis and ideas to “put up or shut up”. He is a great debunker and what I consider a ruthless skeptic in his field or in other words, he is a scientist. Note: Dr. S has skewered some of my comments in the past. It made me more careful of what I write.
Dr S. may be curt at times but if you ask him and honest (unloaded) question he will give you an honest (unloaded) answer, that is worth its weight in gold.
Does this mean the world is coming to an end on 31 October 2019?
No. Sea kelp.
Well according to some, it will be November 8…..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/investigating-climate-change-the-hard-way-at-earth-s-icy-third-pole/
If you read this article the ice core data the scientists believes may be tied to the two hundred year solar cycle. And temperatures varied 2 degrees Celsius over that time…this 2 degrees is inline with temperature changes we’ve experienced over the past 130 years. But yet he says that current temperatures are high
Lonnie Thompson is a great scientist, with several very interesting articles. What he sees is real. The 208-year de Vries cycle is very apparent in tree rings in Northern Europe and the Tibetan Plateau. It is good to see it also in ice cores as that provides independent confirmation by a different technique.
The reduction in global glaciers and ice patches is also real. Most are at their minimum level in about 5000 years, that is why Ötzi the ice man was discovered from the Bronze Age, about 5200 years ago. This is to be expected. The air above glaciers is very cold and very dry. With very little water to compete for radiation absorption, CO2 has an enhanced warming effect. Glaciers are probably the most sensitive places to CO2 induced warming on Earth.
Lonnie Thompson said they didn’t know the cause of the 208 year cycle but thought it solar related. Why not the moon?