Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.
The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.
New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks
To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.
It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.
But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.
After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.
The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.
What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.
She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.
Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.
So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.
Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.
This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.
Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.
solar constant = does not exist
Just like Climate stasis does not exist.
With a large enough Grant anything can be proved, kind of anyhow.
With a large enough lever, you can move the world too. 😉
The solar constant is the maximum amount of solar energy per unit of area that falls on the surface of the earth. Somewhere around 600 watts/ sq. meter. But you knew that.
[??? The solar constant is the yearly average energy received ABOVE the earth’s atmosphere at the average earth-sun distance per square meter perpendicular to the sun. Closer to 1362 watts/m^2 than to 600/watts/m^2. .mod]
Large enough hockey stick, anyway.
Nice touch!
A number of years ago, I was angrily lectured by an atmospheric scientist, and he informed me, in no uncertain terms, that “insolation is a CONSTANT!”
You have to take things in context. If he meant that up till now from the time of the Industrial Revolution, he’s right, which means up till now we can say that warming has not been caused by solar changes. If that’s not true in the future, that’s a different matter.
He meant the models say so!
But it demonstrably isn’t.
The higher energy component of TSI fluctuates by about 100%.
The sun is a variable star, especially in the high energy part of its spectrum.
Which is not really a valid point. It is like saying that a billionaire’s wealth is measured by the number of loose gold coins in his pockets.
@ the Maunder minimum there were no $ billionaires or micro-sunspots, only pound weights and eyeball sunspots.
> solar constant = does not exist
Why only ‘solar’? There are no provably exact constants (i.e. coefficient and rate measures) in physics. Even the so-called gravitational constant varies on a cosmological scale, so trying to discover entities with properties that are “exactly constant” is hopeless.
Rather, the challenge to physicists is observe and find measures that can be assumed to be nearly constant under conditions that permit testable hypotheses to be simplified to the extent that useful predictions can be made. (“Simple as possible”, Einstein said, “but not too simple”).
For example, the ratio of pendulum-length over gravitational force is not exactly a constant. It also depends on the amplitude of the pendulum. But for small angles the ratio is ‘constant enough’ to build clocks accurate enough for everyday use.
The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly (~0.1% over the duration of an 11-year solar cycle. This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Meteorology/climatology is saturated with simplifying assumptions of constancy.
This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…
Yet that ~0.1% equals the 2 watts/sqm of variance that accounts for a majority of the observed warming. Add in the data from surfacestations.org that shows that up to half of observed warming is solely Urban Heat Island effects of land use changes of urbanization, from forest to field, field to farm, farm to surburb, suburb to urban, urban to right next to the HVAC in the middle of the parking lot. So, how much of the remaining 10-20% maybe, at most, are you saying is actually due to CO2 (and not to, say, Methane, or CHC, or changes in aerosols, or soot, or a host of other factors)? Evans has shown that CO2 is maybe, at most, 10% of the observed warming. Now, how much of that CO2 is man made, vs a reaction of the ecology to previous natural warming, that often lags warming by 50-200 years?
Well you are wrong on [that] assertion.
The values of (c) (epsilon-nought) and (mu-nought) are exact and never change.
Also the value of (g), the standard gravitational acceleration due to earth’s gravity is also exact. at 9.80665 ms^-2.
Now that last one is tricky.
That is NOT what the actual earth gravity is at any point. It IS the defined value for the term: one (g) = 9.80665 ms^-2.
But of course the acceleration due to gravity on earth is seldom exactly one (g) (gee).
But the other three are exact, +/- nothing.
G
Correct me if wrong. I’m not a physicist nor do I play one on blogs, but IMO the maximum speed of light is a constant. Recent work shows that under some regimes, it can be a bit slower than that maximum, however.
I don’t know if the rate of acceleration of the universe has been observed to be constant or not.
how about speed of light?
in vacuum of course….
re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
As I said above, their “constantness” (i.e. time independence) cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, only proposed in theory and verified by observation. So constant for all practical purposes, but subject to change on a large scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Tests_on_time-independence
“By definition, fundamental physical constants are subject to measurement, so that their being constant (independent on both the time and position of the performance of the measurement) is necessarily an experimental result and subject to verification.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Nothing in science is “provable” in a mathematical sense.
Science is testable and falsifiable, not “provable”. Proof is a mathematical concept or operation, not scientific.
The constant of the speed of light is observed, not “proved”, which is a human concept. Observation is a fact, not a concept.
Scientific integrity is likewise an assumed constant that seems to be diminishing in the modern era, at least in some fields. I almost said disciplines but most climate studies are anything but!
I should say concept or construct.
Science is reality. Math is a useful fiction.
I can give you one cast iron constant. My wife wont let me watch motor sports.
Death, taxes, the guy in front of you always taking the last parking space.
The total solar irradiation, aka ‘solar constant’, varies slightly
====================
The unstated assumption behind TSI is that earths climate responds to watts/m^2 above all else.
However, a boiling pot of water remains at 100 C no matter how much you turn up the heat. Yet if you change the air pressure in the room, the temperature of the pot of water will change! Yet if you were to tell 100 people this simple fact, probably 99 of them would tell you that you were wrong.
This very simple experiment shows the fallacy of trusting thought over observation as the means to deduce science and nature. What seems logical often turns out to be wrong, and what seems illogical often turns out to be correct.
re: speed of light and other physical constants etc.
==================
what about the speed of light in water as compared to a vacuum? light travels only 3/4 as fast through water as it does through space. Light travels slower through air as compared to through space.
Even in space the constant speed of light requires that clocks and distances are variable in absolute terms, depending upon the speed and acceleration of the observer. so if clock and distances are not constant, how can one trust that distance/time is constant? and if distance/time is not constant, then speed is not constant, and thus the speed of light is not constant.
C is not necessarily a constant, it is defined by the permittivity of free space ε0 – It is ε0 that is the perceived constant which then results in C being nearly constant in an (Approximate) vacuum. However is ε0 really unchanging, for example what “Bends space time” near masses or bends the path of photons near black hole event horizons. Does gravity affect ε0 and therefore C?
As I recall it the statement is actually not that C is a constant but rather C can’t exceed the Maximum of its speed in a medium with the permittivity of free space, that is, there is no known medium with permittivity LESS than that of a vacuum.
We try to apply that constant over all of spacetime, however is that true?, for example is the redshift not due to acceleration, but due to the expansion of the universe causing a reduction in the (density) permittivity of free space over time?
It’s much more interesting to ponder the things we don’t know than the things we don’t
Do democrats have a tax plan waiting for the cooling phase too?
Them Crimeatologists probably do
“This is virtually a constant, considering that the variation in TSI caused by the Earth’s orbital eccentricity is an order of magnitude larger.
Almost TWO orders of magnitude larger…”
You say that is though solar irradiation is the only variable. Variations in solar magnetic flux and solar wind, its associated impact on cosmic radiation, and cloud formation could be very significant.
You can be sure that the solution to global cooling will be exactly the same was global warming … stop using fossil fuels, and give the government your money.
Cooling is climate change too.
We might have got the sign wrong but there’s no doubt now it’s worse than we thought and ditto the funds.
Sure. Already in place. Higher taxes on the fossil fuels people will have to burn to stay warm during colder winters.
If we return back to the frigid ’60s and ’70s, heating oil and gas will go through the roof, so to speak. The poor will freeze to death without subsidies, despite high hydrocarbon production these days.
It’s the “solar more-or-less-constant”.
Climate change biggest scam ever
“Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.”
And if the terrestrial things have no effect?
Over the short term, the effect of any insulator is to keep its object warmer than it would be otherwise. CO2 is not really a warming gas so much as it is an insulating gas. The same can be said for H2O although H2O is obviously more important because it is a major source of enthalpy transport. If the source of energy to any object surrounded by an insulator is reduced the temperature of the object will begin to fall after a time lag that depends on its ability to store enthalpy. The TSI has been empirically known to vary with the solar magnetic field. We should have a lower TSI for the next 30 years at least. It has been my observation over time that the temperature of the contents of any tea kettle depends more on the height of the flame under the kettle than the contents of the kettle. All being equal, this will yield a colder period in the future.
C14 calibration curves appear to be compatible with theories such as those advanced by Svensmark.
It’s ok. The CO2 will eventually be wafted into space by the solar wind.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere/
“we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere”
——————————————————————————————
My objection is in your use of ” a lot more “. The reality is we are still talking in the Parts Per Million are we Not? So let’s not use Exaggeration
To put it in familiar terms, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere over the last century is the same, proportionally, as adding ten people to a full football stadium.
Talk about over crowded
A lot more IS a relative term …Relative to a preindustrial measurement of 280ppm we’ve increased that by 120ppm or not quite a 50% increase
Indeed. Couldn’t agree less. It is not remotely feasible that a change to a tiny quantity could have any effect on, say, plant growth. The smallness of the numbers proves this beyond any doubt.
1.2 parts per 10,000 over the last 150 years. I always wondered to what the CO2 replaced, Oxygen, and Carbon, Nitrogen, I doubt if atmospheric density has varied much, since there’s no actual container. It would just expand upwards. Therefore the density should remain fairly constant?
Interesting note, that increasing CO2 levels are very beneficial above 6000 feet altitude where plants normally begin having difficulty respirating.
Phil Bickel
You have to look at the rest of the atmosphere to understand that the “what does it replace?” question really doesn’t matter.
Count what is in a “Pure and pristine atmosphere” – You know, the one that existed before that nasty industrial revolution that has saved so many lives:
Find some 1,000,000 gas molecules. 780,000 nitrogens 210,000 oxygens 1,000 water vapors (varies !) 900 Argons 280 CO2 992,180Today, we have added (according to conventional theory) 120 more CO2 molecules to the mix, but that burned (consumed some 120 of the O2 molecules (240 Oxygen atoms), did it not?)
So, today we have 780,000 nitrogens, as N2 209,880 oxygen, as O2s 1,000 water vapors (varies !) 900 Argons (as Ar) 400 CO2 992,180Total gas pressure goes up?
Theoretically?
Really? Nah.
Oxygen goes down? Not really.
CO2 goes up? Yes, and the world is better because of it.
It is all in the multipliers. The CAGW models produce no noticeable heating UNLESS you add in feedback with multipliers of the water vapor and the CO2.
Considering that the oxidation process locks up Oxygen by combining it with the Carbon atom when burning, the CO2 would be replacing free oxygen. While Photosynthesis somewhat reverses the combination extracting some, but not all, of the Carbon and releasing some, but not all, of the Oxygen to repeat the cycle.
So, since c. AD 1900, Earth’s atmosphere has gone from, by parts per 10,000 of dry air, 7809 parts nitrogen, 2096 oxygen, 93 argon and three carbon dioxide molecules, plus small amounts of other gases, to 2095 O2 and four CO2 today.
The horror!
Average global moisture content, by contrast, is around 300 parts H2O per 10,000, but varies from about four in the cold, dry polar deserts during winter to 400 or more in the moist tropics. As all know, water is a much more potent GHG than CO2, molecule for molecule, let alone its higher mean concentration, on the order of 100 times.
[It may be clearer to readers to use the per 1,000,000 number. .mod]
No wonder I gasp for breath now when climbing mountains, compared to during the 1970s!
Couldn’t have anything to do with being 40 years older. Nah! It’s that extra molecule of nasty, evil, suffocating plant food in the air.
Green House Gases are responsible for a form of cooling no other gas type performs.
When you look at sunlight charts showing light striking atmosphere, vs light striking Earth’s surface,
the only type notches you see in that incoming light,
are all caused, by green house gases.
These gases stop some 19-22% of sunlight energy ever reaching earth; there’s a little heating and most of the light not reaching Earth, is deflected out to space.
The sun’s light is comprised of about, 40% infrared; and it’s this infrared, being blocked where you see those notches, in the sunlight arriving top of atmosphere, vs at surface.
Without the presence of Green House Gases, this cooling comprising 20% of sunlight failing to reach the planet could not occur.
Believers in AGW and Green House Gas warming have no answer to how these very gases stopping a fifth of all energy arriving, warm the planet. It’sanother of the infinite number of reasons they refuse to discuss their ”science” with real scientists.
”It’s settled science” means ”nothing I say will stand up to even casual examination.”
To Mr. Seaice below: Yes, the change to a trace gas such as CO2 is an even smaller trace. However, its effects on plants are quite observable, even on a decade-to-decade basis. Here in central Virginia, certain tree leaves are the largest I’ve seen, and yields of many food staple crops have increased substantially due to the additional carbon dioxide. So, even if we’re looking at parts per million, the difference can be great. The parts of Africa that have been greening up with the increase of CO2 are another piece of evidence of how much difference even a minute fraction of the atmosphere can make.
Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes.
“Invest in a good Parka and snowshoes”
Insulation and ammo too.
Not to mention water and food, as well as plenty of warm clothing.
Invest in a good parka and snowshoes!
LOL, we have a lot more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere ? We have 3.8 parts per 10,000 molecules now compared to 3 parts per 10,000 before. So less than 1 part per 10,000 increase is deadly ? How moronic you people are.
Moronic is a strong term. Look at your own math. If the atmosphere just went from 3 to 3.8 parts per 10,000 , then this is a 26.67% increase over the last century. It is totally possible that this level of increase could produce dramatic results. Maybe it isn’t proven, but it is possible. It certainly isn’t moronic, so take your name-calling elsewhere.
Global cooling/warming/climate change has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global redistribution of wealth.
Amen. One more molecule per 10,000 isn’t a run-away control knob no matter how insistent Al Gore and John Kerry are that it is.
Brandon,
Watch whom you call moronic.
The main GHG is water. If the global mean for H2O be 300 parts per 10,000, then increasing CO2 by one molecule per 10,000 raises the concentration of the two major GHGs from 300 to 301.
Scary!
Oops. Typing too fast. Meant from 303 to 304, obviously.
No, still moronic. A 26% increase in the volume of what amounts to a trace gas has the effect of doing basically, well, nothing to the volume or distribution of all the gases in the entire atmosphere. But go ahead and lean on hockey stick graphs and charts where you cut the bottom 99.99999% of the number off to show how “dramatic” the increase of some minuscule factor might be.
Oh, and remind me to avoid your statistical reports – if they are all based on this type of reasoning they cannot be useful for anything. YOU didn’t get the math right, much less the statistics.
3/10,000=.0003 – 3.8/10000=.00038.
It’s only an eight one hundred thousandth percent increase. You are trying to make a fart in a hurricane look like a fart in a shoebox. You cannot isolate one number and solve any equation. This torturing of numbers to make something out of nothing is marketing – not math or science.
Oh, and I’m not a statistician just an english major who prefers to look for errors in reasoning in the construction of arguments. It’s the basis of any good thesis – you know – logic?
Well Biff, it’s time for you to turn off your computer and exit stage left, because if you think one part in 10,000 can’t have any effect, then your computer cannot possibly be working.
A silicon crystal has about 5 x 10^22 Si atoms per cc, so one part in 10,000 would be 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc and your computer chips contain impurities in specific areas that are a lot less than 5 x 10^18 atoms per cc.
If I’m not mistaken (often happens) ordinary high purity water contains something like 10^7 H+ ions per cc, and the presence of that negligibly small amount, substantially changes the properties of that water.
So do come back when your computer starts working again.
G
If it is a 26.67% increase or a .008% increase (depending on which numbers one crunches), the BIG point called into question is whether the increase will generate CAGW, or just mild warming, or nothing at all.
Brandon,
You need a better analogy than your % increase to make a valid point.
By your logic, if I have 1000 dollars and 1 penny, and I earn another penny, increasing the number of pennies by 100%, am I richer by a significant amount? Your line may work on a warmest blog but does not carry any weight here.
A large % increase in a small portion may not have any effect unless we are dealing with a dangerous substance like SO 2 which CO 2 is not.
Gabro you have it wrong. Water vapor is the opposite of a greenhouse gas. Clouds are a cooling agent bouncing sunlight back into space as opposed letting it hit and warm Earth. Lower magnetic activity by the sun allows more cosmic ray exposure on Earth and cosmic rays cause cloud formation which cools the Earth by blocking sunlight.
” … we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
Shouldn’t ‘gas’ be plural? Or are you implying that water vapor and methane are not gasses?
Since we wiped out the American Buffalo or bison or whatever we were short on CO2 so we invented autos to bring Constance back.
I for one hope this so-called “discovery” is covered up… I prefer living under a government that wants to tax the air we breathe… because that’s “Progress”….
Exactly! Perhaps somebody could find and show the “Minnesotans for global warming”! cover of the “monkeys” song
“Now I’m a believer”!Lol.
funny
Correction: The govt does NOT want to tax the air we breathe; only the air we exhale.
Give them time, they’ll get around to the air we breathe.
Per the Beatles:
” If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet”
I’ve been saving up for the day I get taxed.
Next crazy rational step: charge a tax on paying tax.
Because giving your money to the government is a luxury, and fair wealth redistribution demands a tax on all luxuries.
Don’t worry, The Australian government has that covered, we pay 39c a litre in Fuel Excise tax, upon which they charge 10% GST leading to fuel excise being taxed by 10% (3.9c per Litre).
According to the climate models the sun is not a major factor in climate. We are about to find out that this is another thing which is wrong about the climate models.
No, the climate models don’t predict what the Sun will do. They can’t. They’re models of the Earth, not the Sun.
So they don’t say that the Sun isn’t a major factor.
John said nothing about predicting what the sun will do.
His comment was in regards to the modelers claim that they can ignore the influence in the sun because it’s changes have no impact on the earth’s climate.
Your side often trembles when discussing major atmospheric dust clouds covering large areas of the planet from volcanoes or nuclear weapons. The clouds would block the sun and cause cooling. If the sun isn’t THE major factor, what is? Just because it is difficult or impossible to predict the sun’s activity does not mean it is not THE major factor.
the son has nothing to do with it.
That’s like saying in a murder the forensics experts only looked at the wounds and the ax found next to the body wasn’t a factor in their consideration.
Climate models can’t predict what the terrestrial climate will do, either.
I can, different day different temp., especially Dec. 22.
Well the “climate models (I think they call them ” global circulation models ” for some reason,) but that’s weird because nothing seems to be circulating in those models, which is why they aren’t models of any planet we are familiar with.
G
No, no, the models themselves are circulating around the globe to be used by clics worldwide.
I was looking for a paper of this, I only found a poster-abstract: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper64369.html .
Is there a link to a reviewed paper??
This is what Dr. Abdussamatov (Puklkovo observatory) has been saying for decades. The next maunder minimum will see Europe like present day Siberia. Buy your fur coats!
Everyone fire up your SUV’s and start smoking. It’ll save the planet.
I was in broadcasting for thirty+ years, running stations, also managing at network level. An accursed den of no-account, bottom feeder liars, colluders, pimps and thieves.
But I digress.
I became acquainted with long range climatologist Dr. Iben Browning in 1982. Holder of several patents, weather consultant to Paine Webber, fruit and vegetable growers’ associations around the world, ex-Sandia Lab scientist during the Cold War. The Browning newsletter went all over the world; he was incredibly accurate (more so than the U.S. Naval Observatory). He contended that there are THREE main drivers of climate. (BTW he NEVER predicted; he PROJECTED). 1.) Solar cycles – he would concur with these findings); 2). Cycles found in the earth’s radiation belts and the earth’s minute changes on its axis; and 3.) Crustal plate cycles or “tides” on the earth (very long term).
He insisted that we were headed for significant global cooling, mentioned the “Little Ice Age” and its drastic effects. He mocked the arrogant assertion that mankind was a climate driver with CO2 emissions, a compound that feeds the plants and enhances growth. He held that data was already being massaged back then to support the narrative.
He related that when Mount Pinatubo erupted, within mere days the entire globe was seeing red sunsets. Volcanic activity increases with movement of the crust; volcanoes eject monstrous plumes and widespread, lingering ash clouds reaching tens of miles in the air within minutes, circulating globally. Man is zilch. Nature corrects itself.
He was very outspoken about the coming scam amongst his “colleagues” in academia, as well as politicians and other weasels. He claimed “global warming” would be the biggest transfer of wealth and power in recorded history. He really made some VERY powerful enemies, he was essentially alone in his battle, and his end was quite sad.
Not long after our dinner, he made a “projection” (NOT a dire “prediction” of doom as the media ran away with,) about the potential for an earthquake on the New Madrid fault. The last time that fault let loose, the Mississippi River reversed its flow. His enemies and their ravenous sycophants in media distorted his memo, enabled by his establishment enemies. Hysteria was fanned relentlessly, covered by “journalists” the world over. He was roundly ridiculed and given no platform, granted no interviews, to correct the record.
I called him when I got the newswire at the TV station I was managing, knowing the press was lying. He was in tears; nobody had contacted him for his side of the issue. He had reporters crawling in the bushes under his daughter’s window, but had no say-so. Sadly, I personally knew some of the creeps pushing this from my days in TV. He died soon thereafter. A gentle, caring but bold and forceful man, destroyed by the machine that today wants to jail us deniers.
Reprehensible.
The last I heard, his daughter Evelyn Browning Barris was still publishing the Browning Newsletter. Not much remains of anything about his career, save for his public excoriation and humiliation.
Be very circumspect about challenging; know your data, and stick up for one another.
I was looking for a peer reviewed paper about this stuff. I only found a poster-abstract. Is there any link to a paper?
Read Dark Winter by John L. Casey. It pretty much comes up with the same conclusions at this study.
Yes, Troy, it does.
Frank, you can start here with a paper she published a few years ago I found compelling:
Simon J.Shepherd, SergeiI.Zharkov and Valentina V.Zharkova, “PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21–23”, Astrophysics Journal, November 2014.
It’s earlier work but outlines the basics. I’ve been following the Zarkov/Zarckova’s work for a few years, I think they’re on to something, to the extent I purchased land and a home in an area about 1000 miles south of the area I was living 10 years ago.
I’m not looking forward to the world predicted by them, but I do take their work very seriously and I find it compelling. The word of today is nothing at all like the world of the Maunder Minimum and it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize. I honestly had hoped I wouldn’t live to see it. If it comes to pass I suspect we will experience global starvation.
Edit:
“Zarkova/Zarckova’s” should be “Zarkov/Zarckova’s”
“it’s my opinion our modern world, with its dependence on industrial agriculture, will not survive in any form we might recognize.”
Mods: Please look into installing an “edit” button on this site?
EDIT 2: “I think they’re on to something”
I fixed your errors. Sadly, WordPress doesn’t have an edit function.
w.
Hi Willis. You’re correct WordPress doesn’t offer a a native “edit” function, however Disqus does and also offer a WordPress integration, you can see t used on several WordPress sites, I’m currently installing it on mine.
The advantages of Disqus are myriad, not least being it’s SEO (Search Engine Optimization) capable and also allows your forum participants to receive eMail only for direct replies to their comments. One thing that constantly hampers me when participating on WUWT is the WordPress eMail notification system, which is very course. If I want to get eMail notices for replies made to my comments, I seem to get a notice for any reply made on the thread, which can lead to an awful lot of eMail.
The details on the WordPress/Disqus integration are here:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/disqus-comment-system/installation/
Yes I was hoping to make it to 100 in 2053 but the odds look longer now.
Thanks much Willis. It seems I can’t proofread my own mistakes. Too many years depending on editors… 🙂
Isn’t Professor Zharkova one of the scientists who discovered that solar flares produce seismic waves in the Sun’s interior?
We have reserves in potential caloric availibilty since so much grain is used for other purposes including animal feed and ethinol among other things. It all comes down to replacement costs. Further, i wonder what is being used to grow synthetic meat?
I may look into potential edible by products fro fossile fuels.
Bartleby – I worked as a technical editor, among other duties, for a staff of about 50 engineers and scientists for a number of years. No one can proof read his own writing adequately most of the time. That is why we have proof readers and editors. But even they are not infallible. That is why multiple reviews before publication is recommended.
South River: As you no doubt know already, I wasn’t joking and I am truly grateful (was “greatful” before spell-check) [for] all the assistance I’ve received over the years from editors. You really are appreciated.
[But Shirley, are you serious about the praise? .mod]
And then there are the typos…
The video shows the paper. It was published in the Astrophysical Journal on 13 October 2014.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46/meta
PREDICTION OF SOLAR ACTIVITY FROM SOLAR BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD VARIATIONS IN CYCLES 21-23
Simon J. Shepherd1, Sergei I. Zharkov2, and Valentina V. Zharkova3
I assume Sergei Zharkov to be Valentina’s husband.
Although of course could be her brother or son.
Zharkov and Zharkova could be as common and unrelated as Smith and Smyth though
More likely her son, now that I check:
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/physics/staff/zharkov.aspx
Zharkov isn’t as common a name as Smith, which in Russian would be Kuznets or Kuznetsov. “Zhark-” means “hot”.
Also, in Russian, female names end in -a. The male form is without the A.
So Mrs. Zharkov’s name is Zharkova, or the daughter of a Mr. Zharkov . It’s not a simple spelling difference, as in Smith and Smythe.
Similarly, the patronymic of a boy, ie “son of”, as in Ivan Ivanovich (John, son of John), is -ovich, while of a girl is -ovna, as in Anna Ivanovna (Ann, daughter of John).
Well when I lived in St Louis MO, in the mid 1960s, if I told someone my name was ” smith “, the next question was: Is that two tees or is it dt.
Apparently back then, St. Louis had a large German population.
g
Geo,
It still does, but they’ve learned to speak English now.
So you were out mostly in carnival. Lots of booze, hampers spelling.
John, look at 5:21 in the video – you’ll see the Astrophysical Journal edition, article title, date of publication and authors.
The thing that strikes me, is that this was published 2 years ago, and it’s barely being reported in the media, especially considering all the mentions of “climate change” they’ve made. And what does it say about the climate modelers who find the publishing of this article to be so offensive they want it withdrawn (and for what reasons?)? It says they’re more interested in getting government grants and covering up truths than in science or finding truth – in other words, they’re crooks in bed with crooked or power hungry politicians.
Since the last Maunder Minimum didn’t make Europe look like Siberia I dont see the next one managing the trick. Its very likely things will be colder and crop yields could fall but lets not fall into the warmist habit of hyping everything to the max.
It was much colder up north in the 1970’s and we were feeding the Soviet Union because their crops were failing due to cold. If the Thames river froze and they were able to hold festivals on it during the Maunder minimum, can’t you imagine the havoc that would wreak with the world’s crop harvests and trying to feed the world population now?
There was a lot less people to feed then. Above and below the 40 lats wont be suitable for growing in the theory is valid. Billions will die, “IF”. An important IF though if you follow through on the precautionary principle, the possible danger of an extra 2c is nothing compared to the risk of the above
Interesting market forecasts for Australia, Argentina.
Bill, one reason the Thames froze was that old London Bridge dammed the Thames so it could more easily freeze over… i.e. local conditions contributed to the freeze
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/
Griff quotes and article that says
There was a Thames freeze in 1962-3 as well. Freezing isn’t “typical” but it isn’t “little ice age” only either.
Should we toss Newton, Kepler, and Maxwell out. No one ever voted on their assertions.
Exactly .The sun in the year 2005 went from an active to inactive mode therefore do not believe any predictions based on solar activity from post Dalton – present because the sun during that period of time was in an active mode.
My solar criteria is starting to be realized and will be and at that time the primary and secondary solar effects will if past history is correct ,start to impact the climate.
It is looking quite good at this juncture as solar activity seems to be cooperating after the weak maximum of solar cycle 24.
If one goes back to the Holocene Optimum and takes into account Milankovitch Cycles, and superimposes Solar activity upon this and further superimposes Volcanic activity and ENSO one will find a strong climate correlation as tied to these items in totality.
Of course those who disagree never give much credence to the climatic history data because it goes against what they want to try to convey.
I give credence to plausible mechanistic sound theoretical equations, not your ill-defined throw everything on the wall and hope some of it sticks mechanism.
Has Bush been messing with his Sun machine again? Owl Gore needed, STAT!
http://dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
More data from the past which shows this period of warmth is NOT unique.
I am going to keep harping on this to expose how misleading the AGW enthusiast when presenting their case to the public.
Five cornerstones from where I come from on the climate issue are as follows:
1. Past history shows this period in the climatic record is not unique.
2. Past history shows that each and every time solar enters a period of PROLONGED minimum solar activity the global temperatures have responded down. I have listed the criteria (in the past) which was last met in the period 2008-2010. With that said I think there is an excellent chance of this criteria being met presently and this time the duration could be much longer.
3. There is a GHG effect but I maintain it is more a result of the climate/environment rather then it being the cause of the climate.
4. If one looks at the climate just since 1950 -present(to take a recent period of time) and factors solar, volcanic activity, global cloud cover and ENSO versus resultant temperature changes one will find a very strong correlation.
5. Temperature data of late must be met with suspicion. I maintain satellite temperature data is the only valid temperature data.
Remember if global cloud coverage should increase and snow coverage/sea ice coverage should increase in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions that would accomplish the albedo to increase. Even a .5% to 1% increase would wipe out all of the recent warming.
Albebo is hard to change and at the same time it takes very little change in it to have climatic effects.
It is similar to Ice Age conditions versus Inter-Glacial conditions; hard to go from one regime to the other but at the same time the change required is very minimal. It is a balancing act which most of the time is in balance but every so often factors conspire to throw it out of balance which we know when we look at the climatic history of the earth.
CLIMATIC HISTORY – which is totally being ignored by the AGW movement has to be kept in the forefront and I am going to do that each and every time I combat their notion that this period of time in the climate is somehow unique.
I wonder what it is going to take to get the truth out about this period of time in the climate which is by no way unique?
What is going on here? This is a travesty! Somebody could at least call Al-Buffoon!! Arrest the doubters!
Considering the fact that NO so called Climate Model considers variations in Solar Output to have ANY bearing on CAGW, it will be very interesting to watch the END of the Climate Change Agenda once the TRUE variable in Climate Change – the Sun, takes effect in the coming years. We have already seen a decrease in the temperatures following the end of the current El Nino cycle which show a rapid drop-off in temperatures from the 1998 cycle, which can best be explained by the current Solar Minimum.
At a minimum, this potential new Maunder Minimum will minimize the practice of minimizing solar effects in long term climate models. That means it will receive maximum attention from profit maximizers in the maximum scare biz to marginalize it.
What an interesting response to her unimpeachable offer of cooperation. The search for truth requires….searching for the truth.
The search for particular numerical answers to questions that avoid the truth is something else. Of course they didn’t want to cooperate on a level playing field! Good grief! That sort of collegiality opens the door to conclusions that may not fit ‘the agenda’. Such conclusions would be ‘off message’. CAGW is all about ‘the message’.
Even if she had instead offered to take a junior role in approving her own research, they still wouldn’t have accepted it because they know full well from their own studies that open-ended questions about the solar-Earth link to climate bring nothing but problems for the ‘message’. Questions already raised about GCR (ozone, Prof Lu; CCN, Dr Svensmark) are problem enough and clearly point to that round thing in the sky and an important variable. Establishing a clear link between the magnetic engine(s) in the sun offers nothing positive for the ‘message’ – only a downside, followed by messy, work-intensive downside message management.
Rejecting cooperation is one thing, but the real sin is to try to interfere with publication. That is unpardonable because that action is anti-science.
Yes, but… anti- science is the new science. Grantsmanship sets the standard.
They have standards??
I’m glad that at least in solar science, colleagues are defined as questioning and pushy. Good research requires that you offer it up for duplication, replication, and robust application. Trial by fire. If she can’t take “pushy” colleagues, she should get out of the game.
Oh thank goodness. After all the global warming, it was getting a bit too hot.
I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how or why they “know” the Earth’s current temperature, is “wrong.” Please, someone tell us what is the “right” temperature of the planet Earth. Scientific proof would be a bonus.
The Earth has been much warmer, and much cooler, in the past, absent any man made CO2. I also understand the Earth is still technically coming out of an Ice Age. I also understand the Sun is major influence on Earth’s climate. Our technological advances in measuring and monitoring have enabled us to generate lots of data, but I think we’re far from understanding the complexities of the inter-relationships/inter-dependencies. My guess is the Sun’s influence far outweighs most anything mankind can do.
As it happens sun is (and will be at least for next week or so) active well above its recent average
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIC.jpg
“but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.”
Of course. Climate science is all based on a lie that man is responsible for global warming and the last thing they will do is allow the truth to be revealed.
What about the hole in the ozone layer? or the Hockey stick? or The Day After Tomorrow!!!! OH!!! the humanity!!!! ….Btw…I have a whole pallet of carbon credits for sale, cheap.
If things do get cold, they already have excuses lined up “the Atlantic did it”
I’m expecting “mankind did it”.
so… a scientist that says models are just that and we will have to see if this happens. Global warming scientists seem to thing their models are facts carved in stone only to be changed as we move past the time when the predictions didn’t happen (Al Gore). That’s right, look at the predictions of twenty years ago. COMPLETELY WRONG. Oh, that’s right we aren’t supposed to talk about that. I lived through it folks, Al won a Nobel Peace prize for prediction that haven’t even been close.
The sun is on it’s way down this activity is nothing of consequence.
Is this new research from Dr. Zharkova, et al., or just a re-posting of last summer’s article?
Looks like a rehash of last year’s. Now as then, the ‘theory’ is thoroughly debunked:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
A two-wave dynamo model was recently proposed by Zharkova et al. (2015, Zh15 henceforth), which aims at long-term predictions of solar activity for millennia ahead and backwards. Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data. We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either
Simply plotting the ‘theoretical’ values against observations how how wrong they are:
http://www.leif.org/research/Zharkova-2015-Double-Dynamo-Fail.png
They e.g. have the timing wrong, e.g. saying that the Dalton Minimum was around AD 1750, while it should have been around 1815.
They do have the Dalton Minimum offset to the left, ie too early. There was an 18th century warming cycle between the two cold snaps.
The Dalton is variously delineated as from 1790 to 1830 or 1796 to 1820.
Their hindcast does however correctly show rising solar activity after the Maunder during the 18th century and a drop off toward its end.
I should add that the 18th century warming was greater in amplitude and duration than the late 20th century warming, maybe not surprising coming off the depths of the Maunder Minimum in the trough of the LIA.
The Dalton was the last blast of the LIA, although the world muddled along colder than usual (ie, trend of the past 3000 years) until the middle of the 19th century.
Regardless, the Zharkova et al. ‘prediction’ is simply plain wrong, in gross and in details.
Sporer should be two separate solar minima, one from around the 1430’s, and another from around the 1550’s.
Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo
July 9, 2015
…”We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova…
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
_____________________________
When the authors say we found, do they mean they observed these waves? Or is it just a theoretical construct?
I know that there is no forecast or hindcast for this new theory. And that the data sample was a small period but, this wave theory is still interesting.
You can say it if you want Dr. S., that what happens way out there doesn’t affect anything on the sun.
And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose, polar squashing, offset solar tail on the heliospheric bubble, have on the interior solar magnetic fields propagating outward.
Oscillating solar magnetic waves out of sync. Hemispheric changes in solar magnetic fields and hemispheric changes in sun spot production amounts.
Oscillating Interstellar magnetic waves creating pressures either in the northern heliosphere or southern heliosphere in time.
Good night catch up with ya later.
And I will reply, we don’t yet know the affect of the Interstellar magnetic pressure with its big dent in the nose,
We do know that since the solar wind is supersonic, whatever happens out there cannot propagate inwards and affect the sun [or the Earth]
Zharkova’s “Heartbeat of the Sun” paper published 29 Oct 2015 is a fascinating read…downloaded via her research page at Northumbria
A classy, cautious and non-confrontational presentation. Hats off to GWPF.
(Whether there will be a discernible climate impact, I doubt anybody is more than guessing, not because they don’t know the direct effect, but because of all the likely unknown negative feedback dampening any direct external effects.)
“Professor Valentina … discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.”
Well isn’t that interesting. Needless to say “this has been known” for 40 years so it it either unimportant or wrong and Valentina needs remedial education, or its “nothing new”.
In any event, it is refreshing that a creative effort is being made that models the 11 year cycle and possibly more nuanced variations in the various solar outputs. Looking at the sun as an input to terrestrial climate variation seems like an obvious avenue of research to me. Although, nobody is going to get rich by way of UN handouts for this discovery. How can you tax it?
There’s the man explaining his science so concisely.
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
So what to be done?
Svalgaard: “abandon them, modify them, etc.”
Precisely !
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
You have this backwards. The data was getting in the way of blaming the Sun for GW, so one must abandon that ‘explanation’. You ignore the fact that the AGW crew needs the solar ‘explanation’ to explain climate variation before SUV’s.
The DATA is the raw data that we have re-examined.
What you are peddling is that if correction of known and identified errors makes the result disagree with sacred views, the correction should not be doe. This is an example of the anti-scientific attitude you have.
“The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum.”
More like Dalton minimum in the early 1800’s (says my formula, which by an ‘incredible coincidence’ predicted exact value of the SC24max, but don’t ask me to explain how and why, details are HERE ).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.gif
the above is an old graph fetched out from WordP cache (a nuisance), the latest including July data is HERE
C’mon Vuk. Your graph fails from 1850-1860, 1890-1900, 1920-1930 and fails miserably 1960-1980. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut occasionally.
Tom, you should be looking at the red line tracing the SSN cycles peaks envelope, while the blue line indicates source of periodicity (one we do not discuss here).
What do you expect? “sun is a messy place” says Dr. S. Actually Svalgaard’s numbers come a bit closer, SSN updated to July 2016 here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0716.gif
Tom, perhaps you should go back to January of 2004 and find anyone who will beat the above, else you may consider raising your hat (hopefully you got one with mosquito net attached).
Your formula is a dismal failure in the 18th century [and likely in the 21th too]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failure-34.png
Such is the fate of ‘predictions’ not based on valid physics.
Here is a valid prediction [from 2004]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
lsvalgaard August 9, 2016 at 10:25 am
“Your formula is a dismal failure in the 18th century [and likely in the 21th too]”
Hi doc
Never fail to promptly turn up .
So what I got 3 out of 30 cycles wrong (is that 90%, when I get it down to one cycle wrong it’ll be 97%, the number of the decade!
Doc, I do the ‘sun stuff’ for free, if I was given chair at Stanford and your money, I would get those 3 cycles during 1760-1790 right too.
Mind you, you boosted 1760-1790 so that the true Grand Maximum became no more, and you and your mates short-circuited the global’s Grand warming generator, so AGW guys got race truck clear of any obstacles, how convenient for them, and just too bad for the rest of us.
For the Maunder minimum you yourself said it was cycling all right, despite records show few spots, or have you change your mind? Is there a Grand Minimum in late 1600? or has that gone too?
Still predicting SC25 greater than SC24 ?
If you come cropper, your prediction theory based on the last 3-4 cycles goes down the drain, it will not look good at all.
So what I got 3 out of 30 cycles wrong
Failure is failure [and you can’t count either. E.g. cycle 20 is also wrong].
Pseudo science has to be debunked whenever it raises its ugly head and pollutes an otherwise good blog like WUWT.
Vuk says: “Doc, I do the ‘sun stuff’ for free, if I was given chair at Stanford and your money…..”
Perhaps there is good reason why you do not have a chair at Stanford.
Tom, just so you know; vukcevic’s comments and graphs are very welcome here, and very much appreciated. Whereas your presence adds nothing. Just so you know.
Tom
If by any chance they made such capital error of judgement, they would boot me out within minutes of taking up the post.
Why ?
I would tell them that they are denigrating science as represented to the thousands of young men and women who pay good hard earned money (usually by the badly informed parents) .
here what it says:
“Finding Climate Solutions across Stanford
Human activities and resource use are undeniably altering Earth’s climate, most prominently through emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, and through alteration of the land surface. Climate change, in turn, is affecting other Earth processes, making the critical 21st-century challenges of providing food, water, and energy to a growing human population much more difficult.”
further down they recommend:
“The highest-scoring climate paper comes from the very beginning of the 2015.
The paper describes how keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels requires 80% of known coal reserves, 50% of gas reserves and 30% of oil reserves to remain unburned.
Coming in second
The research suggests that the severe drought in the region since 2006 was a catalyst for the Syrian conflict and that climate change has made such droughts in the region more than twice as likely.”
and so on, to finally conclude
“The research found that human activity has pushed the Earth into critical mode. Four out of nine “planetary boundaries” have now been crossed, the researchers said, with biodiversity loss, fertiliser use, climate change and land use all now exceeding the point where the risk of sliding into a “much less hospitable” world becomes high.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/climate-solutions
You might agree with the above Stanford proclamation, however I think it is opposite to the truth, and they are selling ‘snake oil’ to unsuspecting young minds.
Tom, let’s be honest would you pay tens of thousands of $US and send your kid to what is regarded to be one of the 3 or 4 top US if not world universities?
Apart from Sour Grapes, that they are bad does not mean that you are good.
Hi bazzer
Tom in Florida is OK guy by me, it just that he and many others in here are simply overwhelmed by the Dr. S’s immense expertise and experience in the solar science field. Thanks for the comment about my graphs, but if it wasn’t for Dr S’s heckling and occasional insult going back some years now, I doubt that you would ever have heard of me and my graphs.
Huh, after all that, I think I need a break.
lsvalgaard
“Pseudo science has to be debunked whenever it raises its ugly head …….
…… that they are bad does not mean that you are good.”
Not much heroism in debunking vuk and few ‘cranks’, aim your armoury to the real ‘baddies’
Oh, no that would be too tough, so it appears to me you very happy nesting with the Stanford’s pseudo science flock.
There is no heroism in debunking anybody. Spreading pseudo-science, as you do, must be denounced by every scientist who cares about the truth.
“ must be denounced by every scientist who cares about the truth.”
Doc, that must be a joke, I’m sure.
Any evidence that you ever denounced any one in particular, of the multitude of your Stanford colleagues who are charging lot of money for promoting what has not been scientifically verified as correct and is a million of miles away from the truth:
“Finding Climate Solutions across Stanford
Human activities and resource use are undeniably altering Earth’s climate, most prominently through emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, and in turn, is affecting other Earth processes, making the critical 21st-century challenges of providing food, water, and energy to a growing human population much more difficult.”
Recommended reading for the Stanford’s students:
“The highest-scoring climate paper comes from the very beginning of the 2015.
The paper describes how keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels requires 80% of known coal reserves, 50% of gas reserves and 30% of oil reserves to remain unburned.
Coming in second
The research suggests that the severe drought in the region since 2006 was a catalyst for the Syrian conflict and that climate change has made such droughts in the region more than twice as likely.”
and
“The research found that human activity has pushed the Earth into critical mode. Four out of nine “planetary boundaries” have now been crossed, the researchers said, with biodiversity loss, fertiliser use, climate change and land use all now exceeding the point where the risk of sliding into a “much less hospitable” world becomes high.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/climate-solutions
Since I have seen no evidence of any kind whatsoever of your denouncement of any of your colleagues, I assume you agree or could not care less “about the truth” as you put it.
Come on, where is the evidence?
There are occasionally but regretfully very rare honourable cases of scientists who raised their voices in the protest, some even resigned and many more were dismissed by the institutions they work for, but it takes a brave person to protest against his/her employer’s stance.
bye for now
I have seen no evidence of any kind whatsoever of your denouncement of any of your colleagues
My criticism of Zharkova’s claim [and many others] is evidence of denouncement. One an disagree with the science [and that is as it should be], but there are claims [like yours and others on this or other blogs] that are not based on science or are of the ‘not even wrong’ variety. Those must be debunked as a matter of course. The degree of denouncement is a function of how vocal the perpetrator is. Ignorance is no sin, but willful ignorance [like yours] is.
Your denouncement of Zharkova’s claim ?
That is cop-out, what a joke, Zharkova has been looking at my graph and formula for years, so she decided she has to do something about it and came up with something even worse than my qusi-science.
Come off it doc, gives us a break, go and do proper defence of science, direct your denouncements at the Stanford’s climate catastrophists, a letter to the Nature would do, or maybe you wouldn’t dare denounce the Stanford’s climate scaremongers.
My view is well-known [ http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf ].
One thing is to disagree, another is peddle nonsense [as you do].
As I said, just because others are bad, does not make you good.
There are enough people who disagree with CAGW, that yet another stone on the pile won’t make much difference. With you, it is another matter. It is not that your claim is particular problematic, but it is rather the anti-science stance that you peddle, that must be countered. The CAGW cult can spread partly because quacks like you help break down people’s appreciation for and understanding of what science is.
So, you don’t care much about false science they peddle in exchange for large sums of money that young people have to pay for the courses, the true quackery in anyone’s mind.
Your problem is that when one digs into data, it is as clear that good climate data correlates to solar activity until the solar and AGW cabal decided to reduce one and increase the other as after 1980 as per the graph shown below.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GCs0.gif
I show it as it is in the data, if you change the Solar Grand Maximum data for Group Sunspot Number, so that the Grand Maximum ain’t any more, it’s something I can’t do much about it.
Solar system is a system of mutually interacting bodies, with the sun in its centre. Sun provides the energy to the Earth, solar energy impact determines climate of the planet. The impact is not constant, it varies on numerous time scales so does the climate. Numerous efforts of so called ‘professional scientists’ negating rather than investigating link between two is regretful, but eventually reality will prevail.
I show it as it is in the data, if you change the Solar Grand Maximum data for Group Sunspot Number, so that the Grand Maximum ain’t any more, it’s something I can’t do much about it.
It is the data that compel us to revise the group and sunspot numbers. If the data then no longer supports your ideas, there are lots you can do: abandon them, modify them, etc.
There’s the man explaining his science so concisely.
Solar Grand Maximum sunspot count and group number data was getting in the way of anthropogenic global warming.
So what has to be done?
Svalgaard: “abandon them, modify them, etc.”
Precisely !
Sometime Leif, you need to take your own medicine. You have stated before that variation in insolation could not be the cause for the cold periods because the insolation change is too small to be effective without taking into account that the spectrum changes and the earth does NOT respond the same way to all wavelengths of light. You also don’t know (as I don’t) what the effects of the particle bombardment of the earth is except that we know that it charges and thickens the ionosphere, and potentially changes the reflection due to ozone produced by the electrically charged atmosphere.
Is it not possible then that particular combinations of spectrum + charged particles + magnetic changes from the sun cause a couple of degrees of variation in temperature. Personally I don’t doubt that such an effect is possible. I certainly can’t say it doesn’t happen because most of the mechanisms are completely unresearched.
It is in fact possible that Vuks characteristic is broadly correct but there are other factors leading to the few misses such as I have outlined maybe the spectral changes were different that time, or ionospheric conditions were different, or vulcanism or … On the other hand you might be right and he is a crank. Frankly we don’t know and can’t call it either way, science does not know enough about all the mechanisms acting to know. Insolation is not the only thing acting here.
I want you to open your mind to possibilities, not to keep it closed.
You beat me to it, Vuk, I was going to say the presentation was a little bit hyped by the comparison to the Maunder min. as if maybe nobody would know about the Dalton minimum. That would more accurately be the predicted activity’s closest comparison, am I correct?
Maybe the sun changed to fit your formula. No wait – that’s the other guys tactic.
You know that you can just keep adding more cosines to your formula and you can get it to match the past as accurately as you wish, cf Fourier? But nobody will be impressed.
Au contraire. There are leagues who follow the elephant’s wriggled trunk in solar wriggle conjectures. In fact, wriggle machinations are their bread and butter. If a little is good, more is better, and the crowd cheers even louder.
The sun has NO EFFECT on climate on earth. Or anywhere in the solar system, for that matter.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED (notice all caps for EMPHASIS).
Yup. We could put the sun on the other side of the galaxy, and nothing would change. We get all our energy from the other stars, don’tcha know. /sarc
Does this mean we can start putting special taxes on people who don’t emitt enough carbon? Makes sense. Electric car? Global cooling tax. Solar panels on your house. Global cooling tax. Hey, your lack of carbon emissions are causing non-Arctic animals to freeze to death. Why do you hate the environment?
Keep in mind that Florida is full. Please go elsewhere.
first cover the state with mosquito netting then build a wall, or is it the other way around.
My Canadian relatives are still pondering their move.
Mosquitoes are not as big a problem as the media make them out to be. You just have to be informed and intelligent about it.
As for moving to Florida, tell them to stay in the north part, it gets cold enough there to remind them of Canadian autumn.
@Tom In Florida. Sorry Tom, but there is a lot of real estate for sale in Florida. Land, homes, even a nice sized island (Deer island) off the NW coast in the Gulf and north of Cedar Key. Very remote, you would have to be off-grid. Only $1.5 million if anyone is interested. If I was rich enough, I would be tempted. Leaves me wondering how all that real estate is supposed to get sold if Florida is “full”.
If the solar physicist in the post piece is right about a coming cooling, a lot of out-of-staters are going to be interested in a lot of that real estate. Are only in-staters allowed to buy Florida real estate?
Maybe I’m wrong Tom, but I think a lot of Florida real estate agents would get quite upset if only in-staters were allowed to buy all that real estate. Florida still has a ways to go before its as densely populuated as New Jersey and the New England states.
Not that you would probably want it to be.
CD,
Just because there is real estate for sale doesn’t mean we need more people to come and buy it. No need to overcrowd those nice open spaces. We don’t need to be as densely populated as the Northeast (as a former New Englander myself). BTW, that opinion only came after I moved here and settled in. 🙂
Tom in Florida:
If it gets nice and cold, then sea level will fall and you will have more real estate to sell in Florida. Until the tides change and a hurricane comes by. And no ski season. Jeez. Who’d want that? 😀
Having just experienced summer in Orlando and Miami Beach, I’m in no hurry to move, you’ll be glad to hear, I’m sure.
Showering four times a day, thanks to 100 degrees F and 100% humidity, amid rain and lightning every afternoon, holds less appeal to me than perhaps to a more obsessively hygienic person.
Which is why I live on the central west coast about a mile from the Gulf. Nice clean air with comforting sea breezes and it rarely gets over 92F. But I understand, you really got to like this type of weather or you are doomed.
Not so bad in the winter, though, which is why you’re invaded annually by Yankees and Canadians.
This is silly. How would it be possible for the sun to have any effect at all on global warming, good or bad? If Barack Obama and John Kerry agree that global warming is the greatest threat to the Earth then we should believe them without question. Who cares if the Earth is 4.6+ billion years old and we don’t really understand anything about how it operates, or that much of the “data” used by global warmists is from a period when thermometers were hard to read and didn’t include degrees in many cases, much less tenths of a degree. Stop bring up questions like “If a one degree change in temperature over 100 years will destroy all life on Earth, why doesn’t the 100+ degree changes experienced every year from summer high to winter low have any negative effects?”. Just believe without question and leave the “science” to Obama, Kerry and other politicians. They can control weather and climate if given enough money and people (not rich people or politicians, just regular people) are willing to sacrifice.
Who cares if John Kerry and Al gore and Obama have a lower IQ than George Bush and making money off this scam.
The upside is the the stunted trees that produce the wood for awesome sounding violins and guitars.
By 2010 the Oceans will have completely covered our major cites and hurricanes will be more numerous and worse than ever. Total fraud total BS
If the authors of this study are right, hurricanes should get worse until mid-century. A colder world is generally a stormier world.
Well Obama did say that the entire planet will be under water if we don’t change our ways:
“They’re going to need electricity, they’re going to need energy, but if they duplicate the ways that we produce energy here, or have in the past, then the entire planet is under water.”
However the MSM , so use to picking even mundane statements apart, of course passed on this one because it’s one of their God like sources.
All brilliant post, very deep, insightful, full of facts and data. Allow me to boil it down to it’s essence, follow the money. If a bloated tick like Algore can make money off of this, it wasn’t long before entire governments looked at this as a cash cow and ideal way to control a populace.
This will drive the illegal immigrants (USA) and Muslim refugees (Europe) back south. The religious right will claim it was God’s will.
If this supposition is correct and the climate cools, it will be interesting to track the CO2 levels to evaluate the effect of temperature on equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration.
If there are dual/multiple dynamos at work, the fourier methods David Evans was pursuing might be the proper modeling technique for solar cycles.
Should we enter a MM period, cheap energy for heating will be vital for the survival of millions of poor. Or will their welfare be sacrificed to the flat earth-ers renewable/climate change godheads?
Global warming – Feds demand more taxes and more regulation. Global cooling – Feds demand more taxes and more regulation.
Simple: Plant a half billion tree to replace those cut down the past 400 years. It will absorb the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. When the cold comes, burn the trees to warm things up. If the cold does not come, we still reduce CO2 and the effects of global warming. Everyone wins.
You assume that there is any reason to reduce CO2 and that there is something wrong with the mild warming that might be caused by CO2.
“The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down.”
It would be more accurate to say that the two components of high Q processes alternatingly interfere constructively and destructively.
“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.”
It’s actually two components at about 20 and 23.6 years which, when rectified for power, produce harmonics at about 10 years, 10.8 years, 11.8 years, and 131 years.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/ssn2.jpg
The middle plot is the hypothetical PSD of a time varying process which, when the absolute value is taken, produces an output similar to the SSN. The periods associated with the natural frequencies of this two mode model are P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years. When the data are squared, the PSD convolves with itself, producing 4 peaks with associated periods at P2*P1/(P2+P1) = 10.8 years, P2*P1/(P2-P1) = 131 years, P1/2 = 10 years, and P2/2 = 11.8 years.
Reply to Bartemis August 9, 2016 at 10:37 am
P2/2 =11.8 years is very close to sidereal period of Jupiter = 11.862 = 23.724 /2 years
P1/2 = 10 years is very close to half the synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn = 9.929 = 19.858 /2 years
(23.724 x 19.858) / (23.724) = 121.86 years
which has a multiple of 2 x 121.86 years = 243.72 years which is very close to the length of the 243 year transit cycle of Venus across the face of the Sun
The fundamental processes are at 20 and 23.6 years, though. The higher frequency harmonics are merely rectification phenomena.
You mean the Hale cycles?
two successive Hale cycles make for one half of a Gleissberg.
Well of course they’re not going to work with you. Your data doesn’t give them the results they want.
more likely because their model has been debunked.
You know Steve (ya know in the vernacular), whenever I see someone write the word “debunked” instead of quoting credible source it give me heartburn and makes me ru towards the loo.
So the next time you’re motivated to debate, would you mind quoting sources? For the sake of my lower G.I. tract? Thanks 🙂
Editor:
“it gives me heartburn”
“makes me run towards the loo”
Scrivener, DAFS
Sorry mod, I didn’t find DAFS (direct access file system) particularly enlightening. I put a smiley on it though.
Editor:
“instead of quoting credible sources”
I’m sorry Willis. I understand the limits you’re working under but I just can’t get behind them. I invented the internet. Call Al. Tell him I was there a few years before he was, but I do remember his useless speeches on the “Smart Valley” topic. [trimmed]
[trimmed] was aimed at Al, not you Willis. Sorry for any possible confusion.
[Better yet, don’t write it at all the next time. .mod]
And I replied to the wrong reply. See reply to Steve Mosher above.
An article by Usoskin and Kovalt claiming to refute Zharkovas theory can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225224431_Simulation_of_Sunspot_Activity_During_Active_Sun_and_Great_Minima_Using_Regular_Random_and_Relic_Fields/preview/0fe142780cf2f204e9019820/Preview-225224431_Simulation_of_Sunspot_Activity_During_Active_Sun_and_Great_Minima_Using_Regular_Random_and_Relic_Fields.pdf?inViewer=true&pdfJsDownload=true&disableCoverPage=true&origin=publication_detail
This is very interesting because maybe it’s that the sun is not only cooling but may also has started diming as Christ said the sun will be darkened!! Thats the reoccurring vision I’ve been having for many years now and never understood when or how something like this would show signs that it is starting to occur. Would it be suddenly or over a certain number of years time frame that cause men hearts to began to fail the as Christ also said, because of the things occurring in the Heavens?
I believe the darkening of the Sun refers to nuclear winter occurring after nuclear WWIII.
The sun is not dimming secularly. The older it gets, the brighter it gets. But it does have cycles of higher and lower magnetic and radiative activity within this long-term trend.
The solar cycles observed by astronomers have probably occurred for the past 4.5 billion years.
The Bible has nothing to do with it. Sorry.
Well, I know Jesus wanted more CO2 in the atmosphere. He said “feed my sheep” for the third time. John 21:17. Sheep need plants. Plants need CO2. Couple that with the parable of the multiplying Talents, and voila he wants more CO2. I’ll be you didn’t know he’d taken sides in the CO2 wars. He was there 2000 years before it became such a hot topic. /grin
[Big on grapevines, trees, fruit, and wheat fields, too. Never any beer, mead, or cider though. 8<) .mod]
OK. I stand corrected.
God clearly wants more CO2 in the air, and has caused humans to be fruitful and multiply in order to produce it in quantities helpful to all life on the planet.
So now the liberals can say “we fixed global warming”.
At his inauguration, Dear Leader did say this: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”
Mission accomplished.
Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong. We are not approaching a grand solar minimum. Solar cycle 25 should be similar to SC 24, and afterwards SC 26 should start increasing again, being similar to SC 23. We are approaching a situation similar to 1900-1920 when there was reduced solar activity but not grand solar minimum.
We are approaching the height of the ~1000 year Eddy solar cycle at about 2100. The chances of a grand solar minimum at this time are very small. We are living through a prolonged warm period, like the Roman Warm Period, that is likely to last about three more centuries. We are lucky.
Those that predict a Maunder type grand solar minimum will be disappointed, first in about 8 years, when SC 25 ends up similar to SC 24, and then in about 20 years, when SC 26 ends up higher.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Scafetta2c_zpsit66xrpm.png
Javier your prediction is just that a prediction.
It is actually a projection from combining our knowledge about the main solar cycles, ~2400 yr Bray cycle, ~1000 yr Eddy cycle, and 208 yr de Vries cycle, together with the evolution of solar activity for the past 400 years.
Projecting that evolution 100 more years from the present is very easy, and for such a short period it is unlikely that there will be important deviations.
Javier if it is that obvious and straight forward I would think predictions would be uniform instead of all over the place.
This is why I say let the data lead the way and go from there. I say so far the data has been favorable for a quiet sun going forward , that may change but thus far it has not.
The way most people predict the future is by extrapolating from the present and the recent past. Obviously when you come against cyclical phenomena like climate that is a guarantee for wrong predictions. For example you are extrapolating solar activity towards the future, so you are almost guaranteed to be wrong. Solar activity should hit a minimum after SC 24 and then start growing again.
The way most people predict the future is by extrapolating from the present and the recent past
The proper way [that we use] is to rely on physical understanding, theory, and modeling, and then from observations of known physical precursors calculate the run of the next cycle. Not by extrapolation of ‘cycles’.
Leif, our understanding of solar variability is so poor that we can hardly predict the amplitude of one Sxhwabe cycle in advance, and still we cannot predict its duration.
However through observation people were able to predict the cycles of nature (days, seasons, years) and develop calendars a long time before they could understand what caused them. Perhaps we are losing our observation capacity. Solar variability cycles are clearly observable in the climate proxies.
hardly predict the amplitude of one Schwabe cycle in advance
But we can. Once the polar fields stabilize some 3 to 4 years before the minimum, we can predict the next cycle with fair precision. Right now the south polar field has stabilized and in a year or so, the north polar field will follow suit and we can have a good prediction of cycle 25. We can also already see the next cycle develop. e.g. here
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1657
Solar variability cycles are clearly observable in the climate proxies
We do not know if they are all solar variability cycles. They are climate cycles [if real], perhaps nothing more, and mostly without provenance.
Paleoclimatologists are totally convinced. They see the climate cycles, they see the solar cycles, and they match. Almost every paper I read on past climate events at a time of low solar variability shows the authors assuming a solar variability cause. This is all observation based, a huge amount of observations. We might not have a mechanism, but the evidence is there. For example:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/SolarLakeLevels_zpsuhaodp6x.png
From: Magny, M. (1993). Solar influences on Holocene climatic changes illustrated by correlations between past lake-level fluctuations and the atmospheric 14 C record. Quaternary research, 40(1), 1-9.
And it is like this paper after paper. Judging by the number I’ve read (over a hundred) there’s probably thousands of papers on paleoclimatology assuming solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling, and essentially points to an atmospheric effect.
The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989
And assuming what some effects are due to, does not make them so.
“The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4989“
You always say that but you only have an unpublished paper to show, and only for 10Be, when I was presenting 14C data. I suppose you know they are different isotopes with different origin, transport and deposition mechanisms. You cannot bundle them as if they were interchangeable or had the same problems.
In the end it doesn’t matter the amount of evidence when one does not want to see it. We have the same problem with the CO2 hypothesis. It does not matter the amount of evidence that it is faulty because its defenders refuse to see it.
As Max Planck famously said science advances a funeral at a time. It is possible that the current generation of top climate scientists will have to die before the proper role of solar variability on climate change can be established.
Cosmic ray proponents are always at pains to stress that 14C and 10Be show the same variation…
In the 1970s Sun-Weather-Climate connections had a serious revival [I was partly responsible for that]. The generation of scientists pushing the field back then is largely gone by now, so, you are right, science advances one funeral at a time.
oh, yes
So what is this then
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
That is the DATA
14C and 10Be show the expected degree of correlation for two isotopes that are generated by the same phenomenon, and the expected degree of variation for their completely different transportation and deposition mechanisms. Reconstructions that take all this into account, like Steinhilber et al., 2012, show very good agreement with the 400 hundred years of registered solar activity from sunspots telescope observations, and also with previous naked eye sunspot observations and aurorae records.
We can probably reconstruct solar activity for the past 9000 years a lot better than we can reconstruct temperatures. Your claim that past solar activity reconstructions cannot be trusted because of climate contamination appears a gross exaggeration and contrary to the published literature where the technique is not widely criticized as unreliable.
I see that for the next cooling period the field will be ready for another revival, then. Cooling periods appear to be correctly spaced about 65 years apart to fit two generations of scientists defending opposite views. Some no doubt change their view to stay within the dominant trend of the time.
lsvalgaard August 10, 2016 at 4:22 am
“The cosmic ray record is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself”
a) cosmic rays DATA closely correlates revised Group Sunspot Number (says Svalgaard’s graph above)
b) the cosmic rays DATA is heavily contaminated by effects of climate itself ((says Svalgaard above)
since climate contaminates cosmic rays DATA and can’t contaminate Group Sunspot Number DATA it follows that:
Climate that modulates cosmic rays DATA it is also closely correlated to the solar activity DATA.
Dr. S you got a bit of a problem there.
Not at all: if the cosmic ray record depends on both the climate and the sun, then the two curves should be correlated, if the climate and the sun are correlated. The issue is not if there is correlation, it is if the influence is dominant or not. We may consider that the climate response can be approximated by Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise. The issue is what A, B, C, and D are.
Much more important for your comment is that UNLESS you accept the revised Group Number, your argument is void.
You cannot have it both ways Leif,
Either 14C is a good proxy for past solar activity or it is contaminated by climate. If it is contaminated by climate it cannot match past solar activity for 400 years during which climate changed wildly as it does.
Ergo it is concluded that 14C represents a good proxy for past solar activity most of the time. You should stop singing the climate contamination song when somebody shows a 14C reconstruction of past solar activity that matches climate change.
You cannot have it both ways Leif, Either 14C is a good proxy for past solar activity or it is contaminated by climate
Of course, I can have it both ways, if we measure ‘past solar activity’ by 14C. There is general agreement that the cosmic ray record is contaminated by climate. The questions are ‘how much’ and ‘does it vary’.The fallacy is to postulate that in Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise, all the coefficients are zero except one [reflecting your bias], i.e. [as you said] to have your mind ‘boggled’.
Dr. S, I’ll go along with that
A – solar : 50-60% by far the most dominant
B – humans: 0-5% UHI
C – internal : 25-30% geodynamics (magnetic field, volcanoes & postglacial uplift, all loosely correlating to the solar)
D – noise: 5-15% Lorenz attractor
Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not agree with you, and your ’causes’ for C are basically nonsense.
“There is general agreement that the cosmic ray record is contaminated by climate. The questions are ‘how much’ and ‘does it vary’.”
It cannot be very contaminated after the corrections, because the agreement between 14C solar activity reconstructions and sunspots based activity is very good as I have said and it has been shown.
“The fallacy is to postulate that in Climate = A sun + B man + C internal variation + D noise, all the coefficients are zero except one [reflecting your bias]”
I do not fall into that fallacy. Anthropogenic warming is significant but in my opinion it is overestimated, while solar variability has been underestimated. There is also an oceanic cycle detected in the Bond series and other proxies that could also have an external forcing. Plus to me the most important factor of all is Milankovitch forcing, that has determined that every millennia since 7000 BP has been colder than the previous one. Somehow I doubt that this millennium, of which only a few decades have past, will break that trend, which means there is some serious cooling waiting for the planet in just a few centuries.
I do not think anthropogenic warming is responsible for more than 1/3 to half of global warming since 1950. Every time the rest of the coefficients turn around global warming is stopped in its tracks no matter emissions.
My point is that A, B, C, and D likely vary with time [certainly B does], and that it is a fallacy to assume that they do not and to use ‘modern’ estimates for the distant past.
And the ‘overwhelming, mind-boggling’ evidence that temperature and GCR modulation is strongly related is perhaps not so:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps.png
I remember distinctly saying “solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling”, not temperature. your focusing on temperatures is a strawman.
Let’s say for example Bond events.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-3.png
That figure (with my red markings) is from:
Bond, G., et al. (2001). Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science, 294(5549), 2130-2136.
A paper cited 2218 times according to Google scholar. Really weird such a successful paper on solar variability effect on climate.
“Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University postulated the theory of 1470-year climate cycles in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[3][1] However, more recent work has shown has shown that these tracers provide little support for 1,500-year intervals of climate change and that the reported ~1,500 ± 500-year period was a statistical artifact.”
Perhaps. In climate “science” the more recent the paper, the less likely it is to be unbiased and accurate; but the older the paper, the less likely it is to have been manipulated and distorted through today’s peer-review and fudging (er, funding) filters.
Thank you for finding this older paper.
What is not an statistical artifact is the correspondence between increased ice rafted detrital deposition in the North Atlantic and increased 14C production, which is what we are discussing.
I think the general opinion at the moment that it indeed is an artifact. You believe otherwise at your peril.
Obrochta, Stephen P.; Miyahara, Hiroko; Yokoyama, Yusuke; Crowley, Thomas J. (2012-11-08). “A re-examination of evidence for the North Atlantic “1500-year cycle” at Site 609″. Quaternary Science Reviews. 55: 23–33. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.08.008.
Thank you for the reference, but its only mention to the relationship of the Bond series to solar variability is actually supportive:
“Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ~1000 and ~2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability.”
So I would say that the general opinion is that the relationship between Bond series and solar variability is not an artifact and does not rely on the real frequency of Bond events.
I manifested my opinion on the Bond series last April on this comment in a different blog:
“However in a stretch of self deception Gerard Bond assigned only eight numbers (his figure 2), because he wanted to manipulate the average spacing of his series. 12000/8=1500 et voilà the magical spacing of the D-O series. If we count as you did 10 we only get 1200 years and if we even count double peaks as independent coolings, as they probably are, we get a cooling period for every millennia. That is the real frequency of strong cooling periods during the Holocene.”
As you can see I reached the same conclusion as that paper by myself from just looking at the data.
But we are still left with an undeniable relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.
But we are still left with an undeniable relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.
I deny it herewith. In fact there is only one event that can be reliably tied to a cold event, namely the 8.2 kyr event.
I have discussed all this with [the late] Gerard Bond long ago and his arguments were not convincing then and are not convincing now. You are right: progress happens one funeral at a time.
“In fact there is only one event that can be reliably tied to a cold event, namely the 8.2 kyr event.”
That’s your opinion only. Climatic deterioration (do not fixate on temperatures), solar grand minima (SGM), and Bond events are tied by multiple evidence at the following times:
11.2 Kyr BP – Bond 8 – Preboreal SGM – Preboreal oscillation
10.3 Kyr BP – Bond 7 – Boreal 1 SGM – Boreal oscillation 1
09.3 Kyr BP – Bond 6 – Boreal 2 SGM – Boreal oscillation 2
08.3 Kyr BP – Bond 5b – Sahel 1, 2, 3 SGM + Lake Agassiz – 8.2 kyr event
07.3 Kyr BP – Bond 5a – Jericho 1, 2, 3 SGM – Boreal/Atlantic transition
05.2 Kyr BP – Bond 4a – Sumer 1, 2, 3 SGM – Mid-Holocene transition, Ötzi, start of Neoglacial period.
02.8 Kyr BP – Bond 2a – Homer SGM – 2.8 kyr event, Subatlantic minimum
00.4 Kyr BP – Bond 0 – Wolf, Spører, Maunder SGM – Little Ice Age
All of them are supported by ample bibliography. I can provide some of it if interested.
This is the reason Gerard Bond’s landmark 2001 paper has over 2000 citations. Anyone studying any of those cold events notices the temporal coincidence with the Bond series and cites his paper. Gerard Bond was right (not in the 1500 year periodicity) and you were/are wrong on this.
The generally accepted situation is “Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal”.
Events appear to be semi-regular, the recent events occurred at half the frequency of the earlier ones. The first 5 events listed above are spaced by approx 1 Kyr apart, while the last 4 are separated by a bit above 2 Kyr.
“The generally accepted situation is “Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal”.”
That’s an empty statement without supporting evidence. The events that I have listed are known, named, and studied in the paleoclimatic bibliography. Essentially all significant climate changes that took place during the Holocene did so during a Bond event, and the majority coincided also with periods of increased 14C production.
There were about 27 Grand Minima in the last 10000 years. but not that many Bond Events. With so many minima to choose from you can easily find coincidental matches [even given the uncertainty in dating] without any real physical connection. The easiest person to fool is always yourself.
“There were about 27 Grand Minima in the last 10000 years. but not that many Bond Events. With so many minima to choose from you can easily find coincidental matches [even given the uncertainty in dating] without any real physical connection.”
Of course, but they would also coincide if there is a physical connection. Those 27 SGM are not randomly distributed. They tend to cluster at certain times, and those times are very strongly correlated with periods of climate deterioration. The Sahel, Jericho, Sumer, and LIA SGM groups are examples of this clustering.
And then when there is a cluster of SGM you would have to explain why climate variables generally coincide in changing following the presence or absence of SGM. Let’s take for example the LIA:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/0.4kyr_zps7whaf5t2.png
Bibliography for this figure:
a) Steinhilber, F. et al. 2012. “9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.16: 5967-5971.
b) Christiansen, B. & Ljungqvist, F.C. 2012. The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Clim. Past 8, 765–786.
c) Versteegh, G.J.M. et al. 2007. Temperature and productivity influences on Uk37 and their possible relation to solar forcing of the Mediterranean winter. Geochem. Geophys. Geosy. 8, Q09005.
d) Massé, G. et al. 2008. Abrupt climate changes for Iceland during the last millennium: evidence from high resolution sea ice reconstructions. Earth Planet. Sci. Let. 269, 565-569.
e) Holzhauser, H. et al. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15, 789-801.
f) Polissar, P.J. et al. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. PNAS 103, 8937–8942.
g) Trouet, V. et al. 2013. A 1500-year reconstruction of annual mean temperature for temperate North America on decadal-to-multidecadal time scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024008.
So unless these people have faked their data, it is very clear that the available evidence supports a non-fortuitous coincidence between climate deterioration and low solar activity.
Don’t forget that the fooling of oneself works both ways. You can fool yourself into believing that something that exists does not.
The curves are all over the place, agreeing and disagreeing. Fertile grounds for fertile imaginations.
lsvalgaard
I will only note that: If the system were known well enough, if the physics were indeed known (and the parameters and coefficients of the physical equations were known precisely enough), then there would only be one curve, and there would be little disagreement and little room for fertile imaginations.
But there is not. We saw NASA predictions by “experts” even as late as cycle 23 transition to cycle 24, that cycle 24 was going to be even larger than 22 or 23. Instead, cycle 23 is closer to one half of cycle 23.
Several problems in all of this discussion:
The “pure math” of cyclical analysis, and of extracting predictions from cyclical analysis, is that the analyst MUST assume that the sub-ordinate cycles being added together are “pure” waveforms. If, instead,each of the sub-ordinate waveforms are themselves only a “little bit” random in periodicity and amplitude, then their addition over even short periods of time (four to eight short cycles) becomes problematic.
the “We do not want to see solar TSI changes over time” charge has been made earlier in this thread. Is that not like the geologists and professors between 1924 and 1955 who refused to analyze global circulation (er, plate tectonics) because they could not see the entire theory and its evidence?
But, far more difficult is the following.
The earliest models of global warming MUST use the accepted TSI radiation values available at that time the programming was run. (A presentation made in summer 1988 before Congress based on a paper published in 1988 is based on a program run in 1987 based on a calculation and on programs run in 1986-87 predicting CO2 effects of 3.0 watts/doubling of CO2 must be based on 1986-1987 TSI radiation values, plus all of the other physical constants from 1988 measurements. No one can make a 1988 presentation based on TSI values only known in 2008.
Well in 1988, TSI = 1372 watts/m^2. Or 1367 watts/m^2.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
Now, Dr Svalgard properly notes that the ACTUAL TSI never was 1362 watts/m^2 (nor 1376 watts/m^2), but was ALWAYS equal to today’s properly calibrated 1362 watts/m^2. OK, fine. We must accept 1362 watts/m^2 for a TSI in 1905, in 1935, in 1975, in 2005.
Notice however, that the remaining physical constants used in the global circulation models have not changed between 1986 and 2016!
So, where are the “corrections” to Hansen’s and Mann’s and everybody’s 1988-2008 global circulation models accounting for the “lost” 5 watts/m^2 of “it was never there in the first place” solar radiation energy between yesterday’s 1367 watts/m^2 and today’s 1362 watts/m^2?
If doubling CO2 “adds” a mere 3 watts/m^2 of “greenhouse gas heating, ” but that prediction is based on an artifically high +5.0 watts/m^2 of non-existent TSI, then is not today’s CO2 merely trying to make up for a missing -2 watts/m^2 of “never there” TSI corrections?
How can ANY of the model runs so vital to the CAGW religion of death be accepted between 1988 and 2008?
The issue is not with temperatures, but only with solar output [TSI, sunspots, EUV, etc].
lsvalgaard
From your side of the equation, from your very limited side of the problem, the issue is quite properly ONLY limited to the correct value of TSI. More precisely, to determining the correct value of TSI over time, as it may ( or may not) vary over time by some effects that may (or may not) be related to the presence or absence of interstellar dust, sun spots, internal solar currents, gravitational effects, etc.
To the rest of the world, the ONLY important value is the sensitivity of the earth’s heat balance due to a doubling of CO2.
Because Hanson-Mann-Gore-Oboma-Pelosi-Moon-Pope Franctic’s hysteria is based on international legal pressure based on a 3.0 degrees/doubling (doubled again as each paper and at each conference using effect requiring +4 to +10 degrees increase!) is set on the original 1367-1372 watts/m^2, every CAGW program run using ANYTHING higher than 1362 watts/m^2 is simply dead wrong.
Actually, it makes VERY little difference what the exact, absolute value of TSI is [1367 or 1362 or whatever]. What matters is the variation about that value, and that is of the order of 1 in a thousand, resulting in a temperature response of 1 in 4000 or 0.07 C which is below the noise level and thus cannot even be measured.
Politely but briefly put, no.
The global circulation models are supposedly “run” from a zero-zero condition into a radiation thermal equilibrium for thousands of model runs to establish the model circulation patterns and regional (each grid point) temperatures. Then the model is perturbed – almost always by changing CO2 levels, and a “new” equilibrium circulation pattern and temperature grid is calculated to return to a radiation equilibrium.
When “Energy in = energy out”, to phrase it simply, the modelers assume they have predicted a new climate based on the new parameter. If modeled
“energy in” = “actual energy in + 5 watts/m^2”
then
(calculated equilibrium temperature out)^4 = (actual equilibrium temperature out + X(energy difference in))^4
where “X” is some portion of the mythical CO2 doubling factor.
Thus, for ANY CGM run at any time using ANY value of TSI greater than today’s 1362 watts/m^2, the equilibrium temperature at “end of run” is wrong. The CGM’s merely balance the “total radiation in” against their predicted world’s “total radiation out”.
true, for a single model running today, they can – and do! – adjust future TSI changes of only a small fraction of one percent and proe their is only a very small temperature difference between models.
My point is that NO CGM run using ANY TSI value higher than 1362 can be used to determine anything, because TSI never was 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366, or 1367 watts/m^2.
So, either their results are wrong and must be retracted, or their physical constants that were used to create “valid predictions” of future temperature equilibriums were then, and are now, wrong.
Well, when the modelers actually rerun their models with the lower value of TSI, it makes almost no difference [less than 0.1 C].
the energy coming from the sun, has a chi-square distribution, and whilst the surface below [=TSI] may not vary much, there is my postulation that in a time when the solar polar magnetic field strengths are low – such as now – the peak of the curve may shift a bit – to the left.
That means more of the most energetic particles are released and obviously earth is doing what it knows best to defend us,
it makes more ozone, peroxide and N-oxides TOA.
In turn these chemicals deflect more UV off from earth, and that means less energy into the oceans.
Hence earth is cooling, as seen by me on a random sample of 54 weather stations balanced by latitude, and 30/70 % inland /@sea on maxima, means and minima,
contrary to all your graphs…
“The curves are all over the place, agreeing and disagreeing.”
No they are not. Within dating uncertainties they all show periods of climate worsening that roughly coincide with the solar minima, whether you agree or not. By looking at the titles of the articles you can see that several of the authors agree with me. There is no reason why these climate indicators should track solar activity other than they are physically related to solar activity.
Articles were picked [by you] that agreed with you…No wonder…
It is clear that my position is defensible because it has been successfully defended many times in peer review. I would say the corpus of paleoclimatology does not support your position that is all due to fertile imagination, or scientists fooling themselves.
It is enough that some are fooled some of the time. Here is a counterexample to your foolery:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps.png
Not much correlation to gloat about.
Now, one can extend the foolery by claiming that temperature is not all: sometimes it is rainfall, sometimes temperature, sometimes ‘climate extremes’, sometimes whatever. Just pick to ones that make the relationship better as needed.
Your graphs prove nothing because nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity, which is your favorite strawman argument.
I am surprised that you still have not realized that what the evidence is showing is that:
Most solar grand minima, and specially very long solar grand minima and clusters of solar grand minima correspond very well to periods of climate worsening.
That is the argument that you have not refuted because you can’t. Those useless graphs do not disprove that tenet.
‘climate worsening’ is a woolly, undefined term that can be used as the fudge-factor to make wishful thinking fit.
nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity
Javier August 10, 2016 at 3:57 pm:
“But we are still left with an undeniable [?] relation between most cold events during the Holocene and periods of high 14C production, which again, it is the issue we are discussing.”
“‘climate worsening’ is a woolly, undefined term that can be used as the fudge-factor to make wishful thinking fit.”
The effects of grand solar minima on climate are quite well characterized, they include:
– Changes in precipitation patterns: Increased precipitation in mid and high latitudes, decreased precipitation in tropical and subtropical areas.
– Weakening of the summer monsoon
– Increased polar circulation
– Increase in wind strength
– Cooling of the sea surface and general cooling
– Glacier advances
– Increased iceberg deposition
The changes are global in nature but better characterized in the North Atlantic and West and Central Europe. They suggest changes in the position of the atmospheric cells and a possible weakening of AMOC.
The effects over human societies are very disruptive. In Europe they cause wet cold periods that are difficult for agriculture and often lead to general settlement abandonment, and specially on primary and secondary drainage networks and lake sides that are subjected to frequent flooding. They are often accompanied by famines and plagues.
Is this specific enough?
Enough to cherry pick from.
And you used to say the real criterion was it being COLD, remember?
Or do you now walk back from that?
“nobody has made a point that temperatures correlate with solar activity”
No, because outside of solar grand minima there is no correlation with the temperature. Solar grand minima correlate with cold periods, but there is no correlation between solar activity and temperatures. Is this difficult to understand?
When solar activity is very low temperatures drop. When it is normal or high, other factors control temperatures. Long periods without solar grand minima, like the Roman Warm Period tend to be warm, but still have temperature changes that do not correlate with solar activity.
Solar grand minima correlate with cold periods, but there is no correlation between solar activity and temperatures. Is this difficult to understand?
Yes, this is a contradiction in terms. And contrary to what you used to claim.
“Yes, this is a contradiction in terms. And contrary to what you used to claim.”
It is not contradictory. Solar activity only appears to have an important effect on climate when it is too low. And it is not contrary to what I used to claim because I have always been talking about solar grand minima.
The GRAND minimum around 685 AD [one of the deepest and longest ones the past 2000 years was not cold:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps-NOT.png
You are contradicted left and right.
“The GRAND minimum around 685 AD [one of the deepest and longest ones the past 2000 years was not cold”
Finding one grand minimum that was not cold would not necessarily invalidate the model. However that is not the case for the Roman Grand Minimum of 600-700 AD. Apparently there is a problem with your temperature reconstruction.
There is one period called Dark Ages Cold Period or DACP, that essentially runs between 425 and 900 AD, with the coldest part between 530-700. It is well reflected in the literature and coincides with the migration period that starts with the Huns and ends with the Muslims. A volcanic eruption contributed to the 6th century cooling, but the 7th century cooling fits the SGM hypothesis rather well by coinciding with the Roman Minimum.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/DACP_zpszrfe7sgb.png
You are the one being contradicted left and right.
As usual, it all comes down to carefully cherry picking the desired reconstructions [of which you seem to be a master]. ‘My’ temperatures are by Loehle [supported by one by Moberg]. Take it up with them if you need to quibble.
“As usual, it all comes down to carefully cherry picking the desired reconstructions [of which you seem to be a master].”
What do you mean picking up reconstructions? We are talking about evidence. The period of the Roman solar grand minimum was the stormiest in 2500 years in the Western Mediterranean, and saw the biggest cold excursion in the GISP2 Greenland temperature series in 3000 years. It coincides with Bond event 1a which means there was high iceberg activity in the North Atlantic, and displays very strong winds in Iceland measured by grain size in loess deposits.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/DACP3_zpsi07hhl0l.png
I know paleoclimatology is not your specialty, but if you know so little of it, why do you sound so sure when you say that solar activity has little impact on climate? You couldn’t possibly know.
We are talking about evidence
Here is evidence:
http://www.leif.org/research/Greenland-Snow-Temp-4000-yrs.png
The deep solar minima [red boxes] were warm, not cold.
Actually paleo-anything is a specialty of mine. Especially Greenland, where I have lived and worked.
So, again, your correlations fail.
“Here is evidence:”
No. That peak in temperatures at 600 AD is an artifact, as can be seen when compared to a stack of six Greenland ice cores:
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi%20artifact_zpsysfhiizh.png
“Actually paleo-anything is a specialty of mine. Especially Greenland, where I have lived and worked.”
Then it needs updating. Kobashi himself corrected his Northern High Latitude temperature reconstruction in 2013.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi%204000_zpswbaqmfvu.png
Now Kobashi (and Kaufman) defend an Arctic cooling for the 600-700 AD period.
By the way, you conveniently forgot to label the other six solar grand minima in the period that support my hypothesis. I have done it for you in blue. Perhaps you should apply to yourself your comments about picking the desired reconstructions and fooling yourself.
I am coming to think that you are unable to recognize that you may be wrong even if presented with ample evidence.
That is why I gave him the name: Dr. No
You misrepresent Kobashi’s 2013 paper. He does not correct the OBSERVED Greenland temperatures, but rather compare them with models derived from [i.e. fitted to] the cosmic ray data [and volcanic and GHC records] and notes that the models only explain between 14 and 20% of the observed variation.
This is what the paper concludes:
“The Greenland temperatures over the past 4000 yr reconstructed from trapped air within the GISP2 ice core (Kobashi et al., 2011) provided an extraordinary opportunity to investigate the late Holocene climate changes because of several advantages: (1) the resolving of precise multidecadal to millennial temperature variation; (2) the recording of “mean” annual temperatures (many palaeotemperatures are spring to summer proxies); (3) the tight age control; (4) the understanding of regional climate (Kobashi et al., 2013); and (5) the plentiful palaeoclimate information that is available from the GISP2 ice core. With the reconstructed climate forcings (orbital, volcanic, solar, greenhouse gases, and aerosols) over the past 4000 yr, we calculated northern high-latitude and NH average temperatures with 1-D EBM. Then, modelled Greenland temperature was derived considering negative Greenland temperature responses to changes in solar output.” I.e. that lower solar output increases Greenland temperatures.
So, you fooled yourself into believing that the model is the real thing.
This is a typical example of willful self-deception.
The paper goes on with:
“In this study, we proposed a new way of investigating the multidecadal to centennial NH temperature variation with the climate model and the Greenland temperature record (Kobashi et al., 2011) that provides seasonally unbiased estimates of temperature change. It indicated that current multidecadal NH temperature (1990–2010) is more likely unprecedented than not (p = 0.36) over the past 4000 yr.”
That is, they compare the models with the real thing, NOT correcting ‘unbiased estimates of temperature change’.
I don’t think I have misrepresented Kobashi et al., 2013.
The upward spike that Kobashi et al. 2011 find for 600-700 AD in their measurements is contradicted by six Greenland ice cores D18O measurements that show no such increase, but a decrease.
In the 2013 paper instead of using their Greenland temperature reconstruction, Kobashi et al. use ice core observations and correct them for a Greenland Temperature Anomaly to build their Northern High Latitude temperature reconstruction (the red line in the figure). This red line is what you call “the real thing”. The increase in temperatures at 600-700 AD is now gone.
Then for comparison they also built a model with known forcings and run it with GHGs (dark blue discontinuous in the figure above), and without GHGs (medium blue). I have ignored the model, so I did not fooled myself into believing that the model is the real thing, nor did I willfully engage in self-deception.
Kobashi et al. reconstructed Northern High Latitude temperature record does not show an increase in temperature for 600-700 AD, and in doing so it agrees more with Kaufman, Vinther, et al. 2009 reconstruction, that using 23 high-resolution Arctic proxies, show a strong cooling for 600-700 AD (Green in the figure).
So Kobashi’s spike at 600-700 AD is:
a) Not confirmed by multiple Greenland records.
b) In disagreement with other published Arctic reconstructions.
c) Corrected by his authors when they want to represent Northern High Latitude temperatures.
And according to you I am the one that misrepresents the article and engages in self-deception.
I am disappointed because I see that no matter the amount of evidence I bring supporting my position, even when you are clearly wrong like when using Kobashi’s upward spike against my hypothesis, you will never accept it and instead twist it to try to discredit me. This is not a scientific conversation because you don’t want it to be one. Instead of an honest exchange of information and ideas your only goal is to end up above even if it means defending the indefensible. I do not think you care too much about the truth. I have learned a lot from you, but you seem unable to learn from anybody. You are here at WUWT to defend the orthodoxy that you represent by any means.
I don’t see much point in further engaging you except to prevent other readers at WUWT from being mistaken into thinking that your beliefs constitute the best current scientific knowledge.
You continue to misrepresent Kobashi. One of the findings of his is that, contrary to your claim, increased solar activity means reduced Greenland temperatures, and thus that Grand Minima result in warming, rather than cooling:
http://www.leif.org/research/Kobashi-High-Solar-Equals-Cold.png
You didn’t seem to understand his papers [probably because they contradict you].
Here is his latest [GRL, 2015]:
“The abrupt Northern Hemispheric warming at the end of the twentieth century has been attributed to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Yet Greenland and surrounding subpolar North Atlantic remained anomalously cold in 1970s to early 1990s. Here we reconstructed robust Greenland temperature records (North Greenland Ice Core Project and Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2) over the past 2100 years using argon and nitrogen isotopes in air trapped within ice cores and show that this cold anomaly was part of a recursive pattern of antiphase Greenland temperature responses to solar variability with a possible multidecadal lag. We hypothesize that high solar activity during the modern solar maximum (approximately 1950s-1980s) resulted in a cooling over Greenland and surrounding subpolar North Atlantic through the slowdown of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation with atmospheric feedback processes.”
I do not misrepresent Kobashi’s finding, and I think I understand his papers.
Perhaps you remember the list of effects that I put above:
“The effects of grand solar minima on climate are quite well characterized, they include:
– Changes in precipitation patterns: Increased precipitation in mid and high latitudes, decreased precipitation in tropical and subtropical areas.
– Weakening of the summer monsoon
– Increased polar circulation
– Increase in wind strength
– Cooling of the sea surface and general cooling
– Glacier advances
– Increased iceberg deposition”
It does not say Greenland cooling, nor does it say Greenland warming.
In the Roman (600-700 AD) solar grand minimum I have already shown:
– Changes in precipitation patterns (high lake levels in Central Europe and increased storminess in Western Mediterranean)
– Increase in wind strength (Iceland loess deposits, increased storminess in Western Mediterranean)
– Cooling (GISP2, Scandinavia, Arctic)
– Increased iceberg deposition
I think I have made my case, but you want to discuss what according to Kobashi constitutes the special case of Greenland that shows a pattern of antiphase Greenland temperature responses to solar variability.
If true I don’t see how it would be a problem for my hypothesis. We could just add Greenland warming to the list of effects that a solar grand minimum causes. I am not totally convinced with Kobashi’s claim of Greenland antiphase response, however it could be easily explained as a secondary effect of increased polar circulation. When polar circulation increases the polar vortex becomes bigger and masses of cold air invade mid-latitudes provoking colder temperatures there. At the same time that cold air is exchanged for masses of warmer air that invade the polar region creating an antiphase effect.
In any case it is clear that Greenland is not the best place to look for the effect of solar grand minima on climate, as the response could be antithetic.
But the rest of the effects are still there, supporting that the Roman minimum had an important effect on climate. Your only reason to oppose that effect, a supposed warming in Greenland, is no longer a valid reason.
Of course you misrepresented. You tried to use the output of his MODEL [based on input of solar activity] as support for your claim, even though the model was constructed using the opposite of what you claim. Perhaps this is even worse than simple misrepresentation, bordering on deception.
Out of scientific arguments now you are starting to talk nonsense and come after me. Pitiful.
I’ll make the figure bigger so your tired eyes can see better.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kobashi_zpsaaaofbcn.png
I have used their reconstruction (red line) and Kaufman reconstruction (green line) to show that they both show cooling and not warming at 600-700 AD. I have not used their MODEL (blue lines) as it is totally unnecessary.
As you said above, it is Kobashi et al. reconstruction. “Take it up with them if you need to quibble.”
And quite frankly, when you are outdone with scientific arguments, to call your opponent a deceiver on a petty excuse over how Kobashi did its reconstruction is shameful. You are finding new lows today.
As Kobashi says:
“The Greenland temperatures over the past 4000 yr reconstructed from trapped air within the GISP2 ice core (Kobashi et al., 2011) provided an extraordinary opportunity to investigate the late Holocene climate changes because of several advantages: (1) the resolving of precise multidecadal to millennial temperature variation; (2) the recording of “mean” annual temperatures (many palaeotemperatures are spring to summer proxies); (3) the tight age control; (4) the understanding of regional climate (Kobashi et al., 2013); and (5) the plentiful palaeoclimate information that is available from the GISP2 ice core. With the reconstructed climate forcings (orbital, volcanic, solar, greenhouse gases, and aerosols) over the past 4000 yr, we calculated northern high-latitude and NH average temperatures with 1-D EBM. Then, modelled Greenland temperature was derived considering negative Greenland temperature responses to changes in solar output.” I.e. that lower solar output increases Greenland temperatures.
So, you fooled yourself into believing that the model is the real thing.
This is a typical example of willful self-deception.
The original 2011 graph [based on measurements] is thus still the valid one to compare with.
Not the model-based one that uses solar activity as input, thus forming a circular argument.
Note that Kobashi found just the opposite of what you claim: high (low) solar activity results in cooling (warming).
So, you have deceived yourself. Such confirmation bias is quite common, and you are no exception.
The way Kobashi et al. did their reconstruction of Northern High Latitude temperatures is their business. We can accept it or reject it, but I point to you that Kaufman et al. did their reconstruction of Polar temperatures from 23 high resolution proxies and show one of the most profound coolings for over a millennia in 600-700 AD.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Kaufman_zps89bblysz.png
So you now disagree with everybody. With Kobashi et al. because you don’t like the way they reconstruct Northern High Latitude temperatures in 2013. With Kaufman et al. because they show a cooling in the Arctic when you think it should be a warming. With GISP2 because it shows the most profound cooling in 3000 years in Greenland. And with a stack of 6 Greenland ice cores because they don’t show an increase in Greenland temperatures in 600-700 AD.
If anybody is self-deceiving himself here it is you. Your confirmation bias is huge. I have showed 7 independent confirmations of climate deterioration coinciding with the Roman minimum, yet you are arguing that the antiphasic response of Greenland at the time is proof of the opposite even when the authors of the study believe that the correct reconstruction of high latitude temperatures should show cooling instead of warming.
You have cornered yourself into an untenable scientific position and your reaction is accusing me of deception, misrepresentation, willful self fooling, and confirmation bias. I think it is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
What you show is the by cherry picking a suitable reconstruction you can fit any position. The Kobashi measurements [not model or proxy derived] are probably the best we have of the actual temperatures in Greenland. The Kaufman reconstruction [as discussed in Climate Audit] uses some proxies upside-down and is not reliable.
The point is that the data is shaky and often biased and have not convinced me, but [evidently] fooled you.
“The point is that the data is shaky and often biased and have not convinced me, but [evidently] fooled you.”
I see. You hold the criteria for when the data is convincing and if anybody is convinced before you, he is fooled. How arrogant. Obviously you will never be convinced, so anybody who is, is a fool.
Data presented for the Roman minimum:
– High level of Central European lakes: Magny, M. (1993). Quaternary research, 40 (1), 1-9.
– Increased iceberg activity in the North Atlantic: Bond, G., et al. (2001). Science, 294 (5549), 2130-2136.
– Cooling in an Ireland speleothem: McDermott, F. (2004). Quaternary Science Reviews, 23 (7), 901-918.
– Cooling in Scandinavian tree rings: Cowling, S. A., et al. (2001). Journal of Ecology, 89 (2), 227-236.
– Huge increase in West Mediterranean storminess: Degeai, J. P., et al. (2015). Quaternary Science Reviews, 129, 37-56.
– Cooling in Greenland: GISP2 ice core.
– High wind in Iceland: Jackson, M.G., et al. (2005). Geology 33 (6), 509-512.
– Cooling in Northern High Latitudes: Kobashi, T., et al. (2013). Climate of the Past 9 (5), 2299-2317.
– Cooling in the Arctic: Kaufman, D. S., et al. (2009). Science 325 (5945), 1236-1239.
So what is the deal? if you disagree with any of them, then there is no significant climate influence by the Roman grand minimum? Or are they all shaky and biased and unconvincing?
I could easily double that list, and maybe even triple it. But what is the point? You play with marked cards. All data that does not confirm your beliefs is shaky and biased, because you know you are in the right and whoever is convinced by the mounting evidence is a fool.
You are playing the scientist at WUWT, but you are not following the rules of science. You dismiss evidence by just waving your arms or making bold unsupported statements as if anything that you don’t like can simply disappear. You might convince the simpletons, but anybody with an inquisitive mind will clearly see through you.
Kobashi’s measurements are convincing to me and they still stand uncorrected. That his data disagree with many model- and proxy-derived reconstructions just goes to show how shaky the whole thing is, which in my book equals no real evidence. That you believe otherwise is your problem and I shall not try to change your mind as it seems set in concrete. As they say: “nothing personal, just business”.
My mind is not set in concrete. I already did a complete turnaround on the issue of solar variability influence on climate from thinking it had no significant effect to thinking that it has a big effect but only during solar grand minima, when paper after paper added piece after piece of evidence.
Kobashi’s measurements show a very unusual millennial scale climate change in Greenland precisely at the time of a millennial scale reduction in solar activity. Some experts, including Kobashi, believe that the response of Greenland to solar variability is antiphasic.
Yet surprisingly you come to the conclusion that this millennial scale coincidence not only is unrelated but actually supports that big reductions in solar activity do not greatly affect climate. Your own choice of data is saying the opposite. In Greenland between 600-700 AD there was a millennial variation in 18O (GISP2), and a millennial variation in 15N and 40Ar (Kobashi). I would take that as evidence of Climate Change with capital c, not of the opposite.
When the evidence piles up against the hypothesis that one defends there are only two things one can do. One can change the hypothesis or one can ignore the evidence. I decided to do the first and you have decided to do the second. Yet you accuse me of having my mind set in concrete. It is again a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
When there is no general agreement about something where some people claims one effect and others the opposite, it usually means that there is no effect to speak of. Instead of one side being right and the other being wrong, it is more likely that both are wrong.
Leif,
“When there is no general agreement about something ..”, that is where science begins, without consensus.
Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong.
Not because they can’t predict the future, but because they [as Vuk as well] fail in reproducing the past.
wrong
Future is certain, the past not so, there are always ‘experts’ insisting in changing past data regardless of the subject, might be from sunspots and climate related temperatures at one end to who and where wrote history of the world events at the other end of the never ending data changing enterprise.
(don’t google ‘vuk’ image)
.
Sure, if your ‘theory’ looks like junk, blame the data [and lose all credibility]
And then there’s Trenberth in the Climategate emails, “the data must be wrong.” Strangely, looking at various temperature adjustments prior to 1950 thermometers were characteristically running hot and the overgae apparently increases into the past. Something is quite definitely wrong.
Leif, you continue to be the penultimate advocate of science; not “climate” science, just science. I commend you and the horse you rode in on.
Thank you. Keep it up. I salute you very seriously with a sword raised high. Good fucking job Leif. Really. Thank you you old snort! Damn fine job!
Mods: I left out the /sarc tag on purpose. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Svalgard’s work.
@ bartleby,
You snuck that f-word past the mods.
===
I’ve tried once, twice, maybe three times, but always felt dirty afterwards.
But only on this site.
lsvalgaard August 9, 2016 at 11:05 am
Zharkova and Abdussamatov are most likely wrong.
Not because they can’t predict the future, but because they [as Vuk as well] fail in reproducing the past.
This quite frankly is bull. The past is so badly known and so frequently adjusted or waterboarded that what the actual “past” was is a matter of conjecture.
Since about 2003 we have reasonably comprehensive data about everything except land surface temperature. The only standard for measuring global warming is land surface temperature and ocean temperature. Air is a working fluid and the temperature really doesn’t matter.
If ocean heat content starts declining we can forget about “global warming” as a theory since the actual forcing would have to be less than 1/3 of the median claimed value. If the ECS was actually 3 there wouldn’t be any way for the small decline in solar forcing to cool or even stabilize the ocean temperature.
The issue is about sunspots not temperature. Sunspots have been observed and counted by some of the greatest astronomers over the past 400 year, such as Galileo, Herschel, Wolf, Waldmeier, etc.
The issue is about sunspots not temperature.
Well, she is broadly correct.
She has the 1300s correct.
Her theory has game and we will know soon enough.
Interesting graph.
Looks more like 5x shorter cycles of about 55 years, superimposed on one long period cycle that may be 900-1000 years.
Hmmn. Much like the short-cycle, long-cycle we see in global temperatures.
I don’t understand the interest in the ‘208 yr de Vries cycle’, it would go out of phase with the natural frequency of solar minima, which is roughly every ten solar cycles, with a long term average of around 108 years. Though the real intervals are very variable, e.g. SC5 to SC12 for Dalton to Gleissberg (7), and SC12 to SC24 for Gleissberg to the current solar minimum (12).
My heliocentric solar cycle model discretely maps all past solar minima for timing and duration, does show this minimum to short and over by SC26, but it shows two deep protracted solar minima, from the late 2090’s and from around 2200. I don’t but the 1000 yr cycle either, the clusters of deeper Sporer-Maunder minima can be anything from 400 to 1200 years apart.
The 208 year de Vries cycle comes from climate proxies, as it was detected in tree rings from Central Europe and the Tibetan Plateau.
It has also been detected in Berilium deposits in ice cores from the last glacial period, making it one of the oldest solar cycles that we can detect.
Maybe there are warm events at that periodicity, it cannot map solar minima.
Distance between Dalton and Maunder, and Maunder and Spører is 208 years. Distance between Sporer and Oort and Greek and Homer is 2x 208 years.
“Distance between Dalton and Maunder, and Maunder and Spører is 208 years.”
Which makes Dalton far too late. I make it 12 solar cycles between the start of Maunder and the start of Dalton, around 135 years. The interval between the Gleissberg Minimum and the current minimum is also 12 solar cycles, while between Dalton and Gleissberg it is only 7 solar cycles. Sporer is really two minima, from the 1430’s, and from the 1550’s.
You are probably both wrong.
Perhaps because of the vague timing.
how about this:
Start Maunder: 1645; start Dalton: 1800; distance 155 years
Middle Maunder: 1675; middle Dalton: 1810; distance 135 years.
Average distance 145 years = 13 cycles.
lsvalgaard “Start Maunder: 1645”
The 1660’s are still fairly warm on CET, the colder period begins from 1672 around the sunspot maximum of SC-8, giving 12 solar cycles to the maximum of SC 5 in Dalton, where the colder period was 1807-1817.
“Average distance 145 years = 13 cycles.”
Starting from Maunder, that would make Gleissberg and the current minimum happen far too late. And I clearly remember you previously referring to weaker solar activity occurring on average every ten solar cycles, which I agree with.
Starting from Maunder, that would make Gleissberg and the current minimum happen far too late.
Staring from WHEN in Maunder?
And there cycles are really not that regular. The length of every ‘cycle’ is very variable. There cycles are not real [sharp] cycles, just approximate recurrences.
“Staring from WHEN in Maunder?”
I did say, but the point is your 145 year intervals going back from now would place Maunder starting at around 1580.
Say again. What year?
You cannot just ‘go back’ from now, as there is no real, strict cycle.
What year? it doesn’t matter when you are that much in error, you choose. A 145 year interval is patently much too long.
Perhaps you are confusing the Gleisberg and de Vries ‘cycles’.
“Perhaps you are confusing the Gleisberg and de Vries ‘cycles’.”
Perhaps you are looking for a pointless argument rather than admit that your 145 year estimate demonstrates who the confused party is.
What you need to do is the list here and now what your timing is.
Start of Maunder, middle of Maunder, end of Maunder,
Start of Dalton, middle of Dalton, end of Dalton,
Start of ‘now’, middle of ‘now’, end of ‘now’.
That would let people calculate for themselves what the ‘distances’ are.
If you do not make such a list right here and right now, you have no argument.
One only needs the start, and going by your 1645, the current minimum would start in 2080 with your average interval of 145 years. It is you that has no argument.
You fail to give the years that would settle this.
Come on, don’t be shy.
False, I gave your start date for Maunder, which is very early. The matter is settled.
You fail to give the nine numbers:
Start of Maunder, middle of Maunder, end of Maunder,
Start of Dalton, middle of Dalton, end of Dalton,
Start of ‘now’, middle of ‘now’, end of ‘now’.
You failed to include Gleissberg. For amusement, it would interesting to hear your justification for requiring start, middle, and end dates to calculate the average interval.
You didn’t give any. Try again.
Start 10, end 20, average [and middle] 15. Can you see that?
You didn’t explain why you required them, and made your poor 145 year interval estimate only from the start dates. I don’t need to try anything again, your 145yr estimate is far too long where ever you start Maunder from.
Jeez, you are denser that usual.
You and I both need all of these dates so we can agree on the duration of the various intervals. I’ll give you mine again:
M 1645-1675-1700
D 1799-1810-1825
G 1890-1912-1933
N 2009-2030?-20XX?
D-M = 154, 135,125 [avg = 138]
G-D = 91, 102, 102 [avg = 98]
N-G = 119, 118?, XXX? [avg = 119?]
average of averages = 115
No 208-year De Vries cycle.
What are yours? If you have any.
“Jeez, you are denser that usual.”
Ad hominem. At last you have worked out that your 145yr interval was too long, well done.
You still fail to provide the years. My ad-hom seems well placed.
So, I’ll help you out one more time.
If we assume the Maunder started in 1645 and the Dalton in 1799 we get an interval of 1799-1645 = 154 years using start dates. If we assume the Maunder ended in 1700 and the Dalton in 1825 we get an interval of 1825-1700 = 125 years. If we assume the Maunder middle was 1675 and Dalton was 1810, we get an interval of 1810 – 1675 = 135 years. The average of 154, 125, and 135 is 138 years. If we don’t use the ending date, we get an average interval of 145 years.
If you still don’t understand how this works out, there is not much hope for you.
From the start of Maunder, plus three times 145 years is at least 2080, which is patently far too late for the start of the current minimum. No middle and end dates required, and not even the start dates of Dalton and Gleissberg required. You’ve merely over complicated the whole thing to distract from the fact that you were wrong in the first place, and shows a complete lack of integrity.
“The average of 154, 125, and 135 is 138 years. If we don’t use the ending date, we get an average interval of 145 years.”
But that is just between Maunder and Dalton, and so cannot represent the average interval between minima. I’m not going to lower myself to calling you dense, but that looks like a rather fraudulent move to me.
From the start of Maunder, plus three times 145 years is at least 2080
There are no real cycles in this game, so you cannot just triple up.
The average ‘Gleissberg Cycle’ is something like 115 years, but varies at least +/-30 years.
The Sun does not a strict memory of the past.
And you still fail to provide your dates for when you think the cycles started and ended.
“you cannot just triple up”
Yes I can, and that is the simplest way to show your 145 year interval to be way too long. Fancy you trying to fob me off with the average of the intervals of the start and middle dates of Maunder and Dalton, tut-tut.
You just don’t get it. There is no fixed cycle. The length of the interval varies with time. From Maunder to Dalton it was 154 years [measured from start to start] or 125 years [measured from end to end]. From Dalton to Gleissberg, the length was smaller [91 resp. 102]. You still fail to provide what you consider the relevant years for the minima.
“You just don’t get it. There is no fixed cycle. The length of the interval varies with time.”
Do pay attention, I gave those intervals in numbers of solar cycles immediately before you butted in with your 145 year average interval nonsense.
Since solar cycles vary in length it is necessary to give the dates in years. So provide start, middle, and end times for M, D, and G.
The only way to see how long the intervals were is to express them in years. You should be able to see that the intervals have different lengths. The M-D being the longest, with a length depending on exactly when you place the start and end years:
http://www.leif.org/research/G-Minima-Intervals.png
That is why it is important that you provide such year numbers. You have evaded this up to now [and my predicting is that you will continue to evade it. Prove me wrong].
Getting around WP:
http://www.leif.org/research/GMinima-Intervals.png
Stop playing the control freak and demanding the unnecessary. Any reasonable start date for Maunder, plus the start date of the current minimum, already and alone proves your 145 year average interval between solar minima to be far too long. I don’t need to calculate the average to prove your figure wrong, and to do so with the two long intervals and the one short interval in the 1800’s, would lead to a very biased average figure, that would obviously not represent the longer term average well.
Nobody said that the average interval was 145 years. Only the first one.
And you still evade to give the years of start and end.
You should have made that clearer in your first comment then. Not that arguing whether it was 12 or 13 sunspot cycles between Maunder and Dalton makes a difference to a long term average between solar minima anyway, so it was a pretty pointless hairsplitting comment in the first place. And calculating the mean of the start and middle intervals of Maunder and Dalton is an arbitrary way to reduce that interval, it has no meaning.
You should have made that clearer in your first comment then
If you had paid attention, my first comment was ONLY about the Maunder-Dalton interval. I repeatedly stressed that the length varied in all subsequent comments.
It is not a given that it has more meaning to use only the start time [as the length of the minima varies]. There are three numbers one could reasonably use: the start, the middle, and the end time. Without cherry picking only one, a possibly less biased method would be to take the average of all three intervals. You still fail [grossly] in providing your dates. The point is that there is NO regular cycle [and perhaps no cycle at all, just stochastic random variation].
I had already described how irregular they are. The original point was that an average 208 years between minima is too long.
You still evade to show your list of minima timings.
Since there is no real cycle, it makes little sense to calculate an ‘average’ interval between minima.
You may also have misunderstood what the the de Vries ‘cycle’ is supposed to be, namely going between every second mimimum.
“Since there is no real cycle, it makes little sense to calculate an ‘average’ interval between minima.”
Solar cycles and minima are ordered by a specific planetary progression that does cycle with an intrinsic variability. It makes sense in calculating the long term average interval from the start dates. Calculating the average of the start and middle dates between two consecutive minima makes little sense.
Solar cycles and minima are ordered by a specific planetary progression
No, that is not the way the sun works.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5988
“No evidence for planetary influence on solar activity
Robert H. Cameron, Manfred Schüssler
(Submitted on 23 Jul 2013 (v1), last revised 25 Jul 2013 (this version, v2))
Recently, Abreu et al. (2012, A&A, 548, A88) proposed a long-term modulation of solar activity through tidal effects exerted by the planets. This claim is based upon a comparison of (pseudo-)periodicities derived from records of cosmogenic isotopes with those arising from planetary torques on an ellipsoidally deformed Sun. We examined the statistical significance of the reported similarity of the periods. The tests carried out by Abreu et al. were repeated with artificial records of solar activity in the form of white or red noise. The tests were corrected for errors in the noise definition as well as in the apodisation and filtering of the random series. The corrected tests provide probabilities for chance coincidence that are higher than those claimed by Abreu et al. by about 3 and 8 orders of magnitude for white and red noise, respectively. For an unbiased choice of the width of the frequency bins used for the test (a constant multiple of the frequency resolution) the probabilities increase by another two orders of magnitude to 7.5% for red noise and 22% for white noise. The apparent agreement between the periodicities in records of cosmogenic isotopes as proxies for solar activity and planetary torques is statistically insignificant. There is no evidence for a planetary influence on solar activity.
Calculating the average of the start and middle dates between two consecutive minima makes little sense.
The start date is difficult to determine. The better choice would be the deepest point [the ‘middle’ date]. But since you still evade to show us your list of dates, you are just waving hands in the air.
“You may also have misunderstood what the the de Vries ‘cycle’ is supposed to be, namely going between every second mimimum.”
The first time I have heard that, can you show me a reference for that?
I don’t understand the interest in the ‘208 yr de Vries cycle’, it would go out of phase with the natural frequency of solar minima, which is roughly every ten solar cycles, with a long term average of around 108 years
“No, that is not the way the sun works.”
Because Abreu et al didn’t find it? that’s well funny.
Nobody has presented any credible evidence for planetary influence.
See also: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf
“Large planets very close to their host star are expected to exert a much larger effect than the farflung smaller planets in our solar system. A ‘Mega Jupiter’ with mass 3MJ and at 0.052 AU would have a tidal effect 4*1003 = 4,000,000 times larger than our Jupiter’s [τ Boo]. We conclude that there is no detectable influence of planets on their host stars, which might cause a lower floor for X-ray activity of these stars”
(Poppenhäger & Schmitt, ApJ, 2011)
Magnetic cycles might be visible in XUV or X-ray emission, or even total brightness for large star spots So far, no star cycles synchronized with any exoplanets have been found.”
that’s well funny.
It seems that the joke is on you.
And I asked for a quote of the de Vries ‘cycle’ going between every second minimum, not a quote of what I wrote.
Since the de Vries cycle is supposed to be 208 years and the ‘usual’ Gleissberg ‘cycle’ is about half of that, there will be two G-cycles in every dV-cycle. I don’t think you need a reference to see that for yourself.
Plenty of folk claim de Vries to be the interval between solar minima, but I have never before heard anyone say that is is ‘supposed’ to be going between every second minimum, apart from you here in a your typical supercilious manner.
“It seems that the joke is on you.”
Well no I’ll have the last laugh because from my correlations I can see what you are all doing wrong, like assuming any effect would have to be gravitationally based.
Plenty of folk claim de Vries to be the interval between solar minima, but I have never before heard anyone say that is is ‘supposed’ to be going between every second minimum
If the dV-minima are every 208 years and the G-minima are every 104 years, it follows that the dV-minima with match every second G-minimum. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.
I can see what you are all doing wrong, like assuming any effect would have to be gravitationally based.
Gravity is the only force that can propagate from the outside of the sun. Magnetic and electric forces are counteracted by the solar wind that sweeps any such influences out of the solar system, but there are plenty of folks who [like you] will postulate this or that, but with no basis in valid physics. For them [and thus for you] there is no hope. They [and you] find happiness in their illusions and it will be almost a crime to yank them out of their bliss.
” If the dV-minima are every 208 years and the G-minima are every 104 years, it follows that the dV-minima with match every second G-minimum. If you cannot see that, there is no hope for you.”
As if I couldn’t see that. So one has before said that de Vries is supposed to between every second minimum, you made that up.
“..but there are plenty of folks who [like you] will postulate this or that, but with no basis in valid physics. For them [and thus for you] there is no hope. They [and you] find happiness in their illusions and it will be almost a crime to yank them out of their bliss.”
Pure pompous prejudiced presumption, my research is based on observations not postulates.
It is you who is under the illusion that the planets do not order solar activity.
It should have been clear that the dV is claimed to line up [coincide] with every second G-minimum.
On the planet stuff: people have been proposing a relationship for 150 years, but to date none has passed muster. Not only is there no observational support, but there is also a problem with a credible physical mechanism [not enough energy]. That, of course, does not stop some people to still beat that dead horse.
“It should have been clear that the dV is claimed to line up [coincide] with every second G-minimum.”
To you or I, but apparently not for Javier and many others.
“Not only is there no observational support..”
That you are aware of. I have identified a specific multi-body progression that regularly and reliably maps each sunspot maximum, within a year in many cases, and the start and duration of each solar minima. And a predictable logic of the gas giant ordering of solar activity levels at syzygy and at quadrature, that provides essential clues to the nature of the mechanism.
I have identified a specific multi-body progression that regularly and reliably maps each sunspot maximum, within a year in many cases, and the start and duration of each solar minima. And a predictable logic of the gas giant ordering of solar activity levels at syzygy and at quadrature, that provides essential clues to the nature of the mechanism
The proper way of dealing with this is to write it up and submit it to a good peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise it is just yet another wild-eyed illusion feeding an overheated ego.
Sure would like to hear abt that progression?
The correlations have puzzled me for a long time…
“Otherwise it is just yet another wild-eyed illusion feeding an overheated ego.”
Yet if the planetary ordering of the solar cycle and of solar minima is true, then that says similar for mainstream solar science and their internal solar dynamo theory. Rather like climate science and their ‘internal’ natural variability assumption.
Yet if the planetary ordering of the solar cycle and of solar minima is true
There is no evidence that it is true. Lots of evidence [e.g. stars with large planets] that the planetary ordering is false. If you think otherwise, write it up, submit it, and be on your way to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
The more i study nature the more i stand amazed at the works of the Creator..
Javier, it has been my experience that people vary radically on what they think is going to happen. No one expected the “pause”, but it has been fun to watch the people who had been so certain CO2 was behind the warming. We’ve put lots and lots of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past 18 years. Yet the only rise in temperature was due to the recent el nino, not CO2. Before you can say people will be disappointed in the near future, you need know what they expect, and it may not be what YOU expect. I don’t know what to expect, that is for sure. Your prediction is what it is, a prediction, not a guarantee of results. In time we’ll see how the prediction holds up. That is the scientific way. You might have something, and then again, you may not. We’ll see.
I don’t know if somebody was expecting the pause or not, as nobody would have paid him/her attention, but in retrospect it is clear that the pause could have been predicted on the basis of the ~65 year cycle in AMO and temperatures. The problem is that this explanation requires natural variability to be an important factor and dominant scientists were/are not ready to accept that.
In my experience it is better to expect the ordinary than the extraordinary, because the extraordinary rarely happens. Chances are there won’t be any grand solar minimum on our watch, nor a runaway greenhouse warming hell. Just a little warming here or a little cooling there, pretty much as before. But people being people, most expect that either we are going to burn, or freeze, or both sequentially. Go figure.
“it is clear that the pause could have been predicted on the basis of the ~65 year cycle in AMO”
Absolutely.
Proves without a doubt the AGW crowd are not scientists, but grants protectionists for their leftist political agenda
How does this rehashed, unproven theory prove anything? It’s even been proven false.. But nice try though.. We know which baffoon camp you’re in.
So from now on we’re allowed to call Lief ‘old snort’. I like it! 🙂
Well, something is perhaps causing the multi-century time period variation in temperature, and Dr Svalsgaaard is vehement in stating he cannot find any evidence for a solar effect. I am just bad enough in math to have the odd thought the quasi-periodicity might be a chaotic effect, with no “cause” per se, which means it is well beyond what I understand.
Or perhaps simply well beyond prediction?
Dr. S. makes his criticisms based on the “inextactnes” of the hindcast and the resulting forecast, but the underlying cycle, while as unpredictable as the ENSO, still appears to have periodicity and the precursors of a minimum, even in his own model, show a preference for another solar minimum of a lesser duration (which Zarkova also suggests).
So we might predict a cooling trend of a shorter duration with higher probability than an imminent warming trend, which, I believe, would be the point?
Bartleby, given that we know the W/m2 difference between solar max and solar min at the top of the atmosphere, and that this resultant solar signal is buried in the much greater variability wrought from internal teleconnections between our atmosphere and our oceans, I fail to see your mechanism whereby we can maybe predict, see, and then connect a cooling trend in our noisy temperature data to a quieter Sun.
Leif showed the measures, the method, the tools. You’re still talking about model.
Gives one the shivers.
Well, Johann, I thought we were talking about models? His model, the other lady’s model? In this example, it’s models all the way down yes?
Pamela. perhaps you misinterpreted the observation. I’ve made no attempt to explain a much greater variability. I suggested the system was unpredictable, and continue to old that opinion.
I observed that the graphs Dr. S. presents aren’t fundamentally in conflict with those of cited paper. There may be phase differences. Regardless, both models indcate a higher probability of cooling vs. warming.
Gotta comment here. Can’t bear to read the rest. It comes down to this: The radiative heat transfer equation has two means by which the terrestrial equilibrium temperature can vary: (1) changes in insolation, and (2) changes in the ratio of the (spectrally averaged) absorprtion coefficient to the emission coefficient. Everyone is obsessed about (1). The fact of the matter is that (2) allows the temperature to be darn near anything, depending on how that ratio swings. Some people dimly get this point when they ponder the albedo. We know albedo to maybe 10% error. This alone would correspond to a 7.23 K (13 F) temperature variation. Albedo is greatly sensitive to the extent and quality of clouds, ice, and water (not to mention vegetation, rock, and soil). I’m not even mentioning the similar variations in absorptivity and emissivity.
And, whoever said that (1) and (2) are independent? Hard to imagine that (2) would affect (1), but far too easy to surmise that (1) would affect (2). To me, the overarching fact is that we have a steady march of ice ages in the era we now exist. Something is doing it, and something is undoing it (if you get my meaning). I haven’t seen any good explanation of that cycle–but then I’m only a bystander. Even so, if there were a good explanation, I would expect to see that referenced as background to all these discussions.
When it comes to Nature, the jury is always out.
Mike, you are right in that the energy supply may vary, and that the energy balance may vary. You are not the first one to think of it; one hundred years ago a Serbian prisoner of war in an Austrian POW camp developed a theory – amazing, what he did just with pencil and paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Time will tell so far so good for those of us who want very quiet prolonged solar conditions. I like the way this is winding down.
You are a fool for wanting a quiet Sun. Climate history has shown us that the quiet Sun brings untold suffering to humankind due to climatic deterioration. The Sun is the source of life and the active Sun has brought the global warming that has blessed humanity since the Little Ice Age. The longer it goes the better for all.
Depends on what you think is worse – a moderate cooling that we now have the technology to deal with, or the authoritarian monsters who would use continued warming to gull the intellectually stunted into giving up their freedoms potentially past the point of no return. I choose the latter.
Techno-optimism is unwarranted. If agricultural output decreases and we get a couple of bad crops years this could turn quickly into a global catastrophe of untold proportions.
More CO2 has also been good for agriculture and forestry.
I thought this research had been published and discussed about a year ago. Is there something new here?
Where is the data that says “there’s a lot more greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere? Where? Since when? See, this is where the Hoaxers fall flat on their face. No data.
[??? .mod]
Why bother? — talking about the solar activity and climate change is like talking about the weather. There is virtually nothing you can do about it and even if you could we could never agree on the right answer. Please remember that during the last 30 years vegetation on earth is 30% greater. Would you want to change that? There is nothing inherently wrong with a warmer earth. Just as there isn’t anything inherently wrong with a colder earth. The length of these cycles are multi generational. Now some will tell you we will reach a tipping point where all the methane from the arctic will be released and then we will really be SOL. Well except both the artic and Antarctic are gaining ice presently. I think all money spent on researching climate change would be better put to use creating Artificial Intelligence.
No one I know of has talked about this and my feeling
There is a small % Chance that what is going on with the sun and decreasing solar cycle activities COULD be more then the start of a short term minimum like Maunder and Dalton mins.
We could be at the edge of starting a New Grand Glacial period. Calculations are that one is over due by about 2000 years.
I don’t agree that just a slight change orbit of earth around the sun is what caused the past Glacial periods but only added to the cooling of the Glacial periods. I do feel very long periods with low solar activities similar to the Maunder min and Dalton min periods but much longer and deeper is the main cause of past Glacial periods.
The % chance is very small that a new Glacial Period is about to start but if one is, society would colapse.
The Holocene is liable to last about another 4000 years, at least, before the onset of renewed continental ice sheets where none now exist.
But each cold cycle should be cooler and each warm cycle less warm.
Quick….build a wall at the Canadian border while we still can….
Zombo:
Thing is there are more people in Mexico City or the State of California than in all of Canada so a few snowbirds won’t make much difference.
Besides, the next glaciation will grind the wall to dust anyway so we Canucks can sled on down to the US off the ice sheets. 😉
Shall we also establish a Night’s Watch to hold the Wall?
If a major volcanic eruption occurs, then the cooling will start even earlier.
“we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” The primary so called greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is H2O averaging around 2%. CO2 is now around .04%, So the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years has changed the total amount of greenhouse gas very little. By the way, molecule per molecule, the H2O molecule is a lot stronger absorber and radiator of IR than the CO2 molecule. If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the LWIR action of heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective and not a radiative greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be otherwise because of the atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.
Willhas, Your analysis is faulty because you are forgetting (or simply don’t know) that CO2 is the critical radiative coolant to space in the upper troposphere.
If what you are saying is true then more CO2 in our atmosphere should have a cooling effect. More CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect of lowering the dry lapse rate which in itself is a cooling effect.
willhaas, you say: If CO2 really effected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused a noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
No, because 30 years is much too short a time to be sure you are seeing an underlying trend rather than natural variation up or down.
The effect should be instantaneous. The theory is that adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere increases the insulation properties of the atmosphere. A good indicator of the insulation properties of the atmosphere is the natural lapse rate. If adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming. then the amount added over the past 30 years which according to the AGW conjecture is the cause of global warming, should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The insulating properties of the atmosphere have not change over the past 30 years yet CO2 levels have increased.
willhaas, You say: The surface of the Earth is warmer than it would be otherwise because of the atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection.
No. The physics is clear that the surface warming effect (and the corresponding tropospheric lapse rate) is due to the restricted rate at which GHGs are able to radiate energy to space. This occurs increasingly towards the rarified upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where the probability of radiative emission to space gets much higher.
That this must be true can be easily appreciated from the following thought experiment: If we were to remove all the GHGs from the atmosphere but still keep the current quantities of all non-GHGs (nitrogen, oxygen, etc., which do not significantly emit radiation at earth temperatures) then the earth’s surface temperature would be similar to that of the Moon (around 200K). Add back in spoonfuls of GHGs, one by one, and the surface temperature would go up progressively until it reached the current level.
I think that is an over simplification of this issue [of science]
Truth is that most GH gases also re-radiate to space – hence e.g. we can identify CO2 on other planets by a certain band of UV radiated to us.
to single out a certain GH gas and claim that the net effect of more of it in the atmosphere must be that of warming you must come with a balance sheet showing how much it cools and how much it warms. I have never seen such a balance sheet anywhere for any GH gas.
To prove that the GH gases: ozone, H2O, CO2 and even methane [also] cool the atmosphere, you can study this paper:
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
esp. fig 6 bottom
The LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases has nothing to do with it. It turns out that the Earth radiates of space like a 0.0 degrees F black body at an equivalent altitude of around 17K feet. That altitude is at the centroid of the mass versus altitude profile in the Earth’s atmosphere.
willhaas, Thank you for your responses to which I reply as follows:
Contrary to your assertion that “The LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases has nothing to do with it”, it is clearly established physics that the LWIR absorption/emission properties of CO2 and the other GHGs in the atmosphere (principally water vapour) are the cause of surface warming above what it would be in their absence (namely around 200K, similar to that of the Moon).
Absorption and emission of LWIR by/from GHG molecules takes place at all levels in the atmosphere, with an increasing probability as we ascend the atmospheric column that a photon radiated from a GHG molecule will make it to space without being re-absorbed by another GHG molecule. Thus GHGs act as the principal cooling mechanism to space. (A small amount radiates to space directly from the surface.)
Like many other climate change sceptics, I believe that the reason why the change in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 30 years has not manifested itself as a measurable change in the lapse rate is that there are other natural compensating negative feedback mechanisms at work, such as increased cloud coverage, that keep the earth’s temperature sensitivity to changes in CO2 very low.
But it is certainly not because the LWIR absorption physics is wrong.
Thank you for reading my posts and commenting. The lapse rate as derived from first principals and confirmed by observation is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. That is why over the past 30 years , the increase in CO2 has not had an effect on the lapse rate. What I am saying is clearly established physics. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. Take for example, Venus, with an atmosphere that is more than 96% CO2 and is more than 90 times as massive as the Earth’s atmosphere. The high temperatures at the surface can all be accounted for by the convective greenhouse effect and the planet’s proximity to the sun.. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. It does not exist on Venus.
I read an article recently where the author pointed out the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 were too high by a factor of 20 because the forgot to include the fact that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in the lapse rate which is a cooling effect. Then there is the issue of feedbacks which have to be negative for the climate to have been stable enough over at least the past 500 million years for life to evolve. The convective greenhouse effect on Earth as derived from first principals accounts for all 33 degrees C that the surface is warmer because of our atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.
Remember that heat transport by means of convection and conduction dominates over LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere. For example, next to the Earth’s surface a CO2 molecule will absorb a LWIR absorption band photon and will hold it for an average of .2s before re radiating because of that photon. Within that .2s the CO2 molecule will have on average about a billion interactions with other molecules, sharing energy with each interaction..
willhaas,
You say: The lapse rate as derived from first princip[le]s and confirmed by observation is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.
So what would you expect would happen if we were to remove all the atmospheric GHGs?
I would say that the earth’s surface would then radiate all its energy directly to space because its remaining gases (principally nitrogen and oxygen) do not radiate appreciably at earth temperatures.
Consequently, there would be a zero lapse rate and the earth’s atmosphere and surface would be isothermal at a temperature of about 200K, the mean temperature of the surface of the Moon.
In our real world, however, the heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere continually by radiation, conduction/convection and transpiration and exhibits the observed temperature lapse rate. But it only does this due to the presence of GHGs at all levels. These act as coolants, radiating the energy away to space, thus maintaining the continuing flow and the consequent negative temperature profile up the atmospheric column.
So, no, the GHGs are absolutely essential to maintaining the lapse rate.
Actually the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate signifies that H2O in our atmosphere causes cooling. Increasing CO2 will decrease the lapse rate as well. Eliminating them both from the atmosphere, ignoring cloud formation, would have a warming effect. Heat transport by conduction and convection dominates over heat transport by LWIR absorption band radiation throughout the troposphere yet the middle of mass altitude is where the effective radiating altitude is. This all has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. If the greenhouse gases were solely responsible for radiation to space then one would expect that the effective radiating altitude would be near the top of the troposphere but that is not the case.
The convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and the amount of greenhouse gases in each planet’s atmosphere does not matter for the lapse rate is still a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of any greenhouse gases. This is even valid for the gas bag planets whose atmosphere is mostly H2 which does not qualify as a greenhouse gas.
willhaus,
This is getting interesting and thank you for your polite and constructive replies.
You say that: …the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate signifies that H2O in our atmosphere causes cooling. Increasing CO2 will decrease the lapse rate as well.
Yes, and in the case of H2O that is indeed an empirically determined fact. It also appears to agree with common sense: increasing GHG concentrations would seemingly make it easier for the atmosphere to radiate to ~0K space because it would provide a larger and larger conduit.
So we are left with an apparent paradox: How do we account for the fact that the Moon’s surface (which is the same average distance from the Sun as the Earth) has an mean surface temperature of around 200K, much colder than the Earth’s, despite having no GHGs at all? (You may argue that the Moon has no significant atmosphere whereas the Earth would still have its very significant atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, but these gases are essentially non-radiative at earth temperatures).
How do you resolve this paradox?
@David
you are comparing apples with pears….
The amount of time the Moon takes to complete one turn on its axis with respect to the stars is 27.3 days, and it’s called a sidereal day.
there would be more cloudiness at the lower latitudes in a cooling period such as the one we have entered now – as the T differential between equator/poles increases.
the lower latitudes receive more radiation per square meter, hence the cooling is amplified as earth’s albedo increases
anyway, the point is moot
as I said
there is no man made global warming or if there is it is so small so as to be immeasurable.
Do not even count on CO2 helping you out to stop an ice age coming – if there was one coming
but I don’t see an ice age coming – not even a little one….
David, the Moon is nothing life the Earth except that it is virtually the same distance from the sun. A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
Henry. If our climate continues the way it has been for at least the past million years, our current interglacial period will be followed by another 100K year ice age but the transition may still be thousands of years away. No one really knows how the current ice age cycling got started but it seems to have gotten started when North and South America connected changing ocean currents.
David, your hypothetical world is just too hypothetical for relevance. The effective radiating temperature of the Earth is 0 degrees F at an effective altitude of around 17K feet which just happens to be at the middle of mass altitude of the atmosphere. These numbers are affected by the Earth’s albedo. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface if affected by the lapse rate in the troposphere. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface is not affected by the LWIR absorption properties of CO2.
willhaus,
You say: A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
I am afraid that’s a bit of a cop out. If you really think that a difference in albedo, and therefore surface emissivity, spoils my argument then let me express my ‘thought experiment’ differently:
Let us consider a hypothetical rocky planet, at the same distance from the Sun as the Moon, that…
(1) has the same albedo as the Moon;
(2) revolves at the same rate as does the Moon with respect to the Sun;
(3) is the same size as the Earth;
(4) has an atmosphere of similar volume to the Earth, but consisting only of nitrogen and oxygen (no GHGs).
Do you agree that such a rocky planet would have a similar mean surface temperature as the Moon (~200K)?
If you do agree, then we can proceed forward in our interesting discussion.
If you do not agree, then I shall be intrigued to hear your explanation for how such a transparent atmosphere (containing no GHGs) would nevertheless result in a temperature significantly above ~200K.
David, I am sure that your fantasy worlds with their fantasy physics will yield what ever results your fantasy dictates but they are not part of the real universe. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all real planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. The convective greenhouse effect does not depend upon the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. Even a real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. If CO2 were such a great insulator the there should be some applications were CO2 is used as an insulator but there are none.
willhaus,
You say: A major difference that might solve your problem is the difference in albedo and emissivity.
I am afraid that’s a bit of a cop out. If you really think that a difference in albedo, and therefore surface emissivity, spoils my argument then let me express my ‘thought experiment’ differently:
Let us consider a hypothetical rocky planet, at the same distance from the Sun as the Moon, that…
(1) has the same albedo as the Moon;
(4) revolves at the same rate as does the Moon with respect to the Sun;
(2) is the same size as the Earth;
(3) has an atmosphere of similar volume to the Earth, but consisting only of nitrogen and oxygen (no GHGs).
Do you agree that such a rocky planet would have a similar mean surface temperature as the Moon (~200K)?
If you do agree, then we can proceed forward in our interesting discussion.
If you do not agree, then I shall be intrigued to hear your explanation for how such a transparent atmosphere (containing no GHGs) would nevertheless result in a temperature significantly above ~200K.
The wheels are falling of the progressive authoritarian bus as we speak! But don’t let the facts get in your way, you never do.
The propaganda media will save them. It always does.
Time to sell my Prius and buy a hummer…
If there is one common element in the posts here it seems to me to be that nature, with billions of years of successful experience, doesn’t know what it’s doing. Even those who seem to recognize that our home is a small part of a vast chaotic system that is governed by a few discoverable laws don’t seem to realize that the universe you see, from the smallest stone through entire galactic clusters, is well beyond our understanding much less control. We have no energies available to us that even come close to the energies involved in the suns warming of our planet. Even volcanoes here are more powerful, as a matter of course, that anything we produce. To believe that mankind could destroy the earth or its ecosystems is foolish, to pretend that it’s happening is idiotic.
Mother Gaia doesn’t do statistics. She deals with the real universe in real time, and everything happens just when it is supposed to happen.
The conditions that produced certain climate behavior in the past, are NEVER going to occur again, so trying to guess what is coming next is doomed to failure.
Nothing ever happens twice. It is always something new that was born out of a different set of starting conditions.
G
Whatever our species might or might not be able to do, it is hubris to imagine that we could have an effect approaching a pimple on the posterior of past mass extinction events.
Well don’t give up without trying!
Seems excellent research to me.
Another we are going into the LIA cooling trend level in the near future babble.It is overblown as all the others predicted similar have been.
Does solar cycles affect drought?
There is correlation, but no one has linked the two unequivocally.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/17/the-current-us-drought-is-not-a-surprise/
Discussed in this blog post.
In the GWPF newsletter today, I found the statement: ” Prof Zharkova said: “When it comes to controlling the earth’s temperature the sun trumps the work of mankind infinitesimally.” (Can’t find it here on WUWT on a quick & dirty browse.)
Doesn’t she mean ‘infinitely’ not infinitesmally?
Figures I ran some years ago indicated that the VARIANCE in Insolation over a Solar cycle vastly exceeds antyhing AGW warmihng can throw into the mix. (I can search my file for the calcs., but I seem to remember the factor was of the order of 33,333.
Can someone with better qualifications than mine (I’m merely an Engineer, and retired at that) check me out? [Delta-I] / [Sigma-AGW] over, say, one year.
If I’m right, it’s a killer-argument that IT’S ALL TO DO WITH THE SUN, FOLKS!
One more reason why I’m hanging on to my Suncor Energy and Enbridge shares.
If another Maunder Minimum IS on its way, then I’m glad I’m headed for the Out door. Good luck you youngsters. I’ll leave you my winter woollies!
“So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.”
The 1650’s were largely very warm, the 1660’s had three cold years but were otherwise warm (CET). The cold part of Maunder was from 1672 to 1705, three solar cycles sunspot maximum to maximum.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
I hate to be a stick in the mud, but, here it goes. Being right for the wrong reason is just as equally bad as being wrong.
There wont be Maunder Minimum like conditions on the sun just yet, and the effects on the sun that (in my opinion) can cause a “full blown Ice age” is a long way off.
It’s always interesting to note when a paper et al discovers two polarities on a star.
It’s even more convenient to ignore preceding and on going research of the mechanism involved.
So far, this has been a drop-dead gorgeous discussion…
Awesome 🙂
Maunder Minimum was no picnic. But for the US, it was not so bad. Some tough winters certainly even into 18th century.
What is worthy of a look is the regularity of and predictability of weather cycles: wet to dry, and, cold to warm. These warm/wet, warm/dry, cold/wet and cold/dry yearly cycles recur with significant predictability (Wheeler’s (R.I.P.) work is the Occams Razor for weather cycles). The half cycle for hurricanes made a low last year. Watch for the increase to show up this summer and into October as intensity picks up first, then comes the frequency combined with intensity of the storms in following years.
Finally, look at where Paris is and then check out where 90+% of the US territory is and where 95+% of the US population lives. We are south of Paris and most of the rest of Europe. So I expect to see the ‘cold’ years to be a minimum on a relative basis to Europe and Asia. Earthquake frequency will increase for a time too.
We can assume most of the US will boom in both manufacturing, mining and agriculture as we produce food and materials for those who can’t grow or mine enough.
Florida real estate and tourism will increase by a factor of at least 10. As Yogi Berra said, Florida “is too crowded. Nobody goes there any more.” 🙂
I really do study this stuff. The complete boom and bust cycle for developed industrialized economies is … wait for it … ~11 years!! Like 1999 to late 2010.
My question is, will Al Gore die penniless because he can’t believe global cooling is what is coming?
If Professor Zharkova’s results turn out to be valid, that’s going to rock a lot of rice bowls. Maybe that’s why some “climate scientists” are so angry with her.
The Gore-bought “consensus” has been suppressing solar theory and evidence from the beginning of Stephen Schneider’s human-caused global-cooling/global-warming alarm. The leading theory of global climate change when Schneider’s phony anti-human “science” entered stage-left was solar driven, thanks to John Eddy’s 1970’s documentary evidence that what he called the “Maunder Minimum” of solar-magnetic activity was real, together with his survey of quite a bit of evidence that such variations in solar activity seem to be correlated with global temperature.
For Schneider and his fellow Stanford neo-Malthusians Ehrlich and Holdren it was always about finding excuses to curtail human population. Schneider even wrote a Malthusian utopian fantasy book/ policy-prescription called The Genesis Strategy, where the planet would be saved by starving half the planet so that their food could be saved as “seed corn” for the future. Hey, it’s no more wackadoodle/murderous than the contemporaneous plan of Obama’s science advisor John Holdren to forcibly sterilize a large fraction of mankind.
That such thoroughly politicized figures were ever treated as legitimate scientists is half the scandal. Their blatantly untenable scientific claims should have been examined with extra skepticism on account of their clearly expressed ulterior motives. Instead the consensus response was a lessened concern about the validity of the alarmists’ scientific claims on the grounds that their policy prescriptions would still be right. We need to curtail energy consumption and economic growth anyway don’t we, to keep overpopulation from destroying the planet and ourselves?
No. The climate alarmists are not just wrong about climate. Their population alarmism is just as wrong. The answer to all genuine environmental concerns, both natural and human-caused, is technological progress, which is created by PEOPLE. We are not the problem. We are the solution. So long as we don’t make the Schneiderian mistake of thinking that we can make progress by telling lies. The climate “consensus” is one big Schneiderian mistake.
solar driven, thanks to John Eddy’s 1970’s documentary evidence that what he called the “Maunder Minimum” of solar-magnetic activity was real, together with his survey of quite a bit of evidence that such variations in solar activity seem to be correlated with global temperature.
At the time it was believed that the variation of solar TSI was in the 1% to 2% range, which would, indeed, give us the Little Ice Age. when we later discovered that the variation was an order of magnitude smaller, Jack Eddy abandoned the idea that the Sun was directly responsible for the observed climate change [Dinner talk at SORCE Science Meeting, Sonoma, Ca, 2003].
That’s a great place for a friendly dinner. Let’s hope our star remains stable.
Sir, Doubtless all this is correct as a matter of science.
This said, regardless of the merits or otherwise of Zarkova et al’s latest paper, is it not the case that Occam’s Razor should be applied as a starting to point for the investigation into what drives long term variations in climate?
To quote Swinburne “…the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis…its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that…[demonstrates] an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth…”
Levels of GHGs must have something to do with the variations – that doesn’t need to be assumed, as I understand the “raw” science proves it. But the Sun and what it is “doing” over any given time surely has something to do with it as well, as it with must all the other complex “systems” ocean/atmosphere circulation etc.
Are these “systems” not to a very large, possibly a dominant, extent “driven” by the Sun over the long term? Might the very levels of GHGs in the atmosphere themselves not be “driven” by the Sun to a far greater extent than by industrialization, though no-one should deny the impact of the latter?
It seems to me that what no-one can get away from (at least in the absence of further research disproving the hypothesis) is that the Sun is the source of most energy in the earth’s “climatic systems” (in the very broadest sense – not a helpful description I know, but I’m no scientist, so forgive layman’s terms) – and perhaps much more than just the climatic systems.
To posit the above in a different way: Take away the Sun’s “energy”, and is it the case there are no planetary “climatic systems” (and indeed no Solar system as we think we understand it?) other than perhaps those driven by whatever might come from within a planet (volcanism and the like)?
Is that not as true for Earth as it is for Mercury and Venus, or Pluto? It’s just the degree of influence of the Sun that varies in each case is it not?
Zarkova’s hypothesis, research methodology, results etc might not stand the scrutiny of science, but does that mean the starting point that the Sun has an influence, and perhaps “the” influence on climate variability is wrong – if so, why?
It cannot be enough to say that insolation variability is very small, so the Sun can be discounted as a driver of climate variability. That it seems to me is lazy science. Take the Sun away and see what happens then.
KO, the Sun doubtless has an influence, and plenty of climate phenomena can be explained by an assumption that its output varies. It is an attractive and rather likely assumption. Unfortunately, such a variation has not been observed – yet. So scientists who assume a “solar constant” have not (yet) been contradicted by Mother Nature.
Well, maybe Eddy got it wrong!
Based on what he knew back in 1974, he got it right.
Based on what we know after the first measurements from space in 1978, he realized that, indeed, he got it wrong.
Correct me if wrong, but it wasn’t until later (maybe as recently as 2011, but not sure) that SORCE data revealed the great variation in the high-energy end of the solar spectrum. Eddy might have changed his mind again following that discovery.
No, that was long known. And that variation of the high-energy part of the solar spectrum in terms of actual energy (Watt/m2] is very tiny. Eddy was good friend of mine, and I know he didn’t get cold feet and changed his mind. Check out http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/floyd_svecse.pdf
Thanks very much for the link. It appears that the UV variation was already evident by 2003, at the start of SORCE, as you informed me.
The paper’s authors however do not discount the climatic effect of the large variation in UV flux, stating:
“Relevance to Earth’s Atmosphere
Absorption of Solar EUV/UV
Solar UV absorption drives
atmospheric:
I constituent densities,
I thermal structure, and
I dynamics.
Solar UV is absorbed by:
I ozone (200–320 nm)
I molecular oxygen
(140–242 nm)
“Solar UV and Earth’s Climate
I Climate and weather data shows connections to solar activity,
e.g. QBO, NAO, and SST.
I Models show possible solar UV connections to dynamical
changes descending from the stratosphere to the troposphere.
I Cosmogenic isotopes show correlations to climate over the
past two millennia, independent of Milankovich (orbital and
terrestrial attitude) changes.
I Solar causal connections to climate are poorly understood.
Solar UV variation is a leading candidate.”
They further state that the “contribution of UV to TSI variation (0.1%) range from 17% to 60%”. And that:
“Solar EUV/UV Irradiance Spectrum
I extends from 30 nm in the EUV to the visible (400 nm)
I spans roughly 5 orders of magnitude
I contains about 8.7% of the total solar flux
I shows exponential increase in FUV to Al-edge (208 nm)
I for increasing lambda, the spectrum is characterized by:
I strong emission lines (120–181 nm)
I absorption lines (220–400 nm)
I line-blanketed continuum
I continuum at ~160 nm from solar temperature minimum.”
Among further research topics, they include, “What was the solar UV irradiance during the Maunder Minimum?”
They further state that the “contribution of UV to TSI variation (0.1%) range from 17% to 60%”.
That is of the already tiny 0.1%. And the 60% is for the low-energy UV which does not vary very much.
Also, it is good for funding to say that one’s research is important for the climate. 🙂
Environmental scientists must be sexist . . .
You know, you “deniers” are at risk of being arrested for blasphemy. sarc
Except, that isn’t really “sarc”, when one looks at statements made by the burners: we should be variously killed, imprisoned, re- educated in camps, etc.
So first it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, and now it’s global cooling. Come on people make up your mind. I guess the checks ran out for the first and second ones. Now they need a third to keep that government handout coming…
Beware the coming Global Thermal Ambivalence!
Observations from an old guy:
When I was a kid, CO2 was plant food, not a pollutant.
This morning, west of Pueblo, CO it was 58F before the sun rose. The high was predicted to be in the 90sF. Now that’s observable planetary warming.
Circa 1000 AD, this part of the world was much hotter(and dryer), causing the Anastazi indians to abandon their cities and cliff dwellings. Pre-SUV, by the way.
The AGW enthusiasts are fooling only themselves when they claim not to have a religion.
During the coming minimum, I have plans to be deceased.
Climate “science” is in a sad state.
The only way to get attention is to predict something.
Something unusual.
I can’t predict the future climate, nor can anyone else, but I can summarize climate history:
(1) The world’s “average” climate (whatever that is !), as narrowly defined by the average temperature, has barely changed in the past 150 years.
(2) The slight warming since 1850 has been good news, since it followed several unusually cool centuries.
(3) There has been nothing unusual about the climate in the past 150 years — The scaremongering about a coming ‘runaway warming’ completely ignores 4.5 billion years of climate history, mainly with higher CO2 levels … with no known runaway warming.
I think I’ll send my climate history summary to a few hundred newspapers and see if any print it !
In spite of the fact that a high percentage (97% ?) of prior predictions of the future climate have been wrong … people keep making … wrong predictions !
I have been reading about solar cycles since 1997 … and predictions of solar-related cooling since 2005 !
Given the flat average temperature trend between the 1998 and 2015 El Nino temperature peaks, the predictions of (solar) cooling … seem just as wrong as the more common predictions of (CO2) warming!
The lesson learned is to stop making predictions, and develop a better physics model of climate change — the “CO2 is the “climate controller model” is obviously wrong.
I suppose the sun will be very important in that new model … but there may be variables not yet discovered.
I believe it is safe to identify three climate trends:
(A) Warming
(B) Flat Trend (perhaps a flat trend is just a “pause” in an ongoing warming or cooling trend?)
(C) Cooling
Is there a human effect on the temperature?
There must be some effect … from urbanization, economic growth near thermometers, soot on Arctic ice and snow, inaccurate non-global measurements … and perhaps most important: “adjustments” to raw data by smarmy left-wing “scientists”.
Here’s my two predictions:
(1) The climate will vary
(2) Data “adjustments will eventually be found to cause more “global warming”
than adding more CO2 to the air.
Wrong predictions are great though, if we learn what it is that went wrong. The AGW crowd isn’t trying to do that. They are simply trying to find new ways to “prove” AGW. That they have their conclusions drawn in advance is an insult to science. As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit would say: there aren’t sufficient opportunities for graft in real science.
All this ”climate change” crapola is just more leftist boogie-man scare tactics designed to keep the people terrified into turning their lives over to leftist governments.
Commonly, systems are considered static that have not been subjected to careful scrutiny. Then the lack of scrutiny over time become dogma that things are actually static.
The research I enjoyed studying was the interaction between the sun and planets, more importantly the timing aspect between the suns polarities and the timing.
I’ve had to begin from scratch again and work with large amounts of data, not because the idea had issues, unfortunately I had a fire at home at the beginning of the year, I lost my foxhound, everything I own and years of work (thanks for asking lol) anyway, it’s been interesting covering old ground again and playing catchup.
I searched some accounts I have, and I still have this graph, it shows a “prediction” of the timing future solar cycles in relation to planetary orbits will take.
Notice how the lowest point is both higher than the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.
There’s a very short explanation/description of the graph (in relation to the offset) I have spent the past 7 months re-building data and evolving key ideas on the research, it’s interesting.
This is the current version of the graph (re-built with no forecast as yet).
When my father was in college in the 1940’s, everything beyond our atmosphere was called the ether. It was understood and the consensus was, it was a vast vacuum of nothingness. Is that our current view of space? So, lack of understanding is often contorted into suppositions of nothingness and stasis.
It’s all George Bush’s fault
How? Bushes have leaves, and leaves take out CO2 and give us more oxygen… 🙂 There’s a hedge out there named Steve, so don’t blame him either.
1967 solar storm nearly caused a global cataclysm
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/1967solarsto.png
A view of the sun on May 23, 1967, in a narrow visible wavelength of light called Hydrogen-alpha. The bright region in the top center region of brightness shows the area where the large flare occurred. Credit: National Solar Observatory historical archive.
So what happen on May 23, 1967
“As the solar flare event unfolded on May 23, radars at all three Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) sites in the far Northern Hemisphere were disrupted. These radars, designed to detect incoming Soviet missiles, appeared to be jammed. Any attack on these stations – including jamming their radar capabilities – was considered an act of war.”
“A solar storm that jammed radar and radio communications at the height of the Cold War could have led to a disastrous military conflict if not for the U.S. Air Force’s budding efforts to monitor the sun’s activity, a new study finds.
On May 23, 1967, the Air Force prepared aircraft for war, thinking the nation’s surveillance radars in polar regions were being jammed by the Soviet Union. Just in time, military space weather forecasters conveyed information about the solar storm’s potential to disrupt radar and radio communications. The planes remained on the ground and the U.S. avoided a potential nuclear weapon exchange with the Soviet Union, according to the new research.”
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-storm-brink-war.html
How could a giant ball of fusing hydrogen over a million times the size of the Earth ever affect our climate? Preposterous!
Sorry, Sun, but the left vetoes your plan to cool down the Earth’s fever.
‘Sorry, Sun, but the left vetoes your plan to cool down the Earth’s fever’.
Ha ha, so does Lief. Wonder why??
Here we are 45 years after the first global cooling craze and we are back at square one again!
Maurice Cotterell
You can thank him for these discoveries
Karma will getcha, NASA.
What? A Site with actual discussions of actual research? The Little Ice Age of the 17th century and the medieval warming of Scandinavia I knew about; same with the Maunder Minimum. Have been trying to find out what’s been written about sea levels in New England. Be aware that really detailed weather observation is barely within living memory; before the 1920’s for example sea water temps were measured differently and affected reported data. History is my background; I’m suspicious of climate “science” (i.e. massive human-caused Global Warming) as it increasingly seems to resemble the eugenics movement of 100 years ago which wanted to “discourage” Negroes, Slavs, Gypsies, Jews, etc. and other undesirables. So those of you doing real scientific work: toil on.
Well, honestly, who wouldn’t want to discourage slavs? We don’ bathe often and we eat a lot of paprika. Nothing much to be said for us.
Does this mean I can start driving my SUV again? You for the good of the planet..
The sun also causes global warming on Jupiter and other planets, contrary to the baseless assertions of SkS, often via the same mechanisms:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3370650/Aerosols-causing-global-warming-JUPITER-Fluffy-haze-particles-heating-gas-planet-s-atmosphere.html
The cartoonist Cook and his unindicted co-conspirators at SkS are the real d@nialists.
Cartoonist and N@zi fancier.
Both of the Russians are arm-wavers. The fact that they get any attention shows that they are filling a need.
Take the politics out of it and profit. Science has given us our technology. They just release 1000 Mars images. Who is a politician to discuss or debate things? This is beyond politics. Now you don’t want to listen after your culture was mostly provided by Science? You would take the word or a few rogue scientist who were bout off against al others? Even if nothing can be proved 100%, isn’t it worth taking all the precautions we can to protect our unique blue home? We cannot consume the way we are. Period. We should ignore ignorant people led by money alone. They will die. The rest will have to deal with their selfishness.
omega
And just how many millions do YOU want to die so YOU can feel good about such a screed?
How many billions do YOU demand we condemn to short, poor lives spent in squalor and misery and the darkness with too little power, no lights, no jobs, no food, no heat, no refrigeration, no roda, no bridges, no water treatment and no fresh water supplies just so YOU can “feel good” about deciding how THEY are forced to live THEIR lives worldwide?
Fossil fuels are LIFE to the world. Without them, and with artificial restrictions on their use and artificial price increases forced by YOUR policies, YOU are killing millions every year. Out of YOUR fear and YOUR hatred.
And your ignorance.
U don’t understand, it’s Unicorns and Rainbows.
We can consume as we have been indefinitely.
But, please, be the first virtuous person to stop consuming as you are. Put your actions where your mouth is and die, so that others may live. Thanks.
Our unique home flourished in the past under CO2 levels 20 or more times higher than now.
Optically delusional thinking as Einsyein said the world is suffering under. A dream within a dream.
Omega: “Even if nothing can be proved 100%, isn’t it worth taking all the precautions we can to protect our unique blue home?”
*
It can’t even be proved 1%, but even if it was proven, the so-called precautions demanded are extreme. It’s like spending a million dollars every year on insuring something worth $100. Worse, it’s demanding huge damage, death and destruction on real people – now, today – out of fear that people not yet born MIGHT be harmed tomorrow. It simply doesn’t make sense.
No, I simply will not accept reality from profit driven monkey brains. They only have their interest at heart. I try to leave everywhere I go better than I left it. It take that kind of evolved human beings to make these divisions, not profit driven monkeys. Woops, I said that twice.
randomness in solar cycles may not be fully appreciated.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2767274
Humanity survived the last cooling. If this prediction comes true things could become quite dicey. Forget all the charts and graphs.The population back in the 17th century was a fraction of what it will be in 2050. Food and its distribution will reign supreme.
I like most people am basically science illiterate. If their is another hypothecs about the climate what’s the problem with listening, reading and discussing the research? Seems like the global warming zealots don’t want another theory about earths climate and are more worried about their government grants then the truth.
It ain’t the weather you gotta worry about. All the money in the world ain’t gonna stop what’s comin. We been here way too long.
Another Maunder Minimum?
Yes I know, susssh lol
It can be named the Meandering Maunder Minimum.
it meanders not
we are constantly cooling at -0.015K per annum
[means]
almost -0.01K per annum
[minima]
That was just a play on words, Henry.
hallo my friend
we are all on a curve
if it were not so we would not exist
there are some of us who believe the curve extends beyond life
reaching into Utopia
almost -0.01K per annum
Gee, that is 10,000 degrees per million years…
Winters coming….along with Jon snow
Start selling solar panel companies stocks short
Take the money away. Study the Suns history. Common sense says a Maunder Minimum event is very likely. Trade your computer for a good wood stove!
The sunspot cycle is modulating the Earth’s cloud cover, especially in the polar regions. With more cloud cover the light that would heat the ground is reflected back into space, and the polar regions get colder. The light output of the Sun is fairly constant over the short haul (a few centuries). The Forbush effect is the key to the whole issue of planetary cooling and heating and is thus recommended reading (go to Google!).
I think we have to watch the data and see how this works out so far so good for solar quiet but it is early.
Hence the change in nomenclature from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” That allows you to switch predictions at will when today’s empiricism contradicts your assertions on climate trends, be it global warming or global cooling.
But the “cure” will remain the same: Raise taxes on any and all productive enterprise.
The “cure” is Donald Trump !!
Interesting to me that this Cooling correlates almost exactly with the Tidal Global Temperature Theory of Keeling!!
Im sorry to say it folks, but you will just have to wait and see. And no, we’re not there yet!
[Sigh] Doomed again. I knew it.
According to my observations of current solar cycle. I want make prediction that cycle 24 will end in March 2017, so will have duration only 8 years. From March will begin prolonged solar minimum
@lsvalgaard
Leif, I follow your argument that the sun does not cause temperature change due to the lack of the solar cycle in the temperature record. On the other hand, there is no a lot of doubt that LIA was real and both Dalton and Maunder minimums where accompanied by lower temperatures. How can we combine those two in a reasonable scientific explanation?
The LIA lasted much longer than a few decades in 1650-1700 and the Dalton minimum was not particularly cold:
so it does not seem there is much to reconcile.
I would rather say lower temperatures caused by an incredible sequence of volcano eruptions starting around 1250 AD, and influencing ocean climate feedback for centuries, were accompanied by Dalton and Maunder minima:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Volcanoes may have some influence, but, as usual, it is not so clear how much.
lsvalgaard on August 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm
Mr Svalgaard / Leif, as you prefer, it is evident to me that your competence in this domain bypasses mine by far.
It was not my intention to put volcanoes on top of the LIA’s origin, but conversely to dispute Maunder’s and other sun minima to mainly be that origin as so often pretended.
What had impressed me in this paper by Miller & alii was their conscientious search for both
– a panoply of proxy traces, i.e. not only of volcano aerosols or tephra layers in ice cores, but also kill-dates, outlet glaciers, varves etc etc;
– ocean conditions able to sustain rather short-living effects of even huge volcanoes with VEI 6-7, over half a century or longer.
This is work completely differing from
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.abstract
for example.
The data is very clear to any one that is objective that when the sun is in a prolonged minimum state the global temperature trend overall without exception is down.
When one adds ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY to the mix the correlation is extremely strong.
The lack of understanding about the climate system is amazing.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
The data which supports 100% what I said in the above post.
While I am at it this period of time in the climate is by no way unique.
Again look at the data.
Your link states: “it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s”, so that is supposed to support 100% what you said.
We all look at some data. Especially at that data you show:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/gtemps.jpg
Please have a look at the “Little Ice Age” where lots and lots of volcanic eruptions are mentioned, with however the very most important missing, which occured in 1257:
– http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16742.abstract
Where is sun’s influence? What about carefully reading this paper?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
There is much evidence of a solar /volcanic connection, which is part of why I think solar activity influences the climate. If you read what I have been saying for years you would have known that.
NO it is showing what the projected temp would be due to AGW by year 2038.
I AGREE WITH THIS 100% FROM JAVIER.
Javier
August 10, 2016 at 4:14 am
Paleoclimatologists are totally convinced. They see the climate cycles, they see the solar cycles, and they match. Almost every paper I read on past climate events at a time of low solar variability shows the authors assuming a solar variability cause. This is all observation based, a huge amount of observations. We might not have a mechanism, but the evidence is there. For example:
From: Magny, M. (1993). Solar influences on Holocene climatic changes illustrated by correlations between past lake-level fluctuations and the atmospheric 14 C record. Quaternary research, 40(1), 1-9.
And it is like this paper after paper. Judging by the number I’ve read (over a hundred) there’s probably thousands of papers on paleoclimatology assuming solar variability is behind a great deal of centennial to millennial climate variability. The amount of evidence is mind boggling, and essentially points to an atmospheric effect.
exactly. we have no idea what causes gravity, yet we can predict its effects. it could well be that people are looking in the wrong place to determine the solar connection to climate.
the temperature of a boiling pot of water doesn’t depend on how high or low you turn the heat. what it depends upon is the air pressure. who would think that air pressure determines the temperature of a pot of boiling water?
must say
looks to me the lady did not really look at the known solar cycles as observed by those who discovered it
i.e.
Wolff 11 years
Hale and Hale-Nicholson 22-23 years
Gleissberg and Wolff Gleissberg 86-87 years
De Vries and De Vries -Suys 210 years
Is the paper or its abstract available for download somewhere?
Google helps! Even if it is sometimes boring to pass along so many irrelevant links…
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
david says
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2274495
henry says
mankind has developed and I think that the ‘ice age trap’
=increasing ice sheets encroaching toward civilization due to bad weather conditions deflecting more and more sunshine towards space..
can be avoided by sprinkling it with….
….carbon dust
like I always said
more carbon is good for you
The return of the ice sheets is still a long ways off in mankind’s future. The worst case scenario in the near term would be changes to fall and spring weather patterns from a multi decade long cooling trend, where crop plantings or harvests would become threatened.
I’ll take two back to back cool summers in the northern hemisphere caused by lack of seasonal weakening of the jet stream even if it does not fit global climate modeling and the limitations of solar physics at this point.
Please be more patient, only half a year to make it come true.I’m not a scientist, but I have a some background. Scientific authorities may have issue with such predictions , I open the window to make them free.
What evidence makes you think that the minimum will occur next year?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
R soutch has a constant rate of descent. R north for several months, it loses power, as if falling off a cliff
WUWT needs a predictions reference tab that is categorized by topic, source, etc. Part of the lure of wacky predictions is the lack of reputation cost from any outcomes. Compiling the predictions would help balance the scale some.
Javier says
Don’t forget that the fooling of oneself works both ways. You can fool yourself into believing that something that exists does not.
Henry says
now there is the shoe that fits exactly on Dr. No’s foot!!!
@Javier
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
From my own results [daily T data from 54 weather stations for the past 40 years] I have been able to figure out that the 86-87 years Gleissberg cycle is like a sine wave and there is ample evidence to suggest that the bending points [dead end stops] are related to the position of the planets.
The solar polar field strengths confirm my results, namely last dead end stop was in 2014 and the one before was in 1971. [43] = 2 Hale cycles = 1/2 Gleissberg.
The change of sign [from negative to positive] was in 1950 [1971-1950= 21= 1 Hale cycle = 1/4 Gleissberg]Interpolating the data further back on the sine wave brings the dead end stop before 1971 to 1927 -1928.
According to my three data sets [Max. & Means & Min.] global cooling already started in 1994-1995, this is when the change of sign occurred.
in my sample, it appears that the amount of [global] cooling is in the range of -0.2K since 2000 and I expect a further -0.2 or -0.3 to come before the next change of sign [ca. 2036]
My wife still laughs at me on hearing these figures…..as indeed the delta T in the different rooms of our house are much more than that…
I am sharing my knowledge where we are with Gleissberg in the hope that somebody here can tell me where we are with De Vries – Suys? seeing that both are mentioned in the report that quoted at the beginning of this comment.
Henry, the de Vries cycle is shown in my figure above:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2274209
Last low was about 1885. Next low expected for ~2110.
However the intensity of the de Vries cycle is linked to its modulation by the 2400 year cycle. Next lows in the de Vries cycle should not be very noticeable as the low in the 2400 year cycle was 600 years ago.
You can check the de Vries cycle in this figure. Close circles are strong instances of the de Vries cycle, and open circles are weak instances. You can check that the effect on solar activity of the de Vries cycle in the open circles is almost none.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Figure-6.png
I expect quite stable temperatures going forward. Perhaps a little warming or perhaps a little cooling, but not much change.
thx.
It looks to me then we are in the middle of De Vries, – a more or less neutral position – which explains my perfect or near perfect curves for the rate of change in T for the past 40 years, indicating that Gleissberg is the one to watch.
Observing the planets and the solar polar field strengths, we know for sure that the bending points on the GB sinewave were in 1971/2 and 2014/5 respectively.
this means that as far as SSN is concerned http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1971/to:2014/offset:10/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1971/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/trend
you can put a mirror in 2014 and see the future coming up in front of you
i.e. cycle 25 will be more or less equal in strength then cycle 23.
I hope you are right about no change in climate for the worse but somehow I doubt it. The so-called climate scientists are currently all fooling themselves with their models and fiddled records. Droughts are predicted by me for the great plains of America. Droughts were also prevalent in the same areas there in recorded history, that can only be explained by Gleissberg.
go south young man, go south!
Thanks Javier for this accurate info.
Bindidon August 13, 2016 at 1:09 pm
Thanks Javier for this accurate info.
Actually, it is not accurate. It is cyclomaniac extrapolation without any physical justification.
well, before we had your AGW mania, cycle mania was all there was…..
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/pdf/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
Exactly, Henry. You nailed the Gleissberg with that figure. A repetition with perhaps a little reduced cycles 30-32 due to de Vries would be the most conservative prediction.
We are in a long Roman type warm period. Temperatures could go down because we are warmer than we should for this time in Milankovith cycles, but not too quickly and not too much. Also increased CO2 is like an insurance against cooling. It may not stop it but it sure will reduce it.
Excellent info which shows the solar /climate tie in.
Javier we are in much agreement and the only difference being your prediction that this period of time in solar activity will not be that extreme. You may be correct but that aside you agree that if my low average solar criteria were to be met a duration of time that the climate would indeed respond.
Criteria
solar wind 350 km/sec or less
ap index 5 or less
euv light 100 units or less
cosmic ray counts in excess of 6500
solar irradiance off by .15% or more
solar flux sub 90
history likes to repeat itself in a circle ,why can’t anyone see
Do you think these upcoming sun spot solar min will lead to more wetter and snowy winters in Ca and in the west coast in general?
Long , long time ago brave people paid with blood for the truth. I have no idea, can I do that ?
for argument sake let us assume we have -0.5K of cooling ahead of us. it would make sense to me to think that the
T differential between the equator poles becomes larger and hence you get [somewhat] more rainfall at the lower latitudes and less at the higher latitudes. Some places on earth get warmer [more sunshine] and some get cooler.
This thinking corresponds with the flooding of the nile which has been very well recorded over the ages. In a period of cooling [such as now] we have higher flooding of the nile. In contrast, the higher latitudes will get dryer during a cooling period.
If you want to know where we stand with regard to sun, more or less, just count back 87 years, i.e. 2016 -87= 1929.
Time to get out of the markets. The dust bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst in history and I think we [the whole world] are now more reliant of the great plains of America for bread than ever before.
Go south, young man, go south….
As you are probably aware, the west coast has been in the midst of severe to extreme drought, especially Ca, for the past 5 winters in a row. Just curious, based on your knowledge of sun solar min(which has been associated with wetter/cooler conditions in the west), would this mean that Ca will likely to experience much more wetter conditions and more snowfall along with cooler conditions over the next 5-7 yrs extending over the next few decades? Hopefully, all of this spells good news. Please share your thoughts. Thank you.
@pavel
you mean sacrifices to the Gods for the drought to break?
the irony is that now that we know what is coming up ahead the so-called climate scientists are fiddling with their violin while Rome is burning –
interesting to note on that is that it was the Christians that were blamed for setting Rome alight…..
@kamau
I answered this question https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2276891
you would do well to check the weather in your area as it was 87 years ago until now, for example like I did here:
[in South Africa]
As you can see, in my area the weather works exactly like a pendulum clock. It is only the AGW proponents that deny that there is even a clock…..
I suspect it is because their jobs depend on it?
go south, young man, go south
due south is more rainy
there are two continents that profit from global cooling.
Breitbart did a story on this one. The underhanded, unprofessional, back stabbing tactics of the warmists is truly despicable.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/
Regardless of the merit of the claim that the Sun is a major driver of climate, the Zharkova et al. theory does not match observed solar activity, so on that ground alone, the press release would be misleading.
As most climate related press releases. It seems to be a tradition.
Javier says
?zoom=2
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2277255
henry says
actually, the linear approximation of SSN 1927-1971 and 1972-2014 is what wft allows you to do;
in actual fact the average SSN can be represented by a bi-nomial [ quadratic function] going up from 1927-1971 coming to the said dead end stop and going down 1971-2014 to said dead end stop.
You can also see the last half of the Gleissberg here:
better make a physical copy of this graph before Dr. No makes it disappear…I note it is not being updated.
I refer to it as the “scissors’
Observe that you can draw a binomial (hyperbole) top to bottom and a parabola from bottom to top from 1971-2014 representing the average solar polar field strengths; acknowledge the variation – but agree with me that it [the average] looks like a quadratic?
In both instances there are the bending points right in the middle
1950 and 1995
respectively.
This is where the sign changes from warming to cooling.
GB warming was from 1950-1995
GB cooling is from 1995-2036
My results show there is no AGW
CO2 just follows warming and cooling, it does not cause it.
It would be foolish to think that we can depend on it for more warming in a cooling period.
How do I know? I have carefully analysed all daily data of 54 weather stations balanced by latitude and 70/30 % @sea/inland.
data are from 1976-2015
Maxima are going down, I had a nat. log. function here with Rsquare= 0.993
Minima are going down, I have a quadratic here with Rsquare=1.0000
There simply is no room for any AGW….
The CO2 signature would be the spread between the Daytime High and the Nighttime Low narrowing. CO2 would slow the cooling at night by trapping outgoing IR. This would be best observed in the dry deserts, especially Antarctica which has no atmospheric CO2, and a black body temp close to 12µ or -80&Deg;C.
I hate not being given 5 minutes to edit these posts. The previous post should read 15µ or -80°C. Those are the areas CO2 absorbs, and its contribution to AGW.
Also the block quote was coded wrong so the other post should read.
Hello!!! We aren’t seeing the forest through the trees here. What is the AGW theory? Remember the basics and ask how this applies to atmospheric CO2? CO2 doesn’t trap incoming radiation. CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation. Record high ground daytime measurements demonstrates that more incoming radiation is reaching the earth. A hotter earth would be expected to result in a warmer atmosphere, but that has absolutely noting to do with atmospheric CO2. A constant TSI means little to the earth surface when there is a heavy cloud, soot or smoke layer. Just go outside on a very hot summer day and notice what happens when a cloud passes over or you walk under a tree. Unless less solar activity causes fewer clouds or other obsticals for radiation to reach the earth, it is almost a certainty that the earth will cool. The reason is very very very simple, CO2 only “traps” outgoing radiation. If you cool the earth, you simply have less energy to trap on the way out. Climate scientists seem to lack the understanding of this simple concept.
CO2 is life
says
CO2 is transparent to incoming radiation
Henry says
no it is not.
I am sure I explained this before?
The reason we can identify it on other planets is because of certain deflections in the Uv range?
Then there are deflections in the 1-2 um and 4-5 um range
remember earth emits in the 5-20um range and the sun emits 0-5 um
bring me the balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2?
there is no AGW
as I explained before
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-2277455
As far as the AGW Theory, CO2 is transparent to visible light. The absorption band relevant to AGW is 13 to 18µ peak of 15µ. There are other absorption bands in the Near IR of 2µ 2.4µ and 4.7µ. Earth emits IR with a peak of 10µ.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Ooops, my bad, I intended to say visible light. The intent was in reference to warming the earth. If CO2 isn’t transparent to a wavelength, then it won’t ever reach the earth in the first place. Once again, see the forest through the trees. CO2 contribution to the AGW is trapping IR between 13 and 18µ peak at 15µ. In the context of AGW, CO2 only traps outgoing radiation. Being opaque to incoming radiation is irreverent, other than its cooling effect on the earth surface. BTW, CO2 being opaque to those Near IR wavelengths would be expected to cool the earth, not warm it.
@all
look
what I am saying
there is some [bad] climate change coming up ahead due to natural reasons
whatever people tell you: it is not your fault
perhaps they want you to believe that for some reason it is your fault but it is not…
that is exactly why I started my own investigations….
God has set restrictions on how cold and how warm it can get
and that is the very reason why you are all being alive today/….
CO2 is life says
BTW, CO2 being opaque to those Near IR wavelengths would be expected to cool the earth, not warm it
henry says
that is not BTW
that is my point?
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
esp.
fig. 6 bottom
It appears some people – climate scientists too! – would rather see Zharkova’s paper disappear than discuss it. While there are things that can be criticized in the paper, trying to suppress it is not the way to go.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/ says in part:
It should not be suppressed because of the climate implications, but it must be debunked as it is deeply flawed and disagrees with solar observations. The debunking should have taken place already at the peer-review stage.
But that is the problem. Those that seek to suppress it have no clue on the science. And those that have the capacity to debunk it, are not in the pal review. Hence we see the ignorant trying to suppress it, and the knowledgeable debunking it AFTER publication.
And that is the problem with Climate science.
And this
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/
is in your mind a valuable source of information for the context of this thread?
Aha.
A paper should not be suppressed or opposed for ‘political’ reasons, but when your link says “solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends” it is wrong. There is no ‘close fit’, rather blatant disagreements with observations, and for THAT reason the paper should be rejected.
The fit between prolonged solar activity either active or inactive versus the global temperature record is very strong.
co2islife on August 14, 2016 at 9:03 am
I just had a look at your charts! Oh dear, dated 1959 resp. 1951 !
Are you really still alive, co2islife? It seems here to me that somebody is writing us from the grave…
To your information: there is a wonderful web site
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
which informs you about today’s knowledge concerning absorption / emission for various atmospheric gases. It is data originating from the HITRAN2012 database.
As an example: a comparison of H2O and CO2 in the range 13-18µ (that one you mentioned above):
1. H2O
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160814/4pxd6kb8.png
2. CO2
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160814/qfbqg45v.png
3. Of course: as you can imagine, neither O2 nor N2 have any line within this range.
Not sure what your point is. I’ve mentioned countless times that CO2 absorbs between 13µ and 18µ with a peak of 15µ. Use Spectral Calc to identify the black body temp of that range. It is -50°C and -110°C, peak of -80°C. Anyway, what is your point? The charts I referenced basically say the same thing as SpectralCalc.
No Sah they don’t: H2O looks in your charts as if it would have by far more absorbtion/emission lines than CO2. Here you see the difference.
BTW, using the Log Scale on the Y-Axis is a bit distorting don’t you think? Here is the real picture of H20 vs CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest2018674812.png
No Sah the log output is correct when you want to compare the stuff line by line.
“Unprecedented” snowfalls this year in the Venezuelan Andes reminded me of this paper from 2006, which found clear evidence from lake sediments of the effect on climate there of solar minima, AD 1250 to 1810:
Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/24/8937.full
https://iceagenow.info/venezuela-snow-ever-seen-national-park/
Also comes as refugees from socialism in Venezuela stream into Colombia in search of food.
Also, please note NOAA again manipulating data:
I see that Javier has cited this study among the others in which he constructed a graph showing the coincidence of solar activity with climatic observations.
For those interested in the detail of this paper, a pre-print is available here,,,
Principal component analysis of background and sunspot magnetic field
variations during solar cycles 21–23 (V. V. Zharkova, S J. Shepherd and S.I.Zharkov)
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/424/4/2943.full.pdf
Enjoy…
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-paper-finds-another-solar.html
AGW is a scam and has caused much harm to the science of climate by gearing the studies to co2 versus the climate rather then solar/geomagnetic effects which is what is behind the reasons why the climate changes.
These factors conspire in driving the terrestrial items that control the climate to move away and toward thresholds which in turn have various effects upon the climate when these terrestrial items are pushed to extremes.
Terrestrial items
Global cloud coverage
Global sea ice coverage
Global snow coverage
ENSO /Sea surface temperatures globally
Volcanic Activity
AO/AAO
I’ve made the comment that the CO2 signature would best be discovered over the poles because the lack of H20 would isolate its impact. Here is how Spectral Calc demonstrates that concept.
Tropical Atmosphere: Plenty of H20
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest72552371.png
Polar Winter: Very Little H20
http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/plots/guest914397185.png
It turns out that even with very little atmospheric H20, it still dwarfs the impact of CO2.
No Sah wrong approach.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160817/x8ako26l.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160817/7rqxbjh9.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160816/q3p237de.png
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160816/bcsk5u7g.png
H2O simply stops dwarfing above 10 km.
Thus above 10 km CO2 absorbs all you give it, and below 10 km it absorbs all what H2O doesn’t intercept. That’s a lot, see the Spectralcalc plot 50 cm above.
10 km, that’s exactly 15 °C Earth’s average surface temp – 10 * 6.5 °C / km = -50 °C i.e. about 13µ.
A. On the one hand: above 10 km, CO2 saves us off burning by evacuating all heat to space H2O isn’t able to.
B. On the other hand: below 10 km, CO2 emits in all directions all what H2O doesn’t intercept and warms there the atmosphere little bit by little bit, what leads to… more H2O raising into it.
Ant that is the problem I guess…
Bindidon says
Nope, right approach. We are worried about the area where surface temperatures are gathered, not 10km up.
Yep, but what thermometer is up 10 km? What glacier is up 10 km? What difference does warmer temperatures higher up mean to the surface temperatures? Nothing.
Wrong, wrong wrong, H2O absorbs across the IR spectrum, not at just 13 to 18µ Temperature falls in linear fashion up 10km and then “kink” to the tropopause, CO2 remains 400 ppm all the way up. The “kinked” portion is due to CO2, but it acts as a floor. Temperatures fall from 260°K to 220°K as H2O precipitates out of the air. Only once H2O is gone does the CO2 signature appear, and it allows another 10°K drop from 10 to 20 km up. Note the huge change in slope of the temperature when H2O is present, and then the small slope when just CO2 is involved. Once again, CO2 doesn’t contribute until H2O is gone, and when it does contribute, it is at the very very very cold end of the temperature range, consistent with the 13 to 18µ IR.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/plots/guest788223161.png
What you see is that the 13 to 18µ spike follows the air temperature. Never do you see the spike fall below the black body temperature for that altitude. What you are seeing is the signature that CO2 is present, not that it is causing any warming. CO2 traps IR with a temperature of -50 to -110°C. The CO2 spike never goes as low as 200°K.
Once again, look at the altitude and temperature graph, the CO2 spike never falls below the black body for that temperature. If the temperature is 220°K at a certain altitude, the CO2 spike will stop at 220°K. That isn’t warming, that is simply the IR signature for that temperature. Note how the H20 and CO2 slopes are tremendously different, and CO2 doesn’t even come into play until H20 is gone extrapolate out the CO2 slope and you get 220°K.
If the system worked like that you wouldn’t need CO2, H2O would simply feed upon itself, more H2O, more warmth, move H20, more warmth, CO2 isn’t needed. What you described is a run away, self feeding, self accelerating doomsday system that simply doesn’t exist. CO2 only absorbs a very very very small fraction of the IR spectrum relative to H20. H2O drops out at 10 km, and only then do you see the signature of CO2 acting as a floor. It prevents temperatures from falling below 220°K, which is consistent with its black body temperature for 13 thru 18µ
Note, over the tropics there is no “kinked” CO2 signature, so you can’t even find the CO2 signature, and temperatures fall all the way to 200°K. 200°K is exacatly what you would expect 13 to 18µ to be absorbing.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/plots/guest1744459138.png
BTW, look at the O3 concentration by altitude, part/most of that “kink” is due to growing O3 levels, so the CO2 signature is even weaker than it appears.
The increase in O3 above the tropics doesn’t start until 20 km up, expaining where there is no CO2 signature over the tropics. The more you look, the weaker the case for CO2 becomes.
Evidence of increased solar activity is seen throughout the solar system.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=28m29s
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/
https://iceagenow.info/video-headed-ice-age-scientist/
PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
Further she has a good chance of being correct.
As far as the climate of the earth this period of time is in no way unique.
The climate in the big picture is controlled by Milankovitch Cycles, Land Ocean arrangements, Solar Activity and the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the earth.
These factors then exert influences on the terrestrial items on the earth that determine the climate.
Terrestrial Items
Atmospheric Circulation
Sea Surface Temperatures
Global Cloud Coverage
Global Snow Coverage
Global Sea Ice Coverage
Enso
Volcanic Activity
All of this gives an x climate over x time. The historical climatic record supports this.
PROFESSOR ZHARKOVA has no agenda which makes what she says meaningful.
Further she has a good chance of being correct.
She was wrong about the past and therefore no good chance to be right about the future:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1512-05516-Zharkova-Fail-by-Usoskin.pdf
“We show that the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either.”
do you now then agree with me that cycle 25 will be more or less equal to cycle 23 and that cycle 26 will be more or less equal to cycle 22?
No, SC25 will be smaller than SC23, and SC26 cannot be predicted at this time.
let us explore this somewhat more
dr., you say
No, SC25 will be smaller than SC23, and SC26 cannot be predicted at this time
henry says
at least it seems you do agree with me that cycle 25 will be bigger than cycle 24…
technically speaking, following the Gleissberg cycle, we had the same double pole switch in 2014 which also occurred in 1927. That means cycle 25 will be more or less equal to cycle 17.
do you agree with me on that one?
No, of course not. The Sun doesn’t have detailed memory of past cycles. We can only reliably predict a cycle some eight years before its maximum, by observing the polar fields that have accumulated during the past cycle by almost random movement of magnetic flux from lower latitudes to the poles.
Right now, the polar fields have stabilized to the point where we can begin to predict the maximum of SC5 [some 8 years away] .
so, what you are saying is that where many scientists and many researches confirm the persistence of the 86-87 year Gleissberg cycle, you remain adamant that there is no natural process that dominates that cycle originating from the sun ?
you cannot even predict one cycle ahead of the next one, i.e cycle 26?
I am not even a dr. or prof. or whatever but now I think you are just dumb…
you must just use the tools that you created yourself….
so, what you are saying is that where many scientists and many researches confirm the persistence of the 86-87 year Gleissberg cycle, you remain adamant that there is no natural process that dominates that cycle originating from the sun ?
The Sun tells us that the last 400 years there has not been a 86-yr Gleissberg cycle, rather a 100-120 year ‘quasi-cycle’:
http://www.leif.org/research/OSF-GCR-GN.png
you cannot even predict one cycle ahead of the next one, i.e cycle 26?
Nobody can, or rather everybody can, but with no reasons to be right.
you cannot figure out for yourself how this [your own] graph goes further for the next 43 years?
Nobody, not even the Sun, can. If somebody claims he can, he is trying to fool you.
3000 years ago the Egyptians could figure it out, just by observing the flooding of the Nile. I have results from Alaska to NZ and everywhere I can find the GB pattern/footprint. Initially I thought from certain reports
e.g http://iie.fing.edu.uy/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
that the GB was 88 years,
instead of 86.5 years,
hence I was out by 1.5 years here, choosing the [future] turning point
{2016 instead of 2014}
[example of just one of my investigations concluded in 2013]
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
I just feel sorry for anyone here [like you] who apparently cannot work it out….
it shows me the current level of ‘climate science’ …..
clearly, there is no man made climate change,
the amount of “climate change” I measured is exactly equal to the GB cycle.
hence I was out by 1.5 years here, choosing the [future] turning point {2016 instead of 2014}
To show us how good you are, plot your curves on top of the sunspot record, e.g. the one I showed you [or you can download it yourself] and show us how well your 86.5-year wave matches the actual observations back to 1610.
nah, I am not going to do that
I don’t trust T going back further than 50 years for certain reasons and I don’t trust SSN going back further than 100 years for certain reasons.
I do trust the records of the Nile though and William Arnold reported in 1985:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
1990 was 1995 as established by myself
< the Nile water will now be rising again, increasing going to a maximum in 2040
Well, I’m going to do it for you. The sunspot record is good at least back to 1750, and that is all we need.
Here is the result:
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
Your curve is the red one.
As you can see, there is no relation with solar activity at the period 86.5 years.
like you say
NO relationship
I must say it is hard to be humble if you are perfect in every way…
but I was out by the 1.5 years
but that was not my fault.
like I said…
this proves that we {I} can explain all current climate change by the Gleissberg cycle
I must also say that I cannot reason out why you cannot figure out [estimate] the strengths of SC 25 and 26
I gather you are at least as clever as I am
like you say NO relationship
Good that you admit to have seen the light.
I must also say that I cannot reason out why you cannot figure out [estimate] the strengths of SC 25 and 26
Sounds like you admit failure in understanding reality. Nobody can estimate the strength of SC26 at this moment. For SC25 we are beginning to see the polar fields evolve to the point where an estimate can be given [slightly stronger than SC24].
I must say that I have some trouble trying to understand the reality that you seem to want to hide. Clearly we agree that SC 25 will be slightly stronger than SC 24 and, following the curves, SC 26 slightly stronger than SC 25, etc
and so life goes on
even beyond our lives
unless there is something that will cause an imbalance [of gravity] in our current solar system….
I must say that I have some trouble trying to understand the reality that you seem to want to hide. Clearly we agree that SC 25 will be slightly stronger than SC 24 and, following the curves, SC 26 slightly stronger than SC 25
The Sun does not know about your curves, and as I already showed your curve is not correlated with solar activity in the first place. Do I need to show it again?
you might be interested to hear my theory as to what causes the global cooling and global warming on earth
Actually, I’m not terribly interested as you seem to base it on a solar variation that did not happen as you describe it.
if you average cycle 18 and 19, my curve makes a perfect fit to yours and, like I said, I don’t trust your SSN before 1900
If you average cycle 18 and 19, my curve makes a perfect fit to yours and, like I said, I don’t trust your SSN before 1900
First: If pigs had wings, they could fly. I see no reason for ‘averaging’ when you can simply compare them as they are. Second: I carefully fitted your curve to the data, so no wonder it fits. Third: I trust the sunspot numbers as they are simply direct observations [with photographs since the 1860s]. So, you think people could not photograph correctly, or not count the spots on the photos. You have no basis for claiming that they couldn’t.
there is good reason [for me] to average the data for those two cycles as we had the double [solar] pole switch in 1971…
my data is good
it follows the solar activity
and I even know why….
your SSN data before 1900 is all suspect because we had different strengths of telescopes and the eyes looking….this is all recorded history, somebody even did try corrections in [1927? Wolff?]
I cannot help you further.
your SSN data before 1900 is all suspect because we had different strengths of telescopes and the eyes looking….this is all recorded history, somebody even did try corrections in [1927? Wolff?]
The telescopes of then still exists and are used to verify the SSNs. The eyes are what evolved hundreds of thousands years ago, and have not changed.
I cannot help you further
Obviously..
obviously you have perfect eyes….
when did people start wearing glasses to compensate for farsightedness and nearsightedness?
obviously you have perfect eyes….
The telescopes taking the photographs of the Sun had…
when did people start wearing glasses to compensate for farsightedness and nearsightedness?
Irrelevant, but for your information the year was 1286. Here is a painting from about 1430:
http://www.leif.org/research/Glasses-1430.png
we also know from the relevant data
that the double pole switch also occurred ca. 1927
\
that means we should also average that SC with the following SC and that gives me an absolute perfect fit for my curve
[which actually was on maxima in Alaska]
amazing, is it not?
thanks for doing that fit for me,
but nah,
I knew that before 1900 you cannot trust anything,
really.
If you don’t see that
we must agree to disagree
see you again at the next thread
– that would be interesting for me to read-
“we also know from the relevant data that the double pole switch also occurred ca. 1927
The polar field data only goes back to 1966, so we know nothing about 1927 from that data.
As said before the data will tell the story.
it will be the Sun’s story. Not your story or my story. So your statement is really not very useful on the level with: “I might win the lottery, time will tell”.
Funny, by that logic 100% of the IPCC Models would rule out CO2 as the cause. I love this selective application of standards. If having a bad model rules out being correct in the future, IPCC needs to go back to step 1.
lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 11:01 am
…She was wrong about the past and therefore no good chance to be right about the future:…
________________________________
It is a wonder that any of the gazillion graphs I’ve seen of late can match up historically at all with other historical graphs. Saw what you had going on upthread with Ulrich, dates are close but not exactly the same.
But .. that’s good for my pet theory, pet, pet..
The sun is a variable star, it lives in a variable background, variable background is in a variable galaxy all this influences the planets which all have their own variabilities.
Had to let my new job absorb and use all my brain time. We went live today and 20 new drivers rolled out for the new account. My day started out smooth and ended up choppy. Got a nice country route.
Gotta get my brain back into the hobby..
Variability Dr. S., our sun is variable. The most extreme cases of variability within the solar systems past are related to the most dense interstellar regions of the solar galactic journey. The background is not homogeneous thru out and we may just be learning now what the smaller scale changes in the nearby interstellar background are. Might be hard to find little interstellar cloudletts after Ol Sol traversed them, ya know?
Would be a hoot if some of those dense cloudletts (small interstellar clouds) had local historical periodicities that coincide with Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf etc.
Try this on for size:
Cloudlett 330 AU in size and it takes the sun 66 years to traverse. The mean free path of a thermal population of LIC atoms is 330 AU. Add the falling into and rising out of said dense cloudlett in solar cycles time and you get a rough 100 years.
You don’t even need precision for this kind of periodicity in solar variability, lol.
The sun is a variable star, it lives in a variable background, variable background is in a variable galaxy all this influences the planets which all have their own variabilities
As the solar wind is supersonic, the variable galactic background cannot affect solar activity, just as a supersonic jet flying away from a thundercloud cannot hear the thunderclaps.
lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 7:22 pm
…As the solar wind is supersonic, the variable galactic background cannot affect solar activity, just as a supersonic jet flying away from a thundercloud cannot hear the thunderclaps.
—————————————————-
Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere, through also the different charge exchange processes and corotating interaction regions (CIR’s). More Interstellar compression of the heliosphere brings about a quicker response time for propagating inward particles and dust.
I’ll see your supersonic solar wind and raise you more interstellar dust.
Good night
Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere
They are accelerated OUT of the heliosphere. Not into it.
I think the data thus far is indicating very weak solar activity going forward with the minimum for this cycle probably 2 to 3 years away.
We have a long quite solar period ahead. The question is how quiet Dalton like or more severe.
Since you don’t give any numbers for the cycles, your claim is too vague to evaluate. If we assume that the activity a century ago is indicative of what we might expect, the sun might be just as it was back then. Not terribly alarming.
I gave the solar parameters many times which I think are needed.
Since you don’t give for how long those numbers must prevail [5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 50 years, …] the numbers are void of meaning.
I said sufficient duration of time.
That is why I have said watch the data and see how it evolves.
That is a circular argument. It only gains credibility if you define ahead of time what ‘sufficient’ is.
Okay sufficient would be like the 2008-2010 period of time but longer in duration.
How much longer? [5 minutes, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months, 5 years, 50 years,…]?
The sun will lead the way . I suspect it is in the process of happening now.
No specifics,just wishful thinking and void speculation. But I would not expect any better and you do not disappoint in this regard.
I have had nothing but specifics with an x result from those specifics.
Time will tell.
Thanks to Leif Svalgaard for all his explanations and… his patient and comprehensive approach to communication. I’m afraid I would fail in that.
Wishful thinking Bindidon on your part .
If you spent time looking at the historical climatic record you would first realize this period of time in climatic history is not unique and secondly, that all prolonged solar minimums have been associated with cooling to one degree or another, third ,you would realize the trend in global temperatures since the Holocene Optimum has been down with spikes of warmth, fourth, if you apply Milankovitch Cycles and superimpose solar activity upon this and further refine by superimposing volcanic activity and ENSO upon this the correlation between global temperature change and these items will be very strong, fifth if you evaluate CO2 concentration changes versus the climate you will find first that CO2 follows the climate and secondly there is a zero correlation to CO2 concentration changes leading the climate.
That is the reality as shown by the data , if you have data to counter it post it.
Someone please help me understand this graphic. CO2 absorbs between 13 and 18µ. That is consistent with a black body of temperature -50 to -110°C, average of -80°C. In other words activate a CO2 molecule and the vibrations are picked up as IR at 15µ with a temp of 220°K. Here is a graph of the earth at 220°K, emitting at CO2’s peak of 15µ.You can see, CO2 doesn’t trap any heat, in fact its spike falls outside the black body. The CO2 band hugs the 220 black body, while all other wavelengths fall inside the black body. Clearly all CO2 is convert IR at 15µ into a thermal signature. It never falls below the 220°K black body. How is that trapping any heat? The temperature at that level isn’t 220°K, it is in fact cooler. CO2’s band makes it look like it is actually warmer than it is. In fact, it isn’t trapping heat, it makes it look like it is emitting more heat than is actually there, in other words, CO2 looks to be cooling the atmosphere when you get below 220°K. Please help me understand this paradox.
The CO2 is cooling the atmosphere, the 15 micron band includes emissions from stratospheric CO2 which is above 220K. The IR vibrations at 15 microns have nothing to do with a temperature of 220K, that wavelength is amply emitted by a BB at 300K, as shown in the graph above about 3X more than at 220K. You appear to misunderstand Wien’s Law.
lsvalgaard August 15, 2016 at 9:41 pm
Any time the background density increases, so does the density of re accelarated particles by the supersonic solar wind back into the heliosphere
They are accelerated OUT of the heliosphere. Not into it.
________________________________
Dr. S., with all due respect, through charge exchange and corotating interaction regions (CIRs) particles due get reaccelerated back in. Not everything goes out. Gravitational Focusing Cone.
This is a clear case of, INNEY vs OUTY!
And then there is this, something new and something old.
Physicists confirm possible discovery of fifth force of nature
August 15, 2016
…The UCI work demonstrates that instead of being a dark photon, the particle may be a “protophobic X boson.” While the normal electric force acts on electrons and protons, this newfound boson interacts only with electrons and neutrons – and at an extremely limited range. Analysis co-author Timothy Tait, professor of physics & astronomy, said, “There’s no other boson that we’ve observed that has this same characteristic. Sometimes we also just call it the ‘X boson,’ where ‘X’ means unknown.”
Feng noted that further experiments are crucial. “The particle is not very heavy, and laboratories have had the energies required to make it since the ’50s and ’60s,” he said. “But the reason it’s been hard to find is that its interactions are very feeble. That said, because the new particle is so light, there are many experimental groups working in small labs around the world that can follow up the initial claims, now that they know where to look.”
Like many scientific breakthroughs, this one opens entirely new fields of inquiry.
One direction that intrigues Feng is the possibility that this potential fifth force might be joined to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces as “manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force.”…
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-discovery-nature.html
Why do so many people think that our variable star should have precise cycles? Cyclomania?
Did I see you mention that the Northern Polar field is finally mounting in strength? Makes my pet theory (hobby) even more fun when the sun does this kinda stuff!
Dr. S., with all due respect, through charge exchange and corotating interaction regions (CIRs) particles due get reaccelerated back in. Not everything goes out. Gravitational Focusing Cone.
Once the atoms are ionized by charge exchange, they are immediately accelerated out by the solar wind. The Focusing Cone worsk for neutral particles, and the electric force is 10..000 [36 zeroes] stronger than the puny gravitational forces. Nothing ionized are moving inwards. I am tired of saying the same thing over and over.
Well that puny gravitational force, produces an upwind crescent at 1AU and a downwind focusing cone. I believe it was the STEREO spacecraft providing data for that. And others….
Don’t want to bum you out, glad your here at the WUWT site. We need more of your kind.
Hopefully I can spend some time with this (below)..my homework assignment for the past month. That new job thing, suppressing me.
Multitasking New Horizons observed solar wind changes on journey to Pluto
April 5, 2016
In addition to its history-making encounter with Pluto last July, the New Horizons spacecraft also recorded significant changes in how the solar wind behaves far from the Sun.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-multitasking-horizons-solar-journey-pluto.html#nRlv
NEW HORIZONS SOLAR WIND AROUND PLUTO (SWAP) OBSERVATIONS OF
THE SOLAR WIND FROM 11-33 AU
H. A. Elliott1, D. J. McComas1,2, P. Valek1,2, G. Nicolaou3, S. Weidner1, and G.Livadiotis1
Abstract
The Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) instrument on NASA’s New Horizon Pluto
mission has collected solar wind observations en route from Earth to Pluto, and these
observations continue beyond Pluto. Few missions have explored the solar wind in the outer
heliosphere making this dataset a critical addition to the field. We created a forward model of
SWAP count rates, which includes a comprehensive instrument response function based on
laboratory and flight calibrations. By fitting the count rates with this model, the proton density
(n), speed (V), and temperature (T) parameters are determined. Comparisons between SWAP
parameters and both propagated 1 AU observations and prior Voyager 2 observations indicate
consistency in both the range and mean wind values. These comparisons as well as our additional
findings confirm that small and midsized solar wind structures are worn down with increasing
distance due to dynamic interaction of parcels of wind with different speed. For instance, the TV
relationship steepens, as the range in V is limited more than the range in T with distance. At
times the T-V correlation clearly breaks down beyond 20 AU, which may indicate wind
currently expanding and cooling may have an elevated T reflecting prior heating and
compression in the inner heliosphere. The power of wind parameters at shorter periodicities
decreases with distance as the longer periodicities strengthen. The solar rotation periodicity is
present in temperature beyond 20 AU indicating the observed parcel temperature may reflect not
only current heating or cooling, but also heating occurring closer to the Sun
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.07156.pdf
Long May You Run, Dr. S.
Well that puny gravitational force, produces an upwind crescent at 1AU and a downwind focusing cone
The upwind crescent is formed by solar wind acting on the ions, not by the gravitational influence. The focusing cone is formed by neutral atoms and will as they come closer to the sun be ionized and then immediately swept out of the solar system. Nothing reaches the sun that can influence solar activity. You are flinging about words and concepts you do not understand. nor using correctly.
Now, a century ago there where some people believing that matter falling into the sun was responsible for solar activity [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf ]. Today we [with the exception of you ] know better.
Clears throat, ehhhh ehhhh errrr.
I do recommend that that you read the above article Dr. S.
Good night.
Of course the solar wind undergoes heating, compression and lots of dynamic effects in the inner heliosphere. All of those are well-known and are not in any way caused by what happens in the outer heliosphere. The observations at Pluto simply show that our understanding of the supersonic wind is good enough to give us a good picture of what to observe at Pluto.
For example: “These comparisons as well as our additional findings confirm that small and midsized solar wind structures are worn down with increasing distance due to dynamic interaction of parcels of wind with different speed” just as theory and past observations have shown.
.
Here you can see how the Focusing Cone works:
http://www.leif.org/research/He-Focusing-Cone.png
Neutral Helium atoms are bend by solar gravity into orbits [black dashed lines] that brings them closer to the Sun’s equator where the solar wind is denser and the corotating interaction regions are more prevalent. On their way the He atoms are ionized and then immediately grabbed by the expanding solar wind and swept out of the solar system. The Cone is not stuff coming in, but stuff going out.
I hope you can understand [and accept] the process.
lsvalgaard August 17, 2016 at 9:13 pm
Here you can see how the Focusing Cone works:
_______________________________
Thanks Dr. S., good to see you are on this.
The Focusing Cone is on the ‘downwind’ side of the sun.
The ‘upwind’ Crescent is well on the UPWIND side of the sun. Also, having increased enhancements that Earth orbits in. Downwind cone in December. Upwind crescent varies of the summer months. As do the streams themselves, vary.
Tired, good night.
The upwind crescent [just as the Focusing Cone] is also swept out of the solar system. Nothing reaches the Sun. The upwind crescent consists of Pick-Up Ions [PUIs] and are thus charged and hence grabbed forcefully by the outward flowing solar wind and strongly swept out of the solar system. The process is exactly the same as for the Cone, except that the neutral atoms are headed straight for the Sun and don’t get deflected to get to the ‘backside’ [the downwind side]. Two maxima in the time series of the PUI count rate are expected during the year: one upwind (crescent), and the other one downwind (cone). The longitudes of the cone and crescent peaks are indicators of the direction of the interstellar gas flow in front of the heliosphere. The physics is the same: incoming stuff is ionized by the solar emissions and then immediately swept right back out of the heliosphere, thus not influencing solar activity. It as actually the other way around: solar activity changes the solar wind, so changes the PUI counts. It is amazing that you will not see this. It shows how strong self-imposed bias in favor of a given view [wrong in this case] can be.
Why is the solar corona (atmosphere) hotter, hotter, than the solar surface?
A form of accretion, that reaches the outer atmosphere perhaps, Dr. S. ?
Magnetic reconnection takes on many different forms. As I know, you know.
Images/models on page 2 look just like our suns focusing cone.
MRI-driven Accretion onto Magnetized stars: Axisymmetric
MHD Simulations
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1089v1.pdf
M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova,2y, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1;3
Comet Lovejoy revisisted for this occasion. Just to remind YOU that gets in and stuff gets out.
INNIE vs OUTIE
https://youtu.be/X2Yqp-veSpI?t=1m24s
Why is the solar corona (atmosphere) hotter, hotter, than the solar surface?
A form of accretion, that reaches the outer atmosphere perhaps, Dr. S. ?
No, because of upwards traveling waves that break in the ever thinner corona, just like a bullwhip cracks at the tip by waves traveling out from the hand holding the thick part.
Nothing coming in has any measurable effect on the Sun.
May I also remind you that the solar tail is offset by the Interstellar Magnetic Field pressures.
Again, nothing that happens way out there has any influence on solar activity because of the supersonic outward expanding solar wind.
You simply cannot let your illusions go, it seems.
May I also remind you that the solar tail is offset by the Interstellar Magnetic Field pressures. Means Ol Sol’s magnetic field on the downwind tail side is also offset. Off set off set.
Illusions..that are being fed and fueled by articles such as the one below.
MRI-driven Accretion onto Magnetized stars: Axisymmetric
MHD Simulations
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1089v1.pdf
M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova,2y, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1;3
You should be happy, that I don’t think that the solar cycle has anything to do with the alignment of Neptune and Uranus?
Which describes a protostar in the process of forming. Not at all similar to the solar situation.
And as the paper concludes “We find that a rotating, magnetically-dominated corona forms above and below the disk, and that it slowly expands outward, driven by the magnetic force” and “Close to the star the disk is stopped by the magnetic pressure of the magnetosphere.
Thus the magnetism of the star makes sure that the corona is driven outwards. This is called a ‘stellar wind’.
You should really try to understand the paper you dredge up, and not just automatically see a few words here and there seemingly feeding your illusion.
lsvalgaard August 18, 2016 at 8:07 pm
Which describes a protostar in the process of forming. Not at all similar to the solar situation.
_____________________________
Yes, I am guilty of skimming the article. But…so were you…
…However, there
are many stars which have dynamically important magnetic
fields. These include young, Classical T Tauri stars (hereafter
CTTSs; e.g., Bouvier et al. 2005), some types of white dwarfs,
and neutron stars in binary systems (e.g., Warner 2004; Van
der Klis 2000). In these stars, the magnetic field is strong
enough to stop the disk at radii larger than the radius of
the star. Many observational properties are determined by the
processes at the disk-magnetosphere boundary….
Got to get re organized here .. domestically.
You have a new article posted at your research site again, Dr. S. Hope I can get to it, before the weekend is gone.
But…so were you…
Not at all. This is my field. I’m very much aware of stellar magnetism.
there are many stars which have dynamically important magnetic fields. These include young, Classical T Tauri stars, some types of white dwarfs, and neutron stars in binary systems
None of these are sun-like and cannot be compared with the situation in the solar system. One more time:
Nothing that happens in the heliosphere can influence solar activity. The supersonic solar wind sweeps everything magnetic or charged out of the system.
Just seen in the science subset of a french newspaper:
http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/hiatt/Images/Sun_activity_correlation.gif
Exactly.
That result makes sense to you?
Absolutely. It shows [as is otherwise also evident] that solar activity is not the cause of recent warming.
Yes Henry it makes sense, and not only to me. What certainly makes less sense is to build a “theory” on the observation of a few weather stations.
54 stations = a few?
Yes Henry. For many people, even 7,280 GHCN stations are “a few”.
the problem with those data sets of 7200 + stations is that they are not properly balanced by lat. and long. and 70/30 @sea /inland
if you want to exclude longitude you must rather look at the rate of change in K/annum/annum
i.e. the acceleration / deceleration of warming
it shows a curve like that of a ball thrown by someone.
11 stations around you is already enough to tell you what is happening in your area
[no “warming” here]
You actually believe the temperature “data”?
no I don/t believe any of the official data sets
it is either faulty – due to the scorching sun –
or it has been fiddled with, to suit “the agenda’
Thanks. My question was for Bindi.
The science fictional series that he used is a blatant fraud.
Which data do you mean?
The utterly fictitious garbage upon which your graph is based.
No response needed to such garbage-like meaning.
I’ll never answer any of your ridiculous comments again.
If you actually have any real interest in what is garbage and what not, compare NCAR’s temperature series for before 1975, as published in 1977, with its coverage of the same interval now.
The “data” are nothing but man-made lies.
And compare post-1979 in satellite observations with the cooked books for “surface temperature” in GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT. Packs of lies.
And compare post-1979 in satellite observations with the cooked books for “surface temperature” in GISS, NOAA and HadCRUT. Packs of lies.
If you overlay the plot by the RSS satellite data [green], the match is reasonably good, so the ‘data’ is not so far off:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-vs-Solar-Activity.png
So, you might go sparingly on the vitriol…
You left off the other part of my statement, ie how the corrupt gatekeepers have cooked the pre-1977 books.
GASTA cooled dramatically from the 1940s to the 1970s, despite steadily increasing CO2. But the crooked, public trough-feeding bureaucrats at NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT every year flatten that deep dip. Same as their comrades in the BLS cook the economic data.
There is not vitriol enough in all of civilization to excoriate these criminals who have cost humanity millions of lives and trillions in treasure.
You left off the other part of my statement, ie how the corrupt gatekeepers have cooked the pre-1977 books.
You already knew [or claimed] that? Didn’t you?
Anyway, before 1977 the red and the blue curve are not too different, so you could still uphold the illusion that the temperature simply followed the energy we get from that big heat lamp in the sky. After 1977, they red and the blue curve do no longer track each other, so that comfortable explanation evidently has been contradicted by the data [satellite (green)].
It hasn’t been contradicted. Valid observations however show that the sun might not be the whole climatic story, just as the Carbonari have been forced increasingly to appeal the poorly understood “natural variability”.
The main point is that NASA, NOAA, the Met and HadCRU are not to be trusted. As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” And that goes double or triple for government experts, as opposed to those in industry.
Ike warned us:
https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhower%E2%80%99s-warnings-against-scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation
It hasn’t been contradicted
Of course it has:
1) the red and the green curves agree, hence if the satellite data are any good, so is the red curve.
2) Since the red and the blue curves agree pretty well before 1977, we can state that the Sun could be an important element for the climate [does not mean it is, the agreement could just be coincidence].
3) since the blue and the red [and green] curves disagree very much after 1977, we can state that the Sun apparently is not</b. an important driver [at least not for the time when we have satellite data].
4) all of this could just be random coincidences and we have no idea what is going on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2017/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2017/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1980
I am showing you the trend from 1980 where solar activity has peaked is going down and T is going up. Seems like +0.45 K i.e. 0.4/35 = 0.013K /annum
now my means results showed
0.013K/annum from 1980 [which is not a bad match?]
0.014 K/annum from 1990 [not so bad either]
-0.015K/annum from 2000 [ complete mismatch]
now if there were any man made global warming at all it show in my minima results, but it does not…..
there is no room for it my equation?
@Ulric
there is good to very good correlation between the positions of certain planets and
1) bending points on the GB sine wave
2) change of sign [from warming to cooling and vice versa]
3) my own data sets on Tmax, Tmin and Tmean
4) ozone concentration [Arosa, Suisse]
5) solar polar magnetic field strengths
6) the flooding of the Nile
7) Tmax. Alaska
I have myself puzzled on what the reason for this could be and I am thinking it must be to do with the mass of these planets and the speed by which they are moving which must give you a considerable centrifugal force that caused the 1927-1971-2014 double pole switches and pulls the electrical switch, to let the “heat go out on the other side” so to speak
the correlation is there,
like I said, at least 6 factors
but one could wonder if the relationship is causal, i.e.
do the positions of the planets have an influence on what happens on the sun or do they happen to be there exactly on those places because of what happens/happened on the sun?
speaking of puzzles…..
https://astronomynow.com/2016/08/08/kepler-finds-tabbys-star-is-mysteriously-dimming/