Guest essay by David Archibald
The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo. From that data set, this graph shows the heat loss since 2004 for the top 700 metres of the water column:
Figure 1: Monthly heat content anomaly in the uppermost 700 metres of the North Atlantic
As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity. That is shown in this graph:
Figure 2: Ap Index 1932 – 2016
We might not care too much about the animals that live in the North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe. So what has that been doing?
Figure 3: Time series depth-temperature diagram along 59 N across the North Atlantic Current from 30° W to 0°W.
As Figure 3 from Professor Humlum’s work shows, summer heating is penetrating to half the depth it used to 10 years ago and in winter earlier this year sub-8°C water was at the surface for the first time in more than ten years. That cooling trend is quantified in the following graph:
Figure 4: Average temperature along 59° N, 30°-0°W, 0-800m depth
This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend:
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016
Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:
“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The dive is just getting started. The fact that Brits have not recognized the risk is unfortunate. They have the most to lose here, especially with policy directed in the opposite direction. Getting a seasonal or shorter term prediction backwards is nothing compared to this.
Hi Dr. S.,
The illusion still growing. Take a look again at the focusing cone and read the text below.
Then we can get back to MRI magnetic rotational instabilities.
http://www.leif.org/research/He-Focusing-Cone.png
MAGNETIZED JETS DRIVEN BY THE SUN: THE STRUCTURE OF THE HELIOSPHERE REVISITED
M. Opher1,3, J. F. Drake2, B. Zieger3, and T. I. Gombosi4
Published 2015 February 19
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/800/2/L28/meta
….The overall two-lobe structure is consistent with the ENA images from IBEX that for the first time mapped the heliotail. Such images show two lobes (McComas et al. 2013) with an excess of low energy ENA (2 keV) around the solar equator. A view of the data from the MHD simulation (Figure 5) also reveals two lobes centered at high latitude (seen in the lower density and higher temperature of the heliosheath). It is possible that the denser ISM between the lobes at low latitude is responsible for the two lobes seen in maps of the low energy IBEX data (via a pick-up ion contribution in the ISM or a secondary ENA process)…
…The two-lobe structure of the heliosphere is similar to astrophysical jets in protostellar systems (Fendt & Zinnercker 1998; Gueth & Guilloteau 1999) and clusters of galaxies (Owen & Rudnick 1976; Douglas et al. 2011), which are collimated by the magnetic field and are often seen as bent as a result of interaction of the jets and their surrounding media….
MAGNETIZED JETS DRIVEN BY THE SUN
Yes, it is the Sun that control the jets, not the jets that control solar activity.
One more time: nothing [magnetic or electric] from the outside can travel upstream all the way to the Sun and influence solar activity.
David Archibald’s pronouncements certainly have a track record of being flawed, but who else is commenting on the sharp fall of North Atlantic OHC? Why?
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/the-north-atlantic-ground-zero-of-global-cooling/#comment-2282646
Yeah, but does the temp show this in the sea surface nighttime ships buckets or whatever karelization of temp method was used in 2015? Karl was handed the short straw because he was a year away from retirement and he’s now collecting his 75k a year forever.
Remember thousands of Argo buoys didn’t perform as expected so we’re abandoned in favour of NCAR/NOOAA/NASA few hundred ships in the night.
Gary, your “75k per year” indicates you do not understand senior Federal Government pension packages.
If the NA is cooling it hasn’t affected Norwegian grain production significantly yet.
https://www.ssb.no/en/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri/statistikker/korn/aar/2015-11-26#content
There’s a slight long term downward trend in grain production but that could be for reasons other than weather/climate.
I am intrigued by the comment from Salvatore above (Aug 21 , 2.12 pm ) that the UV component of the solar spectrum is weakening . Is there any confirmation of this from NASA or academic research?
My interest is due to my observing the apparent inability of my tomatoes(here in Cheshire, UK ) to ripen despite being plump, green and blight free for weeks now. By now I should have enough red tomatoes to launch my own Spanish Festival but they are not responding to the daylight despite day and night temperatures being normal or slightly above normal for the past month .
Effectively my tomatoes are chemical dosimeters, like the Fricke and ceric sulphate dosimeters used by radiation chemists for years before solid state sensors , so something is different this year.
I have been doing what the distinguished Prof Mann advised us to do : observe climate change by looking out of the window – in my case at my frustratingly green tomatoes .
I am intrigued by the comment from Salvatore above (Aug 21 , 2.12 pm ) that the UV component of the solar spectrum is weakening . Is there any confirmation of this from NASA or academic research?
The UV follows the sunspot number, so as we move towards the coming solar cycle minimum [in about 3-4 years], the UV will decrease, but it does that during every solar cycle so there is nothing special about the current one.
Western Mojave Desert, CA. Palmdale and Lancaster and Mojave. Year is 2002. Weeks at a time in summer the max is 110-115 F. Forward to this year. Not one day over 105 F. Highs now in August around 95 F. That is 20 F cooler than normal. Very few days around 105 F last year. Things are dramatically cooling here as well. Noticed this for the past 3 years.
There has also frosts in Europe in August.
The coldest August night on record for the Netherlands.
3 feet of snow in New Zealand, normally just a dusting.
Snow on 6 of the seven Continents.
But in the world of Adjusted Temperatures it is the hottest month/year ever, just not in the real world.
Just like the current Historic Temperature record does not match the actual real world experiences of our ancestors.
I met a blueberry farmer from Idaho a couple of years ago who said the same thing – it was getting colder and that was affecting his crop.
The vineyards planted in OR and WA in the past three decades are in danger of winter kill in coming years. A friend of mine, who made a fortune in potato chips, lost most of his excellent vineyard to a single digit F temperature November cold snap in the Walla Walla Valley in 2014. He’s selling out.
The author of this article, David Archibald, appears to be the same individual who predicted in in 2009 that temperatures across mid-latitude regions, specifically New Hampshire in the US, would decline by -2.2 C over the course of the current solar cycle, No. 24: http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
Solar cycle 24 started in 2008 and appears to have already peaked. It is currently in decline: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
During the course of SC24 to date, temperatures across New Hampshire have *warmed* slightly (+0.5 F/dec), not cooled at all: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/27/0/tavg/12/7/2008-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2008&lasttrendyear=2016
Five new state-wide monthly warmest records have been set in New Hampshire since 2008, including most recently December 2015, which beat the previous warmest December by 3.6 F. This during a period when David was predicting record fast cooling.
Caution is required when assessing the value of David’s solar-based temperature forecasts.
Archibald has made a prediction. We shall see if he is right in the next 6-10 years. This is how science should work. That being said, I wonder if more time should be spent studying events like the Younger Dryas (and other Heinrich events) cooling. Whether caused by the slowing of the AMOC, a surge of glacial meltwater, a comet or meteorite, or any other theory, the question is why did it NOT lead to an Ice Age.
Chuck L
“Archibald has made a prediction. We shall see if he is right in the next 6-10 years.”
____________
David A is a prolific maker of solar-based temperature predictions (see the ‘mid-latitude cooling of -2.2 C during solar cycle 24’ episode detailed above, for example). He appears to be less prolific in acknowledging the failure of his predictions when they turn out to be wrong.
As far as I can see, where sufficient time to judge their outcome has elapsed, all David A’s solar-based temperature predictions to date have failed.
True, but at least he puts the predictions out there so others can judge.
If one is a skeptic, one wrong prediction is sufficient to destroy your reputation forever.
However for alarmists, no amount of bad predictions will ever harm your reputation with the true believers.
If one is a skeptic, one wrong prediction is sufficient to destroy your reputation forever.
If all of your many predictions are wrong, your reputation takes a really big hit.
That has not proven true for those who back the CAGW line.
People maybe mocking it’s only the North Atlantic Ocean, but this region has been shown in numerous papers to be a key cog in Northern hemisphere temperatures and global temperatures. Understanding how this region influences global temperatures is key to understanding future climate. Please don’t remain ignorant like the alarmists have for many years.
ALBEDO IS THE GAME AS OPPOSED TO CO2 TRAPPING LONG WAVE HEAT RADIATION.
This is what is going to determine the future course of the climate.
The most important factors determining albedo are clouds, snow coverage, and sea ice coverage.
If these factors change albedo will change and hence the climate.
Great post. It’s spot on, if a bit early. Someone has to be early though. The critique is rather off base using global temps and century long averages of solar output. The point is ocean cycles, not averages and most likely regional changes ahead of global measures.
Say look at the AMO in the Gleissberg solar minimum in the late 1880’s. A warm AMO, moving generally anti-phase to sunspot cycles, it’s warm because negative North Atlantic Oscillation increases through solar minima. That’s why there was a brief AMO/Arctic cooling around this last sunspot maximum. The AMO is cooking now, and should do a strong warm phase though to the next sunspot maximum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
Don’t underestimate the rate of AMO pull back, somewhat like the El Nino collapse on a shorter time scale.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Given that the solar cycle to AMO phase reversal would have to be solar in origin, it demands a solar metric that is weaker around sunspot maximum but generally stronger through the rest of the cycle when the AMO is cold, and the full reverse of that when the AMO is warm.
http://snag.gy/PrMAr.jpg
Given that the solar cycle to AMO phase reversal would have to be solar in origin
That is not a given.
It most certainly is. There could be no ‘internal’ reason for such behaviour.
That you don’t know of or can think of one, does not mean there is none.
If you make a claim, you must show by analysis that the claim is justified.
Otherwise it is just plain argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You claimed “That is not a given”, yet you showed no justification for it.
The old Latin saying Onus probandi addresses that problem:
“onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim).
How could such a relationship with solar activity not be connected to it?
UV is the one to look at
it is the main one that feeds the oceans with energy
“UV is the one to look at”
That cannot explain the phase change.
For me, this is the most remarkable chart I have seen. It not only show a strong link between solar and the AMO, but also predicts a reduced solar wind strength around the sunspot maxima during a cold AMO, like around 1969 and 1980.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise
ulrich, the AMO is well documented in paleo-studies since at least 500 years: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241061486_A_Tree-Ring_Based_Reconstruction_of_the_Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation_Since_1567_AD
The periode is 60…100 years and it seems to me not very likely that in every reversal the sun was the main driver.
ulrich: “There could be no ‘internal’ reason for such behaviour.” How do you know it? This paper says: “Solar forcing is therefore not likely to be responsible for the dominant 55- to 70-year Holocene AMO pattern, ..” http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n2/full/ncomms1186.html . Much more likely is a ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere mechanism.
best
Frank
How could such a relationship with solar activity not be connected to it?
It is an interesting article and set of arguments as always.
1. Saying that the AMO cooling is linked to “persistent” Norway wheat failures is a very, very strong line to draw. I am sure there is not a single factor that would cause a direct correlation between it and the failures. Perhaps a better conclusion is that the AMO cold could increase the rate of failures. I am sure that the AMO is a significant influence in Europe, just like The Blob in the eastern Pacific is on the US. But not the ONLY influence.
2. I hate “may” and “if” on the other side of the argument just as much as I hate it on the AGW side. If temperatures continue to warm at the rate they did from January through July this year, in 2100 we will all melt like they did in Indiana Jones when they opened the Ark. The “ifs” and “buts” will drive you nuts.
3. I think the AMO is much less understood than El Nino/La Nina, and we don’t have a great understanding of those either. For instance, forecasts/outlooks widely held a crash to a deep La Nina after such a steep climb in El Nino, when in fact it could be just borderline Nina/neutral or weak Nina. If those fundamental errors can be made with ENSO, how little do the experts know about AMO?
4. We all know that “adjusted” and “corrected” temperature data is flawed. It completely muddies the waters for any analysis from it. In actuality, satellite data for maybe 35+ years (1979?) is the only accurate surface temperature record we can rely on. Not NOAA, which has managed to shave almost 2F off Jan 1977’s already record cold in the eastern US in how they calculate “30 year normal”. Anybody with a calculator or Excel can use NWS station data to disprove “30 year normal” via simple arithmetic.
5. I would think that one or two solar cycles worth of data is too little to draw a conclusion with it and the AMO. It certainly LOOKS like it follows the trend, but any reasonable scientist would want to see several more cycles and some variations in cycles to see if the AMO follows.
6. The article does touch upon solar influence which I regard as the most important factor into global climate. What would the surface temperature be if there was no sun? If the sun was a red giant? Therefore it stands to reason that fluctuations in the heat radiating from the sun would cause fluctuations on the earth. I defer to lsvaalgard for all things solar, but I think that the solar influence is incredibly underestimated as a climate influence. Unfortunately it will be another 20 or 30 years before we can bear that out, given what looks like 2 or 3 weak cycles in a row.
Just my 2 cents…
Exactly Kevin.
Kevin: “What would the surface temperature be if there was no sun? If the sun was a red giant?” response: This blog woudn’t exist because nobody could ask this question. Anyway: For our earth it’s not the question that matters. A question of great interest would be: What impacts do we see when the output of the sun oscillates as ist does? Too less!
JoNova August 21, 2016 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for your comments, Joanne. First, the graph was put up on David Evans site. It was described there as follows:
Now, David said nothing about the graph being his and not yours. At that time there was a whole host of back and forth discussion about the graph, which was well known to you. I note that NEITHER YOU NOR DAVID EVANS SAID ONE WORD IN DISAVOWAL OF WHAT YOU NOW SAY IS DAVID ARCHIBALD’S WORK ALONE. Not one word. In particular, you and David Evans did NOT say that his predictions were in any way incorrect or unrepresentative of your model.
But now that your forecast has proven to be garbage, now that your prediction is shown to be junk, NOW suddenly it is only David’s child and you had nothing to do with it? … boy, I gotta add that whoever said “Success has many mothers but failure is an orphan” was a better forecaster than you, because they sure saw you coming …
Hey, Archibald, are you just going to stand there and let her kick what is now revealed as your graph alone to the curb? Did you just make the graph up out of the whole cloth as JoNova implies? Do you agree that your graph is an incorrect representation of David Evans’ theory as Joanne now claims, and that the forecasts shown there are wrong, wrong, wrong as she implies?
The world wonders …
But heck, Jo, since it appears you are suddenly allergic to David’s graph which caused no reaction in the past, how about we use this one instead? Because this one is assuredly yours, but just like David’s graph, IT ALSO PREDICTS THE SAME 0.6°C COOLING by the year 2017.
Since your graph gives the same improbable forecast as David Archibald’s, 0.6°C cooling, a century’s worth of cooling over a mere three years, why your sudden Pilate-like denial of David’s graph that didn’t bother you one bit in the past?
And do you still think that we’ll see 0.6°C cooling by 2017?
…
In fact, Joanne, I have NEVER felt “welcome” at your site. Every time I’ve said something supportive it’s been fine … but whenever I asked hard questions I got nothing but bafflegab and delay from you and David and ugly personal attacks from the peanut gallery, so I gave it up.
So although I posted there for a while at the start of the series, I got tired of waiting for David to reveal things. Far too often his answer to a question was I’m not going to tell you now, you’ll have to wait, it will all be revealed at some future date.
Now, if you want to unroll your ideas one teasing drop at a time like it was a Dickens serial magazine story in 1870 instead of waiting until the story is complete and publishing it all at once, that’s your privilege … but don’t expect the rest of the world to sit at your feet and wait patiently for the drops of wisdom to fall. I got bored with y’all saying “Just wait and it will all be revealed”, and I left … so sue me.
You don’t have time to NOT correct the misinformation in comments here, because if you can’t sell your theory here, you can’t sell it anywhere but your own site and maybe Tallbloke’s shop. As someone commented at your own site, “… after years of reading skeptic blogs, it’ll be hard for me to believe this until Steve McIntyre approves the math and Willis Eschenbach likes the model.”
Yeah, I know you’d like me to “say nothing” … not gonna happen, neither for me nor for lots of other wise people. Me, if I see someone driving a bus over a cliff, my first statement is not “Is this bus part of an extensive research project that has been going on for more than two years, because if so I shouldn’t comment on the imminent crash”.
Instead, my first statement is “You’re driving the bus over the cliff”. We can discuss if I’m right or not, but I will speak up then. On your site the readers don’t ask the hard questions and point out the ugly imminent crashes, it’s all softball, plus of course you have your coterie of “wise” people who simply shut up.
If you would actually like to get solid critical review of your work, I’d suggest you post it up here, and that you stick around to field the difficult inquiries …
Best regards,
w.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Mr. Archibald’s work has been little changed in its overarching themes since I discovered them in 2007.
Willis, I’m a new recruit over at that so called ‘peanut gallery’ and haven’t had the pleasure of your company, and wonder if you could give me a critique of this graph?
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwave.png
Thanks for the invite, ironicman.
What to say about the graph? Well … to start with, it has the problem that always happen with the work of He-who-must-not-be-named-at-WUWT, which is that Ted (and now his followers) choose various points on some curve and give them names like “Medium” and “Strong” and “Weak” … what do they refer to and how were they chosen?
Then there are supposed to be “reversals”. I always found this to be special pleading invoked to explain away the times when things are going opposite to how the whizbang theory says they should go. I wrote to Ted to find out how he determined the “reversals”, but I fear that all I got back was bafflegab about “big hand formations” and the like.
Next, anything that comes from Nicola Scafetta has an approximately 99.956% chance of being nonsense. Scafetta routinely refuses to reveal his methods and math, which alone is enough to totally discredit his work.
Finally, there is a huge problem with Ted’s work. Yes, there are variations in angular momentum of the sun around the barycenter, but physics says that the only effect that will be felt is tidal. Other than that, planets in orbit around a sun are IDENTICAL to planets in free-fall. And that leads to the real problem. Ted thought that the gravitational forces of e.g. Jupiter or Saturn were the cause of sensible disturbances to the sun, and thence to the planets. But in fact, only the tides are sensed on the planet or the sun.
So … care to guess how high a tide Jupiter can raise on the sun?
One stinkin’ millimetre … and if you think that is enough to affect the climate on earth, well, then there is no scientific hope for you.
TL;DR version? It’s just like the rest of Ted’s stuff, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Look, if the theory worked, they wouldn’t have to dick around with unverifiable guesses about what will happen between now and 2100. If it worked, they would hone the theory on half the data and using that, be able to hindcast the evolution of the sun since 1850 or so … but they can’t do that, so they bother us with predictions of the future.
All the best to you, keep asking questions,
w.
Willis always tortures the data to make it somehow validate the point or points he is trying to get across.
Which is the climate is very stable and yet the earth has alternated between glacial and non glacial conditions and even more telling very abrupt climatic changes sometimes in the course of decades.
That fact renders his thoughts on the terrestrial thermostatic climate regulators he subscribes to as being plain old wrong for if it were the case the climate would always remain in either a glacial or non glacial state once that mode in the climate were to be attained.
This in turn strengthens the case for climatic influences that go beyond the notion that random slight changes in terrestrial climatic items will maintain the climate in a steady state oblivious to extra terrestrial influences.
Yes, Salvatore, there are problems with Willis’s thermostat hypothesis in that it is incomplete for reasons I have given him several times and it ignores the effect of solar induced albedo changes via cloud quantity variations.
I’m perfectly content with Willis’s simple observation that convection at the equator ramps up at a specific temperature which I attribute to the weight of the atmosphere bearing down on the ocean surface at the equator. That weight determines the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation and so is critical to setting the amount of evaporation at a given level of solar input.
The thing is that albedo changes then affect that level of solar input on average globally so that one can have a rise in system temperature in conjunction with enhanced tropical convection whilst the temperatutre at which the enhancement occurs remains the same.
Willis doesn’t know as much as he thinks he does IMHO.
Stephen you are so correct , his thermostat hypothesis is plain old wrong and does not stand the test of time when viewed through the historical climatic record. I would take it even further and say the historical climatic record proves his thermostat hypothesis 100% wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete August 22, 2016 at 10:06 am
Since you have failed to quote or link to even one example in support of the ad hominem claim you are making, I will consider it just another example of Salvatore running off at the mouth … sadly typical. Salvatore, this is why I very rarely reply to you. You are full of accusations and devoid of science, seemingly content to throw mud at the walls and hope that it will stick.
Not interested … when a man starts throwing mud, it’s a sure sign he’s out of ammunition.
w.
Willis the historical climatic record disputes your thermostat hypothesis. It is that clear and simple.
I should say invalidates it.
Willis we disagree that is all it is. You think my solar theory is wrong and I think your thermostat hypothesis is wrong .
PROVE ME WRONG.
The climate in the big picture is controlled by Milankovitch Cycles, Land Ocean arrangements, with Solar Activity and the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the earth superimposed upon this.
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.
That is WHAT likely makes the climate change, NOT the scam they promote which is AGW.
The historical climatic record showing this period of time in the climate is in no way unique while changes in CO2 concentrations having no correlation in leading to resultant climate changes.
Now how the cooling evolves will have to be monitored. Of course going from an El Nino condition to an La Nina condition is going to cause an initial cooling.
For clues that if solar is involved the depth of the cooling will have to be monitored and if the cooling is accompanied by the terrestrial items I have mentioned above.
Each one of those terrestrial items having been shown to be linked to Milankovitch Cycles Land Ocean Arrangements in the big slow moving picture while solar and geo magnetic variability being factors that can change these terrestrial items on a much smaller time scale.
The solar parameters needed are
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP index 5 or lower
EUV LIGHT 100 units or less
COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 or greater
SOLAR IRRADIANCE – off by .15% or greater.
SOLAR FLUX SUB 90
All very attainable going forward and being compounded by a weakening geo magnetic which if attained with sufficient duration of time will translate into bringing the terrestrial items that control our climate to values which will cause the climate to cool gradually if not in a sharp drop off if certain thresholds should be meant.
What about YOU giving US an accurate scientific proof you are right instead?
I’m so sad of all these people pretending anything they never and never will be able to prove, and thus leaving the readers alone with a simple-minded “PROVE ME WRONG”.
In Jo’s link this is said:
If the temperature on Earth is entirely controlled by solar effects, the cooling will return us to the temperature levels of the 1950s or even the 1920s, undoing the last 50 or 100 years of global warming in just a few short years.
The temperature data from land thermometers from 1850 to 1978 may have exaggerated past temperature rises. The solar model here trained on that data so it may be too sensitive, in which case the imminent cooling will not be as large as shown in absolute terms.
At least a small portion of the recent global warming was due to rising carbon dioxide, so the fall will not be as large as shown in Figure 2.
and:
“So the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017.
The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024. Or it could occur as soon as 2014. An El Nino or La Nina could affect the timing too. At this stage, we don’t know. But by the end of 2018 seems fairly likely.”
which is quite different to David Archibald’s ‘prediction’ in that it is more cautious and still potentially reasonably accurate.
I’m somewhat disappointed by Willis’s attitude here.
My horrid thought is that the cycling in temperature faster than Milankovich cycles could very well be entirely due to the climate being a chaotic system, and I am bad enough in higher math to doubt I could understand any expositon on chaotic math. I am biased towards there being a discrete physical cause, but I recognize that is bias with no foundation.
I’m somewhat disappointed by Willis’s attitude here
Stephen his attitude will always be negative when climate theories go against his thermostat theory which the historical climatic record shows can not be correct.
So that is out ,plan and symbol while our thinking is in.
cor -simple
Stephen Wilde August 22, 2016 at 10:14 am
Take a look at the damn graph again, Stephen. Words can lie, people can lie, but David Evans made the graph and you can read it. It does NOT show “the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017” as your quote claims. It shows that by 2017 the global temperature will have dropped by as much as it did over the entire 20th century.
Who you gonna believe? Jo’s claim that the cooling won’t start until 2017, or your own lying eyes?
I’m somewhat disappointed by your attitude here.
w.
The words adequately qualify both the scale of change and the timing shown on the graph.
there is ample evidence showing that a change from warming to cooling started around 20 years ago.
I’m going to guess that in the very near future, some ‘scientific’ paper will be published–and splashed across world news–which ‘proves’ that anthropogenic CO2 causes a reduction in solar activity.
Surely until proven otherwise this data merely indicates a downturn in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation??
Perhaps others more expert than me would like to comment about that??
With 70% of our planet covered to an average depth of 12000 ft of water and two sources of heat, sun and geothermal, there in lies the answer as to what the thermostat for the earth is. The oceans collect and circulate and redistribute the heat in a manner which we do not yet understand. I would note, however, that the undersea geothermal sources, since out of sight, seem to be ignored in all of the grand schemes and theories and since we know little about the actual heat energy they input, could play a significant role. Just saying.
What ever the cause, Figure 3 got my attention.
There are may questions.
Is it a traverse that is different than most others?
Why does it stop at 800 dbar. (a dbar is approximately one meter). Argo’s report data to 2000 dbar.
Why the heck does it describe longitude as 330E to 360E instead of more traditional terms.
Nevertheless, I love the display of this ARGO data.