Solar cycle 24 has seen very low solar activity thus far, likely the lowest in 100 years.
Guest essay by David Archibald
Figure 1: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2017
The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.
Figure 2: F10.7 Flux of Solar Cycles 19 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
Solar Cycle 24 is sitting at the lower bound of activity for solar cycles back to 1964, the start of Solar Cycle 19. From here to minimum though, it looks like Solar Cycle 24 will have much lower volatility than the solar cycles that preceded it.
Figure 3: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
According to Svensmark’s theory, the neutron flux, with its effect on cloud cover and thus the Earth’s albedo, is one of the bigger climate drivers. For Solar Cycle 24, the neutron flux duly turned around and starting rising again in 2015, one year after solar maximum. It is a safe bet that the neutron flux is heading for a record high at solar minimum (+ one year) relative to the instrumental record.
Figure 4: Oulu Neutron Count aligned on month of solar minimum
The last weak solar cycle was Solar Cycle 20 which caused the 1970s Cooling Period. From the same stage in that cycle the neutron count flattened out to minimum. That could happen for Solar Cycle 24 but it is more likely to keep rising to minimum as 23 did and thus we can expect a count, at the end, of over 7,000.
Figure 5: F10.7 Flux and Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2017
If we conflate the F10.7 flux and the Oulu neutron count inverted, that shows they tracked each other closely up to 2004. Something changed in 2004 and since then the neutron count has been higher relative to its previously established correlation with the F10.7 flux.
Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2017
Figure 6 shows that what changed in 2004 was the magnetic output of the Sun, shown in this instance by the Ap Index. Prior to that, there seemed to be a floor of activity at solar minima, just as the floor of activity for the F10.7 flux is 64. Three years to minimum and the Sun is now back to that level.
Figure 7: Solar Polar Field Strength 1976 – 2017
The best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle is the strength of the solar polar magnetic fields at solar minimum. Figure 7, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory, shows that the solar polar magnetic fields at minimum have been weakening with each successive cycle.
Figure 8: Solar Polar Field Strength aligned on minimum strength at solar maximum
Solar Cycle 25 started from the blocks looking like it was going to be very weak and fulfill the prophecies of those predicting a Maunder-like experience for the 2020s. Then after a couple of years it caught up with Solar Cycle 24. Looking back over the previous three cycles, the solar polar field strength at this stage, three years before minimum, has been close to the value at minimum. On that assumption, Solar Cycle 25’s amplitude is likely to be two thirds of that of Solar Cycle 24, and thus 60. Further climatic cooling is therefore in store.
Figure 9: Sunspot Area 1985 – 2016
NASA has deigned to give us another nine months of sunspot area data by hemisphere, up to September 2016. The strong asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres continues. The fact that the hemispheric peaks of the last three cycles align indicate that there is a multi-decadal force operating in the vertical dimension. The chance that two sets of three points line up exactly by themselves is infinitesimal.
Figure 10: Hemispheric Sunspot Area and F10.7 Flux
As shown by Figure 10, total sunspot area tracks the F10.7 flux closely.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
UhOh, how in the world did Al Gore and Barack Obama, both masters of the universe, let this happen?
As Ricky Ricardo would say, They got some “splainin” to do.
i see everything but a plot of the
most important variable — total solar
irradiance. (and as steven mosher said,
it doesn’t matter much, about 0.1 C).
You don’t know how to properly calculate the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air is what is going on.
Furthermore – your claims about refractive insulation suspended into a bath, making it warmer, are the height of laugable physical error.
As I told you clearly
and you’ll never disprove because it’s how it is:
less CO2 in a volume of atmospheric air,
bring it’s temperature down. never up.
Anyone who says the opposite happened, and that adding C02 to atmospheric mix, made it’s temperature go up, is claiming something the law of physics written to establish this very thing, is written so there’s no confusion about. More Carbon Dioxide = if anything: less held energy.
But you’ve got another problem which brings your errors much more clearly into focus.
The entire claim of your church is that as more and more refractive insulation
is suspended in a bath between a fire, and rock warmed by it –
as less and less firelight reaches the rock to warm it –
more and more warming firelight comes back out.
That’s the height of physically ludicrous claims. It’s impossible for any insulation, anywhere, placed between a rock and fire, to cause the firelight warmed rock, to begin to show more firelight warming it.
================================
Seaice: June 7, 2017 at 9:17 ”I don’t know what you mean here.”
================================
Same thing goes for Javier and all the rest of these people claiming it’s possible to put lower energy containing insulation in a bath, that blocks light to a – light-warmed rock. Blocking the light warming an object with insulation – thus making less light strike that object – must result in cooling. Not maybe, not ‘could be’ – it must.
Which is why only those without any capabilities in atmospheric chemistry and mathematics wish to talk about your church of magical gases that make things warmer
that they make less warming light, even reach.
It won’t stand up to the most cursory of mathematical examinations as I’ve shown by the fact the very chart itself – showing you which gas volume had better hold more energy if you test – tells you so. If you have any volume of air and you add lower specific energy mix to it
it’s temperature had better go down or your experiment is erroneous. None of you are going to negotiate your way out of that.
PARTICULARLY in light of the fact your entire claim is made so you can ultimately claim, that
magical insulation
placed between a rock
and the firelight warming it
such that less warming firelight,
reaches it – makes more warming firelight
come out of the rock it makes less, ever even reach.
You’re not going to ever show a single other instance of THAT having taken place in real physics, either.
Gustaf
Gustaf. Can you explain to me where you think my following description is wrong?
Take your example – a rock heated by a fire.
This rock is in a vacuum. It can only gain or lose heat by radiation. There is no conduction or convection in a vacuum. There are no phase changes on the rock, so if we add energy to the rock it must get warmer.
Imagine the rock starts off at absolute zero, for arguments sake. (The starting point is immaterial – we can start from any other condition if you prefer.) The rock absorbs radiation from the fire. It gets warmer. OK so far? I don’t think there can be any objection so far.
Now, does the rock keep getting warmer and warmer forever? No, this would breach thermodynamic laws. What happens is that the rock absorbs radiation from the fire and *also* emits radiation because it is warm. At the start, the rock is still quite cold and emits less energy (as radiation) than it absorbs. We have more energy going in than going out so the rock must increase in temperature. As it gets hotter it emits more and more energy as radiation. At some point it will be emitting the same amount of energy as it absorbs, and it will then be at a steady state. OK so far?
This steady state is represented by the temperature the rock will reach. This is the temperature at which incoming and outgoing radiation carry the same amount of energy. Incoming photons do not “know about” outgoing ones and vice versa. The temperature remains the same because the energy is in balance.
Now imagine we could somehow allow all the incoming radiation through, but we could stop some of the outgoing radiation. We know that the reason the rock does not get hotter and hotter forever is because it is emitting the same amount of energy as it is absorbing. But now it is emitting less than it is absorbing, so it must get hotter.
All we need to make the rock hotter is to allow all the incoming radiation through, but prevent some of the outgoing radiation from leaving. Thermodynamics tells us that the rock must get hotter.
If you accept this (and I don’t really see how you cannot), then we can argue if such a thing (preventing radiation leaving, whilst allowing radiation to enter) is possible in practice.
The problem is not that simple. Oh, I’m not sure changing co2 would change the rock’s temp, but I don’t even care to argue that, say it does. Still doesn’t give a real world description, even ignoring “weather”. 24 hr varying period clear calm skies. across almost the entire planet surface temps cross 1 or 2 state changes for water, which has 4.21KJ/Kg to condense vs ~1KJ/Kg.K to change 1K. There are varying levels of water vapor for these conditions across the planet. It’s a 1 cycle per day heat pump, evaporates some water over land, but most just get blown in from the oceans to cool. Build a solar power steam pump on your rock where some of the daily sun get stored as water vapor, and returns to liquid at night.
Micro6500. My description is of a very simple model from which to start. Gustaf does not seem to accept that it is possible even in principle to make the rock by the fire warmer by blocking radiation.
Gustaf’s talk of heat capacities was misplaced, as you have said yourself this is partly because the energy stored as latent heat (of water vapor) is generally much greater than the energy stored as sensible heat (by the air being warm). Quick back of the envelope calculation – warming 1m3 of air (dry or moist) by 1C takes about 1 KJ. Increasing the moisture content from 1% to 2% takes about 20 KJ. This is because heat capacity is close to 1K J/Kg.k whereas enthalpy of vaporisation is 2,200kJ/Kg. Differences in heat capacity of moist and dry air, let alone air with 400ppm CO2, are swamped by the heat contained by the vapor as latent heat such that we can essentially ignore heat capacity differences due to composition.
However, ultimately it still comes down to an energy balance – radiation in vs radiation out, because that is the only way energy can be gained or lost (ignoring minor contributions from the hot center of the Earth). I accept that there is a lot of detail tied up in that “ultimately”, particularly if we are talking about one part of the system (say the atmosphere) rather than the system as a whole (the Earth).
Last I read LW out measurements are still +/- ~11W/m^2, the surface is asymmetrical pretty much in every dimension, how many decades have they been measuring surface emissions, because it changes continuously. Any snapshots, and extrapolations are likely flawed.
Now I really do believe they use “ice baths” to cure mental illness.
Lighten up folks. Got to medical school. Get a law degree (to figure out all those disclaimers on prescription drugs), Become a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist so you can become a counselor for all the folks suffering from Climate Change. Don’t become a pastor because big business with them is collecting enough funds to support the building fund. Of course, you can’t blame them because they normally do not charge for counseling. Probably worth as much as they charge…………….
William Sturm
It’s already published. You just had it published under your very nose, addressed to you. The law of physics which governs the temperature of atmospheric air and other gases, formally forbids the addition of CO2, to any atmospheric mix, making it’s temperature rise.
All the fraudulent papers on earth aren’t going to make that go away: which is why the people calling the fake thermodynamics always win, and the frauds slink away after trying to change the subject in as many different ways possible.
The chart of specific energies or specific heat of gases, formally forbids, any of your claim that it’s possible to add CO2 to an atmospheric air mix and have properly processed mathematics, yield an answer that – the temperature of the volume went up.
Further Javier your church has got much, much larger problems: the fact that – it’s a physical impossibility,
for insulation placed between a fire,
and rock warmed by the light of it,
so less firelight ever get into it,
making more leave it.
You can say that no matter what you’re shown about the fake claims, you’ll never admit the truth,
but all a person has to do to test your church’s ridiculous claim is create a test question based on your church’s religious teachings.
”If a thermal sensor is affixed to a light warmed rock,
and insulation is placed between the rock and the light
such that less light
reaches the rock,
as surface energy density reduces,
temperature goes: Up/Down.
In your church the answer is that ”as less light reaches the light warmed rock, it’s temperature goes up.”
And that obviously is against all laws of thermodynamics.
Gustaf
===================
“Javier June 7, 2017 at 6:55 am
As I said, If you or Allan have evidence that supports that CO2 cannot cause warming you should get it published so it is debated.”
===================
You keep talking about my church. I would like to know what church is that which enrolled me without my knowledge. You say you are a scientist, yet your poor observation capabilities and your tendency to jump to conclusions without supporting evidence suggest you must not be a very good one. I am a skeptic of the CO2 hypothesis that has published articles here at WUWT and at Judith Curry’s site, so you got that completely wrong. That doesn’t precisely build confidence. Your conjecture that CO2 cannot cause warming is unusual. You say you are a climatologist. Could you please point to your published science where you discuss your ideas?
There’s quite a few people in the blogosphere defending that CO2 cannot cause warming, but there is also people defending that the pyramids were built by extraterrestrials. If the idea has any merit and is held by some “climatologists” like you, it should have reached the peer reviewed scientific literature even if minority held. If not, well I am not expending a single second of my precious time on it.
Javier I put up a post regarding your crank claim about CO2 warming the atmosphere. The law of physics governing atmospheric temperature formally forbids CO2 warming the atmosphere. Not once, twice.
First, when the atmospheric mix with some CO2 in it is given a specific heat for your calculations. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and CO2 are all assigned identical energy.
That’s the first time the law of thermodynamics
governing atmospheric temperature
forbids additional CO2
warming a volume of atmospheric air.
The second time is when people in actually, violation of the Law,
calculate the energy of the CO2 separately as if the CO2 were pure,
assigning it that law-mandated specific heat.
In that case the law assigns the CO2 less energy than atmospheric mix.
A specific heat of about .8 that of standard atmospheric air is assigned the CO2, cooling the mix.
That’s all there is to it, nobody asked you, I told you.
That the law governing atmospheric temperature forbids your crank ”CO2 could warm the atmosphere” claim.
Not once, twice.
You obviously don’t know the law that governs atmospheric temp – or you’d have known about it forbidding CO2 warming the atmosphere.
How many times? Twice.
Like I said: no one’s asking you. You just got told.
One day you’re going to have to learn the name of the law of physics that governs the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s the Ideal Gas Law. And when you do learn it you’re going to have to learn what the factors, PV = nRT all stand for. Pressure, Volume, number of moles calculated for, Temperature and Specific Heat: R
And then you’re going to realize the law specifically forbids CO2 warming the atmosphere twice.
The first time, when it assigns CO2 identical energy with Oxygen,Nitrogen, Methane, Argon in calculating temp,
the second time if someone tries to get around the law and calculate the temperature of the CO2 as though it were stand-alone: the Law-assigned specific heat is about .8 that of standard
There are only two ways to calculate it, as part of the mix, or not – as a stand-alone fraction. Both of them forbid raising temperature of atmospheric mix because of addition of CO2.
You’re not gonna escape or negotiate a settlement either. your claim about CO2 possibly warming the atmosphere is in direct contradiction of thermodynamic law.
There is no such thing as magical insulation that makes more firelight leak out of a rock
it makes less firelight reach.
The entire thing is violation after violation of thermodynamic law.
Curious there are so many people in the world smarter and more knowledgeable than you and me and none of them noticed.
I just don’t believe a word that you say. I have asked for your publications on climatology and you have not provided. I have no reason to trust you and no reason to talk to you.
Gustaf: CO2’s warming is due to
radiative effects, not to classical thermodynamic
concepts (such as specific heat).
none of your considerations includes
radiative effects — that is, quantum effects.
but CO2’s warming is wholly rooted in its
quantum effects. sorry.
Gustaf,
“and Specific Heat: R”
R is the universal gas constant, 8.314 J/mol.K. I has the same units as molar heat capacity, but is not the molar heat capacity.
Your discussion of heat capacities is difficult to follow. It is very clear that adding CO2 to air when both are at the same temperature cannot heat the air. However, that is not the mechanism by which CO2 is said to heat the atmosphere.
At room temperature the vibrational energy levels are mostly in the ground (lowest) state. If a photon is absorbed, the vibrational energy increases. This heats the gas as it now contains more internal energy. CO2 heats up in the atmosphere by absorbing photons. Discussion of heat capacities is not relevant to this effect.
And the Truth will set you free. So simple.
William Sturm
Does anyone here think that another “climate change” movie from multi-doctorate holding, noted climatologist, and carbon footprint extraordinaire Al Gore get you guys on the same page about this stuff? I mean the science is in and incontrovertible, right?
Knucle dragging, mouth brrathing Neanderthal here!
The government and the elite MANIPULATE EVERYTHING. That’s why it’s so dangerous to invest.
A proper approach would be to do your best research and then do EXACTLY the opposite of what you expect to happen. You will win. (If you can’t beat em….join em.)
William Sturm
The snow has only just come off at 9,000 ft in northern Wyoming.
This is a late spring for sure.
It was a colder and somewhat drier winter here but the Absarokas had up to 300% of normal snow.
Somehow some LibProgLeftard will try to blame Trump or Bush for this.
Quite an array of fascinating data. But none of this can explain the Maunder minimum.
Coincidences do not require explanations…
Climate “scientists” build models around coincidences and call it science…..global warming……climate change…..extreme weather…..all man made.
To conclude a coincidence is to invite an explanation.
Vacuous blather.
Almost all religions are also ‘man-made’. Don’t try and upset the apple cart by demanding truth from the participants. They were taught something ….and by God they believe it!!!! Or their denomination believes something and they want to keep their jobs…so they will not touch it with a 10 ft pole. (Some of the enlightened know about the wooden pole…right?) If you persist they will kick you little butt right out the nearest back door. And don’t come back until you are healed….got that?
William Sturm
Here in the north Georgia Atlanta suburbs, the last four summers have been cooler than at any period I can recall having lived here since the mid-90s. We have yet to hit 90 degrees in June and the forecast doesn’t call for it in the upcoming weeks. In fact, we were running our heat in late April at night, something I never recall doing.
Yes, it’s local weather vs. global Climate. I understand the difference. But Algore’s claims of man-made climate change is an unproven snake oil bottle of medicine. Only fools buy into it blindly (liberals). The Arctic ice is melting but the Antarctic ice is at record growth. Nobody really knows why.
No scientist has ever come forward with a complete factual explanation of how our global ocean currents work and change over time. As any reasonably educated person knows, the oceans drive our climate since they cover 75% of the planet. The same fools telling us that our back yard BBQ grill meat eating and SUV driving are telling us they know definitively that we are affecting global climate change yet can’t even get computer modeling correct on local weather and when and where it will rain with 100% accuracy. And these fools think they can understand the infinitely more complex entire planet climate patterns. I don’t think so.
President Trump saved our economy pulling out of that junk science Paris Accord where both India and China were not going to be held to the same CO2 emissions as America. It was nothing but a tax-wealth income redistribution scheme. Our food and retail item costs would have shot through the roof to fund it.
Oh no you eating T-bones and driving a SUV…. What time is supper? I don’t think we can count our chickens before they are hatched on the economy Paris Accord or not…….. We can raise 12 chicken here in our village because we have just over 1 acre of land…Otherwise…small back yards…loaded with BBQ grills can only own 6 or fewer. But, no more than 12 no matter how big the property is. This is some good progress. Now, we will no longer need our alarm clocks.
All Government reports are manipulated. The one who is going to use the report indicates the kind of range they would like. Real data is pumped in and then they start tweaking the fudge factor dials until they get the right answer. Yikes. Do this long enough and you can even fool yourself. Folks buy into the lie…like the lie about Global Warming. Repeat it often enough and it becomes accepted fact. And, when the opposition turns up the heat simple change the words: Climate Change. Everyone knows that happens all the time and so gradually nobody knows its taking place. Put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly increase the temperature and the little fellow will cook to death before its too late to escape.
We may all pay a terrible price for little government fibs. I love those folks that rise up and demand results or the will “turn out” the politician at the next election cycle. Silly folks…just plain silly. There are a 100 waiting in the wings to come in and get their ‘fair share’……….Vote.! Change America!!!!!
Be patriotic. Love your country and pray for all the leaders. Maybe God will hear our plea and answer our prayer. I said if his opponent won…she would be punished by winning. Instead….Donald is giving it a shot.
I wish you well….Deal em!
William Sturm
I’m hoping to plunge into a prolonged planet killing Ice Age for no other reason than to see these Leftist idiots spewing their Global Warming lies right until the bitter cold end to all of us…
As the sun travels around the galactic centre, the Sun may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.
http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
As Walter Lewin states . “We would not be here if it wasn’t for electricity.”
Gonna get colder
Poles preparing to flip. Duh
The Czechs have flipped a bit as well. Let’s hope more EU nations flip away from Brussels.
What about the work of Dr. Valentina Zharkova and her colleages who have made a major discover on solar cycles? “Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy… ‘We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior,’ she said.” – According to her theory, the Sun will be extremely quiescent, possibly until after 2050. This could presage another “Maunder Minimum.”
No, that was not an important discovery. That paper was a total flop. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05516
“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 model predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic radionuclide 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.”.
Perhaps more coincidences, like the Maunder Minimum.
No, there are no more coincidences. The timings are off.
The timing is also off between the temperatures and co2 levels during the Maunder Minimum “coincidence”.
. 275 to 280ppm in the ice core dat.
Second chart
So what? That one is wrong says nothing about whether another is right or wrong. Your comment is vacuous.
What is vacuous is that you do not see the relationship between what you call coincidence and what main line climate scientists call science.
please educate me
You indicate that the Maunder Minimum temperature was a coincidence relative to solar phenomenon they indicate it was a coincidence relative to co2 levels, which were not much lower than today and higher than other cooler periods historically while some historical periods had lower co2 and were warmer. All coincidence I guess.
If you say so…
There’s a lot of belly aching about the continued cold conditions (sunbathing photos of people in heavy coats) on Classmates, the Russian equivalent of Facebook. It’s June and continued heavy night time frosts are damaging my mother-in-law’s potato plants in Ukraine.
I need grant money to send Al Gore, Elon Musk, et.al. to the sun for physical temperature readings.
Calling Al Gore! HELP!
Social Justice Snowflakes calling Al Gore! Liberal Progressives calling Al Gore, Corrupt prostitute “Scientists” calling Al Gore.
Help, Al Gore!
Manbearpig to the rescue
The big thing in the sky is irrelevant don’t you know ? Humans are now in charge of setting the earth’s thermostat and we apparently can manage to do it by reducing natures plant food CO2 a trace gas representing less than 1 % of the atmosphere .
.
It wouldn’t be surprising if we got here on the basis of a practical joke started in a smoke tent in California to demonstrate the sheer stupidity of the MSM and how gullible people can be . The lie went unchecked and just grew bigger and bigger while the promoters laughed and schemed to shake down the dupes .
Things like questioning the science just could not be tolerated.
At least President Trump had the courage to halt the frauds fuel source . Money
I think that solar activity has a bigger influence on the Arctic sea ice minimum than either ocean cycles or co2. I went along with the ocean cycle influence at the start and thought the arctic sea ice would recover when the PDO turned negative but no recovery now we are told that we have to wait for the AMO to turn negative before the arctic sea ice minimum will recover. We did see some recovery in the arctic sea ice minimum during the last solar minimum why could we not see further recovery during this solar minimum. I don’t think solar activity will ever change global temperature because global temperatures do not correspond to reality take for instance last winter in the northern hemisphere when much of the land was covered in snow it was warm in the Northern Hemisphere according to those who keep these records. What?
The idea of having a global temperature is only useful in determining if co2 is causing the earth to warm up and the answer to that is not very much if at all giving the error margins in their measurements
The Sun is going out. We’re doomed.
Global warming lol
Seems to blow the CAGW hypotheses out of the water and bounce the land-based rubble q few times…gee, do solar cycles have anything to do with climate ?
Of course they do… but the current warming is driven by human produced CO2.
with solar output at a low level, but a warming planet, there has to be another climate driver in play, doesn’t there?
http://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy?r
Griff, perhaps solar output is not at a low enough level…
Griff, perhaps there’s hope for you yet. You asked a very important FIRST question. Now don’t stop there and assume the answer to be CO2. Ask yourself this, what are the other possible climate drivers? Go and find out. Learn about what these other drivers can possibly do and how they may influence climate. Keep an open mind and do not be afraid to recognize you may be wrong. Do not shut out other information because it does not fit your narrative. And remember, nothing is settled, scientific ideas keep evolving when new evidence is provided so be flexible and do not come to any hard, unbending conclusions.
There is no evidence of human-caused warming.
Nor for that matter of warming. The planet is cooling at the moment, as it recovers from the super El Nino spike.
I completely agree “…there has to be another climate driver in play, doesn’t there?…”. In my opinion that source would be the oceans.
tom in FL: a much cited Bloomberg article
looked
at climate drivers here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
none of the others are causing warming.
only CO2.
Crackers, just because bloomberg propaganda says it doesn’t make it true. A cursory glance shows no mention of water vapor, albedo due to cloud formation, and the uncertainty of solar forcings. The arrogance is astounding. That’s why people come to places like wuwt, to get the full story and not a bunch of warmist talking points. Do you ever tire of being part of the problem (and not the solution)?
water vapor is a feedback,
not a forcing.
clouds are also a feedback, not a forcing
what “uncertainty in solar forcing?”
show it.
let’s see you elucidate all the natural forcings,
then show that any of them has
been larger than anthro ghgs.
link to the data you’re using
crackers345 June 8, 2017 at 4:55 pm
‘tom in FL: a much cited Bloomberg article looked at climate drivers here:’
Cited by whom?
So in Florida, where humidity is high, night time air remains warm. In the Nevada desert, where humidity is low, night time air cools. Obviously there is much more CO2 in the Florida air than the Nevada air. OK, now I got it.
Clouds have natural internal variability. Water vapor is a feedback to ANY warming, not just CO2. As for the sun, all you need do is look at the nice correlation in the graph that i posted above. If warmer than average sun produces warming, then there’s something wrong with the party line. Cracker, what do you think caused warming for the past three centuries (before anthro CO2 could possibly cause any warming)? And why couldn’t that natural warming be the cause of warming today?
One last thing. Please don’t tell me how to post my comments (unless you’re willing to pay me… ☺). My comments are mine and mine alone. If there’s something wrong with my attitude though, please feel free to criticize. i can always use help in being a better person. Which brings me back to my critcism of you: Do you ever tire of being a part of the party line group think known as agw theory?
Maybe if our earth was not covered in ‘contrails’ 24-7 we would know what the temps are. Just a thought.
Perhaps we should all double our rate of out breaths and increase the CO2 levels….or maybe double our cattle herds as well. If you look at real data (not the hypothetical garbage that never occurs) and compare solar activity (or lack there of) with earthly temperatures the answer is clear! Manmade? Ha!!
We need to eliminate beef from our diets. Save the cost for college. Then everyone should gradually become a vegetarian. Demand will lower the cost. Ban all chemicals used to produce crops. A more stable world is in our future. DO YOU SEE THE KIND OF BANQUETS THEY HAVE AT THE WHITE HOUSE?
I heard it was done before. Find a small island and claim it as your own country. Assume role as President and go to the U.S. and vote. Seek foreign aid whomever wants to be your friend. (I think that was done already….some movie.) Hey, do you wonder why there is so few real movies with real sound scripts instead of all this insanity? I love the real old spy movies…..real people in real danger of getting killed. How do they manage to keep their sanity with all the fear????
William Sturm
No………..go to the United Nations and take you place of power and honor. Your vote counts like any other country. My bad…………
My own correction…….
William
lsvalgaard June 7, 2017 at 9:29 am
Some comments:
3) The polar fields now are higher than they were at the last minimum, so cycle 25 will be a bit larger than cycle 24. WSO polar fields the last half-year are too small by a factor of two.
————————————————–
Hi Dr. S., solar northern field at SOLIS doesn’t look to be all that great either.
Solar hemispheric asymmetry continues….under pressure….
https://solis.nso.edu/0/vsm/vsm_plrfield.html
The northern polar fields are still increasing and there is a lot of magnetic flux heading that way, so we certainly expect a significant increase. All in all, cycle 25 should be a bit stronger than SC24.
Part of the reason for that hemispheric asymmetry in weaker magnetic flux/flow in the northern hemi was the abundance of negative flux cancelling out the positive flux. How often does that happen. What else has been unusual about cycle 24? Don’t google it because there are a gazillion things unusual about cycle 24.
…”””All in all, cycle 25 should be a bit stronger than SC24.”””…
I might add that there will also be a hemisphere that may be a bit stronger, the other noticeably weaker…
happens all the time that the hemispheres are different.
http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Cycle 24 is not unusual.