As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming. According to data from NASA’s Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots. Here is the view today from the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite:
Today at Cape Canaveral, SpaceX launched a new sensor to the International Space Station named TSIS-1. Its mission: to measure the dimming of the sun’s irradiance. It will replace the aging SORCE spacecraft. NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum, NASA satellites are tracking a decline in total solar irradiance (TSI).
Across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the sun’s output has dropped nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum of 2012-2014. This plot shows the TSI since 1978 as observed from nine previous satellites:
In the top plot, we drew the daily average of measured points in red (so there are a lot of points, 14187 to be precise). On the left is a red vertical bar showing a 0.3% change in TSI. The black curve is the average of TSI over each year. The dashed horizontal line shows the minimum value of year-averaged TSI data. The vertical black bar shows the 0.09% variation we see in that average. The bottom plot shows the annual sunspot number from the SIDC in Belgium in blue. Source: NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission Blog.
What do we learn from these plots? First, TSI does change! That’s why we stopped calling it the solar constant. Second, as the sunspot number increases, so does TSI. But the converse is also true. As the sunspot number decreases so does TSI. We have watched this happen for four sunspot cycles. This waxing and waning of TSI with sunspot number is understood as a combination of dark sunspots reducing TSI below the dashed line and long-lived magnetic features increasing TSI. SORCE has even observed flares in TSI.
Third, the horizontal dashed line is not an average, it is drawn at the lowest value in the year-averaged TSI data (that happened in 2009). When there are no sunspots the Sun’s brightness should be that of the hot, glowing object we always imagined it to be. We would expect TSI to be the same at every solar minimum. There is much discussion over whether the value of TSI at solar minimum is getting smaller with time, but it is not getting larger.
These data show us that the Sun is not getting brighter with time. The brightness does follow the sunspot cycle, but the level of solar activity has been decreasing the last 35 years. The value at minimum may be decreasing as well, although that is far more difficult to prove. Perhaps the upcoming solar minimum in 2020 will help answer that question.
The rise and fall of the sun’s luminosity is a natural part of the solar cycle. A change of 0.1% may not sound like much, but the sun deposits a lot of energy on the Earth, approximately 1,361 watts per square meter. Summed over the globe, a 0.1% variation in this quantity exceeds all of our planet’s other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined. A 2013 report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” spells out some of the ways the cyclic change in TSI can affect the chemistry of Earth’s upper atmosphere and possibly alter regional weather patterns, especially in the Pacific.
NASA’s current flagship satellite for measuring TSI, the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), is now more than six years beyond its prime-mission lifetime. TSIS-1 will take over for SORCE, extending the record of TSI measurements with unprecedented precision. It’s five-year mission will overlap a deep Solar Minimum expected in 2019-2020. TSIS-1 will therefore be able to observe the continued decline in the sun’s luminosity followed by a rebound as the next solar cycle picks up steam. Installing and checking out TSIS-1 will take some time; the first science data are expected in Feb. 2018.
In other news, as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases, influx of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) increase as has been observed by balloon measurements over California:
Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun. Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Now, however, the solar cycle is swinging toward Solar Minimum, allowing cosmic rays to return. Another reason could be the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation.
The radiation sensors onboard our helium balloons detect X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. These energies span the range of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.
The data points in the graph above correspond to the peak of the Reneger-Pfotzer maximum, which lies about 67,000 feet above central California. When cosmic rays crash into Earth’s atmosphere, they produce a spray of secondary particles that is most intense at the entrance to the stratosphere. Physicists Eric Reneger and Georg Pfotzer discovered the maximum using balloons in the 1930s and it is what we are measuring today.
NASA’s spaceweather.com website follows the progress of the sun on a regular basis. Our WUWT Solar Reference Page also has data updated daily.
It’s going to get colder for the next 30 years. And ironically, that will hurt us a lot more as we wind up sporadic renewables, and wind down coal and try and limit or make so expensive other fossil fuels that we will be in double jeopardy. The coming revolution’s all over the planet will make the French Revolution look a like a congenial ‘tea party’. Buckle up…cause things generally never end well after such a good run. Especially after having been lied to and cheated by charlatans of science.
Any day soon it will start, right?
Earthling2 is correct. You should read Absent Superpower. Because nobody wants the US in their business any longer the Bretton Woods Accord is coming to an end. That means that in the near future the US military will not be guaranteeing free and safe trade across the oceans any longer. Because the US is now a net exporter of oil due to shale they will not be protecting those foreign oil tankers and cargo ships any longer. The US will not be fighting battles in Iraq to get oil for Europe. Once the supply chain is disrupted by theft, piracy, etc. you will see energy prices spike way up over most of the world. The US and Canada will be in good shape to handle the cold winters. Europe, Asia, not so much. They are in for some hard times because they have not invested in shale and natural gas technology at the same time as investing in green tech. They are 10 years behind the US.
It has already started unfortunately. If you are a student of history, this is the one constant that repeatedly happens over and over throughout time that civilizations collapse from unforeseen drastic climate change that come like a thief in the night. It will be no different now. The dark ages in Europe starting circa 536-540 AD after the previous Roman warming when there was a natural cooling cycle taking hold combined with massive back to back major volcanic eruptions, are just what happens when these thing inevitably happen.
And they always happen sooner or later. We are at that stage now, precariously, when many peoples and cultures are just shopping at ‘Safeway’, and have lost all connection to a hunter/gatherer existence. And that wouldn’t matter much because that many people will not hunt or gather, or return to a farm somewhere.
We have had it exceedingly good the last 150 years, obviously, which led to an increase of a population from 1 billion to 7.5 billion people, which was totally accelerated by the massive use of fossil fuels, but also a very stable short term optimum climate conducive to growth of the human civilization. Any deviation from the optimal climate that allowed us to increase exponentially as we have, to the cooling ledger of the accounting, spells a catastrophic loss for humanity. Just study history and see what always happens. And I am not even religious.
andyd, we won’t know it started until the summer that was like winter. It sure looks like we are descending, in the context of a fairly long sunspot/climate record, into a minimum. Dalton? Maunder? No, I hope they call it an ALGORE!
andyd
I’ll bet you wish you hadn’t said that.
E2, that’s just common sense. If the world gets warmer (at the same rate it has since the LIA) it will be easier for humanity to survive on more of the planet and grow stuff to maintain sustenance. Imagine a navigable arctic sea passage and the savings in CO2 emissions by using circumpolar routes. Of course, no one who values common sense assumes that the global temperature will just keep going up, especially if you have had a brush with paleoclimatology and realize that the global temp (per proxies) has been gradually falling for millennia. That said, I don’t think (as an unwashed commoner) that the present warming trend will continue indefinitely, but will last a few human generations, just a millisecond out of “sacred Gaia’s” much troubled lifespan.
To andyd, will the warming models be right any day soon?
@ Ron Long “No, I hope they call it an ALGORE!”
Sorry. See – – –
Online Petition: The next significant solar minimum should be called “The Eddy Minimum”
WUWT June 13, 2009
What are we arguing about here?
Those saying a cooling period is starting should be a little more specific.
The warming will last “for a few more generations”.
They’ve been saying it will get colder on this blog since 2006. They’ll still be saying it in 2026.
The UN-IPCC Paris Accord date is 2020, a good start date for the beginning.
It’s already started.
Global temperature rise these days is solely accounted for by ‘warming in the Arctic’…which of course is ‘cooling’.
It will take a while for the Warmists to be erased from science…but that’s coming too!
“Pop Piasa December 15, 2017 at 5:26 pm: To andyd, will the warming models be right any day soon?”
Good one. But serious for andyd here are some predictions by one of the cyclical folks who think that CO2 does not control the climate. Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley.
David Dilley Predictions:
1) Phase 1 2014+ = similar to 1950-70
Phase 2 2019-20 = rapid cooling (1880s like)
Cold = 2022-2040 = Coldest phase
2) Ocean levels will not increase after 2018
3) More volcanoes & earthquakes 2020-2030
4) Historic volcanic erruption 2024-2028
5) Starts warming again in 2140
6) 2116 our inter-glacial ends (see you in 90,000 years)
So he was wrong on Phase 1 (Interrupted by a large el-nino in 2016) and we’ll see about phase 2 and onwards. He may have been a bit late on prediction number 2 as the ocean level rise stopped last year.
….To andyd …. . There will in fact be a noticeable downturn in global temperatures starting in the early 2020s, and it will last until at least the late 2030a and probably beyond. The last time this occurred was during the lifetime of Bach. A contemporary of Bach, Handel (composer of “Messiah”) almost surely saw the icebergs floating in the Thames River at that time. So please explain this: If nature’s forces can do this, is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that nature’s forces consist of many cycles, one of which might explain global warming. No one denies that the earth, for now, is warming. The question is the cause.
It occurs to me that the nursery rhyme I penned a couple of years ago is getting more and more support by new findings.
Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
As record winds blow
Unprecedented snow,
Oh, where is our globe a’ warming?
That depends on the sun
And the ways oceans run,
Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
Now, for quite long,
Climate models are wrong.
So, what caused the pause in the warming?
Yes, look to the sun,
The ways oceans run,
And the clouds, in complexity forming.
CO2 is “too small”
To stop temperature’s fall
When the sun, clouds and oceans together,
Begin to cause cold
In cycles so old…
No one alive can remember!
So if I do some harm
By just keeping warm,
You’ll have to kindly forgive me!
I find my solution
Is carbon pollution;
Lest Gaia too quickly outlives me!
It’s already begun. Step outside of your box and research global cooling. Try “new mini ice age” or “coming global cold”, and dig deeper from there. Or not, because it’s coming whether you believe it, or understand it or not.
It’s already begun. Step outside of your box and research global cooling. Try “new mini ice age” or “coming global cold”, and dig deeper from there. Or not, because it’s coming whether you believe it, or understand it or not.
Pop,
Sea transport costs per mile are minimal. The biggest expense is loading/unloading. How far the ship sails doesn’t matter.
It actually started in mid 2015 when record low temps were recorded in AU, NZ and South America. I recommend iceagenow for a realty check.
Solar output down.. Earth’s temperature up.
Look around. It’s happening. I live in middle America and can’t go for a bicycle ride in regular clothing with reasonable certainty I won’t be assaulted by a crooked cop. ‘We’ have soldiers in over 140 countries. That’s not what a state of peace looks like. Unless you define it the way Herodotus describes peace with Romans. Republicans want to have me put in a cage for playing poker with my buddies. Democrats want to put me in a cage for refusing to buy 200 dollar shoes for drug dealers. %99.99 of people in the world advocate doing violence to their neighbor for such small reasons. The only reason you think it’s safe to leave the house is you’re not paying attention. It’s not about IF they come for you. It’s when.
“It has already started unfortunately.” – Earthling2
Really? The Earth is cooling? Not by any measurements made in the last 40 years. The last three years have seen the Earth’s surface warmer than at any time in recorded history. Warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years.
Solar output down, Earth’s temperature up.
What’s up with that?
“If the world gets warmer (at the same rate it has since the LIA) it will be easier for humanity to survive on more of the planet ” – Gruber
So when Bangladesh is gone, and the coasts are gone from all of the continents, and the barren rock of the soil free Canadian, Greenland and Russian North are uncovered, and the deserts have expanded and extended to cover much of South America and the Central U.S. you think that you are going to live there and grow food.
On wha fantasy planet were you mal-educated?
Solar output down, Earth’s temperature higher than ever?
What’s up with that?
[???? .mod]
Bread foretold this in the closing lines of IF . . .
If the world should stop revolving
Spinning slowly down to die
I’d spend the end with you
And when the world was through
Then one by one the stars would all go out
Then you and I would simply fly away
Listen:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/if-lyrics-bread.html
Someone tell algore it going to get cold
roycerson
December 17, 2017 at 9:11 am
Herodotus? Romans?
I think not. In his day (c. 484–c. 425 BC), the little Roman republic was still fighting its neighbors in Latium.
Its The Accidental Superpower
andyd: When your climate computer models stop putting out junk, give us a call. Until then, continue with your Soma Holiday.
@pyeatte “Until then, continue with your Soma Holiday.”
Ouch!
Nice Huxley reference there.
Ooh look, a couple of new trolls….or maybe they are old trolls with new ‘names’. How precious.
Yes Andy but with AMO cycle decline doing the heavy lifting (or dragging).
I recall reading a study that concluded that the French Revolution, about which many histories cite period sources describing bread riots as a precursor, was triggered by the a period of prolonged cold weather in northern Europe in the mid-late 1700s (corresponding to the Little Ice Age). France was hit particularly hard because France continued to rely on wheat as its primary grain food, whereas many other countries had switched to potatoes (which, as tubers, were less susceptible to cold and freezing soil than wheat, which is a grass). The French were starving, and they blamed the royals and aristocrats.
Yes, the Prussian King already knew what he was doing when he let the potato grow in his empire with all his might. While the French still lived out their Les affairs. However, the potato was not everywhere during the small ice age, the yellow of the egg. If wetness was added to the cold, potato blight arose. As in Ireland. That’s why there are so many Irish people in the US today. But that was the only positive thing about the famine at that time.
The French Revolution indeed was ultimately triggered by cold, wet weather that lead to crop failures. However, it was also caused by the arrogance of their government and their poor response to the effects of climatic problems. We played our part since one of France’s government’s problems was loaning the colonies a lot of money leaving little to respond to economic and social problems at home, in France.
Edwin
“However, it was also caused by the arrogance of their government and their poor response to the effects of climatic problems.”
Lobbox!
No one recognised ‘climate’ in those days. It was crappy weather. We get it today.
“In 1788, a year of severe drought, the crops had been poor. In addition to this, on the eve of the harvest, a terrible hail-storm burst over the region around Paris, from Normandy to Champagne, devastating sixty leagues of the most fertile territory, and causing damage to the amount of one hundred millions of francs. Winter came on, the severest that had been seen since 1709. At the close of December the Seine was frozen over from Paris to Havre, while the thermometer stood at 180 below zero. A third of the olive-trees died in Provence, and the rest suffered to such an extent that they were considered incapable of bearing fruit for two years to come. The same disaster befell Languedoc. In Vivarais, and in the Cevennes, whole forests of chestnuts had perished, along with all the grain and grass crops on the uplands. On the plain the Rhone remained in a state of overflow for two months. After the spring of 1789 the famine spread everywhere, and it increased from month to month like a rising flood. In vain did the Government order the farmers, proprietors, and corn-dealers to keep the markets supplied. In vain did it double the bounty on imports, resort to all sorts of expedients, involve itself in debt, and expend over forty millions of francs to furnish France with wheat.”
Excerpt From
The French Revolution – Volume 1
Hippolyte Taine
Definitely unwitting victims of climatic misfortune. Surely they must have been emitting something that would explain it all…
Lokki: “… the thermometer stood at 180 below zero.”
What scale were they using?
If the Alarmists knew about that temperature record, they would start their trends there. We would be trending to a Venetian summer.
At 180 below zero there would be CO2 frost in places and all the plants would be dead. I’m assuming you meant 18 below.
The zero in 180 should be the degree symbol.
The winter of 1740 had also been bad.
That grain, hence bread, shortage precipitated the Revolution was long recognized (“Let them eat cake!”). That bad WX was the ultimate source of the famine was also known at the time.
Inability to borrow to buy grain from abroad owed not just to financing the American war against traditional French enemy Britain, but to the tax farming system.
Part of the cause of the French revolution was the unwillingess of most of the French to eat anything but bread and wheat. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, other root vegetables were simply to low to be eaten. The Irish famine was partly due to dependence on a single variety of potato- the Lumper- which was the best yielding potato with good nutritional balance. But it was also the most susceptible to a fungal like infection that nearly destroyed the total crop.
Lets hope there are enough organic farms around to stave off starvation if something hits the corn, soybeans, and wheat.
The French government controlled the price of bread, but not the price of wheat or cake. The crop failure raised the cost of the little available wheat to the point bakers would lose money selling bread, so they made cake, which the poor could not afford.
iowan,
The ‘cake’ to which Marie Antoinette refers is not what we think of as ‘cake’ (a sugary confection that is a luxury). In that period of Europe – ‘cake’ referred to the overcooked, often burnt, edges of loaves of bread that were on the sides of the containers that bakers used to bake bread. It was usually scrapped off and discarded before bread was put in the baker’s shops. As such it was considered useless and was used to feed hogs. By suggesting that the Parisian populace eat ‘cake’, Marie was equating them to farm animals, thus the anger her statement engendered.
Philohippous-. In the Irish potato famine the primarily English gentry continued to export oats from Ireland in sufficient quantity to alleviate the famine if they had been eaten by the locals. Using the usual economic nonsense they contended that interfering with the free hand of the marketplace would be worse than letting millions starve. The potato famine was largely social and the English pulled the same stunt in India not so many decades later.
For reference on food exports from Ireland during the famine http://ighm.org/exports-in-famine
Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…
Lokki: “… the thermometer stood at 180 below zero.”
No temperature on Earth has ever been that low. The atmosphere would liquify and fall like rain.
-18’C on the other hand is pretty warm, corresponding to 0’F.
Currently the Sun’s output is slightly down and falling. Global temperatures at all time highs and increasing.
What’s up with that?
interesting reason Frederick the Great of Prussia pushed for the switch to potato production instead of wheat, as was traditional. He intended to expand his holdings through conquest, but he also knew that would invite counterattacks and counter invasions, especially from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was standard practice of the day for invading armies to burn down all the standing grain in the fields, to make the next winter hard, but Frederick reasoned that no soldiers would bother to take the time or effort to dig up thousands of acres of potatoes. He was right.
Regarding The French Revolution: In Iceland, they attribute European crop failures during that period to one of their bigger volcanic eruptions. It certainly didn’t help.
Can I assume you are loading up on coal stocks and playing in the futures market?
Do we have any cartoonists here? Here’s an idea. Scene:
* Living room with Christmas tree
* Banner on Christmas Tree… “Merry Christmas 2030”
* Little boy looking earnestly at an old man, and asking
* Grandpa, is it really true that they gave coal in stockings to naughty kids, instead of to good kids, when you were a boy?
I hereby place this idea in the public domain.
Mosher: We got the sign right, therefore the models are confirmed!
Scienz!
“We do not know or understand what drives the climate.” – Verney
Certainly you don’t, but scientists know far more than you have the intellectual capacity to comprehend.
That is why people laugh at you.
Solar output slightly down and falling. Earth’s temperature at an all time high and rising.
What’s up with that?
Natural gas seems to be priced low on 12/15/17
I’m looking at UNG at $5.22
near a 52-week low of $5.14
@VD.
You seem to be ignorant of the huge energy storage capacity of the oceans.
Where do you think the 2015/16 El Nino temperature spike came from ?
A LOT of energy released from the ocean, wasn’t it.
When you release energy from something, what happens. 😉
Try to engage your brain, for the first time ever.
For 10 years I have been hearing these comments here. You don’t know any more than the warming alarmists.
Absolutely. We do not know or understand what drives the climate.
That said, we know that warmth is good and cold is bad.
andrewd
What we do know is that the world is as cold as it’s been now, only three times in it’s history before descending into an ice age.
I truly hope that, as unlikely as it’s reported, CO2 does cause global warming, because you sure cant irrigate anywhere on the planet with ice.
If CO2 causes warming, I want to know how much we have to add to get to the Holocene Optimum.
“Absolutely. We do not know or understand what drives the climate.”
ya when the sun goes down it gets warmer. when it comes up the temperature goes down.
Increasing watts never leads to increasing temperature.
we dont understand the ALL THE DETAILS therefore we understand nothing.
The wright brothers never understood turbulence in all its details and therefore we cannot fly.
The temperature of the earth is a function of the watts that reach us from the sun.
to a first order thats all you need to understand. That changes with latitude and the temperature
changes with elevation. To a first order that explains everything..
Now, as we dig a little deeper we find out the second order… GHGs and climate change
will we inderstand the third and forth order and everylast detail? Nope. Does that change the first
and second order? Nope. The planet warms because of increasing GHGs. That explains as much as you need to know> geoengineering the planet by adding GHGs is NOT risk free
Steven Mosher on December 16, 2017 at 1:18 am
Instead of sounding like an angry girly-man trollbot why not put some actual science in your posting? Sorry but nothing you said is proven at all.
Nope. The planet warms because of increasing GHGs
I guess you don’t know the difference between a theory and a fact. But no matter as that statement is neither.
squiggy9000 – December 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
Squiggy9K, …… read my writing, …. Steven Mosher must surely love his job ….. because the pay and entitlements are no doubt super great …… and he don’t want to be “pushed out” of his job onto the streets, …….. which would surely happen iffen he ever decided to “talk contrary” about the Politically Correct agitprop-based garbage presently being touted as Science by the, per se, “educational elites”.
A man without a country is akin to …… a “rentseeker” without a place at the government trough.
Mr Mosher, you claim that GHGs are the cause of warming, which of the GHGs would that be?
Surely not H2O because as Mr Eshenbach has shown in his Thunderstorm Threads and his last one 2 days ago that it cools the Surface.
Would you care to explain which GHG it is and what the Mechanism is for it to do so?
Stephen,
I object to your assertion that we understand the 1st & 2nd order effects. I do not believe we do
Doubters might like to scroll-&-view the Adapt 2030 YouTube videos; also read Robert Felix’s book, “Not by Fire But by Ice;” & “Ice Age Now:”
https://www.iceagenow.info/
“Now, as we dig a little deeper we find out the second order… GHGs and climate change
will we inderstand the third and forth order and everylast detail? Nope.”
Nosofast, Mosh. When you REALLY understand the second order, you may move on to the third. Ain’t just watts, it’s what happens to them.
Oh yeh. It will overwhelm ANY solar heat absorbed by the oceans and then coughed up via the well known water cycle. The Earth is a VERY stable planet with NO variability whereas the Sun is HIGHLY variable. Okee dokee! That thar is GOOD Science!
Lordy.
Well, I suppose that the established idea that down welling IR can’t penetrate more than a millimeter of water wouldn’t have anything to do with your assertion?
True indeed. I highly recommend A Cultural History of Climate by Wolfgang Behringer if you really fancy having sleepless nights over the prospect of cooling. His book on the witch craze (which itself had strong climate links) is also good.
Unfortunately, since it appears science is sold to the highest bidder (I mean who has more money than the government) Shame the only fix is taking away more money from the people and giving it to a government that hands it out to their buddies. Exactly what did we get from billions Obama handed out? They were gauranteed government protection from bankruptcy. The SOB’s promptly pillfored the money they borrowed and produced nothing but bankruptcy.
Fear monger much?
This must be the reason the left changed the name from Global Warming, to Climate Change. They must have known this was coming.
You mean they have SUVs and a rising CO2 level on the sun? God help us!
Moving away from coal to solar when solar energy reaching the earth is decreasing is kind of like leaning into a left hook. Not what you should be doing. How is that consensus thing going?
What ? you’re the master intelligence that we need to listen to and believe ? That’s it, just make up some line of bull and we should all take it as gospel. Geeeez….you probably still have your pajamas on but haven’t left grandmas basement yet.
Earthing2 is correct we are just entering the period of the once every 200 year Sun hibernation. Colder weather will be the result.
What’s interesting is that the total number of sunspots and radiance has been decreasing with each successive 11 year cycle. There is suggestion that we are entering another Maunder like Minimum and how that will impact the climate is quite uncertain? All we need is a minima combined with a Krakatoa like eruption and say hello to an ice age…
GASEOUS AL GORE, DOOMSDAY CULT CHAIRMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
“If an age is imbued with an error, some always derive advantage from the error, while the rest have to suffer from it.”
— Max Stirner
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Women and orphans hardest hit!
The planet has been “cooling” for at least the past 18 years, or so — the recent cook-the-books massage job by NOAA notwithstanding. And the so-called “experts” have never “once” demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for “any” global warming — it’s all been projections based on computer models subject to bad historical data, divergent / incompatible or inconsistent instrumentation, exaggeration and the-sky-is-falling alarmism, and manipulation-for-profit — for taxpayer-paid government grants, carbon-credits schemes, and studies required by environmentalist wacko government regulations. Climate change occurs — this is “old news” — and human action has never been proven the cause of climate change.
The anthropogenic [“man-made”] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers, “a part of a cause bigger than themselves” — who project an arrogant condescension onto ignorant, unbrainwashed dissidents.
Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore — that lying sack of nevermind and doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse — who sold his failed global-warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some murderous oil dictatorship, somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.
Now, didn’t Al Gore buy a 6,500 square-foot, $9 million, very-high carbon-footprint mansion in Montecito — “only” 480 feet above sea level where it is sure to be inundated by the HUGELY TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt celebrated in scare-em-silly fictional environmentalist quack movies — if his bullfeathers theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality? And this is in addition to his 10,000 square-foot mansion in Tennessee, another huge carbon footprint! And hasn’t OhBummer already bought the ocean-front Magnum-PI property in Hawaii? His bloody “rising seas” ought to swamp and drown him — else he is a lying hypocrite.
I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the capitalist system, but the stink of hypocrisy of Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist skunk — is annoying. He must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his hoax, his fraudulent religion — man-made global warming.
So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.
They turn scientific method on its head, demanding that skeptics prove “that there is not” any man-made global warming, but no one is obliged to prove any such thing — for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon “is not” made of green cheese.
It tells me something useful about opposing the former OhBummer dictatorship when my reference to the moon and the green cheese was hijacked for an OhBummer speech. Possibly his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent, that lobotomized serial plagiarist who served as OhBummer’s principal criminal accessory.
The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let’s just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.
======================================================
Replace asterisks with periods, below. ~:<)
http://dailycaller*com/2016/10/24/top-university-stole-millions-from-taxpayers-by-faking-global-warming-research/
http://www*tpnn*com/2014/03/17/weather-channel-founder-explains-the-history-of-the-global-warming-hoax/
http://www*climatedepot*com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/
http://dailycaller*com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
http://www*investors*com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/
http://realclimatescience*com/2016/10/more-on-the-noaa-texas-temperature-fraud/
http://www*zerohedge*com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
http://dilbert*com/strip/2017-05-14
Cooling bodes well for violin enthusiasts. The wood produced by the tightening of tree rings in the northern Balkans, caused by the cooling beginning in 17th century Europe, brought us the Stradivarius.
LT (@seivk)
An old guy at a senior citizen home,
was playing a beat up violin.
I asked how old it was,
and he claimed it was a Stradivarius,
” What makes you think that’s a Stradivarius?, I asked.
He said: ” If it’s not, I’m out $75 ! ”
I was hoping you’d appreciate that joke,
since you knew how to spell Stradivarius.
No one I know thinks its funny.
Solar output down, global Temperatures up.
What’s up with that?
Warm is good. Cold is bad. Far more people die of the cold than of the heat. Pray for warmth. (Snip personal comment
Mod)
There is a minimum 10 year+ time delay to the effects on oceanic heating/cooling from previous solar cycles. That is, if you believe our slightly variable star called Sol actually causes any variability to the weather here on the good Earth. Some prominent folks here don’t, although some others do. If each recent solar cycle is getting weaker, as it seems it has been since at least the beginning of the millennium and maybe even lower in 2020 now as it appears it may be headed, then we are now on the other side of the Gleissberg cycle that leads to a 40+ year cooling cycle. Others predict 2030 as being even a lower sunspot count and a weaker less active sun than this current one and what many suspect will lead to a general cooling over the coming decades. Solar cycle 24 is currently on pace to be the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 22 that peaked around 1990.
This explains why the last 40+ years was what caused all the global warming madness, because of an energetic Sun through the 1970’s and 1980’s peaking in 1990. It takes a minimum of 10 years for the effect of the solar cycle to be felt so 1998 burped out a lot of heat, as did 2015/16. With each successive solar cycle getting weaker, and 2020 and 2031 expected to be even lower solar minimums than 2009, then that is the hypothesis of why a general cooling trend is in the works, and also explains the Pause as we turn over to a cooler phase in climate. It is soon going on 10 years since the 2009 low and a beginning cooling trend is expected as a result of that. This La Nina is perhaps the evidence of that, and its intensity will be some indication if the hypothesis is correct. We should also be able then to actually test the sensitivity of CO2, since if it does get really much cooler for the next 30-40 years, then there should be some evidence that we have slightly added to planetary warming the last 150 years. Hopefully, adding CO2 to our atmosphere will be the insurance policy of an agriculture collapse not happening because of too much cooling. This is just my opinion which I have learnt reading all about it here at the school of WUWT.
Get ready for the cyclical Grand Solar Minimum. Maunder, Wolf, Dalton, etc. etc. Massive Global crop losses and starvation. We should have been building greenhouses and cold hardy crops not boosting carbon taxes to give to the elite!
I have a question for you:
Do you believe the schooling gave you enough education, correct education, absolute truthful education or do you think there is higher authority that drives the climate, rotation of earth, distance from the sun, angle of tilt and so on. Do you think the earth just happen to float around the sun or we are connected by some gravity waves. Do you think the planet communicate with the sun 24/7 or do you think everything is disconnected and happens at random intervals.
Something to think about and always question the alternative fed news in our minds.
Exactly: Read the book, “DARK WINTER”, by John L. Casey. Our sun has a 206 year old sun cycle, comes around every 206 years, and caused the solar hibernation of 1815, its coming back around.
A good place to start. Casey had a serious stroke a while back, not heard of him since. I’ve been detailing stuff on this through a FB page called ‘The Deagel Forum’. Deagel.com predicts the US population will reduce by 83% by 2025, the UK by 78% and so on. I plotted the predictions on a map and the higher percentages mirrored the ice cover during the last ice age.
Pure speculation by you and “andyd” to proclaim your socio/economic/cultural views on others–anyone with any sense can see that. Hey guys, Bill Nye is calling he’s got something for you.
Will this happen even if we all drive electric cars and trade carbon credits?
“It’s going to get colder for the next 30 years.” – Denialist
Really? Denialists have been making that claim for the last 30 years, but the Earth just keeps getting warmer and warmer.
What’s up with that?
Solar output down and getting smaller, Earth’s temperature the highest it has ever been and is getting warmer.
What’s up with that?
Vendicar:
Earth has been getting warmer for 4.5 billion years
and CO2 levels have been moving down,
and are not that far from their lowest levels ever.
When you write:
“Earth’s temperature the highest it has ever been and is getting warmer.”,
that sentence makes you sound ignorant,
and people here laugh at you.
I just wanted you to know, for your own benefit.
You are violating one of my 10 Life Rules of Thumb:
“(3) Don’t talk with a full mouth, or empty head.”
My favourite Latin phrase. Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses.
Get a grip Nostradamus. You don’t see the future. Stop pretending you know.
It’s called the 11-Year solar cycle. There is nothing new
burn more coal
Global Warming according to democrats causes everything!!
Thank goodness our “scientists” have reached a “consensus” that global warming is man made… man can just turn the thermostat up. Never mind the sun which has nothing to to with heating the earth.
But when does the cold come?
Solar expert Fritz Vahrenholt (GER) made in his book “The cold sun” the following prediction (= Prognose):
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc2001.jpg
That already looks wrong.
It seems to me that the french revolution was during the little ice age. The powers that be have put themselves at risk. Very foolish of them.
That’s odd.
A number of years ago, I was talking to a “senior climate scientist” (yes, he was introduced that way) who informed me, angrily, that “insolation is a constant” when I mentioned insolation variance as a possible contributing factor to global warming…
Anything that varies from ~1358 to ~1363 is as good as constant, varying only by about 0.2%. Well, it’s close enough for astrophysics, anyway.
G is invariant and measured to at least 7 significant figures and Planck’s constant to 11 significant figures.
That much variance on the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin) is significant.
A 0.2% variance of zero degrees Celsius is admittedly still zero (a useless number, obviously) but of 273.15 degrees (its equivalence in Kelvin), the variance is 0.545 degrees C. In Fahrenheit, it would be 0.919 degrees.
Except it is not just the TSI that varies it is the Radiation itself as well, more or less UV, by as much as 10% so I am told.
True
“TSI that varies it is the Radiation itself as well, more or less UV, by as much as 10% so I am told.” – Osborn
The I in TSI stands for Irradiance, which is Radiation.
Can’t you even figure that out?
What’s up with that?
He was right. In their models, solar radiance is constant. Take that, denier!!
It would be interesting to see how their models would behave if half a degree Celsius were put in to account for variance in insolation.
I bet it would have a significant impact in the long run.
I think all we know is that it has been measured as close to constant in total irradiance since we have been able to measure it, which as far as I know does not include any periods where there were zero spots for a few cycles in a row.
But, do we not also know that the spectrum is altered as well?
Who has the numbers on that?
All photons were not created equal.
Most of the far UV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere, and so whatever amount UV is increased by will then be unavailable to warm the surface, no?
Did I just read what you said, “All photons were not created equal.”
Were you saying that on the Energy Flow thread, when others were saying a photon is a photon and doesn’t know where it came from or is going to?
Or that they are absorbed and MUST increase both Energy and Temperature of a warmer object.
Which is not true.
No, what I meant was, different photons have different energies, as I then elaborated on the point I was making: Some photons make it to the surface, and some are filtered out by the ozone layer.
So, if a higher proportion of the TSI is from UV during times of low solar activity, and these photons are not making it to the surface, then the small decrease in TSI is not the whole story.
Is that clear enough?
And when it comes to the physics of radiation, I know very well that I am not a physicist, and so I very much doubt I did more than ask questions and offer opinions…I would never attempt to profess to people who physicists, as many on that thread were.
But, I did notice that there were people who claimed credentials as physicists on both sides of that question, and some seemed to be sitting on the fence.
As to whether or not photons get absorbed, that would seem to be clearly a matter of the material composition of whatever they are impinging on. All atoms are not created equal either.
Waiting to see if you want to misinterpret that statement.
And if I understand it… “more cosmic rays ≡ more ion channels thru upper atmosphere” which in turn is thought (like the old 1940s “bubble chamber” atom-smashing detectors) to produce more and thicker clouds in super-saturated air.
Which in turn reflects more sunlight back toward space. Which, besides lowered INsolation, further cools the planet.
Right?
That’s the theory. So what happens if, in spite of TSI-related “dimming” and increased cosmic ray production of cloud nuclei, the Earth keeps getting warmer? That’s not a problem for lukewarmers (like yours truly), but it would be a problem for those who dismiss anthropogenic global warming as a hoax. Just a heads up folks!
As far as I’m aware few here will have a problem with that. I certainly won’t and it will represent an interesting phenomenon to investigate. Sceptics aren’t in general wedded to some quasi-religious dogma and will change their worldview in accordance with the data.
The only problem with the whole agw gig is lack of empirical support. I could add that the fundamental agw hypothesis is barking nuts too but ultimately that’s an interesting irrelevancy. The only thing that maters is the data.
I’ve seen enough to think that even if the balls are falling off brass monkeys in Florida, it will still be the warmest year eva.!
No it would not be a problem. Solar activity is still relatively high, therefor we would not necessarily expect to see a lack of warming. (what you have presented us with is a straw man)…
Marlo despite 30 or so years of crying wolf, where is the proof? Show me one dire prediction that has come true? Where are those 50 million climate refuges, oh right building resorts and airports on the supposedly flooded land, bleached coral or whatever.
Sure. If not for that little problem of no measurable increase in temps since the 1998 El Niño. Also a problem (for AGW) theorists…but don’t tell them that. You’ll get called names.
@Robert B
We see this year as about average here in IL. Dry right now, but giving us lake construction and waterway valley logging opportunities. We are thankful for any temperatures which are conducive to outdoor activity where I live.
BTW… The rural folk of the midwest want the growing season extended, if it’s true that we can somehow control the weather.
Something to remember about FL and IL… (+ countless other locales)
It’s not the temperature,
it’s the humidity.
The Earth doesn’t keep getting warmer….. Surface Temperature Data Bases keep getting adjusted. There is no warming.
In Australia we had official digital thermometers that had officially sanctioned “filters” that removed any temperature below -10 degrees Celsius in areas where low temperatures are common…. With “Science” like that, you can safely say that All warming is a suspect finding….. and then there is the Hockey Stick debacle and the ClimateGate Emails….. etc, ad nauseam.
There is no “Climate Science”, just Climate Scamming for government funding and political agendas.
I work outside in Florida. In the morning in Summer it is very humid but not extremely hot yet.
Trust me, it is both, temp and humidity.
No bout adoubt it.
What “warming”, do you mean the Adjusted Temperature Data warming or the Satellite measuring the Energy escaping to space warming?
I suggest you spend a few hours going through all the Broken Cold, Snow and Early onset of winter Records that are and have been broken over the last couple of years.
Take a look at IceAgeNow, that is real life data, not made up temperature data that shows 0.01 degree C movements.
Also look at how many animals have died of cold and crops ruined in the last 2 years, the animals run in the thousands and the ruined crops are all over the world.
You won’t see it in the press or on TV as it does not fit the Agenda, all they will show you is the Biggest Strongest Hurricanes and Wild Fires, which are in fact Not the biggest or most powerful only the most hyped.
Actually I very much hope that happens. I hate cold. Unfortunately I doubt it is going to go my way.
The failure of one theory, or many theories, does nothing to validate any other theory. That you may be able to show that life on earth did not originate from snowmen, unicorns, or fairy dust does nothing to increase the probability of the theory that earth was populated by little green men from Mars.
If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand science.
Goat Guy: Bubble Chambers. Actually, it was an earlier device called, curiously enough, a cloud chamber.
I built one for an 8th grade science fair in 1960. I got the plans from a wonderful feature in the old Scientific American* called the Amateur Scientist.
I needed a coffee can, tin snips, a piece of black velvet, some clear plastic, a piece of glass, sponges, glue, rubbing alcohol, and a block of dry ice.
I shined the light from a slide projector though it. I was able to see the tracks of cosmic rays, I also had a needle with a little piece of DU on it, that also produced tracks. I was able to take pictures of the tracks with a first generation Polaroid Land camera. I won a prize.
The rest of my life has been a rainy winter afternoon stuck in the Newark Airport.
*The current rag of that name is a sad parody of what it was in 50s and 60s.
Walter said-
“*The current rag of that name is a sad parody of what it was in 50s and 60s.”
Are any so-called ‘scientific journals’ above the need to increase revenue through sensationalism of “learned speculation” nowadays? Please refresh me.
We Scots of my generation are very proud of our contribution to scientific (and other progress) This extract from Wikipedia is what I learnt at secondary school in the early 1960s.
I remember the same experiment in my A’Level Physics, seeding of clouds from cosmic rays was easily seen, it became quite dramatic when a stronger source of alpha or beta radiation was placed next to it, of course gamma rays had no effect.
Walter, I too constructed a Wilson cloud chamber for the science fair. Mine was an inverted fishbowl with dry ice and a chunk of uranium ore. Nice alpha particle tracks. Hey, CO2 and uranium, what’s not to like? I still remember that glow of victory.
Nice story. I bet you used to like going to Radio Shack back in the day too right? I did. We never had nay science fairs in my backwater area but I would have loved to enter things like that if they had.
Wow! It’s a good thing that the SUN has nothing to do with Global Warming and/or Cooling (as I have been taught by climate scientists … top scientists … really … top … people. Top. People. Therefore who cares what the SUN is doing ? Everyone should just focus on their own SINS that are “killing our planet”. The science is settled. You are a SINNER!!!!
97% consensus. The science is settled. Just send them more money.
Indeed… the SUN is a DENIER! (Now, will this statement get through moderation?)
/sarc (just to improve my moderation luck).
As bizarre as your comment sounds, what’s even more bizarre is that it’s true! “he idea of something being “scientifically proven” was practically an oxymoron and that the very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt. A good scientist is never ‘certain’. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability.” — Carlo Rovelli, Physicist, University of Aix-Marseille
It would be interesting to know how different wavelengths have been affected. It is my understanding that while total solar radiation changes by less than 1% UV can change by several 100%.
If sun has been without sunspots for 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun, then UV and x-rays coming from sunspots are down by 73%.
If sunspot numbers are down 100% since the solar maximum, then UV and xrays coming from sunspots are down by 100%
The sun is shown to be a (weakly) variable star. There are strongly variable stars of about the same temperature range as the Sun, but much more luminous (the types called RR Lyrae and Cepheids, among which the Sun will never be included), but with caveats we might make some comparisons. I studied these stars in the ultraviolet for my PhD and found that they vary much more strongly in the UV than in the visible. For example, RR Lyr changes brightness by < 1 magnitude (a factor of 2.5 change, < 250%) in green or blue light (~400 nm wavelength), but over 2 magnitudes (600%) in mid-UV (~200 nm). The variation of the sun in the UV at 200nm is about 1% over a solar cycle, but the Sun at that wavelength is only about 1% as luminous as in yellow light. Of course, the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere, so any variation will be most strongly felt there.
“Of course, the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere…”
Completely absorbed? Are you saying we don’t need to wear sunscreen to block UV rays because there are none that can reach us?
NotInColorado says:
“the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere, so any variation will be most strongly felt there.”
This is getting old… You are incorrect. UV is absorbed by snow and ice in those wave lengths on earth, life itself uses UV to produce various nutrients such as vitamins, human pigmentation is a result of a biological reaction to the exposure of UV.
When UV strikes earth, higher energies such as UV produce frequencies such as infrared radiation, this IR escapes to space,
UV produces more infrared radiation when it makes contact with the surface of earth, than there is in TSI recordings.
Earth likes to absorb infrared radiation, why do you think our planet is a gorgeous blue/white ball from space?
TSI measurements are not UV measurements, UV entering the planet has more energy than TSI, its wavelength is changed and converted when it strikes earths surface.
If satellites are looking towards earth and measure a rise of infrared radiation, this could be caused by an increase of UV reaching earth. couldn’t it?
UV entering the planet has more energy than TSI
UV is a tiny portion of TSI. The ‘T’ stands for ‘Total’.
“UV is a tiny portion of TSI. The ‘T’ stands for ‘Total’.”
UV produces most of the IR leaving the planet, everything is a ‘tiny portion’ according to you. UV and x-rays are not recorded as TSI
If you add UV and x-rays to Total Solar Irradiance of coherent light, it would be a lot more than a few Watts per meter squared.
Don’t dare try to suggest that UV and x-rays are a component of the “TSI” energy budget…
UV produces most of the IR leaving the planet, everything is a ‘tiny portion’ according to you. UV and x-rays are not recorded as TSI
TSI means the TOTAL solar irradiance of which UV and x-rays are but minor portions.
Minor portions as in; not used in the energy budget of coherent light.
Obviously UV can’t fall by several 100%. Just getting in before someone picks up on that.
It will after the Eschatological Cargo Cult of the CAGW sprays the entire world with SP-5000 to prevent global warming from CO2.
So thats what those chemtrails are!!
It is a different kind of math often used in business so that you can average ups and downs. A 100 percent decline represents 1/2 200 percent 1/3 etc. If you don’t do this – when you calculate ups and downs you overweight the averages. Example if you buy a stock for 100 dollars and it goes to 300 the next year and back to 100 the following – that would be a 200 percent increase followed by a 67 percent decrease. If you average it it looks like your investment gained 33 percent but you can see you really gained nothing. So if you call that 67 percent decrease -200 percent and average you get the proper gain of zero. To convert you take the loss. Subtract from 1 then invert it (1/x) subtract 1 and multiply by 100. So say your stock went from 100 to 10 – a 90 percent loss 1- .9 = .1 invert gets you (10 – 1) x100 = 900% loss.
Or you could just look at the chart.
Curious. We were told that the 2009 minimum was “as low as it gets,” and that the Maunder Minimum was likely not lower than that. It seems that hypothesis might not last one solar cycle.
Next we will be told that the 2020 minimum is “as low as it gets,” and that the Maunder Minimum was likely not lower than that.
And the solar low minimum in 2030-32 will be lower than the 2020 minimum, as if the Sun is doing the limbo with every progressive cycle. It probably takes several minimum solar cycles to build or lose any thermal inertia in ocean heating or cooling over these longer timescales.
Just as the 1998-2016 El Ninos’ were burping out excessive heating from more energetic solar cycle decades earlier, the thermal inertia will now become longer term net cooling which will not readily materialize until decades later, so it is probable that some significant cooling is baked into the long term ocean temps well past these lower solar minimums, which in turn ultimately govern the atmospheric temps. This should tell us a lot about the sensitivity to CO2, as well as more about how solar cycles ultimately heat or cool ocean temps. At the end of the day, I think Sol has a lot to do with earthly climate change in the short term, just as Milankovitch cycles have a lot to with long term insolation changes to different parts of Earth’s surface causing the start and endings of ice ages.
Not sure why you want to identify yourself as someone who “knows” things that have not happened yet.
Does not seem to be anything scientific about that, any more than when warmistas do it based on a disproven hypothesis.
Well, if each recent solar cycle is getting weaker, as it seems it has been since at least 2009 as Javier points out above, and maybe even lower in 2020 as it appears it may be headed, then we are now on the other side of the Gleissberg cycle that leads to a 40+ year cooling cycle. Others predict 2030 as being even a lower sunspot count and a weaker less active sun than this current one and what many suspect will lead to a general cooling over the coming decades. Solar cycle 24 is currently on pace to be the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 22 that peaked around 1990.
Sure, I will hang my hat with those folks, because to me it explains why the last 40+ years was what caused all the global warming madness, because of an energetic Sun through the 1970’s and 1980’s peaking in 1990. It takes a minimum of 10 years for the effect of the solar cycle to be felt so with 2020 and 2031 expected to be even lower solar minimums than 2009, then that is the hypothesis of why a general cooling trend is in the works. It is soon going on 10 years since the 2009 low and a beginning cooling trend is expected as a result of that. What is wrong with identifying that, or identifying with it? This is a science forum I am commenting on and predicting things successfully is the way we test hypothesis. I am not offering to read fortunes…as you insinuate.
And WUWT is there first, proposing a name for the next minimum:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/online-petition-the-next-solar-minimum-should-be-called-the-eddy-minimum/
We should name it after Michael Mann. The “Manninmum”. Drinkt three beers quickly and say that ten times.
Thoughts of Mann shall not pollute/degrade my drinking time
Or the MiniManninum.
What a piece of work is a Mann!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Mann delights not me.
It might sound like this: (replace the DOT with. .)
https://youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ
We could name it after all of them, and just call it the Minimum of the Warmista Pogrom.
I don’t know if wuwt or Leif are yet of the opinion that there is going to be a grand minimum. We should have a better idea in 15 plus years. Or if it will be deep enough to cause any cooling. The next decade or more looks like an exciting time for solar scientists. With any luck it’ll also bring a much needed dose of realism to alarmists.
As for giving it a name I would be happy to compromise and name it after both Eddy & he who’s name should not be mentioned on wuwt, otherwise ones comment is greeted by the message that the comment could not be posted.
Ironic that the name of a climate sceptic cannot be mentioned on a climate sceptic website, yet the likes of Mann etc can be mentioned no problem.
Leif are yet of the opinion that there is going to be a grand minimum
Not this time.
I agree with Leif.
No grand minimum coming up.
We just bottomed out on the Gleissberg. in 2014.
Do we have an official prediction for the next cycle then?
menicholas
if 2014 was the bottom of the GB cycle as far as the solar polar magnetic field strengths is concerned
it follows that the future 43 years must be the mirror image of the past 43 years.
Just put the mirror at 2014 in that graph and you will figure it out.
“The rise and fall of the sun’s luminosity is a natural part of the solar cycle. A change of 0.1% may not sound like much, but the sun deposits a lot of energy on the Earth, approximately 1,361 watts per square meter.”
Seems like a 0.1% might be smaller than our ability to accurately measure it. 0.1% is 1.361 watts. What is the time frame for watts/sq m? A second, minute, hour, day, month, year? If it’s a second, it’s a bigger deal than if it’s a year. The TSI is measured by satellites, do the number and density of cloud cover affect the total energy that hits the ground?
There’s accuracy and then there’s precision.
1 degree centigrade is less than 0.3% change in temperature. Most of the public/science seems to have a framing problem.
ShrNfr December 15, 2017 at 3:15 pm
“1 degree centigrade is less than 0.3% change in temperature. Most of the public/science seems to have a framing problem.”
Apologies.
Here in south London we have temperatures of between – 17 and + 35 Centigrade – extremes over a number of years.
So – Fifty (ish) degrees change in temperature.
I degree C = about 2% [Yeah, the actual is, indeed, a little bit less]
Your 0.3% for one degree C is related to Absolute zero.
A nice attempt at deflection.
But not helpful.
Happy Christmas.
Auto
I thought we were discussing Solar radiation, not London weather.
A Watt is Joules/second. Time is already factored in.
Around here the uninitiated talk about ‘watts’ when they mean thousands of kilowatthours that a house consumes a year. What is so brainfarty? Energy consumed in a year could be measured in gigajoules, but instead we talk about units power, W = J/s, multiply that with 3600s to get a new unit of energy Whr = 3,600J, and then get back to unit of power by telling how much energy we use in a unit of time, year yielding kWh/a. We could get the same result by telling how many joules the house consumes in a second, that being the average wattage needed. But we need kWhs, because the pricing works in kWh.
I said on this site sometime around 2009-2010 that solar cycle 24 will reach its solar minimum by the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018, I wonder if Leif remembers? 😀
Solar cycle 24 will also have a slightly longer solar minimum than solar cycle 23.
Solar cycle 25 is going to be fun, due to the time period involved with this solar minimum, I expect something very interesting to occur. (any guesses as to what?)
Cycle 24 doesn’t look like reaching minimum in the next two months, more like two years. The SpaceWeather article says 2019-2020. So …
The SpaceWeather article is referring to 2019-2020 as the midway point or centre of the next solar cycle minimum, which they are wrong about and are off by a year, I was precise to within a few months and my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum. In fact, I got every aspect of this solar cycle correct.
I said on this site sometime around 2009-2010 that solar cycle 24 will reach its solar minimum by the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018
Which it just has not. There is still some way to go.Some years before minimum the polar fields stabilize. The North polar fields have not yet [or just barely] done so, so minimum is still about 2 years ahead. The following Figure is from a short note about prediction of SC25, which Anthony has not seen fit to post, so here is it
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
and the Figure:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-HMI-WSO-for-SC25.png
“There is still some way to go.Some years before minimum the polar fields stabilize. The North polar fields have not yet [or just barely] done so…”
You must have missed where I said,
“I was precise to within a few months and my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum.”
Your point reference is during the solar minimum, the reference point for my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum” or as you said above “just barely”.
And as solar cycle 24 will also have a slightly longer solar minimum than solar cycle 23 the solar minimum will be 2020-2021 and not 2019-2020,
And there are still some months left for my forecast.
You must have missed where I said,
“I was precise to within a few months and my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum.”
There is no such thing as the “beginning” of the next solar minimum”, so you cannot be ‘precise to within a few months’.
Then you should inform NASA, they define it as the point where “the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum”
And I define the ‘beginning’ of a solar minimum as being self evident. A point in time when the sun is entering a continuing period of very low to having zero visible sunspot numbers.
I have mentioned the polar fields are a year short for that reference point defined as ‘solar minimum’ that has not occurred yet.
(Put down that copy of the ‘prince’ it doesn’t work with science, a fact or truth and honesty) 😀
Then you should inform NASA, they define it as the point where “the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum”
No, they don’t. They are not so dumb as the entertain such a silly notion. The normal definition is the time of the lowest value of the smoothed sunspot number. A slightly better one would be the time where the number of old-cycle sunspots equals the number of new-cycle spots. E.g. as seen here
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
(reminds me that I should update that plot)
One could look to TSI to see if we are near the minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003.png
and we are clearly not yet.
Rats!. Wp shows an old version. Here is the good one:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003x.png
Leif
Thanks for the graphs. The issue will be fascinating to follow the next few years.
Okay, I did some checking, “NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum” is a direct quote in the article above from http://www.spaceweather.com
“No, they don’t. They are not so dumb as the entertain such a silly notion.”
I did some more checking 😀
“New Solar Cycle Prediction | Science Mission Directorate
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction
29 May 2009 – An international panel of experts has issued a new prediction for the solar cycle which takes into account the surprisingly deep solar minimum of 2008-2009. Read today’s … In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists.”
There has been more plunging going on (in reference to sunspots) since the last time my sink blocked up.
“(reminds me that I should update that plot)”
That would be great, it will show that the sun is entering into the solar minimum between late 2017 and early 2018,
That would be great, it will show that the sun is entering into the solar minimum between late 2017 and early 2018
Nonsense, the sun doesn’t plunge, it ponderously wanes. The minimum is an instant in time. You cannot ‘enter’ it. You can speak about a low-activity period that last several years. The Sun has not yet ‘entered’ any such period; give it another year or two. When the North polar fields become stable the cycle will begin to flatten out. The plot of TSI I showed is a good illustration of the fact that we have some way to go before the sun has ‘dimmend’ to the level of 2008-2009.
Leif,
The first rule of a solar polar field is; The solar polar field is undetectable. (movie reference)
Here is the context, all magnetic fields in the universe are undetectable, until they interact with a physical medium, for example; a straight forward bar magnet, there is no way of viewing its magnetic field until a sheet of paper and a sprinkle of iron filings is used, or maybe some more advanced variation of this basic experiment,
The professional observations that are made of the suns polar magnetic field are based on this very basic principle,
The analogy; if the bar magnet is in motion under the sheet of paper, the iron filings will align to the field of the bar magnets polarity,
Therefore in practice, your observations are not of the suns polar field, your observations are of the interactions between the solar polar field and its surface (the iron filings).
It is acceptable science, very stable.
There is this nagging issue, What is moving the bar magnet under the sheet of paper?
Obviously you would never say that; the bar magnet spontaneously (for reasons) produces a toroidal magnetic field in motion which causes a polarity (for more reasons) aligning/misaligning the iron filings on the surface of the sheet of paper.
Questions worth studying; Why is there an observational signal here in the image below, in that exact scale and in that exact optimum time-frame as the sun? why is this signal behaving like Iron filings? (Like I said before, put the copy of that awful book down :D).
Therefore in practice, your observations are not of the suns polar field, your observations are of the interactions between the solar polar field and its surface (the iron filings).
Absolutely and positively wrong.
This is how we measure the polar fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
Leif,
Solar polarity does not produce absorption lines.
Don’t say “absolutely and positively wrong” and throw a wickylank at someone, even if it is just me lol
Magnetic fields are unobservable until [it] interacts with another medium.
There is nothing wrong with that your observations are not of the suns polar field, your observations are of the interactions between the solar polar field and the suns surface,
Don’t let on that you are observing the movement of the suns polarity, you are not!
I have no bias, and I don’t have to defend myself against observational reality for obvious reasons.
There are tools to measure the timing and movement of the suns polarity, use them all and analyse the data, spend less time aggressively defending your current position and evolve it.
😉
Solar polarity does not produce absorption lines.
it does split absorption lines into several components…
What is wrong is what you made of it.
In a sense it is trivially true that the only way we can determine or measure anything is when it interacts with a material object, so your ‘insight’ is void of specific meaning. What you make of it is something else.
“it does split absorption lines into several components…”
To be more specific, the suns polarity does not split absorption lines into several components.
Absorption lines are observed in coherent light, the spectrum bands reveal composition,
The motion of the suns polarity is not a measure of the make up of the suns spectrum of light.
The suns polarity is instant, photons are not, in context, the suns polarity is not being observed, interactions are. There is nothing trivial being discussed.
To be more specific, the suns polarity does not split absorption lines into several components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect :
“The Zeeman effect named after the Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman, is the effect of splitting a spectral line into several components in the presence of a static magnetic field. “
I understand the Zeeman effect, very interesting actually, the suns polarity is not a static magnetic field, the suns polarity produces all observable magnetic fields on the surface of the sun, the suns polarity moves, it directly faces and moves past all the planets during solar maximum,
I’ll send you an e-mail, obviously you don’t like discussing speculation in public.
the suns polarity is not a static magnetic field
Clearly you do not know what the sun’s ‘polarity’ is. Usually what is meant by that is the magnetic field threading the polar regions [which is static on the time scale of formation of absorption lines].
If you mean something else than everybody else you must explain what you mean.
Katphiche,
Its a lot less then 1.361W/m^2/s, because our planet is more like ball, therefore effective radiation which is entering the earth is 1.361W/m^2/s / 4 (clear because the sun dont shine all over every time) and then atmosphere is blocking arround 30-50% of the rest of radiation.
On Ground, its should be more to 150-200W/m^2/s, means if TSI change 1W/m^2/s, on Ground it would result in to a change to 0.12-0.15W/m^2/s
It’s probably not a progressive process, but there is no way to predict it. So, it is reasonable to assume that the sun will recover its character when the time is right, which will hopefully coincide with what is right for us.
New measuring device. Since it can’t be the Sun, if it gets colder, we were, are, and are going to be measuring it wrong. Wrong calibration, wrong corrections for orbital height, cosmic rays seeping into the equipment. When software failed, years ago, it was always cosmic rays. Who knew that they were right? but only during Solar minimums.
I need grant monies; there is going to be a lot of research needed…
“TSI does change! That’s why we stopped calling it the solar constant.”
Very few so-called physical constants are actually constant. Most notably in my line of work is the dielectric ‘constant’ which is really a function of frequency and temperature and varies strongly with both.
Good point. Even the speed of light doesn’t seem to be constant over time. And that has some rather interesting implications (unrelated to the current topic).
All I can say is the climate test is on. Very low solar colder ,versus increasing CO2 warmer. My bet is with solar.
Low solar equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo.
It is going to be very interesting going forward from here.
27% of this solar cycle has been spotless. A contextless factoid. It would have been nice to know how many days or what percent of the last 3 solar cycles had been spotless.
Maybe this will help with context. 23 days later you can add 12 more days to the SC#24 total:
?dl=0
Good graph.
Thanks for the graph. My take home from that is that there isn’t much correlation between total numbers if spotless days and temperatures. Except that cool periods seem to have flat tops in the blue spotless graph. The 70s and 2008/9 when we had 8″ of snow here in Southern England when we normally only get half a centimeter.
I am looking forward to the arrival of this solar minimum to see if we get more snow again.
Link is disabled.
The top of the post says “so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots.”
So that’s 27% of this year, not solar cycle.
spaceweather.com has data for this cycle:
Perhaps you can find data for the previous solar cycles and report back.
There are tons of sites that seem dedicated to spotless days and the study thereof.
Here is one picked at random:
http://sidc.be/silso/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/spotlessJJ/SC25_SCvsNumber.png
http://sidc.be/silso/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/spotlessJJ/SC25_year.png
http://sidc.be/silso/spotless
And more on spaceweather.com too:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spotlessdays.htm
The interesting thing is how a small solar variation is apparently associated with a much larger change in GCR levels.
Solar wind changes a lot more than 0.1%, and the solar magnetic effects on the Earth’s magnetic field responsible for letting the GCR in depend on the solar wind.
Bon voyage TSIS! I can’t wait for its first day of data. Nicely written article here.
The November v2 SSN average of 5.7 was the 3rd earliest & lowest value for all solar cycles #1-24, compared to 4 and 0, in cycles #11 & #2, after 103 and 105 months respectively, compared to this cycle now at 108 months. TSI is finally dropping again after bumping upward for a few months.
?dl=0
2006 is a good solar analog year for 2017, when in Oct that year F10 and SORCE were at similar levels for the first time in cycle #23 as very recently in this cycle #24, with F10.7cm flux under 70 sfu and SORCE TSI under 1360.7 W/m^2 for nearly a week. The solar minimum for SC#23 bottomed out 28 months after this, and I expect SC#24 will be similar, in line with the SWPC solar cycle progression forecast.
?dl=0
These links are not working.
Getting a message that number of shares has been exceeded some limit.
“Error (429)
This link is temporarily disabled. The person who shared it hit their daily limit of traffic or downloads. Learn about traffic limits. “
as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases,
There it is again. It seems like a common error to confuse issues?.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2ef6xvo.jpg
clearly, you can see that higher solar activity is associated with lower solar magnetic field strengths?
so, note that since 2015 the solar magnetic filed strengths have been rising again,
[with corresponding decrease in SSN]
[with corresponding increase in stratospheric radiation]
That should change your story….
The plot is of Polar magnetic fields. The peak of a cycle is close to when the polar field flips.
From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/the-sun-is-about-to-have-a-flipping-magnetic-field-reversal/#comment-1381842 :
BTW, Leif’s description of the second graph. Note that the plot is not of a field strength, but the difference of the strength of two fields.:
What a coincidence. Prospects for the Cult of Calamitous Climate are dimming as well.
There are suggestions, rather than direct evidence, that the sun’s cycles influence our climate. It seems to be a cumulative effect in that a series of quiet cycles cause cooling rather than a single very inactive cycle. There is no correlation between sunspot number and climate, but over many cycles there seems to be a reasonable matching of patterns, especially between clusters of quiet cycles and periods of climate cooling.
Solar interactions with the earth include TSI, within that, some UV variability and microwave flux. Then there are changes in magnetic field amplitude and the reversal of the field polarity each cycle. Another output is the solar wind with its high speed electrons, protons and alpha particles All of these are cyclical and the solar wind, in particular, modifies the cosmic rays reaching the earth and influences the neutron count. This last bit is the basis of Svensmark’s proposal for the solar effect on cloud seeding.
I believe that the solar cycles affect our climate but proof is lacking. But then, it may just be that we don’t understand the mechanism. It would seem that the most likely mechanism would involve cloud cover modulation. The most likely causes would be UV, solar wind, cosmic ray or cosmic dust influences on our atmosphere via physical or chemical processes.
~courtesy of javier
Here’s your direct evidence…
Does this mean we’re going to have to build James Hansen’s single chlorofluorocarbon plant that will prevent another ice age?
Being a little challenged, I can only visualize things in Hiroshima’s. How many Hiroshima’s are represented by .1%?
100%
No sparks,
the science was settled, it’s 97% of a tipping point so much worse than you thought I thought
I’m sorry, but a change in TSI of a tenth of one measly percent from peak to trough … like the song says, “That don’t impress me much!”
Per the CERES data, at the top of the atmosphere, that works out to about six/tenths of a watt per square metre (0.6 W/m2) highest to lowest. Compare that to say the difference in TOA TSI between January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun. That difference is 22 W/m2 …
So yes, insolation does vary, but it’s what I call “A difference that doesn’t make any difference”.
w.
The suns output has dropped [to] nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum, you’re forgetting about the 7-8 years of that sustained increase to 2.2% of W/m2 from 1360W/m2 to 1362W/m2 that’s an almost 88% increase in the output of the suns energy using that scale, over that period of time, from trough to peak.
….January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun…That difference is 22 W/m2 …
_______________________________________________________________
Much higher than that…1326 w/m2 on July 7th and 1388 w/m2 on January 7th…
>>
Much higher than that…1326 w/m2 on July 7th and 1388 w/m2 on January 7th…
<<
Higher yet still: 1316.0721 W/m^2 on 07/10/2017 and 1407.4395 W/m^2 on 01/01/2017.
(See http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/)
Jim
I’m sorry too that you aren’t able to understand that TSI has it’s greatest effect under the ocean surface.
“Compare that to say the difference in TOA TSI between January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun. That difference is 22 W/m2 …”
The maximum annual variations of observed vs adjusted to 1AU F10.7cm flux are within +/-3.3% since 1947.
The maximum annual variation between the observed vs 1AU F10.7cm flux values was never more than 10.7 sfu, most of the time within half that or less.
A maximum variation of 0-11 sfu from any level of F10.7cm always correlates to less than a 0.15 W/m^2 change in TSI from 1AU. This seasonal TSI variation is “A difference that makes very little difference”.
?dl=0
Imagine a 10 sfu band going across from any level of F10.7cm; the corresponding change in TSI will be about 0.15 W/m^2.
Today’s 20hr observed solar flux was 71.7 sfu, adjusted to 1AU was 69.5 sfu. What is the difference in TSI between the two? What is the difference in ‘adjusted to 1 AU’ TSI for adjusted F10.7cm at 69.5 sfu versus the ‘observed 1AU’ TSI for observed F10.7cm at 71.7 sfu?
There’s a difference, “but it’s what I call “A difference that doesn’t make any difference”.”
The relationship between TSI and F10.7 [or equivalently the sunspot number] is not linear. In particular a large sunspot causes high F10.7 but low TSI [thus in anti-phase], while for lower solar activity F10.7 and TSI are in phase so you have to be very cautious about the relationship. On the other hand, F10.7 matches precisely the total magnetic flux over the solar disk, see e.g. http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1510
The difference is percent-wise the same, as both fluxes depend on the square of the distance to the Sun.
But but but fairies and unicorns dancing on the head of a pin have wayyyyy more energy than a fricken huge vat of water!
WE, yup. Let common sense prevail.
Assuming that the effect of a variable Sun on climate has to come from a 0.1% change in TSI is ignoring all the rest of things that change with the solar cycle that change by a lot more.
Total ozone changes by 3%. That alone is a factor of 30 over the TSI change. Stratospheric temperature changes by 1.5°C at the pole. Not bad for a 0.1% change in TSI. Geopotential Height at 30 hPa can change by 100 meters.
Solar wind, UV, magnetic field, energetic particles, cosmic rays. All of them change by a lot more than 0.1%.
We don’t know everything about how the Sun affects the climate, so let’s assume only TSI counts and since it changes only by 0.1% let’s discard it as a factor. Sounds to me like very superficial thinking and a sure way of never finding out. Let’s assume also that the climate is linear, and discard all possible non-linear effects. Gee, we are getting closer to an answer. Will it be the right answer?
Assuming that the effect of a variable Sun on climate has to come from a 0.1% change in TSI is ignoring all the rest of things that change with the solar cycle that change by a lot more.
TSI is where the energy is. All the rest are many orders of magnitude lower in energy. Your argument is akin to trying to gauge Bill Gates’ wealth by counting the coins in his pockets.
You are also assuming that the energy to change climate has to be contributed just by the Sun. The Sun does the push and the climate system contributes most of the energy. Examples:
– A few energetic particles with little energy create plenty of NOₓ and HOₓ reactive species in the mesosphere. Depending on the presence or not of a well formed polar vortex, these species are transported down and effectively destroy O₃. How much energy do you need for that?
– Depending on the state of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation a solar minimum makes the difference that changes the Stratosphere into deflecting planetary waves that warm and weaken the polar vortex, altering the state of the Arctic Oscillation. The energy is contributed by the planetary waves, not the Sun, but without a solar minimum those planetary waves continue to the Upper Stratosphere and above.
Again simple thinking and wrong assumptions to say that something big can’t be moved while all is needed is the right lever.
Your simplistic thinking assumes that those effects are important for the climate. There is no good evidence for that.. [Claims are not evidence]
No, I don’t assume such thing. That is not for me to say but for the people doing that research.
The mechanisms you say don’t exist are being worked out by the next generation of scientists.
The evidence for the relationship is the correspondence between the cosmogenic isotope record and climate records. This includes the correspondence between solar activity as measured by sunspots and climate, as every solar minimum detected, Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg, and now the Landscheidt/Eddy? minimum coincides with periods of no warming or outright cooling.
The issue is very clear. Solar hypothesis predicts lack of warming, or even cooling, for the period 2006-2035 due to the coincidence of the present extended minimum. The main competing theory predicts continued warming due to constantly increasing CO₂ levels.
Let’s see what the evidence supports, because so far the only warming we have seen has been from an El Niño that is now waning.
Solar hypothesis predicts lack of warming, or even cooling, for the period 2006-2035 due to the coincidence of the present extended minimum.
It also predicts lots of warming when solar activity is high. The mid-late 18th century was very cold, yet solar activity was as high or even higher than for the recent half-century. So, a very clear failure.
The mid-late 18th century was a period of warming after the very cold early 18th century and before the very cold early 19th century.
This is very basic but you seem to have troubles with it. Periods of higher than average solar activity are periods of warming and periods of lower than average solar activity are periods of cooling. The temperature you end up having depends on the temperature you started with.
All just excuses for a failed viewpoint.
They are not excuses but statements of facts. Why would the late 18th century be as warm as the late 20th century, if the early 18th century was much colder than the early 20th century? It is your viewpoint the one on thin ice.
By that [invalid] argument the next half-century should be very warm because the previous one was. Clearly, thus is raving nonsense.
But a valid argument. If the next half century had low solar activity it would not get as cold as previous low solar half centuries because we are starting from a warmer state.
The planet has a very big inertia to change its temperature due to its high content of water.
A very big pot with a fire below that can be cranked up or down. The final temperature depends as much on the time with the fire up as on the initial temperature. If you compare two periods with high fire and they have different temperatures you shouldn’t be surprised. Changing the temperature is a very long process.
The backfire effect strikes again https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Your opinion only.
Your reply proves my point.
Well, I don’t think I suffer from backfire effect because I don’t arrive to my point of view from conviction or belief, but from careful analysis of the evidence.
It is very simple. As I have said, if between now and 2035 the world warms as much as it did between 1980-1995, then the evidence will be against the solar variability effect on climate.
I don’t arrive to my point of view from conviction or belief, but from careful analysis of the evidence.
Careful now, you are moving into D-K territory…
That the Earth already warmed the past half-century in spite of declining solar activity is evidence against dominant influence of solar activity on climate. Perhaps you believe also that the cooling 1940-1980 is the reason for the warming thereafter [one of your earlier arguments that the future temperature depends on the past].
Only if you assume a linear relationship between solar activity and temperatures, which doesn’t appear to be the case. And only if you assume that other factors are not influencing temperatures in that period, which also is probably not the case.
So the argument is based on assumptions that are probably not true.
Only if you assume a linear relationship between solar activity and temperatures, which doesn’t appear to be the case
All changes are linear when small.
Not necessarily. You may not start to see a change until activity has decreased below a certain level for a certain time. You are setting rules that might not apply and then deciding on those rules. That’s a form of fallacy. You cannot impose a priori conditions on the way solar variability affects climate.
Not necessarily. You may not start to see a change
‘may’ is a weasel-word. Unless you can quantify your excuse it caries no weight.
I don’t get into semantic discussions in a language that is not my first one. Everything that needs to be said is in scientific journals.
Your generation of scientists didn’t have the tools and knowledge to work out the solar variability-climate relationship. A new generation is taking care of that. If this extended minimum also coincides with lack of warming they will find a more receptive community. Don’t feel bad about it. It was impossible for you to solve this problem. But you shouldn’t become an obstacle with your stubbornness to accept the evidence.
Your generation of scientists didn’t have the tools and knowledge to work out the solar variability-climate relationship.
This is total nonsense. It takes decades to acquire such knowledge. The tools are there for everybody to use.
A new generation is taking care of that
They certainly do their work in darkness. Who might they be?
If this extended minimum also coincides with lack of warming they will find a more receptive community.
More likely they will concoct some suitable excuse like in the past.
‘receptive community’ smacks of politics and bias-driven consensus ‘science’.
Progress is to found in disagreements and non-conformity, not in pal-science.
It was impossible for you to solve this problem
certainly not, The evidence points clearly to a solution in the negative, in spite of hundreds of years of spurious claims.
periods of lower than average solar activity are periods of cooling
Solar activity has been decreasing the past many decades, yet temperatures have been rising…
Solar activity only entered below long term average after SC23 around 2006. So far we’ve only had 12 years of below average solar activity. Most studies find a 10 year lag on the effect of solar variability on climate, so we are just starting to feel the effects of reduced solar activity now.
“TSI is where the energy is. All the rest are many orders of magnitude lower in energy.”
UV and X-rays are many orders of magnitude higher energies than the spectrum of sunlight measured and off the w/m2 scale.
Sunspots produce x-rays and UV too.
“UV and X-rays are many orders of magnitude higher energies than the spectrum of sunlight measured and off the w/m2 scale.
Sunspots produce x-rays and UV too.”
“Higher energies” is not the same as intensity
They cannot deliver energy worth a jot to the climate system (W/M^2), as in their entirety they barely have any.
There is science that links to Stratospheric O3 chemistry to Stratospheric circulation and hence via down-welling to Tropospheric circulation but that is only akin to stirring the cup of tea with a spoon.
“…..but without a solar minimum those planetary waves continue to the Upper Stratosphere and above.”
No they wouldn’t.
There are many factors that contribute to the production of large scale planetary waves and low solar is just one of them.
It’s a complicated mix of things comming together and, again, it is not added energy in the sense of altering the Earth’s energy balance.
Effects are felt on the surface in the form of weather changes, with a -ve AO allowing Arctic plunges to more southern latitudes in favoured areas (E US and W Europe).
It is the stirring of a cup of tea.
Not overheating cooling but movement of dipoles.
Planetary waves take energy and momentum from one place and deposit it in another. Their effect can alter the speed at which the planet loses energy, as when more heat reaches the poles the planet loses energy faster. So yes, it can alter the energy balance.
There are over 100 solar drives climate changes papers to dispute ,Dr. Svalgaard:
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
“Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth’s climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there’s an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors. If the IPCC had truly examined past temperature developments and compared them to solar data, they’d have seen there is something remarkable there.
Yet in the IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 takes only a cursory look at solar activity and its possible impacts on climate in IPCC AR5 before simply dismissing the sun altogether. The Earth’s sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal.
What follows is a list of papers I found in just a few hours that the IPCC should have taken a much closer look at instead of just dismissing. The list of course is not complete.”
http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.CNegcSwo.dpbs
It has been known since the 1970’s that the Sun drives the climate.
It has been known since the 1970’s that the Sun drives the climate.
In the 1970’s it was known that we were heading into an ice age…
Looked at a random one of your 100 papers [#35]. It’s title was
“The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24”.
Which has clearly not been the case [big FAIL]. Perhaps it is not so strange that the paper was ignored by the IPCC…
He he, you could do better than this……
DR, Svalgaard,
The Abstract make it clear for a small region (NORWAY,NORTH ATLANTIC), which you completely missed. Try reading the Abstract next time:
“Abstract
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.”
The IPCC ignored the fact that Water Vapor is a proven NEGATIVE feedback, not a positive one the IPCC and poor scientists keeps hanging onto.
They have made a number of short term temperature prediction/projections that have suffered epic fails, you shouldn’t take the commonly erroneous IPCC claims and statements seriously as they lack credibility.
” So yes, it can alter the energy balance.”
In what way precisely?
And stratospheric waves with a (part) causal factor of UV/O3 chemistry is a tiny, tiny percentage of NH circulation dynamics.
In the SH I think zero as the geography there effectively precludes it. Not to mention the much more intense PV.
A prolonged solar minimum causes persistent winter AO- and NAO- conditions that cause the Arctic to be warmer during the winter, while Eurasia and North America become colder. A similar situation has been taking place these last years when alarmists complain that Greenland is much warmer during the winter (but colder in the summer).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
An excess of heat in the Arctic during the winter, when the sea is thermally isolated under more than a meter of ice, means most of the extra heat is radiated to space as IR. This means during a solar minimum less energy is entering the Earth due to the TSI reduction, and more energy is leaving the Earth in the Arctic. The balance of energy is affected more than solely by the reduction in TSI.
Alarmists don’t understand it, but a warmer winter Arctic means a more efficiently cooling Earth.
“A prolonged solar minimum causes persistent winter AO- and NAO- conditions that cause the Arctic to be warmer during the winter, while Eurasia and North America become colder. A similar situation has been taking place these last years when alarmists complain that Greenland is much warmer during the winter (but colder in the summer).”
No it does not cause “persistent” winter -AO/-NAO conditions.
It is one casual factor only.
Look up the science …..
https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/84231-stratosphere-temperature-
watch-20152016/
UV/O3 chemistry influence on Winter polar stratospheric flow is but one of a number of that impact via planetary wave disturbance.
IOW it takes more than that to give -AO dominated winter. In fact they are very much in the minority, and the extreme event that a SSW is, is usually needed to do so.
FI: at the “height” of the LIA the coldest winter in the CET record – 1683/84 (-1.17) was fallowed 2 years later by one that is ranked 8th warmest – 1685\6 (6.33)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean_sort.txt
Aside from that, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, it is just a stirring around of energy, and not a change of balance (no, it does not cool).
Toneb,
The intensity of UV from the sun is much greater than the entire visible spectrum of light, even if you include infrared radiation. UV produces infrared radiation when it reaches a surface, Higher energies breakdown into lower states, you have your spectrum upside down if you think infrared radiation is the most intense part of the solar spectrum.
I see that you disagree with our host.
Perhaps it has something to do with the length of time that is affected by the change, unlike the annual swing?
Dimming, eh? Anyone want to explain to me why it is impossible for our sun to be a long term variable star? It’s long seemed more plausible to me that glaciations are caused by variations in solar output than by GHGs and/or Milenkovitch cycles. It seems most improbable to me that sea level ice at the latitude of New York City (40N) could possibly persist through a Summer.even with a one degree lessening of axial tilt and any plausible decrease in average temperature.
To paraphrase Everett Dirksen– 0.1% and 0.1% there, pretty soon, you’re talking real cooling.
Willis — I was thinking the same thing. The TSI spread in the above graph is only about 5 W/m2 out of about 1360 W/m2. That’s not very significant. And there’s no explanation about what W/m2 means. Is this a square meter on the earth’s surface, when the sun is shining perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, or is it the total amount hitting the upper atmosphere? That’s about 1.36 kW/m2 — that’s a lot of power. I’d think I’d be getting a hot foot when I go outside. So exactly what is the TSI hitting the Earth’s surface? I was thinking — wait I’d better stop that. 😊 <– trying out new W10 emojis.
Sorry. But the first post graphic invalidates the second. period. So this whole sun discussion remains suspect to dedicated skeptics. Stop short segment curve matching coincidences, start providing credible cause/effect explanations. So far, a massive true science fail.
Credible to whom, to you?
The scientists working on this are developing hypotheses and mechanisms supported by observations and reanalysis. The problem is that it is very complex and involves phenomena that models can’t reproduce well, like the stratospheric Quasi Biennial Oscillation, and all sort of gravity and planetary waves. Not the usual stuff non initiated people handle.
It seems that things have to be simple like the CO₂ and the blanket effect for people to believe them, even if they are wrong. Complex things like the effect of solar variability on climate have no place in popular blogs, but the scientific literature publishes dozens of articles every year showing a progress of our understanding. Hardly a science fail.
If you want to know what solar climate hypotheses have to offer, start by reading them.
“The scientists working on this are developing hypotheses and mechanisms supported by observations and reanalysis.”
Refreshing to hear that objective scientists are using actual scientific methods in a field related to climate. I look forward to what their investigations produce, and understand it will take time and involve false starts. This approach is much more difficult than starting with the ‘answer’ and developing convenient computer games to support it.
That said, it only makes common sense that the Sun impacts the climate. Whether it has a great influence on the minor short term blips that the CAGW Gang is getting hysterical about is another question.
Read my series of articles “Nature Unbound” at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog to see what effect Solar variability has had on past climate.
“Stop short segment curve matching coincidences, start providing credible cause/effect explanations.”
==========
Ignaz Semmelweis didn’t have a mechanism to explain what he observed, so he was ridiculed, ignored, and thrown into a loony bin by his family, where he soon died from an infection imparted during a beating from security guards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Rud Istvan, had he been alive at the time, would surely have joined the “experts” of the day who ridiculed Semmelweis, just as Pamela Grey can’t resist applying ridicule to those who recognize an established correspondence between solar activity and weather over time (“clmate”).
That correspondence, btw, is permanently etched into the C14 record.
Khwaizmi
Without getting into the Rud/Javier dust up, both of whom I respect, your link should remind us we don’t know what we don’t know. There certainly is one constant, that human beings always will believe they know more than they do. A few, like Semmelweis, keep forcing the rest of us to take our lumps and face up to our hubris. Only time and a hell of a lot of work by a lot of smart scientists will reveal what the sun’s full and complete effect on our climate is. That won’t be in my lifetime.
Doctors and surgeons, when told that they were spreading diseases and causing puerperal fever, said that it was not only untrue but that it was impossible for a surgeon to cause an illness.
They refused to even consider washing their hands after autopsies and prior to delivering babies.
0.1% means 1.3 W/m2. Realclimate.org scares us with 3.2 W/m2 by CO2 doubling.
Maybe it is just a coincidence, but climate scientist IQs are getting dimmer as well.
Why is it that solar experts speak so authoritatively on both sides of the question of whether solar variation has an enfluence on climate or not? It’s very like the authority wielded by warming catastophists. It would seem to me that this question should be answered by now.
Solar experts are busy all the time collecting scads of data, unlike warmists who spend all their efforts eschewing empirical data collection in favor of fudging it to fit models of what they they are sure will be happening.
This should be a learning moment for both types, but evidence suggests it won’t be.
What we need here are engineers schooled in W/m2 needed to change a column of water by one degree C. Then we work backwards to determine what entity is capable of variability sufficient to provide that change. And though I think the sun is better than any diamond in brilliance, the Sun does not qualify as the agent of change. The only thing that does is the inertia of a water planet functioning as a recharge discharge battery. This is a plain fact.
At what pressure?
Also, if the climatic optimum is a fully charged planetary battery and an ice age is a fully discharged planetary battery, is the planetary battery half empty or half full?
*Holocene climatic optimum
The key statement in this article is that the cosmic rays are increasing. Due to the lack of Sun spots, they are not deflected by the solar coronal mass ejections. As the magnetic activity of the sun decreases, influx of cosmic rays increase.
Cosmic rays are composed of subatomic particles such as protons and atomic nuclei. They are not actual rays but particles from ancient stars that have exploded. They come mainly from outside our solar system but some also come from our Sun. As our Sun and Earth travel around the center of our galaxy we go through areas of greater or lesser cosmic rays.
It has been experimentally proven that cloud formation is affected by cosmic rays. More cosmic rays means more cloud formation. This coincides with the real world observation of an increase in Earth’s cloud formations.
Clouds are not water vapor but instead are made up of water droplets. Water droplets only form when there are particles to condense around. These particles could be soot, various kinds of dust particles, living bacteria, called pseudomonas syringae, micrometeorites or cosmic ray particles.
In addition to making clouds that reduce the sunlight reaching earth, cosmic rays decrease water vapor since it is turned into clouds. And because of its abundance, water vapor is the only significant green house gas. A decrease in water vapor and a decrease in sunlight because of clouds is a powerful cooling combination.
Cosmic rays and micrometeorites have been severely underrated in their ability to cause climate change. More research needs to be preformed before we can predict the magnitude of their effect on clouds and climate change.
Some of this was taken from the book 13 Facts That Prove Humans Don’t Cause Global Warming you can see at the website http://www.13facts.com
Ed Toscano
Water vapor may be the most significant greenhouse “gas,” but water aerosols have the same effect of scattering infrared radiation in the H2O molecular bands. I notice this all the time in our weather (Pacific Northwest). Overnight clear skies in winter lead to lower temperatures than cloudy skies.
“Ed Toscano December 15, 2017 at 6:41 pm
More cosmic rays means more cloud formation. This coincides with the real world observation of an increase in Earth’s cloud formations.”
I understand it to be the reverse. I will try to find some links and information to support this.
Randomness and persistence in the solar cycle may not be fully appreciated
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2767274
I am thankful for such a stable Sun.
The second figure: The authors fitted to linear trend but in fact it better fits to “rise and flatten” pattern, i.e., during initial months raising and during the later period no change.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Ric Werme
Lets us start with my statement
“solar activity [i.e. SSN} is increasing when the solar polar magnetic filed strengths are waning.”
true or not true?
‘Generally speaking, at least up until 2014, the solar polar magnetic field strength has been declining a bit with each successive SC since 1971″
true or not true??
‘the field strengths are up again from 2015, which appears in line with your noted increase of stratospheric
radiation plot’
true or not true?
> true or not true?
The graphs you show are the difference of two fields. That doesn’t tell me what the strength of either field is.
If my car is going 5 mph faster than one next to me, I could be going 70 mph and the other 65. Or I could be stopped and the other backing up.
So, based on Leif’s graph, “I don’t know.”
RIc,
that is not my understanding.
Leif,
could you perhaps explain how the solar polar field strengths are measured and if the conclusions that I have drawn are correct?
the graphs we are discussing are here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/15/the-sun-is-blank-nasa-data-shows-it-to-be-dimming/#comment-2693996
could you perhaps explain how the solar polar field strengths are measured and if the conclusions that I have drawn are correct?
polar fields: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Your conclusions: generally not correct. A stronger polar field means a stronger solar cycle is coming
Leif
the abstract of the quoted report says that the solar polar field strengths are at their max. when SSN is at minimum.
So, my conclusion is correct.
Your so-called conclusion is too vague. What the report says is that the polar fields at minimum determine the size at the next solar maximum, i.e. low polar fields = low solar activity coming, high polar fields = high solar activity coming. Not that the polar fields and solar activity are anti-correlated. True?
The drift in the lowest TSI on the cycles is interesting. Sunspot counts can’t go under zero. They are just a manifestation of the magnetic activity of our favorite local variable star. I did a 5 min. analysis of grabbing the raw TSI data and doing a bit of smoothing (10 point media filter on daily data combined with some outlier pitching) and as a quick and dirty, the smoothed minimum TSI has gone from 1360.55 to 1360.50 to 1360.45 to 136040 over the past 4 cycles. And no, the decline was not exactly that regular, but it would require a lot more analysis than I have time for at 2 in the morning to put better numbers on it. Still you get the point. 0.05 is not a lot, but it is turning down the flame under the tea kettle. The slow shift downwards at the bottom and a more rapid shift downwards at the top makes for cooler tea over time.
The average over the last month was 1360.76, over the last two months: 1360.81…
A low solar activity as we are having, and an East oriented Quasi Biennial Oscillation at 30 hPa as we are having, when combined and in the absence of El Niño or strong tropical volcanic eruptions, are very good predictors of winter negative AO and NAO. That translates into colder than average Dec-Mar in most of Eurasia and North America and increased snow in the Northern Hemisphere.
Figure 97. The effect of QBO phase and solar activity on Northern Hemisphere winter stratospheric temperature and geopotential height. a) Composite December-January 30 mbar temperature anomaly (°C, 1981-2010 baseline) for seven QBO east years. The situation corresponds to a disorganized polar vortex with more frequent cold Arctic surface air incursions at lower latitudes. b) Same as in a, for five QBO west years. A well organized polar vortex keeps Arctic air trapped underneath. c) Composite January-March 500 mbar geopotential height anomaly (m, 1981-2010 baseline) for eighteen solar minimum years. A high winter North Pole geopotential is associated to a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. d) December-February correlation index between solar index and geopotential height for the 1980-2014 period. High solar activity correlates with low geopotential height over the Arctic. Source: NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis.
So yes, the solar minimum matters a lot, even if it is only a 0.1% TSI change. It is clearly not the change in TSI that matters.
I wouldn’t be surprised if gas prices go up during this winter, specially in Europe, due to increased demand. The solar minimum is that important.
Abstract. In a case study of a remarkable major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) during the boreal winter 2008/09, we investigate how transport and mixing triggered by this event affected the composition of the entire stratosphere in the Northern Hemisphere. We simulate this event with the Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere (CLaMS), both with optimized mixing parameters and with no mixing, i.e. with transport occurring only along the Lagrangian trajectories. The results are investigated by using tracer–tracer correlations and by applying the transformed Eulerian-mean formalism. The CLaMS simulation of N2O and O3, and in particular of the O3–N2O tracer correlations with optimized mixing parameters, shows good agreement with the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) data. The spatial distribution of mixing intensity in CLaMS correlates fairly well with the Eliassen–Palm flux convergence. This correlation illustrates how planetary waves drive mixing. By comparing simulations with and without mixing, we find that after the SSW, poleward transport of air increases, not only across the vortex edge but also across the subtropical transport barrier. Moreover, the SSW event, at the same time, accelerates polar descent and tropical ascent of the Brewer–Dobson circulation. The accelerated ascent in the tropics and descent at high latitudes first occurs in the upper stratosphere and then propagates downward to the lower stratosphere. This downward propagation takes over 1 month from the potential temperature level of 1000 to 400 K.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/8695/2015/
Yet, yet… It’s only 0.1%.
Yet it could be 0.1 % of the most energetic particles coming from the sun that makes the ozone & others TOA that deflect more UV off from earth so that less UV goes into the oceans…
I forgot the sarc tag 😉
Not nice to be sarcastic. The dictionary says:
“sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing”
Bad behavior.
What can I say, Leif. As someone says, science is a blood sport.
Like the math duels in Italy during the 15-hundreds?
Currently, the polar vortex in the stratosphere is broken.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00951/9qvej54xk72e.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole30_nh.gif
Geopotential Height Anomaly
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2017.png
Pressure anomalies in the north show the flow of air from the north to North America and Europe. These anomalies are the result of a broken polar vortex.
?oh=02f796f9be835fc26a9b86ee34db84d1&oe=5ACD6C0E
“So yes, the solar minimum matters a lot, even if it is only a 0.1% TSI change. It is clearly not the change in TSI that matters.
I wouldn’t be surprised if gas prices go up during this winter, specially in Europe, due to increased demand. The solar minimum is that important.”
Why is it difficult to understand that the movement of weather systems via stratospheric UV/O3 chemistry, is not an alteration of the Earth’s energy budget?
It wouldn’t be important to you *if* you lived at the NP and it was warmer due a UV/O3 influenced -AO then?
And there are also observations of QBO-like oscillations on Jupiter and Saturn, but with periods of five years or more instead of the two years of QBO. So probably not solar-related as is claimed [falsely I think] for the Earth’s QBO. A counterargument would be that “we don’t know enough to judge”. Just like Al Gore’s “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
You can’t be sure of that. A warmer NP during the winter means more energy is escaping the planet.
“You can’t be sure of that. A warmer NP during the winter means more energy is escaping the planet.”
You cant be sure of that either, as warmer air advecting into the arctic would have higher water content, causing condensation and low cloud/fog as a result and therefore a higher GHE.
Whilst colder air moving south would have less cooling effect to space due to radiating at a colder temp.
and being drier/colder can absorb more TSI due having less cloud.
Need to think of it in the round.
” Earths energy budget” More energy in, more energy out. no work done, right?
What goes out had to come in at some point.
Am I the only one (probably am) to see The Gaia Hypothesis at work here?
Folks are getting themselves all worked up about something of mind numbing triviality, about which they can do absolutely nothing. Apart from inside their own heads where they see more or less faeries than the other guy and getting all het up about it.
Hence raising the old blood pressure a notch or 2, it also sets off Cortisol hormone.
Not nice and so those affected will reach for a tried-and-tested remedy= Dopamine.
And where do they get that if not by eating sugar?
What could possibly go wrong?
Apart from cardio vascular disease, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune malfunction, cancer and dementia?
See how Gaia looks after him/her or itself?
Even ex-executives of Facebook admitted that FB was “ripping society apart’ and what happens next – do people start ripping other people apart?
steven mosher
did you already check the temperature in your own backyard like I asked you.
What did you get? You might get a surprise like I did.
I remind you again of my finding that there is no man made warming:
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Sorry Antony but this article was not up to your usual standard.
Excursion below the mean by 0.1% of total solar irradiance (TSI) is not significant of itself to be worth a blog article.
Readers unfamiliar with solar physics need the sort of context that Soon and others provide or that Shaviv has reported.
Have a look at this one by Willie Soon and others. http://marshall.org/climate-change/solar-variability-and-climate-change
Their paper shows sufficient context to be worth discussing. Also, check out the paper by Nir Shaviv. https://tinyurl.com/yakrp8nm
Variations in solar meridional circulation is can be described as the outward effects of two oscillating modes of excited or tiring Atomic Hamsters. We’ve all seen hamsters race on a wheel reach a state when footpad torque exceeds perpendicular force in high ratio, evolving into a highly gyroscopic and stable system which would naturally settles around its barycenter if the hamster wheel was in space. That is a ‘quiet’ sun.
But we’ve all witnessed the hilarious moment when hamsters tire and dig in as the wheel carries them round and round. A whole subculture of humor is centered around the plight of the careening creatures, a guffaw that tries to guess their thoughts and supposes they are being subject to conditions that would not have arisen in nature. The system becomes eccentric and its barycenter is offset to such a degree that spinning hamster wheels with attached hamster-lumps in a gravity well will want to ‘jump’ and ‘walk’. In space the hamster wheel merely develops lobes of movement and its edges will extend further outwards briefly, in places. When such Atomic Hamster Wheels more often breach the surface, at times releasing flares, is an ‘active’ sun.
Atomic Hamsters are distributed along their wheels but are subject to external gravitational attractions such as Jupiter, and so will congregate on the parts of the wheel closest to them. IF they were perfectly distributed solar ‘quiet’ would prevail. The Atomic Hamster model and its wild ‘spinning hamster’ phase attempts to explain why sunspots are as likely to form on the side away from these gravitational influences.
Atomic Hamsters unifies a previous theory that sunspots are the result of Solar Children engaged in giggling horseplay under a blanket (the photosphere) with momentary eruptions caused by deformation from their bony feet and elbows.
The neutron diagram indicates that currently the magnetic activity of the Sun is at the level of 2008. Then there was an unexpected drop in 2009 and the extension of the solar minimum.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00951/p6u9gcakwb22.gif
Every second solar minimum has a ‘flat top’ cosmic ray count, so the GCR level this time around will be a tad lower than at the previous [‘sharply peaked’] minimum.
Of course. Only that this minimum can be longer.
2008 + 11 = 2019 and now it is only 2017.
So does that prevent the minimum from being two years or longer ?
The minimum is an instant in time. Better to talk about the low-activity interval. Historically, that interval is longer between low cycles [simply because there are fewer spots from both the old and the new cycles].
For cosmic rays the count will be ‘flat-topped] and thus look lower, see Slide 61 of http://www.leif.org/research/Observations-polar-magnetic-fields-and-Cycle-25-prediction.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Slide-61.png
Interesting long set of slides. Livingston & Penn got a mention, which made me wonder how the Livingston, Penn, Svalbard, graph of the suns (spots? ) declining magnetic field strength was doing, the one that looked like it would reach a minimum of 1500 at about 2020, but then it seemed to start to level off. I think I last saw an update on that graph about a year ago.
The Kitt Peak Solar Observatory has been closed [no money] so there are no updates to the Livingston plot.
I’m conflicted- I want the warm mongers to be proven wrong, but I definitely don’t want it to get colder.
Tom,
I have to disappoint you.
my results, looking for example at maxima, show that, on average, the heat we get in behaves like a perfect sine wave. That means in very 87 years there are only 2 points on the track [possibly not even a day long] where it is neither cooling nor warming…
Leif, 2008/9 was the first two year minimum witnessed in modern times with near minimum sunspots. Any opinions as to whether we might see a repeat of that or an even longer period perhaps ?
There has been a 100-yr quasi-period [low spot count in 1700s, 1810s, 1910s, 2010s. So the Sun is just doing what it has always done. It is unlikely that another Grand Minimum [the 100-yr minima were not GRAND minima] will arrive this time around, but there certainly WILL be one some time in the farther future.
or a Grand Maximum
which I think is also [still] possible
:::
grand =
when somehow we miss all planets and the balance of weight in the SS being at the right spot together to throw the electrical switch inside the sun.
The centennial cycle of solar activity has been best studied by Feynman and Rumaikin. For example:
Feynman, J., & Ruzmaikin, A. (2014). The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its association with extended minima. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119(8), 6027-6041.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA019478/full
The people that predicted this extended solar minimum were ignored, so it was a complete surprise to most astrophysicists.
The people that predicted this extended solar minimum were ignored, so it was a complete surprise to most astrophysicists.
No true. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Schatten-2005-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf
I don’t see anything in that article about an extended minimum. He only talks about SC24. And I said most, not all.
And clearly most predictions for SC24 were way too high as can be seen in panels a and b.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the scientific literature. Many people have predicted low solar cycles coming.
E.g. Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum? Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.:
American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, id.06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817, 2003.
“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. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.”
Yet as my figure from Pesnell 2008 shows the predictions submitted to the SC24 prediction panel had an average way higher that the real activity. That counts as a poll between interested parties so I am still correct in saying that the extended minimum surprised most astrophysicists.
No, it surprised most people who do not know what they are talking about.
As long as that includes the people with PhDs that submitted their predictions to the panel. If we reduce the group to Schatten and you, then nobody was surprised, right?
As PhD is no guarantee of knowing what is going on. Many of the ‘predictions’ relied on invalid methods like spectral analysis, planetary influences, numerology, etc. It is no surprise that those methods don’t work.
NASA heeded our prediction and decided not to spend 200 million dollars de-orbiting the Hubble Telescope, which gave us more than a decade more of wonderful science. So, yes, there is a difference between us and the know-it-alls who were all wrong.
Congratulations. I have always defended that you are a crack scientist. Even if you have it completely wrong with solar variability and climate.
I don’t think your opinion about persons are relevant or called for. Study the subject better and stick to the science.
You are all the time giving your opinion about others. I am studying the subject, and what I find is mountains of evidence that don’t match what you say.
You only find what you want to find, and ignore all else. This much is clear.
Nope. I read from both sides and see which one has better evidence. Of course two people looking at the same evidence can reach different conclusions. It happens all the time in science.
Not good enough. You must also discuss the ‘other side’ and evaluate the counterarguments. It is not enough to just say “I like paper A better than paper B”. You must also discuss what the ‘errors’ in paper B are. I don’t recall you ever doing that, or considering a more balanced view.
I don’t write about the other side arguments often because there is plenty of writing about them, as many of my views, not all, appear to be in minority. But I do consider all the time the possibility that I am wrong. If the facts change I change my view. I started believing in global warming by CO₂ increase, then I changed my view when I saw that the evidence was not very supportive. Then I was against a significant solar effect on climate , but again I changed my view because the paleo evidence is very clear. If I see strong warming in the next decade and a half, I will be forced to change my view again. No problem. What you think is wrong. I am not espoused to any hypothesis. Whether right or wrong, I am espoused to the evidence.
If I see strong warming in the next decade and a half, I will be forced to change my view again
I have a strong feeling you could have said that 15 years ago as well, as the enthusiast papers for the faithful back then were just as compelling [to some at least] as now.
I am a late arrival to skepticism, as I did not question the dogma for a very long time, but no significant warming has taken place since 2003 except for the 2014-16 El Niño warming now waning. The situation should be more clear by 2020.
At least I have a clear mark for whether the evidence supports or not my point of view. I bet no matter the amount of cooling between now and 2035, you won’t change yours.
And you forgot [again] the /sarc…
No, I didn’t. I have a very high opinion of you as a scientist despite our disagreements. You are so used to insults and attacks here that you think anybody that disagrees with you is against you.
It is not about insults or being ‘against’ somebody. It is about the science and avoiding the misconceptions and biases almost everybody on WUWT carry around. As this study http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments points out: “Facts Don’t Win Arguments”.
The more I show you the wrongness of your ways, the more you dig your heels in and the more you cannot accept disagreements.
I agree.
I disagree. I am perfectly happy with disagreements. I don’t want to hear from people that think exactly the same I do. It’s a waste of time.
I get information and references from our discussions, and I ponder about that. But the weight of the evidence in my opinion is still that solar variability has a disproportionate effect on climate. That evidence is set on Holocene proxies, so it is very difficult to obviate. Nothing that I see from the last 400 years makes me think those records are invalid.
That solar activity has been decreasing since the 90s while temperatures have been increasing is a silly argument with multiple assumptions that are probably not true. It does not in any way dismiss the observation that long periods of very low solar activity always coincide with periods of decreased temperatures.
That solar activity has been decreasing since the 90s
?w=768&h=630
A good example of your bias. Look at the graph for this very post:
A more honest assessment would be since the 1950s. [and I know SC20 was anomalous].
Is not a bias. Looking at it with a 22-year average the decline is insignificant until the 1990s.
Bias confirmed:
http://www.leif.org/research/Bias-Confirmed.png
’nuff said
Your opinion, again.
Several articles show that the match between climate proxies and solar proxies has a 10 year delay, and we know that the Schwabe cycle has a very small effect on climate, so there is a very good reason to look at a 22-year averaged solar activity.
There’s Svalgaard’s straw man again (with the thoughts he’d be thinkin’, he could be another Lincoln). High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity over the last half century has been high, hence warming…
solar activity in the last half of the 18th century was probably even higher than in the last half of the 20th, yet temperatures were much lower than today.
So what?
“18th century was probably even higher than in the last half of the 20th”
Only in the recently “Adjusted” series.
Your “adjustments, made it so.
Adjustments are a fact of life as new data and better methods become available.
The OLD sunspot number had been adjusted several times, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/Adjustments-of-Wolf-Number.png
The latest re-evaluation of the sunspot number [in 2014] and especially the new Group Number went back to original sources and corrected several errors and inconsistencies and represent the best we can do today. Even so, there are die-hards who dissent and prefer the old numbers [heavily adjusted by Rudolf Wolf himself], but their numbers are dwindling.
Wait wait wait. You’re saying Earth’s heating and cooling is significantly influenced by the giant, sustained nuke 8 light-minutes away?
Can one of the solar experts here discuss what changes are occurring in the solar spectrum over time? It seems possible that there is a shift in UV/Vis/IR spectral intensities while having only a small change in TSI.
We have a good record of UV/EUV back to the 1740s. The record shows that those fluxes were simply following the solar cycle [as does TSI] so no such shifts have occurred.
for research, don’t trust any results older than 40 years,
or you have to check personally that the data was not in any way ‘adjusted’ to fit the ‘fake’ news meme.
that result is only two years old…
Leif,
are you sure people were aware that people knew UV even existed in 1740?
It doesn’t matter what people believed in 1740. Their measurements are still valid.
Dave you’re asking the correct questions!
UV does correlate with solar cycles as Leif suggests, the energy budget of UV is discarded in favour of TSI recordings.
UV produces a lot of infrared radiation, more than “TSI”
But acknowledging this would be a “Solar-climate” connection.
Oh the ironing…
The test is now on low solar versus increasing CO2 . We will know by summer of 2018 now that solar is very low and likely to stay that way.
LOWER SOLAR equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures and slightly higher albedo the result cooling.
Less UV light, lower sea surface temperatures.
Slightly higher albedo due to an increase in major volcanic activity ,cloud/snow coverage due to galactic cosmic rays and atmospheric circulation changes, solar wind .
-AO/NAO/EPO all tied to low solar and neg QBO again, which has always been the case in the past.
The TSI change just a minor part of the story.
Don’t worry, those magic CO2 photons can work miracles, just you wait.
While the world freezes the Climate Scientists will still be saying it is the warmest or one of the warmest months, springs, summers autumns, winters or years on record.
And the MSM like good little boys & girls will proclaim it from the rooftops.
We will be none the wiser by summer of 2018, give or take the odd strat injecting volcano perhaps. Which therefore excludes those currently fizzing away off the coast of Svalbard. But everyone ignores those anyway it seems. Even polar bears.
Leif
just so a get a handle o n this, what measurements you say people were doing in the 18th century to measure the UV?
I cannot even get decent data on UV today that goes back 40 years.
Here is how it is done:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA-2017-1220-History-ST-Relations.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf also on youtube
If you do not bother to study this material, I would not bother with further discussion.
no,
we had already agreed to differ of opinion on relying any type of reconstruction of data from the past, which is what you are doing.
for example, I say you cannot even trust SSN more than a 100 years ago, because what did the scientists do when it was cloudy for many weeks on end, and, in any case, the different observing stations had different specs. as to what magnification to use.
My data show for the past 40 years show that the speed of warming and cooling follows a certain sine wave curve. The wave has a wavelength of 87 years. 43 years of warming followed by 43 years of cooling.
As I said: failure to study the science on this leads to failure with further discussion and education.
Leif,
I am a bit puzzled by your comment about SSN and solar polar field strengths not being negatively correlated. It sure looks like that way to me.
Are you saying that the solar polar field strength as measured by Wilcox et all is not representative of the whole of the magnetic field strength from the sun as we measure it here [on earth]?
please advise.
For the gazillionth time: The polar fields at minimum [where the SSN is close to zero] is a predictor of the next sunspot cycle: low polar fields = low next cycle; high polar fields = high next cycle. As the SSN is basically zero at minimum there can be no correlation between that zero and whatever value the polar fields have.Readm atudy, and heed the many links I have given you to all of this.
that has nothing to do with my point.
I can figure out the strength of the next SC from my own results
the point was that SSN is going up when the [solar polar field strengths] are going down,
True or not true?
[…] = absolute value
the point was that SSN is going up when the [solar polar field strengths] are going down
True or not true?
Obviously [from your figure] not tru. As both the long arrows are going down, down, down.
But as I said: refusal to study the links I gave you ends the discussion right here.
leif
you say
As both the long arrows are going down, down, down.
I say that was another point, namely that the trend of the solar magnetic field strength is down, for the past 4 solar cycles. You say that is true. Fine. we agree, But that will change as from the next SC.
I am not looking at that now. I am looking to where the field strengths are moving to zero. The absolute value is always positive. You understand that?
Do you agree now that the absolute value of the field strength is going down when SSN is going up? There is a direct negative correlation.
[I am well aware that the true SC (Hale Nicholson) is 23 years, consisting of a positive and negative Schwabe cycle]
As I said: “Discussion closed” until you submit evidence that you have read, studied, and absorbed the information I have already given.
You’re going to end up in a re-education camp or something haha
We are fortunate that the Sun is as stable as it is, but could it be defined as a Variable Star and if so would that mean that ALL stars have a degree of variability? If this is the case extra-terrestrial life would be much rarer than we think.
I hope Leif will update his many graphs soon. No data for the last 9 months, sad!
The climate does not change much in nine months…
Which graph in particular are you interest in?
Active Region count, Recent Solar activity (hi-def), and WSO polar fields.
Active Region count, Recent Solar activity (hi-def), and WSO polar fields.
Working on the two first ones. Here are the polar fields:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-HMI-WSO-for-SC25.png
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields.png
Wp strikes again. One cannot update a graph. I have to create a new one with a different name:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003x.png
Here is the Active Region Count. There are no hi-res details yet as there really hasn’t been any new-cycle active regions. It is clear that we are not at minimum yet.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count-now.png
The update has been delayed by David Hathaway’s retirement for NASA. His database at NASA was not updated for many months. But, now he has teamed up the Lisa Upton and they have a wonderful new website, which I can warmly recommend http://solarcyclescience.com/home.html
and
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest-1712.png
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24-1712.png
Outstanding, Leif, three out of three ain’t bad. Your graphs are the best. And thanks also for the solarcyclescience reference, very interesting indeed. Happy holidays!
On the ball as usual Leif.
What bet this upcoming Phaethon “Meteor” is really the real Planet X that’s been affecting our weather so much and the authorities just cover it up to avoid panic? It’s real effect upon Earth would not be by striking it, but the hordes of meteorites that we already see daily preceding and following it. Then, again, it will be a big rush if indeed we do get a pole shift. Like Jesus says in the Bible, “Go to high ground.” So much for California even as the Red Chinese plan to exploit the destruction and invade the US “To restore civil order” in white UN tanks.
Whiskey or Vodka?
peyote
A Russian troll bot.
Spam from an AGW true believer to make this site look bad.
Most of what we have been told about the sun is a mythical lie. All is centered around the false notion that a star’s output has a “main sequence” phase, where it burns hot briefly at ignition, then settles down for a few billion years, and so on. This notion violates what we know about energy conservation and stellar fuel consumption. According to everything I know about the subject, a star’s fuel consumption is linear. Stellar output declines in a linear fashion. The notion that “oh, we have a few billion years blah blah” it nonsense. This leads to my theory of “Planetary Migration of Species due to Solar Output Reduction”.
In all likelihood, we started on Mars as a species. The sun was younger and hotter, of course. As it cooled, over thousands of years a great project is undertaken by our species. The creation of a ship big enough to move a planet full of people. The asteroid belt, where gravity seemingly failed to create a planet (because of Jupiter, because Jupiter’s gravity can somehow disrupt planet formation, but not of its own satellites apparently, and the sun can’t disrupt planetary formation due to its gravity, this ONLY happens between Mars and Jupiter…k?) is actually the leftover refuse of that project. That project created our moon, for which only half cocked guesswork explains the presence of, and brought us here.
Next, it will take us to Venus (likely not nearly as hot as we’re told) where we will exist until the sun has almost exhausted its fuel and we will then head for another star somewhere.
Why wouldn’t we know? Well for one, the slaves don’t need to know their true history. They just need to work. With a little beer and tv, humans forget what they did 5 minutes ago. 5000 years ago is easy. For another, we’re poor record keepers.
Its my belief that planetary migration is ubiquitous throughout the cosmos. As a star gradually cools, the “Goldilocks zone” moves constantly inward, forcing civilizations to migrate or freeze.
What if this is absolute truth? It certainly explains a lot of things with relative ease that otherwise need convoluted theories and outlandish formulas to guess at.
that is truly the weirdest theory I have ever heard…
I’m not sure it can qualify as a ‘theory’. If it does, then the ‘Moon is made of green cheese’ also qaulifies
letme,
Can you provide specific evidence to support your assertion that:
1) “In all likelihood, we started on Mars as a species.” Edgar Rice Burroughs notwithstanding,
2) That Venus is “likely not as hot as we’re told”,
3) The asteroid belt is the debris of “a ship big enough to move a planet full of people”,
4) That the ‘project to build a planetary population moving ship’ created the Moon,
5) That we were all ‘slaves’ during the relocation.
Your assertions make for good scifi, if you’re willing to engage in a good bit of ‘suspension of disbelief’. It is pretty similar to “When Worlds Collide” a novel I enjoyed when I was 12.
Pretty sure you mean “laughably bad scifi”. No science. Pure fantasy.
I had to double check to see if I was still on WUWT. I thought Disney had hacked in with one of their fair tales.
The biggest bummer is that less sunspots = less rain.
What data do you have for that?
Great story . . . reminds me of the SciFi I used to read as a kid. I’d work it as people on a cold and dying Earth preparing the move to Venus looking for a way to make the move. Then they discover that it’s been done before as Earth’s human ancestors migrated here from Mars. This opens their eyes to the fact that eventually humankind will have to find a new planet orbiting around a different star. The pen name Arthur C. Clarke is already taken.
So why is it that comments that mention Theodore’s surname are blocked ?
OMG! It’s all our fault! All our CO2 and global warming are causing the sun to cool, bringing about a new global ice age! Just like they said back in the 70s! What to do? What to do????
This is a True Chicken LIttle Apocalypse! Send Money to the Liberals!!
La Niña and the polar vortex will work during the coming winter.
Damn Global Warming!!!
What struck me most about the TSI plot (aside from the fact that it took me almost an hour to find the “dashed horizontal line – you should really make that in another color) were the huge, high frequency excursions. There are changes of 4 W/m^2 in extremely short periods. That has to be significant.
There are changes of 4 W/m^2 in extremely short periods. That has to be significant.
Most of these are simply due to solar rotation and the emergence of large spots. If a large spot rotates onto disk, decreases. When the large spot two weeks later rotates onto the backside TSI increases back to ‘normal’ again.
Doesn’t a 0.1% drop in the sun’s luminosity (1.36 W/m2) over a 45 year period represent a change in radiative forcing which is relatively similar to the change in radiative forcing from the total increase in atmospheric CO2 of approximately 120 ppm since per-industrial times?
According to International Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 9251034, “Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2 ”, a clear-sky atmosphere with 280 ppm CO2 produces an Iabs of 323.02 W/m2, while under same conditions an atmosphere with 420 ppm CO2 produces a Iabs of 325.38 W/m2, or an increase of 2.36 W/m2 . Where Iabs is the intensity of the absorbed long wave radiation flux in the atmosphere.
Thus the reduction of solar luminosity effectively cuts increased GHG concentration’s warming affect by 50%.
No, because as the Earth receives solar radiation it re-radiates what it gets so there is a balance between what comes in and what goes out.
Leif says;
“…the Earth receives solar radiation it re-radiates what it gets so there is a balance between what comes in and what goes out.”
Sometimes the Earth receives more solar radiation and it ‘re-radiates’ more of what it gets. Sometimes less!
We have only observed Earth receiving solar radiation during a period of time when we began to put satellites into orbit,
There is only one half of a story being told, the later half of the 20th century had solar cycles with increased intensity in solar activity.
Sometimes the Earth receives more solar radiation and it ‘re-radiates’ more of what it gets. Sometimes less!
It radiates back to space just what it gets. And in any case, what happens over a month is not relevant for the 30-yr climate.
Global warming is solved!
I remember several years ago that our star had a very strange fluxuation it kind of freaked me out. I’m no expert but have spent some time as an amateur astronomers. It was so unusual. The sun actually looked like it expanded and contracted on one side.At the time there was no explanation for it. Also I have noticed there have been some surprise discovery of asteroids. If our galaxy I’d colliding with another galaxy couldn’t the local fluff be affecting our star?
don’t think so.
Well, two nuclear FUSION reactors are under construction, in Asia and Europe, so…
“I can’t explain why yet, but some way, somehow, this is Trump’s fault.”
– Every person who watches MSNBC
Oh c’mon, it’s just gonna get warmer and warmer forever. Sheesh. Send me $$ and I’ll do what I can to make it colder. Thanks.
Further supporting the idea that anthropomorphic climate change is just a giant scam. The sun will cause greater change to the climate in the next decade than another 1 Billion people occupying this blue marble in that same decade. Bundle up. It’s going to get a lot cooler wherever you are right now.
Leif,
You responded, “No, because as the Earth receives solar radiation it re-radiates what it gets so there is a balance between what comes in and what goes out.”
Right. At equilibrium, an “average” earth atmospheric temperature is established. Moreover, under constant solar input to earth, an increased concentration of earth’s GHG’s (especially CO2 & CH4) does reduce the earth’s power-output to space. Meaning, a new, higher equilibrium temperature for the atmosphere will eventually be established, right?
Not quite sure what you driving at. But an increased concentration of gases with more than two atoms per molecule [e.g. H20, O3, CO2, etc] will increased the temperature. The only question is by how much? The current values means an increase of 33 degrees over the case where those gases were not present. More here: http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf
Just attempting to “drive” to what is known and what is not known about human induced climate change and the sun’s role. Read your link, “Climate Change: Evidence, Models, and Speculation”, thanks much for the broad coverage of this topic. Prior to reading it, I was going to respond with something like, so what is there to be skeptical about? Turns out, a bunch more than just water vapor feedback. The Alkenone series vs. instrument series divergence, to me, is shocking.
Now back to my original question. Looking at what is currently understood, it would seem that at least on shorter time scales (50 years or so), that the human contribution to atmospheric warming via GHG’s must be very low, right? If true (not sure it is), then shouldn’t the short term (within normal long term solar cycle(s)) reduction in solar output (as pointed out by Anthony) counteract the coincident warming impact of human induced GHG? Sorry if i’m not getting your point, yet.
then shouldn’t the short term (within normal long term solar cycle(s)) reduction in solar output (as pointed out by Anthony) counteract the coincident warming impact of human induced GHG
Except that the influence of less active Sun is too tiny to make any difference. It is so small that we cannot hardly see the 11-yr sunspot cycle signal above the noise.
Wait a minute, I think I get it now. The uncertainties in all these concepts, are just too large to make my point. I think that’s what you likely to say.
something like that, yes
The climate change scammers are using climate change for more political power. The sun has more to do with climate change than man does. This is proof. Man-made climate change is a SCAM.
So far now..Almost 20yrs….The Models call for Man-Made Global Warming. The Data, however, shows that the Earth has actually been cooling these last almost 20yrs
Man Made Global Cooling
you heard it here first
We can all be sure it is cooling because people are hip to NASA/NOAA tricks and mechanical engineer /comedian Bill Nye is no longer taking bets on claims of record temperature on earth .
Don’t see the climate “experts ‘ suggesting added CO2 will help reverse the forthcoming cooling trend .
Funny how that works . More people and animals will lose their lives due to cooling but not a peep .
Guess it was all about wiping out people after all . Well that and fleecing tax payers .
Crap I’m 72 years old. I remember the global ice age coming in the 70’s, the global warming in the late 50’s , early 60’s. Damn will you people get in on before I go please/
Hang around for at least another decade – it’ll be an interesting one with great tools to watch the sun!
What I have yet to see graphed or charted is the correlation ( or not ) between GCR’s and cloud cover. That is the crux of Svensmark’s theory and he mentioned there was one in The Cloud Mystery. Is there anywhere that people have been tracking this?
correlation ( or not ) between GCR’s and cloud cover.
There isn’t any that held up over time:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cloud-Cover-GCR-Disconnect.png
The dimming is being caused by man from all the satellites we have put in orbit …
Fukushima daiichi will get us before any climate change from the Sun or carbon. Computer models show that at the current rate of discharge of radioactive material into the groundwater and sea, most of the Pacific Ocean will be Radioactive by 2021. This could lead to massive starvation because already in the last 2 years over 300 ocean species have gone extinct. Google; starfish melting off the coast of Oregon YouTube. What on Earth were the children of the world thinking when they put 30 nuclear reactors on an island that has a earthquake practically every other day?
Wow.. reading science fiction?
The oceans have been radioactive for their entire existance from dissolved uranium, thorium, and potassium. Perhaps you could post some actual data.
You would think after all the Godzilla movies Japan would have learned that they shouldn’t mess with nuclear stuff or something very bad would happen.
But then again there is beneficial radiatio when rares of cancer dropped by 97%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
Maunder Minimum. Predicted, now it is a reality and we should see the impact over the next 30-50 years.
Note that none of the global warming crowd owes up to the fraud by NASA, NOAA, take your pick of universities in the U.S. and Europe to push a liberal agenda that is failed. Models did not take into account solar radiation variations and tectonics–spreading zones and volcanoes. Weather data was either outright falsified, changed, or ignored. Sensors were in urban areas, skewing the data–asphalt and concrete jungles are about 10F higher than rural areas. Man hasn’t a clue and our arrogance gives us a false sense of security that is a fool’s paradise. Remember the frozen Mammoth’s found on Wrangell Is. with the flowers in their mouths?
Weather patters are cyclical and as a 63 Alaskan, things are getting back to where they were when I was a kid in the late 50s, 60s. Weather changed about 1984 with a shift in the jet stream that now dips will into CONUS allowing the arctic air mass to hit the U.S.
One day it is going to snow and keep snowing. That’s when this civilization ends and the ice age comes back.
You can’t ignore the sun. The sun drives the weather on every planet in the solar system. And, don’t forget solar EMP potential . . . the end of civilization may not come by the sun’s diminishing activity.
What’s gonna happen will happen. God’s plan, not man’s.
Lawrence
interesting comment.
Funny you should mention Alaska. Back in 2013 I did look at some data there once. Sometimes it is better to focus on only one weather station and analyse all the data that you know you can trust. [Unless you balance your data set based on a number of factors]. In this case I looked at the data from a military base station and I looked specifically at maxima. Basically there is nothing that can wrong there as a thermometer gets stuck on a maximum and is read once a day. I looked at all maxima recorded since 1942. Here was my final result on that:
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
notes:
1) the data shows exactly what you are experiencing personally: things in Alaska are going back to how it was in the past.
2) I predicted the minimum [for maxima] at 2016 but this was based on the assumption of the wave length being 88 years. It turned out that we already passed the minimum at 2014 [looking at the solar polar magnetic field strengths]
3) The Gleissberg SC is in fact 87 years and it consists of 4 full Hale cycles in a row. A Hale cycle is equal to 2 Schwabe SC ‘s. So there won’t be any prolonged minimum now. We already made the switch and the solar polar field strength is strongly rising. The planets were all in time for throwing the relevant [electrical] switch on the sun in 2014.
I hope you can live with the cold up there? God bless you.
We are not getting Maunder Minimum type conditions on the sun, there will be longer weaker solar cycles for a few decades.
A cooling period should be the overall result of weaker solar cycles.
The reasoning is; Shorter more intense solar cycles produce more energy than, weaker less intense solar cycles over the same period of time.
A period of time we can confirm, through planetary mechanics.
So…… The Sun is the cause of Global Warming and Climate Change.
Yes.
But I was under the impression that the science is settled that cow flatulence was the cause of climate change. Have I been lied to?
Great article Anthony! Minor challenge: suggesting a significant amount of other energy, you wrote, “natural radioactivity in Earth’s core”. There’s almost no radioactivity there. It’s concentrated in the Earth’s *continental* crust, and even there, preferentially around granite. I had a contentious interview with physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (he’s an alarmist, but our interview was on another topic) and the lack of significant radioactivity in the core (and mantle for that matter) was the only point that he and I agreed upon.
Bob
I also noticed this.
I think what is meant is: the radiation coming from the inner core of earth
Ric, can you comment on this?
Anyway, don’t underestimate the radiation from earth’s inner core. In fact, come down 1km into a gold mine here and discover how big that elephant in the room really is. But there is very little data.
Yet, my results indicate that it is for a large part the movement of earth’s inner core [magnetic stirrer effect] that is the reason for the arctic ice melt.
Nice to see discussion from people who can string sentences together, we realize we must be better stewards of our resources, lets get on with it. Railing at politico-economic factors better than paganestic Gaia Earth mother relgious fantasies. Laws of thermodynaics at work, pure of simple. The author of those laws planned for this within His time line, what an intelligent design He made. 😑
Just what we need…another crisis. I would include a link to Monty Python singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”, but that does not appear to be an option on this site. 😉
This will get buried it makes Trump look smart
I have been having great fun ascribing this phenomena to anthropogenic sunspot depletion brought on by all the various solar energy installations.
Very interesting and revealing climatic prospects lie ahead in my opinion as the prolonged solar minimum becomes more established.
Overall sea surface temperatures thus far are on the decline and will translate to lower overall global temperatures if trend holds up.
It is a wait and see situation.
Well, since this solar cycle REALLY started in 2006, the year of no sunspots and an awkward scrambling to account for it, and the Sun didn’t switch its magnetic poles the way it usually does at the end of a solar cycle, there was widespread talk of another Maunder Minimum. And FWIW, the frost fairs on the frozen Thames are on record as taking place during the Regency period.
So then, the Sun goes back to “normal” (whatever that is) in 2008, eighteen months after it stalled out and scared people, but it didn’t come back to quite the level it had reached before that Solar Minimum, and now we’re in another. It’s the length of time, not the level (as indicated in a previous WUWT article) that counts. The longer Old Sol stays quiet, the more affected the Earth is.
Oh, and Earth’s magnetic field is weakening, too, which lets in more cosmic radiation, because the Earth’s magnetic poles are in the process of getting ready to swap ends. I sincerely hope you all know how to navigate by sight instead of GPS, because magnetic compasses will be pointing South, just to confuse you. The real question is will this cause massive episodes of volcanism everywhere? And if so, how will it affect commerce? Will you kids still be able to use your electronic toys, or will we all be reduced to writing letters to each other?
It doesn’t explain why last winter was nice and mild after a brief, if nasty, spell of cold and snow, or why we’re having a repeat in my kingdom, but it’s going to hit 47F on Tuesday and then get cold again. Polar vortices are interesting, aren’t they?
And I wish you all a very merry Christmas.
Wow, as it goes low it is only .1% from the maximum. What amazing consistency the sun has. This chicken little article is embarrassing.
The liberals blame mankind!
This whole thing will be devastating to the “Climate Change” (previously known as “global warming”) group. Perhaps now Al-Buffoon can finally retire his long-winded, boring “oratory” about it.
He won’t shut up about it; he will discredit the scientists who made this study or say something stupid like the Sun’s temperature has no effect on the temperature of the Earth. Gore has made well over 100 million dollars peddling these carbon credits. He says he purchases carbon credits, and he does, but what he doesn’t say is that he owns the company that he purchases them from, Generation Investment Management.
Read a story 20+ years ago about an EBE telling a person that the our sun was going out, at the time I dismissed it. Now I tend to believe it, I have been watching these NASA websites for many years and the sun has been getting dimmer and dimmer each year. And the sun has been going into this solar minimum for quite a number of years as well. Seems the story cannot be kept a secret for ever, the powers that be have known for quite awhile. Nothing we can do about it anyway, unless you have an extra long set of jumper cables we can jump start the sun with.
those jumper cables actually exist.
myself and a few others here are aware of the relationship between the position of the planets and with what happens on the sun. I am inclined to believe this correlation is causal to the various solar cycles that we have….it seems the balance of power is indeed in the hand of a small portion of the solar system: some additional gravitational pull throwing an electrical switch on the sun.
Amazing, is it not?
So what happens if one planet goes missing?
Disaster!!!
Lately, nothing happened badly. It seems we arrived safely on the other side of the GB cycle.
Solar panels on Earth are sucking the energy out of the sun. This has been reported by the scientific community
Just like the solar powered Death Star in the previous Star Wars movie drawing the heat directly from the surface of the planet’s sun.
Not only are we experiencing cooling but we are ill prepared to supply the world with the fuel they will need to survive. The amount of coal, oil, shale and natural gas required cannot all fall to the U.S. If Asia, EU, MENA, LATAM are to survive, they must develop their own full cycle supply chain resources. Nuclear power for massive cities is also an answer…. Prime example of falling asleep at the wheel…. NY in the U.S. has soaring energy costs and they close their most affordable sources. The governing of energy policy has nothing to do with science or common sense any longer. It has become ideological political witchcraft to serve those seeking new currencies and the control of populations. The Sun controls the Earth’s climate not the amount of money you send to Al Gore, The Queen of England or Goldman Sachs as tribute.
“NY in the U.S. has soaring energy costs.” And National Grid is applying a rate increase. Meanwhile, here in Indian Lake in the ADKs it was -11 degrees this morning, a full month in advance of the bitter chill we usually get in Jan-Feb.
Reaching 0 at 10 am.
Someone going by the handle “Me” at the start of these comments made the statement that the US is a “net exporter of oil”. This is not true. We are a net exporter of refined products (gasoline, diesel, etc.) but a net importer of crude oil, and a net importer overall, That is our net imports of crude oil exceed our net exports of refined products by several million barrels per day, 3.991 million barrels per day (167 million gallons per day) in the latest week reported. (See http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf Compare line 4 of Current week column and line 21)
All I know is the front of the glaciers will have to be a mile from downtown Manhattan before
Al gore will say “Hmm, you know i may have been wrong about that warming thing.”
I am site that some people will somehow claim that the hippies are wrong about climate change
Forecast for the winter of 2017/2018 for North America.
The air from the south will not reach far north. In the south-west will be high pressure due to La Niña. From the north, the jet stream will go far to the south.
All of this research is driven by our curiosity of “why’ and “how”. The more we learn the less we know. My question is why do those who think they have the answers think they do ?
Of course, the sun’s losing it’s energy. It’s from all the solar panels we’ve put it sucking the energy away.
It’s been cooling since the day it was created. BUT, never mind that, the global warming racketeers will blame it, somehow, on global warming.
It’s been cooling since the day it was created
No, it has been warming since the day it was created. Today it shines with energy output 30% higher than in its youth.
Hopefully not at a rate fast enough to contribute to global warming.
The increase is so gentle that we cannot yet actually measure it with instruments on our satellites, but the goal is to improve the sensitivity to the point where we can actually measure the increase. Not because it will cause measurable global warming, but to check if our understanding of the Sun is correct.
We will before very long, be wishing that the AGW fraud had in fact been more of a reality.
Considering the age of the sun, 6,000 + years if you subscribe to Creation as described in the Bible or what, 4.5 Billion years with the scientific explanation of it’s birth, and coupling this data with the scientific method as a principal to analyze such things, I do not believe that less than 40 years of observation is going to establish a trend whereby any reliable prediction or warning can be made regarding the health of the sun or it’s current activity. There are simply not enough data points that have been gathered to make any sort of reliable comment on this. So, until there is I don’t believe that I am going to worry about it much.
If we would take this information as proof then we should most likely adopt the ingestion of manure as a good source of food simply because billions of flies, insects and other animals alive today use it as a source of food. Happy dining. 🙂
It’s not the gathering of this information that I object to. It’s the outlandish determinations of what it all actually means and indicates. Now when you can show me a tread of at minimum 600 years (10%) or even 60 years (1%), then I will start to listen. Seems we still have a long way to go before that can happen now doesn’t it? As it stands now its no more meaningful than a political poll where 1,000 citizens out of close to 3 million citizens were asked a question.
Once again scientists utterly fail to use the scientific method of analysis and have jumped to a conclusion before it can be really determined. And people wonder why no one much believes in the lie of Global Warming?
I’m pretty sure the climate models include this huge variability in irradiance, and account for all its consequences.
Don’t they?
The models do not consider solar at all, much less solar changes.
Yes, they do. Please don’t flaunt your ignorance too much.
Not if they want their government grant money flowing!
Yes, they do.
Well, we are informed that “A 2013 report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” spells out some of the ways the cyclic change in TSI can affect the chemistry of Earth’s upper atmosphere and possibly alter regional weather patterns, especially in the Pacific.”
Note that it spells out *some* of the ways the change can affect…weather patterns.
So do the climate models account for only some, or all of the ways TSI and changes therein can affect weather patterns? What ways are included in the climate models that were not in the 2013 NRC Report?
Also, if the climate models to take account all of the TSI changes and their effects on the atmosphere and weather patterns, then presumably the modelers know all that is to be known about TSI variability. So what’s the point of the new satellite?
all of the ways TSI and changes therein can affect weather patterns?
All the ways we know of.
So what’s the point of the new satellite?
To continue the TSI data time series [so it can be used in the models] as the older satellites are failing.
All the ways we know of.
So the models are wrong at least to the extent that they omit unknown effects of TSI changes. Thanks.
Are you saying that the 2013 NRC report referenced earlier comprises “all the ways we know of?” Or are there others? Your answer wasn’t clear.
To continue the TSI data time series [so it can be used in the models] as the older satellites are failing.
So the modelers don’t know all that is to be known about TSI, otherwise the data time series would be irrelevant — they could predict with confidence what the TSI would be at any point in time. Got it.
So your assertion that the climate models are inclusive of TSI effects on climate isn’t really on a sound foundation.
The best you could say with honesty is that “some unknown proportion of all TSI effects are included in models; we don’t really know if it’s correct because we can’t demonstrate that we even know all possible effects, much less how to quantify them.”
Could this be at least partly the source of the very poor performance of the models in predicting climate?
So the models are wrong at least to the extent that they omit unknown effects of TSI changes.
No, they are right to omit unknown effects. What we don’t know we can’t use.
are there others? Your answer wasn’t clear.
There are the unknown unknowns, but it doesn’t make sense to incorporate what we don’t know.
So the modelers don’t know all that is to be known about TSI
They know all that is known. What more can one do?
So your assertion that the climate models are inclusive of TSI effects on climate isn’t really on a sound foundation.
As sound as we know how to make it. Going beyond that would be really unsound.
we can’t demonstrate that we even know all possible effects, much less how to quantify them
What we don’t know, we cannot use, and should not base policy on what we don’t know.
Could this be at least partly the source of the very poor performance of the models in predicting climate?
No, because the solar influence [that we know of] is too tiny to have any impact. The poor performance is most likely due to the grid-size [determined by available computer technology] is too coarse and that we have to parameterize the micro-physics, e.g. of cloud formation. With time that may improve.
No, they are right to omit unknown effects. What we don’t know we can’t use.
Are you saying that the models are thus correct and produce correct predictions?
I would think a proper statement would be “The models include only what the modelers know or think they know. To the extent that there are influences on that which is being modeled that the modelers don’t know, or that knowledge of the modelers is incomplete or wrong, the models must either be incorrect, or, like a stopped clock, be correct only by coincidence.”
Is that a sound basis for policy?
What we don’t know, we cannot use, and should not base policy on what we don’t know.
But yet you say that there are unknown effects that are omitted. How is that not basing policy on that which is not known? Do you know the magnitude of the unknown, omitted effects? How, when the predictions of the models don’t even come close to matching observations (except when they are over-fit, and even then of course only in retrospect)?
You seem to be saying that the models are known to be incorrect, yet somehow basing policy on that which is known to be incorrect is acceptable. Do I have that right?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to forget about all this global climate policy nonsense and use the vast wealth thus released to help people make local adaptations to local conditions? And wouldn’t the best way of doing that be to do away with the middle-man, and devolve the decision-making to the level of those directly affected?
The only people to whom that approach doesn’t make sense are the middle-men themselves, I would imagine.
Are you saying that the models are thus correct and produce correct predictions?
I am saying that the models include what we know.
“The models include only what the modelers know or think they know.
Which is all that ever can be done. And is thus correct and sound.
But yet you say that there are unknown effects that are omitted.
No, you can only omit something you know. What is not known cannot be omitted.
Do you know the magnitude of the unknown, omitted effects?
If what is unknown has an effect that we can measure and identify, then it no longer unknown.
basing policy on that which is known to be incorrect is acceptable. Do I have that right?
No, we base policy on what it known to be correct [as far as we know, which is all anybody can do]
Wouldn’t it make more sense to forget about all this global climate policy nonsense and use the vast wealth thus released to help people make local adaptations to local conditions?
That is not how human nature works. People with vast wealth usually don’t spend that on helping the poor homeless bugger on the street. I, for one, would welcome some of that wealth. Please follow your ethical guideline and send me some money.
.
I, for one, would welcome some of that wealth. Please follow your ethical guideline and send me some money
All my free cashflow has been confiscated to pay for failed “green-energy” projects. Sorry.
No, we base policy on what it known to be correct [as far as we know, which is all anybody can do]
Would you invest your money using a demonstrably incorrect model of the stock market if it incorporated all the knowledge of some unknown 3rd party?
I didn’t think so.
Apart from the stock market [by definition] is unpredictable, what goes into climate models is known. We do not and cannot incorporate something that is unknown.
“Are you saying that the models are thus correct and produce correct predictions?
I am saying that the models include what we know.”
I think that answer is only partially true. The models include a simplified version of that part where climate scientists think are the essential weather drivers simulated through various functions. Reality is much too complex to be completely modelled.
To my knowledge the current climate models do not include a proper energy transfer on the vertical column of air – do not calculate a modelled lapse rate.
Also no cosmic rays modelling. Cloud formation is done over a simplified functionality, and so on.
Is this the result of man made global warming?
As a note the TSI was made of various instrumental data that has been combined.
Here what I found as original data up to 2014:
http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.jpg
The long term result was different in 2 papers, the PMOD and ACRIM.
PMOD what I suppose stays at the basis of the articles TSI is using a proxy to adjust the data.
Can somebody confirm this supposition?
I suppose even on the ACRIM composite too it would look like a downwards trend now, but with an inflection around 2008?
Here the take of official climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/acrim-vs-pmod/
As everything in climate science I am sceptical about climate scientists adjustments…
Me too….
Oops sorry, forgot to link to the ACRIM site from where the image is:
http://acrim.com/
Lars
my personal opinion is that TSI is a useless parameter
You are measuring something TOA.
You must be measuring at sea level to evaluate the heat coming through the atmosphere?
Rather use maximum T as a parameter to evaluate the net amount of heat arriving here.
If you want a global result, use
1) equal no. of stations NH and SH balanced to zero latitude
2) 70/30 @sea / inland
3) look at the change of speed of cooling/warming in K/annum
TSI is using a proxy to adjust the data. Can somebody confirm this supposition?
No, it is not true.
Thank you for the feedback!
Yes, I found the description here:
https://skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
“The major difference between the two composites is the handling of data between 1989 and 1991. There is a 2 year gap between ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II (tragically due to the Challenger space shuttle explosion). To fill the gap, both composites use the HF data but in dramatically different ways. ”
I understand ACRIM used the data as is whilst:
“PMOD applies corrections to the HF data, which has many sudden jumps due to changes in the orientation of the spacecraft and to switch-offs”
As well as further controversy comments here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lockwood_and_Frolich_Review.pdf
That controversy is long dead. ACRIM was not correct.
Just after the Inquisition forced him to recant the heliocentric theory, Galileo muttered “Eppur si muove” (“And yet, it moves”). The meaning of the statement is clear; the Inquisition could force one man to deny the truth, but it couldn’t actually change the truth. Nature’s truths are always available for someone—anyone—to see. Man caused global warming is a religion based on faith not science. You must have faith in the “science based” man created Global Climate Models that were designed to validate the hypothesis that man is causing global warming through the burning of fossil fuels. If the models predict something at odds with the hypothesis government grant money is quickly cut off for that line of research. The Anthropogenic Global Warming religion has that as its dogma. Ignore the truth e.g. recent empirical data showing global cooling that does not fit the dogma… Send in the inquisition lock them up they blasphemed they dared to deny the faith. “Eppur si muove”
As all good stories, it is probably not true that Galileo said that. At least there is no evidence that he did. But I also like the story.
The modern version will be “Eppur si freddo”, “but its getting colder,” to be uttered over the coming years while alarming propaganda rains on us.
Ridiculous. We all know the sun has nothing to do with warming the earth. It’s magic CO2 that warms the earth. And it’s all man made. You silly scientists don’t know what you’re talking about. The science is already settled. You all should retire and become social justice warriors and do whatever you can rock stop Trump from destroying he earth. (snip) last sentence too inflammatory. Mod.
Snip I believe what you say, but this is not an appropriate place for comments such as this Mod
Was perusing Drudge Report and an article link brought me here. Nice to see these WUWT articles getting wider exposure!
iceagenow.com
Man’s overproduction of carbon dioxide with the internal combustion engine has far reaching and nearly incomprehensible effects, including dampening of the Sun’s thermonuclear reactivity and radiant energy.
It’s obviously due to Climate Change.
Nah, because they repealed net neutrality.
better start planning a Sunshine mission now…. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/
No one seems to want to discuss the thousands of variables that we haven’t even isolated (which is the reason we can’t discuss them) but they’re there. As the old saying goes, “The problem is that we don’t know what we don’t know.”
Al Gore finally has an excuse as to why there hasn’t been any global warming.
I judge the quality of articles and papers by their title, first sentence,
first paragraph, charts, and last paragraph, before deciding if I want to read
the whole thing.
The first sentence of this article seems whacky to me,
or maybe I am?
“As the sun gets successively more blank with each day … ”
Could anyone explain how something that is blank, can get more blank?
Shouldn’t it be blanker? This wasn’t in my English classes.
You’re right. Once you’re blank, you can’t get more blanker. Or blanker.
It’s like the oft abused and misused “unique”.
Perhaps they meant the blankety blank Sun….
After reading all the comments,
other than getting a headache,
I have come to one conclusion:
There are “slight” disagreements,
over what causes climate change.
In addition, if there is one thing I learned,
from 20 years of climate change reading,
and maybe there is only one thing,
it is that predictions of the future climate,
are impossible,
… and believe it or not,
it’s even tough to “predict” the past climate,
as those smarmy leftists keep adustin;
and re-adjustin’, and re-re-re adjustin’
the historical temperature data, at least the
surface data, so it seems to take,
about 20 years for the data to “settle down”,
meaning that today’s surface temperature data,
must age for about 20 years
before it can be used for real science,
sort of like aging wine, or cheese.
My climate blog for non-scientists:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Do you have a blog for non-blogers?
If I ever start a blog for bad jokes,
will you be available for some guest jokes?
Gee…If it isn’t a cosmic event, a most likely scenario in ridding the world of humanity are the countless mutating pathogens. What I find curious in all of this is that old experiment that is still on YouTube, showing how by merely observing, change takes place….I have enough on my plate to worry about without having to add an avalanche of “End of the World” troubles. I believe that the end comes when it is our individual time to die…to leave this world……….This is ultimately our “end of the World” time…..
As history has proven, nobody gets out alive.
Remind us again how “real” is AGW.
More and more scientists are ridding themselves of the AGW fiction that so many adopted just because the research funds were there. The Maunder Minimum is real and has occurred before and during that time solar radiation decreased to where an ice age of varying duration became the weather norm. It will become much more difficult to sell research that “proves” the ice caps and the permafrost are melting when London is once again holding winter carnival on the frozen Thames River.
No where in the article or the comments did I see solution to whatever the problem ends up being (cooling, warming or temperance) Taxes! You boneheads are doing the wrong thing by looking at facts and working angles, the point is to set a fear mongering foundation, humans are ruining everything, and then find a way to profit off of it. Work harder to get taxes into the equation, take away cars, take away travel, forced incarceration where folks eat soylent green and charge for it, do something to get us some more money and stop looking toward the sun as an issue, we can’t tax the sun….. yet.
The sun is being taxed, through inefficient sources of energy, they’re called “renewable forms of energy” extremely expensive, for something so abundant in the known universe!
So expensive, that not only do people have to make the choice whether to “eat or heat” they have to make that decision through so called global warming during freezing winters.
I suppose that all of this will be, again, blamed on SUV’s.
I suppose the debate will continue since we are going into a cold phase from AMO while the sun adds a small debated amount.
I am confident that the “Global Warming Pseudo-scientists” are hard at work coming up with a rationalization to “prove” that burning fossil fuels on Earth is directly responsible for Solar Sun Spot/Brightness decline.
It’s a damn good thing we have fake Glabal warming to offset this disturbing trend!
NASA (or any other fedgov agency) can make any statement they like — I’m not buying it. Fedgov has absolutely proven that they are *not* trustworthy and no longer represent our citizen’s best interest.
The sooner this criminal, racketeering cabal dies, the better.
Okay everyone. Let’s say, hypothetically…all of the scientists are correct. Why do we need this information IF….there is NOTHING any of us humanoids, living on the 3rd planet from the Sun, can do about it? I have been around almost 71 years, and each of those years has had 4 seasons. Every day for each of those years, the Sun has been where it is, and the Earth still turns on it’s axis. WHAT can anyone reading this, no matter how intelligent you are, or how many letters you use after your name…do about it? Other than SCARE the bejesus out of the easily convinced, undereducated AL GORE fans who blame ALL OF US for everything???
pretty nice 11 year cycle, don’t worry about your ice melting.
Hahaha. Arrogant liberal idiots think man has an effect on this planet when nature has its own plans.
Okay, I’ve always been suspicious of all those solar panels sucking up the Sun’s energy…
They don’t destroy the energy. That is impossible. The energy is put to work, and the ultimate result is heat.
Yeah, can’t help but agree. The sun will come up tomorrow, so don’t worry…!
Blasphemy! It’s racist to suggest that the sun has anything to do with climate.
You took the words right out of my mouth! Damn racists!
IT’S BEING CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING™!!! WE MUST STOP CARBON “POLLUTION” IMMEDIATELY OR THE SUN WILL GO AWAY FOREVER AND WE WON’T BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE WE’RE GOING!!!!
Alberto Gorez, the noted S. American Global Cooling climatologist was 100% correct, when he warned the world of the upcoming Maunder Minimum, and subsequent GLOBAL COOLING CRISIS!
The sun is going out!
Quick! Shovel some more coal in to it – before ‘Global Cooling’ ™ plunges us all into the next Ice Age …
How can we believe anything this fake nazi oriented space psyeudosciece agency says??? Its just as probable that we live in an enclosed system….the sun is closer then they say….think for yourselfs and ask questions…..
Being open minded is a good thing, unless your mind is so open your brains fall out.
There are some nice safety net collars on the market for just that type of problem. That way the person doesn’t have to bend down to pick his brains off of the ground, and it makes for easier reinsertion.
Global warming
Maybe the spraying in sky is to block the sun’s rays that are not being blocked as they were in previous years. Or they just like custom sunsets?
bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ya can’t make this stuff up. Really folks, this is such a laughable situation we current live in. Opportunistic Climate Change Scientists get caught faking their data to support their arguments. Then go absolutely ape crazy if you call them out on it. They call you a what again? oh yeah, a Climate DENIER, and go after your employment if you don’t suckle up to their demands. they being, massively invasive Government regulations that don’t do jack to fix what Nature has already dealt out.
Look folks, we have been living in a relatively quiet period of astronomically speaking a Cool Spell. Cyclically speaking we have enjoyed a longer than expected roll of the dice Ice Age period. All of the events suggest we are about to hit all of the hyper cold long Ice Ages.
But we know our liberals are hyper ventilating about global warming climate change. That’s the flavor of the month with these peoples. They spent so much money protecting their lies and fake data we can’t get a word in edge wise with habitual criminality prone Climate Change scientists. To admit they were wrong draws huge questions about their egos over science. There’s nothing worse than an egotistical Professor being called out on their ERRORS.
Thoughts: (1) this could be a sell signal for anyone invested in TSI (ok, just kidding:wanted to start opt with a joke. With today’s central banks, stocks only go up). (2) It wouldn’t take a large solar catastrophy to be earth-life-catastrophic. Are we sure of our solar models? That sure? (3) As TSI<>, so farstrike lightning which follows G paths should >> as well. I wonder if other earth phenomena will, too. (4) Remembering book of Revelations and the sun first having the power to burn men, and then dimming, and the published photo of what looked like an angel doing something to the sun… Oh well. That’s not in my power to affect.
The sun obviously is much stronger than 2 years ago. This ciop article is bizzare. We are obviously in the photon belt, now rolling into 5th dimension. Liars do ciops, will wake up on a slave plsnet, 3 dimension.
[???? .mod]
Legalized pot?
No, most likely chemically induced.
Colder or warmer it seems no one can prove definitively what the correct temperature “should be” on any given day year or period. humans exist just fine across a range of 180 degrees in temperature. Plus or minus a few degrees just has no impact globally. cold or warm, humans will exist just fine. Massive floods will not drown people as sea levels rise a few mm a year unless you believe that death from a steam roller is possible when it is approaching from half a mile away.
Ric, and/orAnthony
we did not get any response from you on our reasonable query?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/15/the-sun-is-blank-nasa-data-shows-it-to-be-dimming/comment-page-1/#comment-2695690
So which is the most insignificant effect for global warming? solar cycle, cosmic rays, political climate science, or climate psychology science contributions
I purposely left out climate theater productions since that is the furthest token political outlier funded by NSF.
Reply to comment on the paper “ on a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles” by Usoskin (2017).
Abstract
In this communication we provide our answers to the comments by Usoskin (2017) on our recent paper (Popova et al, 2017a). We show that Principal Component Analysis (PCA) allows us to derive eigen vectors with eigen values assigned to variance of solar magnetic field waves from full disk solar magnetograms obtained in cycles 21–23 which came in pairs. The current paper (Popova et al, 2017a) adds the second pair of magnetic waves generated by quadruple magnetic sources. This allows us to recover a centennial cycle, in addition to the grand cycle, and to produce a closer fit to the solar and terrestrial activity features in the past millennium.
http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/zharkova_etal_reply_jastp17.pdf
ABSTRACT
In this paper we revise our prediction of solar activity using a solar background magnetic field as a proxy by the
inclusion of eigen vectors of solar magnetic waves produced by quadruple magnetic sources, in addition to the
principal eigen modes generated by two-layer dipole sources (Zharkova et al., 2015). By considering the interference
of two dipole and one quadruple waves we produce the revised summary curve for the last 400 years
accounting for the additional minima of solar activity occurred at the beginning of 19th (Dalton minimum) and
20th centuries. Using the dynamo model with meridional circulation and selecting the directions of circulation for
quadruple waves, we estimate the parameters of quadrupole waves best fitting the observations in the past grand
cycle. The comparison shows that the quadruple wave has to be generated in the inner layer of the solar
convective zone, in order to provide the additional minima observed in 19 and 20 centuries, thus, naturally
accounting for Gleissberg centennial cycle. The summary dynamo wave simulated for the dipole and quadruple
sources reveals much closer correspondence of the resulting summary curve derived from the principal components
of magnetic field variations to the solar activity oscillations derived from the average sunspot numbers in
the current grand cycle.
http://computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/popova_etal_jastp17.pdf
Great story, DC Cowboy, except Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake”. That’s right, there’s no evidence that she ever said that. It’s a story made up long afterward. Fake news, we call that stuff today. Oh and Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. Nor did Christopher Columbus’s critics think the world was flat and that he’d fall off the edge if he sailed beyond the western horizon. And Monty Python skits aren’t history lessons.
The atmospheric cooling I predicted (4 months in advance) using the Nino34 anomaly has started to materialize in November 2017 – more to follow. This is weather, not climate (I hope). Happy Holidays to all!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1527601687317388&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Question for Bill Illis:
This Aerosol Optical Depth data stops in late 2012. Doe you have more recent data? Where?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
A huge drop in the sun’s power of………0.1% excuse me…..that doesn’t sound like a huge drop to me.
[do the math, and tell us how many terawatts of power loss that is, then get back to us -mod]
Always a flake around to represent the mass of shallow minded. Thanks for the information. As a Ham, I expect long range communications will become more challenging as this low approaches.
The current Sunspot number is 11,
I can’t seem to observe any sunspots in this image, just a fading penumbra.
Any sunspot number below 20-30 seems to be historically blank.
It raises the threshold somewhat, of what is being counted as an actual sunspot.
http://spaceweather.com/images2017/28dec17/hmi1898.gif
The current Sunspot number is 11,
SILSO says zero:
24 December : 25
25 December : 21
26 December : 15
27 December : 13
28 December : 0
http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
The current EISN shows an average of 9 and NB stations show between 10-30.
Just wondering why daily international sunspot numbers are showing 11 (according to space-weather) for a fading penumbra.
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/EISN/EISNcurrent.png
So far there are 15 spotless days this month and 12 days with sunspots according to the data.
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/EISN/EISN_current.txt
Are fading penumbra being counted as sunspots?
The current EISN shows an average of 9 and NB stations show between 10-30.
Can’t you read?
28 December : 0
*Average of 8
I understand that 28 December is 0
I have no issue with that.
Notable Stations are plotted as counting the sunspot number between 10-30 on the EISN graph, it’s there in front of you.
The data shows that there are more spotless days this month than there are days with sunspots.
Are there more spotless days this month of less spotless days this month in your view?
Quoting you:
I can’t seem to observe any sunspots in this image, just a fading penumbra.
As we get closer to sunspot minimum there will be more spotless days. It makes no sense to worry about the count over a time scale of a month.
“It makes no sense to worry about the count over a time scale of a month.”
Obviously it does matter, maybe I enjoy discussing minor details for educational purposes, maybe take a different path, maybe find out facts and be more competent and accurate, but that’s just me.
Obviously it does matter
Not at all.
Time scales matter.
If they are comparable…
otherwise not so much.
Sunspot number below 20-30 seems to be the new zero. Why?