There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.
Cycle 24 is part of a weakening progression of solar cycles since 1980:
Meteorologist Paul Dorian at Vencore weather writes:
All indications are that the upcoming solar minimum which is expected to begin in 2019 may be even quieter than the last one which was the deepest in nearly a century.
Some scientists are even saying that we are on the cusp of a new grand solar minimum, and the upcoming cycle 25 may have even lower cycles after it.
This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450).
Source: Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity (SA) to planetary gravitational forcing (PGF) (open access)
Simon Constable, in Forbes writes:
The question is whether we will enter another grand solar minimum just like the Maunder minimum which, if history is a guide, would mean a period of much colder weather winters and summers.
Once upon a time, people would worship the sun as a deity. It was with good reason that they did so for the sun provided much of what sustains life on our small planet, warmth and bountiful harvests. How would we survive if the sun stopped beating down on us? It was a real fear.
Then came science and industrialization. As the new era took over, we mostly forgot the sun and its importance to our existence. (Of course, most people occasionally complain that it is either too sunny or not sunny enough.)
But just because we stopped paying close attention doesn’t mean that it lost any of its importance to our world. And neither does the fact that the life of the sun is far more complex than many people realize. Indeed, if we are to believe the experts,the sun’s behavior is about to change in a way that could have dramatic consequences for the food we eat and the broader economy.
That’s why it is rather handy that an important book on the matter was recently published in paperback. Nature’s Third Cycle: A Story of Sunspots by Arnab Rai Choudhuri.The remarkable tale includes skilled amateurs as well as professional academics, the rivalries between the main players, and a probable husband-wife murder-suicide thrown into the mix. Yes, there is a lot in the story of studying the sun, and the author does a masterful job of making it a fascinating read. Not too shabby when many scientific books do more to muddle the reader than to enlighten.
The names which might be familiar include the following: space observatory pioneer George Ellery Hale; discoverer of Uranus William Herschel; and astronomer Edward Maunder. It was the last of those men who identified a period from about 1640 through 1715 when the spots on the Sun disappeared. Usually, the number of dark blemishes on the solar surface tends to rise and fall in somewhat predictable 11-year cycles.
The period when the spots vanished, a so-called grand solar minimum, also coincided with a sort of mini-ice age with harsh winters and short cool summers. It became known as the Maunder minimum after the man who studied it.
Of course, the idea that the temperature of the earth could be changed by mysterious fluctuating dark patterns on the sun’s surface is nothing if not controversial. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, as the author states:
[…] the earth indeed becomes cooler when sunspots go missing. Exactly how this happens is still a question on which experts seem to have very differing views and which is unlikely to be settled definitively in the near future.
Choudhuri takes pains to add that none of this negates the effect of industrialization on climate change. They are both critical factors.
However, the whole matter is complicated by the fact that while the world was warming up in the 20th century the number of sunspots were above their average count. Remember, other things being equal, more spots means warmer earth temperatures.
But what has become more apparent based on more recent research from NASA is that we are now in a period of very few or no sunspots. This has coincided with the brutal winter we are going through now.
If that happens, then there will be profound influences on the economy, including possible crop failures and rising energy use for home and workplace heating. Or in other words, expect bigger bills for food and energy. After a period in which the supply of both has been increasingly abundant then this change will likely come as a shock to many people and likely the broader global economy as well.
We live in interesting times. More at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
“There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum.”
I’ve seen much speculation, no evidence though.
According to my studies solar activity should have been warming the planet at least until year 2005 if not a few years later.
It was not until late year 2005 that solar went from an active to an inactive mode as is evidenced by the AP index.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/28/new-paper-finds-high-correlation-between-solar-activity-and-earths-temperature-over-centuries/
Study after study not to mention Javier have shown clear solar /global temperature correlations.
The missing piece is the neglect of the role of the geo magnetic field which has to work in tandem with solar to give a maximum result.
Rubbish. The sun has nothing to do with the climate. The climate is controlled by carbon. The science is settled.
Please put your sarc on
Hi Ren
It is worth looking at albedo, but the chart you used is Snow Water Equivalent, which is still going up.
Perhaps you should look at the Snow Cover chart of the Northern Hemisphere, which may be better represent reflective qualities.
It is been at the high-side of the mean, but in line with the seasonal mean–has rolled over. So has the chart on NA.
Will more snow be melted longer?
It’s the sun, oceans, and clouds, stupid.
Is La Nina strong?
Ask the anchovies.
ptolemy2 March 18, 2018 at 5:42 pm
As a man who used to fish those very anchovies off of the famous Cannery Row, I can attest that the anchovies are a good gauge to the temperature of the ocean.
w.
The 2017-18 La Nina Event Expected To Commence At The End Of March – Four Consecutive 3-Monthly Seasons Have ONI Index -0.5ºC Or Below Till February 2018
Details here http://www.gujaratweather.com/wordpress/?p=16009
Nice to have Leif back, he always makes me think for myself.
So far I find 3 instances of the word “soared” and a few other words of dubious merit.
There is a chart of temperatures using the Kelvin scale.
I looked in vain for soaring temperature.
Sad.
Another futile try on my part, if I may say, one that maybe not making much sense, or also maybe non valid.
But for whatever.
I do not think that ppl really realize the problem with addressing the point of the radiation imbalance being always positive.
Oh well, whatever, but still it is positive even in the case of solar minima or ppm minima.
Try to leave with it, in a possible rational way, if you can make it reasonable…..tough….and workable.
Solar Grand minima may very well possibly be considered as with a warming affect in climate, especially in the case of LIA period.
Oh, well, I did put it as per the meaning of the “affect”, not “effect”.
cheers
Whiten said
“radiation imbalance being always positive”
No one has proved or even shown that there is an energy imbalance. There are dozens of earth energy budget charts with every one showing different numbers.
The next few winters in the Northern Hemisphere should be interesting, I predict that Arctic sea ice minimum will be higher at the end of this period. The Antarctic sea ice minimum is not going to be affected because Southern ice melts more easily with increased solar radiation and I don’t have much confidence in global temperatures. There is a propaganda campaign to get us to except the idea of a global temperature we must wait for each monthly update, I don’t care what the global temperature is. It is snowing heavily again where I live in the UK in the middle of March even at sea level and it is below freezing during the day.
donald, it’s not snow, it is ash from all the barbecues people are now using in our mediterranean climate brought on by global warming 😉
Also this winter is interesting. After only two weeks Great Britain is hitten by another unusual late and record breaking mayor snow storm.
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterticker?postId=post_201803184356801
Also in Germany there is record breaking cold in a two weeks rythm in this march.
And, after a warm Winter, this march is pretty cold at the north pole:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
Please, click on the graph above…..
Your chart is 3 weeks old.
The current one shows the little red line almost touching the green line – – for day 77, March 18.
DMI Arctic
Nice one!
Oh, correlation does not by default necessary mean causation, but…but…but, lack or null in correlation means clear lack and null of causation, especially in the relation of this subject!!!
Grow up, get a life…oh that is the wrong way to address it! Bad affect…really really sorry.
cheers
It isn’t so much the output of the sun that matters, what matters is the amount of radiation that reaches the oceans. A hot sun and lots of clouds mean a cooling globe. A cool sun and clear skies mean a warming globe.
Understand the Oceans, Understand the Global Temperatures
Here at CO2isLife we have consistently maintained that to understand the climate you have to understand the oceans. The oceans, not CO2, is are the major drivers of global climate and temperatures. The oceans contain 2,000x more energy than the atmosphere, and CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is by thermalizing … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/22/understand-the-oceans-understand-the-global-temperatures/
A cool sun …”
Please stop. Sól is not cool.
You know what I mean.
Clearly the oceans are key and even Willis is gravitating towards that explanation cycle of evaporation condensation ad nauseum as explaining our climate BUT what is missing is what is warming or cooling the oceans enuf to make the large changes we see in climate over the eons of time. The sun is a tantalizing attraction since it is the ultimate source of our energy but as Willis has shown there is no data that correlates with any short or long term known changes in the sun. As Churchill said in 1939 “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma”. He was referring to Russia.
A new paper shows that ocean salinity tracks SSTs very well.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4
Visible radiation and geothermal warm the oceans, mostly visible radiation. That is why it is important not to know how hot the sun is, but how much radiation reaches the oceans. Alarmists always claim the sun is too stable to cause the warming, and that it has to be CO2. That is their argument. That argument is wrong. First the suns output is variable as demonstrated by sunspots, second solar activity and cosmic rays “seed” clouds which block incoming radiation, third, the key isn’t output by the sun, it is absorption by the earth. If the radiation doesn’t reach the ocean, it isn’t going to warm. Also, you also have to align the earth’s seasons with the sun activity. A hot sun and S Hemi Summer will warm a whole lot more water than a hot sun and a N Hemi Summer. Warming land isn’t as important as warming oceans.
The solar cycle is very noisy. It is illustrative to plot the number of sunspots per solar cycle that gives a better idea of how active the cycle has been. Here I have used SILSO yearly sunspot number, adding the yearly values for all the years of the cycle as follows:
SCE 1700-1711 364.9
SCD 1712-1723 550.75
SCC 1723-1733 896.6
SCB 1733-1744 945.1
SCA 1744-1755 746.35
SC1 1756-1766 770.5
SC2 1766-1775 895.25
SC3 1775-1784 1025.65
SC4 1784-1798 1405.5
SC5 1798-1810 473.2
SC6 1810-1823 389.9
SC7 1823-1833 663.2
SC8 1834-1843 1064.2
SC9 1844-1855 1227.5
SC10 1856-1867 1043.35
SC11 1867-1878 1035.2
SC12 1878-1889 634.85
SC13 1889-1901 772.6
SC14 1901-1912 620.6
SC15 1913-1923 741.15
SC16 1923-1933 683.55
SC17 1933-1943 1003.5
SC18 1944-1954 1109.7
SC19 1954-1964 1358
SC20 1965-1975 986.9
SC21 1976-1986 1168.5
SC22 1986-1996 1055.4
SC23 1996-2008 1019.1
SC24 2009-2017 533.6
For shared years each cycle gets half the sunspot number. SC24 lacks a couple of years but they won’t raise the count much.
The trendline shows how solar activity has been growing, and the midline at 768 separates periods of above average and below average solar activity. The modern maximum corresponds to the long period of above average activity from ~1935 to ~2005, that coincides pretty much with the last phase of modern global warming. It is very plausible that solar variability has contributed importantly to the warming observed.
Average is 868 (typo). The figure is correct.
The sunspot number has been revised, but the revision before 1947 was just an adjustment of the scale [dividing by 0.6] without a re-analysis of the original sources. This is coming in version 3 that is underway.
On the other hand, the new Sunspot Group numbers by Svalgaard & Schatten [yes, that Schatten who was a co-author of the old Group Sunspot Number] was a complete re-assessment of most of the original sources.
The Group Numbers are a more direct measure of solar activity [as the users of the GSN so often stressed]. Here is the regression result for the new Group Numbers since 1700 AD, i.e. the last 318 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-Regression-Since-1700.png
As you can see [perhaps], there is no long-term trend over the last 300+ years so your argument fails.
You keep adjusting as much as you want, because it is already essentially the same as the group number and as ¹⁴C, so the result of the adjustments can’t change much.
Solar activity has been increasing for the past 300 years while Modern Global Warming was taking place.
You keep adjusting as much as you want, because it is already essentially the same as the group number and as ¹⁴C, so the result of the adjustments can’t change much.
You are ignorant about the revisions. The sunspot numbers were adjusted. The group numbers were re-derived from scratch from [mostly] original sources. No adjustments whatsoever. So, no trend over the past 300+ years.:
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-Regression-Since-1700.png
Perhaps a Figure would aid your understanding:
http://www.leif.org/research/Open-Flux-since-1600.png
I don’t care about the revisions. I assume they are properly done.
But the rising trend is right there. That black line in the figure that everybody but you can see. Perhaps are you seeing it flat? Is that the effect of your bias?
I don’t care about the revisions. I assume they are properly done.
If you don’t care, you have no argument. The sunspot number was adjusted before 1947 by dividing by 0.6, but is otherwise unchanged before that [including a small trend]. Your assumption [in spite of my telling you that it is incorrect] gives away your bias.
The Group number was re-derived and re-assessed from scratch and is better than the SN [as also shown by comparisons with GCR proxies and the EUV-F10.7 reconstruction. The GN has no trend. Solar activity has no trend the last 300+ years.
What we have here is a collision between the careful decade-long work of people [S&S] on the frontline of solar activity research and someone who doesn’t care.
All your talking amounts to little. The figure shows that the average GSN, the ¹⁴C proxy, and my Sunspots/cycle graph contain essentially the same information. You know that figure because you have used it yourself on several occasions to defend the goodness of the revised GSN. So you are incorrect. There is a trend and it is rising.
my Sunspots/cycle graph contain essentially the same information
The weasel word is ‘essentially’. As even the slightly wrong sunspot series has a trend with very low statistical significance, R Square = 0.01586.
The variable to use [as Muscheler did correctly] is the group number.
If you persist in using the sub-optimal sunspot number for purpose, you just lay bare your bias and ignorance about solar activity and how we measure it.
That’s what you say, but for the period 1700-1800, the “sub-optimal” sunspot number shows a better agreement with the ¹⁴C proxy than the “super-optimal” GSN. Perhaps GSN is not “perfect” and is overestimating solar activity in the 1725-1775 period. At least that is what the ¹⁴C proxy and the sunspot number agreement appears to indicate.
As usual you cling to tenuous excuses, like a supposed climate contamination of the cosmogenic isotope record that only shows in every solar reconstruction that you don’t like, or a supposed betterness of the GSN. Tomorrow I’ll redo the graph with GSN to see what it shows and I’ll report back.
And I reported back:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/18/approaching-grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/comment-page-1/#comment-2768452
Javier, you say:
I point out once again that even per your method of counting, the number of sunspots have been dropping since 1960, but temperatures have been rising. Also, your result is only slightly different than a gaussian smooth of the sunspot data.
w.
So what. You can reduce the fire under a pot and the pot continues warming. Only when you go below a threshold and the pot loses more heat than it gains from the fire it will start cooling.
Outstanding!
HA!
I was just thinking “I should have popped a BIG pot of popcorn, before I started reading the comments on this article!”
Where are the models that predict this? Not sarc. Should be easy to show we’ll freeze to death by 2025 unless something is done to protect humans.
Cointreau March 18, 2018 at 4:06 pm
As you advise, I have looked at the historical record, “damnit” … there is no correlation between sunspots and volcanoes. The ugly details are here.
w.
Willis,
Not that ugly. Perhaps setting the eruption value at 5 has something to do with the results though the fact that 70% of the planet is covered with water probably has more to do with them as we probably miss significant eruptions under sea making such measurements very difficult to impossible. May not be statistically significant but sure looks like more eruptions when there are less sunspots at least at the eruption intensity level you have indicate. Also, I could only find 36 in your “bins” which are labeled as containing 37, last chart?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/13/do-it-yourself-the-solar-variability-effect-on-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2764566
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
“Excellent correlation (R²=.96!) with temperature is obtained by adding to the sunspot integral the most significant ocean oscillations (the PDO-Pacific Decadal Oscillation + AMO- Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation*3)”.
________________
I like “the INTEGRAL of solar activity” – it makes sense. That is how the system works (imo), together with oceanic cycles.
Is there a spreadsheet published? What does this formula PREDICT for the next few decades? That is the acid test.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1610036419073914&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week/#comment-1502081
[excerpt}
The scientific understanding of the Sun’s role in climate is imperfect. Many respected scientists say the Sun does not vary enough to be a significant driver of global temperatures. I disagree, although my understanding, and that of the science community as a whole, is less than adequate.
I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published the Calgary Herald in 2002. That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity has crashed.
…
Here is my concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm.
They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe will get colder, possibly much colder.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Allan – what’s the mechanism(s) to cause the cooling?
meteorologist in research asked:
“Allan – what’s the mechanism(s) to cause the cooling?”
Your guess is as good as mine meteo.
I would say for a decadal or centennial scale:
A relatively simple energy balance governs = [solar energy input accumulated (hence the integral)]
minus [accumulated energy radiated to space];
moderated by
[major oceanic cycles (primarily the PDO/ENSO and to a lesser degree the AMO)].
Above a certain value there is global warming, below that value there global cooling.
The impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 can be ignored, since the sensitivity of climate to increasing CO2 is near-zero – “much ado about nothing”. Heresy to warmists, I know, but true. 🙂
Hope this helps. It’s the middle of the night here and pre-coffee, so take this with the usual “ton of salt”.
Regards, Allan
Addendum for metoe – I omitted century-scale volcanoes – need coffee:
I would say for a decadal or centennial scale:
A relatively simple energy balance governs = [solar energy input accumulated in oceans (hence the integral)]
minus [accumulated energy radiated to space];
moderated by
[major oceanic cycles (primarily the PDO/ENSO and to a lesser degree the AMO)]
AND
[cooled by major volcanoes (approx. VEI5 and greater)]
The 1982 eruption of El Chichon was VEI5. The 1991+ eruption of Mt Pinatubo was VEI6, roughly an order of magnitude greater.The eruptions of both El Chichon and Pinatubo had significant temporary global cooling effects
Thanks Allan, so should we wait for large volcanic events before expecting cooling to become the statistical trend?
meteo wrote:
“Thanks Allan, so should we wait for large volcanic events before expecting cooling to become the statistical trend?”
My guess is NO. I think when the PDO and AMO both go negative (cool mode) Earth will start to cool moderately.
This is only my guess – I have not studied this issue as much as some others on wattsup, or professionals like Joe d’Aleo.
I still think global cooling starting by 2020-2030 is probable, and am leaning closer to about 2020. Some will say cooling already started circa 2005 to 2009, and this point will be debated for years to come as the data unfolds.
Obviously, an major volcanic eruption of magnitude VEI5 or VEI6 could kick-start global cooling, but unless other conditions support cooling the impact of such a major volcano will dissipate in about 5 years, similar to El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.
meteorologist in research asked:
“Allan – what’s the mechanism(s) to cause the cooling?”
I responded:
“I would say for a decadal or centennial scale:
A relatively simple energy balance governs =
[solar energy input accumulated in oceans (hence the integral)]
minus [accumulated energy radiated to space];
moderated by
[major oceanic cycles (primarily the PDO/ENSO and to a lesser degree the AMO)]
AND
[cooled by major volcanoes (approx. VEI5 and greater)]”
Here is a similar answer I just read, from Happer, Konin and Lindzen (an excellent paper):
“Incremental changes of the surface temperature anomaly can be traced back to two causes: (1) changes
in the surface heating rate; (2) changes in the resistance of heat flow to space. Quasi periodic El Nino
episodes are examples of the former. During an El Nino year, easterly trade winds weaken and very warm
deep water, normally blown toward the coasts of Indonesia and Australia, floats to the surface and
spreads eastward to replace previously cool surface waters off of South America. The average
temperature anomaly can increase by 1 C or more because of the increased release of heat from the
ocean. The heat source for the El Nino is solar energy that has accumulated beneath the ocean surface
for several years before being released.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
B.P. P.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. C 17-06011 WHA
Case No. C 17-06012 WHA
Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 at 8:00 a.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF
WILLIAM HAPPER, STEVEN E. KOONIN,
AND RICHARD S. LINDZEN FOR LEAVE
TO SUBMIT PRESENTATION IN
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
The Honorable William H. Alsup
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180319_docket-317-cv-06011_na-1.pdf
What does this formula PREDICT for the next few decades? That is the acid test.
The integral has no predictive power.
Is the Sun putting out less heat, or is it just a relaxation of the twisting magnetic field? I would think that the Sun’s core is the source of our heat.
It is for 99.9 %. Solar activity [magnetic field] only account for 0.1%.
Hi Leif – hope you are well.
Since ~2009, Dan Pangburn has published charts which also use the integral of solar activity, together with a ~64-year “sawtooth” that reflects oceanic cycles. See his Fig, 10, 11 or 14, which suggest imminent mild global cooling.
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.ca/
I recall in my many conversations with Joe d’Aleo that global cooling should start when both the AMO and the PDO go negative (cool mode).
My (our) 2002 prediction of global cooling starting by 2020-2030 was made in consultation with Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist at Carleton University. It was based on the Gleissberg Cycle.
I think everyone is just taking their “best guesses” right now – that the general understanding of the impact of solar activity on climate, directly and indirectly, is poorly understood.
I understand that your best guess is that solar activity varies too little to be a significant driver of global temperature variability. Please correct it if there is a better way to state your position.
I think that the data is messy and inconclusive, but my “prejudice” is that the integral of solar activity, together with the PDO and the AMO, have a significant impact on global temperatures at decadal and centennial scales.
So I expect to see some moderate global cooling starting by 2020-2030, probably closer to 2020. I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods, based on the historical evidence.
Best personal regards, Allan
One problem with the integral business is “what sunspot series to use?”
In addition there are free parameters, e.g. the average to subtract [if you use the real average the integral is always zero], the window over which to integrate [clearly you don’t start 4.6 billion years ago], what other cycles to include [e.g. AMO], etc
With free parameters, the method is just an exercise in ordinary curve fitting which is not my cup of tea.
“It is for 99.9 %. Solar activity [magnetic field] only account for 0.1%.”
Thanks, we’ve been watching the planetary wave number shrink from 7-9 down to 5-7 since this onset in 2011. El Nino intervened, but it’s been interesting, from Tennessee to California, and now this winter making the headlines.
Well, weather is not climate…
Can we say changing weather is regional climate change? The progression of Rossby Waves form and sustain regional climates.
yes over a 30-yr period.
Yes, we have thought in terms of about 30 yrs, but what about the future? Should we look for 20 year patterns in the coming decades? What is your sense of it?
I’m glad i’m not a climatologist these days.
I’m always delighted to have Leif and Willis engaging in the discussion of sunspots and solar activity. There seem to be a number of people who engage the Mk I eyeball to seek explanations, ignoring the real scientific effort being put forth by Leif and Willis. Leif is an experienced scientist with a number of papers on the physics of the sun, one should not lightly dismiss what he’s saying. Willis, Willis digs in to data like no one I’ve ever seen. I’ve learned an immense amount from his writing. When he says he doesn’t find any correlation, I’m inclined to think he’s worked the area thoroughly.
Note that we are talking about chaotic systems here, chaotic systems have strange attractors in their vector space. Just because it looks periodic, doesn’t mean it is – coupled pendulums being a classic example. Could there be reinforcing behaviour between chaotic systems? Yes, there are several electronic experiments that demonstrate this. It still doesn’t mean that we have neat cycles, rather, it means that prediction, in particular of the future, is difficult. It’s particularly difficult if you don’t know what components go into the production of some of the cyclic behavior of elements of our weather, let alone climate drivers.
Me, I’m getting a bag of popcorn and watching the show.
Hi Matt,
Hope you are well.
When/if you have some time, please revisit the email I sent you on Thu 10/11/2016 5:19AM Mountain time.
I think you will find a striking correlation between Nino34 sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 12-13 months later.
The mechanism is Nino34 SST drives tropical humidity and temperature ~3 monthsl later and global temperature one month thereafter, which drives atmospheric CO2 trends 9 months after that.
The impact of century-scale volcanoes and the AMO are also significant, but secondary.
Regards, Allan
In other news – you may find this of interest:
THE MAZEPPA CRITICAL SOUR GAS STORY
I received an award this past week from the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
As an uninvolved citizen and a Professional Engineer, I was advised in May 2016 of an extremely dangerous situation. Following the Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics, I investigated, established the facts and reported to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). This situation was then made safe by the AER.
This action by the AER is the most severe reprimand against any company in the history of the Alberta energy industry.
The potential death tool in a worst-case scenario could have totaled many tens of thousands – a Hiroshima-scale disaster.
Next week I get a spandex outfit, complete with a cape. 🙂
– Allan MacRae. P.Eng.
Public Documents:
1. AER SUSPENDS MAZEPPA PLANT OPERATIONS AMID CONCERNS
High River Times, August 27, 2016
“LEXIN FAILED TO COMPLY WITH AER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND JUNE AND WAS ORDERED TO SUSPEND ALL FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPERATIONS ON AUG. 9.”
http://www.highrivertimes.com/2016/08/25/aer-suspends-mazeppa-plant-operations-amid-concerns
2. WATCHDOG TAKES UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF FORCING OIL AND GAS PRODUCER INTO RECEIVERSHIP
Calgary Herald, March 21, 2017
THIS ACTION BY THE AER (FORMERLY THE ERCB) IS THE MOST SEVERE REPRIMAND AGAINST ANY COMPANY IN THE HISTORY OF THE ALBERTA ENERGY INDUSTRY.
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/watchdog-takes-unprecedented-step-of-forcing-oil-and-gas-producer-into-receivership
3. LEXIN RESOURCES AND THE DARK SIDE OF ALBERTA’S DOWNTURN
CBC, April 24, 2017
THE MAZEPPA PROJECT WAS RUNNING 40% H2S. H2S IS HEAVIER THAN AIR AND INSTANTLY LETHAL AT CONCENTRATIONS OF 0.1% AND LESS. THE POTENTIAL DEATH TOLL COULD HAVE NUMBERED IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/lexin-resources-what-went-wrong-1.4038838
4. IN REVERSAL, LEXIN ADMITS TO BREAKING ENVIRONMENTAL, INDUSTRY RULES
Calgary Herald. July 10, 2017
“[LEXIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR} SMITH PAID THE REGULATOR A $175,000 PENALTY FOR HIS ROLE IN LEXIN’S MISDEEDS, AND ACCEPTED A LIFE-TIME BAN FROM CONTROLLING ANY COMPANY INVOLVED IN EXPLORING FOR, PRODUCING OR TRANSPORTING OIL AND GAS IN ALBERTA.”
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/lexin-agrees-it-breached-environmental-industry-rules
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right at the moment the indications are that the Sun is reverting to 19th century-like levels of activity which will result in 19th century-like climate. No sign of a minimum at this point. It would take a volcano for things to go bad from here.
This is why I am hoping that agricultural and plant genetics scientists are working on ways to breed food crops that are more cold-tolerant and able to use sunlight more efficiently. As always, we need to find a way to adapt to changing climate instead of expecting the government to do everything.
I agree with you Larry – improving food crops is important – far more important than obsessing with increasing atmospheric CO2 and the false global warming crisis.
You may find the following of near-term interest:
The C4 Rice Project.
http://c4rice.irri.org/index.php/component/content/article/19-about/56-what-is-c4-rice
Also: Making Rice Healthier – High-iron, high zinc, golden rice.
http://irri.org/our-impact/making-rice-healthier
Finally, this rant may be valid, in the longer term:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/storing-carbon-dioxide-underground-by-turning-it-into-rock/comment-page-1/#comment-2347545
ON CO2 STARVATION
Summary
1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with about 4000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.
2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
_________________________________________________________________________
I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier. For example:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/storing-carbon-dioxide-underground-by-turning-it-into-rock/comment-page-1/#comment-2347545
SUMMARY
1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with about 4000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.
2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
Others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf
Here is Happer, Konin and Lindzen on CO2 starvation (p, 19&20 of an excellent paper – READ IT):
“By geological standards, the Earth is currently starved for atmospheric CO2. Past CO2 levels estimated from various proxies are shown in the adjacent figure. The horizontal scale is geological time since the Cambrian, at about 550 million years ago. The vertical axis is the ratio, RCO2, of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations to average values (about 300 ppm) during the past few million years, This particular proxy record comes from analyzing the fraction of the rare stable isotope 13C to the dominant isotope 12C in carbonate sediments and paleosols. Other proxies give qualitatively similar results.
Only once in the geological past, the Permian period about 300 million years ago, have atmospheric CO2 levels been as low as now. Life flourished abundantly during the geological past when CO2 levels were five or ten times higher than those today.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
v.
B.P. P.L.C., et al., Defendants.
Case No. C 17-06011 WHA
Case No. C 17-06012 WHA
Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 at 8:00 a.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF WILLIAM HAPPER, STEVEN E. KOONIN, AND RICHARD S. LINDZEN FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT PRESENTATION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S TUTORIAL QUESTIONS
The Honorable William H. Alsup
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180319_docket-317-cv-06011_na-1.pdf
20ya there was panic over UV/EUV, slip-slap’n slop. It is hard for me to burn these days except during a solar flare event, I have found. There IS an integral of energy into the oceans with that. We may still be using the last of it, but the instantaneous solar heating of air (and from ground conduction) seems to be pretty much easing down. Watch and wait, I reckon. Time will enlighten us, like it or not. If we are up to it.
There has been a recent change of surface wind patterns in ths region. The result, imo, is that both cold surface waters and cold air masses are making their way to mid latitudes. That is a cooling pattern. Now it is a matter of how long does this new pattern last. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-53.85,-83.87,482/loc=50.927,-79.800
Greetings from the Big Mango (BKK). This is my pet theory of why volcanic activity increases slightly with lower sunspots.
The Earth is a spinning ball of liquid rock at about 3000 degrees Centigrade enclosed in a thin crustal shell. As this shell contracts contracts the Earth spins faster, increasing the pressure of the liquid on the inside of the crust. Where there are thin spots or small holes the pressure relieves by volcanic activity. QED, heh.
Sandy, Minister of Future
I take great heart from the fact that in a cooling world – everything will be better.
Strange how quick lack of knowledge is ignored resulting in statements like volcanic activity like Tambore is unrelated to solar activity! Is there some definitive research on this you can help me with?
After 4+ billion years forces appear to reach almost steady state at least to human time frames. But our solar system has many orbital elements that vary causing unexpected or difficult to predict orbits of comets, meteors. How can one just disregard solar activity’s effects on geophysical systems here on earth so handily?
BTW, NASA recently added new solar instruments to ISS https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/four-decades-and-counting-new-nasa-instrument-continues-measuring-solar-energy-input
Via direct satellite measurement, the EUV flux (He II) is 2 thirds (66%) of what it was Feb. 24, 1996, and the minimum has not even arrived:
Sunspots are so yesterday.
Expect Leif any minute now…