By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone
In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).Only solar cycles 5 and 6 were weaker.
A sunspot was detected only on 6 of 31 days.
An observation made on April 10, 2018, allowed us to say that at approximately 30° southern heliospheric latitude the SDO solar research satellite saw a tiny spot (it was too small to be officially counted as a sunspot) that certainly belonged to the next approaching solar cycle no. 25.
Sunspots are magnetic phenomena. The thermally conveyed plasma at the sun’s outer layer generates electric currents. Each of these currents produces a magnetic field. Depending on the direction of the current, the magnetic field is polarized and changes on the sun with each change of cycle.
The SDO instrument is able to determine the polarity of the magnetic field for each sunspot, and provided this image:
Is that the end of cycle 24, some 20 months before the expected month no. 132?
Certainly not. And solar cycle 25 has yet to begin as more spots with the same SC 24 signature are still in the pipeline. Moreover solar cycle 24 could resemble the end of solar cycle 5, see Figure 1. In the months during a minimum, spots can appear that belong to the next cycle, as there is a transition phase where spots of both cycles appear.
The solar minimum has started
It can still take quite some time before the next cycle makes its debut. Whether the current solar cycle turns out to be both an especially weak one and a short one is still unknown. Historically weak solar cycles have lasted longer than strong ones, It is difficult to say if solar cycle 24 will be an exception. We’ll keep you up-to-date!
Next is a comparison of the deviation from the mean (112 months into the cycle) of all the solar cycles recorded thus far since the 18th century:
For estimating the strength of the upcoming cycle 25, we regularly cast a look at the sun’s polar fields. The current data are suggesting that solar cycle 25 will be similar to the current solar cycle 24. Thus we have to anticipate that the solar activity will not be returning to normal levels until at least 2031 – the year solar cycle 25 should end.
The good news is that it is highly improbable the sun will enter a Grand Minimum, such as the one that occurred from 1645 – 1715, the period known as the Little Ice Age.
Bonus:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obviously the sun is being adversely affected by the high CO2 level in our atmosphere. 🙂
https://www.iceagenow.info/a-magnetic-reversal-is-one-of-the-most-serious-issues-facing-us-today/
A very interesting video. Is it correct? I think it could be.
You should pole people.
Don’t give him any dangerous ideas, Can picture him with a long pointy stick.
Willis says
“we don’t have either good sunspot data or good temperature data for the Maunder Minimum,so it’s hard to say anything for sure… it was a long time ago.”
There is very good geologic evidence for the cold temperature during the Maunder Minimum from 1650 to 1710.
1. The MM cooling shows up clearly in the CET records.
2. The MM cooling is well shown in the GISP2 ice core data.
3. The MM cooling marked by glacial moraines far down-valley from their present margins. They mark the coldest time since the Holocene warming.
4. The MM cooling is shown in the Sargasso Sea data.
5. The MM cooling is well documented in the written historical record.
and much more.
Richard Greene April 29, 2018 at 10:19 am
Richard, I don’t get upset when people disagree with me. That’s called “science”, it’s no problem in the slightest.
I do hit back twice as hard when people attack me rather than attacking my ideas.
Big difference.
Best to you and yours,
w.
Don Easterbrook April 29, 2018 at 12:20 pm
Thanks, Don. Here’s the GISP2 data with sunspot minima overlaid.
Two of the four sunspot minima are actually slightly warmer than average, and the other two are only slightly cooler than average.
w.
Willis,
My GISP2 δ18O curve looks a bit different than this one. I like to make my own plots from original data, so I use the GISP2 measured data. Minze Stuiver, whose AMS lab made all of the GISP2 ice core measurements, is a friend of mine. and I got several thousand measured data points from him. I can plot δ18O for any time interval for the full length of the core.
I can’t seem to get this website to take graphs, but what I can tell you is that the cooling of the Maunder shows up very nicely in plots of the Stuiver data. The ice core temp data of Cuffy and Clow (replotted by Alley) very nicely confirms the δ18O data (although I haven’t plotted that data in the same detail as the δ18O data—I have his raw data but just haven’t plotted it in detail).
The CET also shows the cooling of the Maunder nicely. It confirms the cooling from about 1645 to 1710.
So how much cooler was the Maunder? A plot of CET December temperatures from 1859 to 2000+ shows ~1678 to be the 3rd coldest Dec of the entire record and between 1660 and 1670 there were three years within the 10th coldest months in the entire record. The span of temp decrease ranges from about 2 to 4 degrees.
Tree ring data from China show a pronounced Maunder cooling. I’m not sure how they wrung temp data out of the tree rings, but it does corroborate the ice and CET data.
Glaciers also provide a nice paleotemp temp record. Moraines of the Maunder period are the farthest downvalley since the Younger Dryas. Glaciers are controlled by both temp and precipitation, but summer temp seems to make the biggest difference. The glaciers tell us the Maunder was much colder than any other time in the late Holocene.
There is a lot of other geologic evidence showing the same thing—bottom line is that the Maunder was substantially colder than any other time since the late Pleistocene.
Thank you Don for all the information re solar impacts on climate.
I have not verified your points, but they are very interesting and agree with my prejudices.
I therefore must complement you on your excellent judgment.
Best personal regards, Allan 🙂
Don Easterbrook April 29, 2018 at 4:47 pm
Thanks, Don. The source for my data is NOAA, as shown on the graph. If that is different from some gray version of the data I don’t know what to say. Perhaps you could suggest to Mr Stuiver that he properly archive his data so ordinary shlubs like myself could have access to it …
Put the URL of the graph on a separate line, with only three letters after the period (e.g. “.jpg”, “.png”), and WordPress will do the rest.
Huh? Again you must be using a gray version of the data. The CET data is here, and only goes back to 1659, not 1645.
Do I think it was colder during the Maunder Minimum? The problem I’ve always had with that, whether in the CET or the Lamb data, is that it is warmer at the end of the Maunder than in the middle. In the GISP data, on the other hand, it’s warmer than average in the middle. If solar variations were truly the cause, these seem unlikely.
In addition, look at the other minima (Sporer, Wolf, Dalton) in the GISP2 data or the Lamb data. There is no obvious sign of cooling during those times.
As to the purported sunspot-relation effect on climate, I can only show this again as evidence that if it exists it is extremely weak. Solar activity has been decreasing since about 1980, while temperatures have been increasing …
Best regards,
w.
Willis,
Let’s see if we can get this straightened out so we’re both looking at the same data!
“The source for my data is NOAA, as shown on the graph. If that is different from some gray version of the data I don’t know what to say. Perhaps you could suggest to Mr Stuiver that he properly archive his data so ordinary shlubs like myself could have access to it” …
I checked the NOAA data and it is not the same as the data set that I use. NOAA’s data is incomplete–they only have the 2-meter data set–mine is the continuous data set with many, many more data points. It has been archived for many years at the Univ of Wash. but may have been taken down. I can send it to you if you would like to have it.
The CET also shows the cooling of the Maunder nicely. It confirms the cooling from about 1645 to 1710.
Huh? “Again you must be using a gray version of the data. The CET data is here, and only goes back to 1659, not 1645.”
Yes, the CET instrumental data only goes back to 1659, but you may not be aware that Tony Brown (2011) has extended the record back to 1538 using historical records and attached it onto the instrumental record. While welding two different kinds of records is not the best of things to do, it is at least interesting. I don’t know what records Tony used and don’t recommend the extension as being considered part of the CET.
“Do I think it was colder during the Maunder Minimum? The problem I’ve always had with that, whether in the CET or the Lamb data, is that it is warmer at the end of the Maunder than in the middle. In the GISP data, on the other hand, it’s warmer than average in the middle. If solar variations were truly the cause, these seem unlikely.”
Yes, there is a curious warm spike in mid-Maunder, but that doesn’t negate the fact the Maunder as a whole was one of the coldest periods since the late Pleistocene. Yes, the end of the Maunder was warmer than the middle, but I don’t understand why that is a problem. It was also warmer at the beginning of the Maunder.
“In addition, look at the other minima (Sporer, Wolf, Dalton) in the GISP2 data or the Lamb data. There is no obvious sign of cooling during those times.”
Hmmm–not at all what I see in the GISP2 and CET. There is a strong cooling in the GISP2 and CET data during the Dalton. Climate during the Sporer seems to have been somewhat erratic. There is some cooling shown in the GISP2 data (but not was persistent as in the Maunder and Dalton). China was cold during the Sporer and the Baltic sea froze over.
The cooling during the Wolf is well shown in the GISP2 data set and is described as: ‘Wolf Minimum (1290-1320 AD) was a period of low sunspot numbers (SSNs) and TSI between about 1300 and 1320 AD. It occurred during the cold period that marked the end of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the beginning of the Little Ice Age (LIA) about 1300 AD. The change from the warmth of the MWP to the cold of the LIA was abrupt and devastating, leading to the Great Famine from 1310 to 1322. The winter of 1309-1310 AD was exceptionally cold. The Thames River froze over and poor people were especially affected. The year 1315 AD was especially bad. Jean Desnouelles wrote at the time, “Exceedingly great rains descended from the heavens and they made huge and deep mud-pools on the land. Throughout nearly all of May, June, and August, the rains did not stop.” Corn, oats, and hay crops were beaten to the ground, August and September were cold, and floods swept away entire villages. Crop harvests in 1315 AD were a disaster, affecting an enormous area in northern Europe. In places, up to half of farmlands were eroded away, cold, wet weather prevented grain harvests, and fall plantings failed, triggering famines. In 1316 AD, spring rain continued, again impeding the sowing of grain crops, and harvests failed once again. Diseases increased, newborn and old people died of starvation, and multitudes scavenged anything edible. Whole communities disappeared and many farms were abandoned. The year 1316 was the worst for cereal crops in the entire Middle Ages. Cattle couldn’t be fed, hay wouldn’t dry and couldn’t be moved so it just rotted. Thousands of cattle froze during the bitterly cold winter of 1317e1318 and many others starved. The cold immobilized shipping. Rain in 1317e1318 continued through the summer and people suffered for another seven years.’
Does all this not show that the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums were cold periods?
Don Easterbrook April 29, 2018 at 10:48 pm Edit
Thanks for that, Don. That allowed me to track it down. Here is the 1-year average data curated by your friend from the Univ. of Wash.
As you can see, this does NOT show the Maunder Minimum as being unusual in any way. In fact, three of the four “grand sunspot minima”, including the Maunder Minimum, were warmer than the overall average.
I’m aware that Mr. Brown extended the CET. However, I’m not all that impressed with the CET in general. It is a spliced, averaged dataset. Up to 1722 there were gaps in the records which were infilled from the data from Utrecht, which is 300 miles (500 km) from London. So anything before that, which includes all of the Maunder Minimum, is suspect.
Next, the CET is spliced using different stations in 1772, 1773, 1777, 1786, 1789, 1812, 1826, 1853, 1878, 1931, and 1959. Finally, between 1723 and 1760, the temperatures were mostly not taken outdoors, but in unheated rooms. See the official description of the dataset here.
As a result, using the CET to show a comparison between the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s – early 1700s with later CET is … well … sketchy.
“Do I think it was colder during the Maunder Minimum? The problem I’ve always had with that, whether in the CET or the Lamb data, is that it is warmer at the end of the Maunder than in the middle. In the GISP data, on the other hand, it’s warmer than average in the middle. If solar variations were truly the cause, these seem unlikely.”
Not according to the GISP2 data from your friend at the U of W, see the figure above.
Same objection.
According to the GISP2 data you recommended, there is indeed cooling during the Wolf minimum. However, on average the period was warmer than the overall average. Nor is any one year particularly cool during the Wolf Minimum. It also contains one of the warmest years in the entire record … along with a warm year in the Sporer Minimum.
Nope. Not according to the GISP2 dataset you recommended it doesn’t. Three of the four were warmer than the overall average.
Best regards,
w.
Willis,
It’s a bit late and I need to get some sleep for a busy day tomorrow so I can’t fully respond now. More later.
Thanks for the curve from the complete data. Curiously, my curves don’t look like your curves (which must be correct). If we’re both using the same data, why the difference? My curves are plotted on Excel so I don’t understand why we’re not getting similar results. I’ll send you some of my curves tomorrow and perhaps you can figure out why they are different. My vertical axis is the value for 18O from the data; yours is standard deviation. I’m curious what you get if we plot the same vertical axis units.
I’d like to get this straightened out because I just can’t accept the idea that the largest glacial advance since the Pleistocene occurred when the climate was “warmer than the overall average.” The glaciers were way down-valley from the present. You can see my dilemma!
My best to you, as always,
Don
Willis,
Thanks for your patience in getting this straightened out. Your conclusion that “this does NOT show the Maunder Minimum as being unusual in any way. In fact, three of the four “grand sunspot minima”, including the Maunder Minimum, were warmer than the overall average” is in direct contradiction to a huge mass of data that says the Maunder was a time of extreme cold, so it’s important to get it right. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct, but why are they in such direct conflict with what we know happened during the Maunder and why is my GISP2 curve different than yours?
My curves show the δ18O values of the Stuiver data on the vertical axis—yours show standard deviation. Perhaps a way to get us on the same page would be if you would plot the δ18O values of the Stuiver data on the vertical axis and see if we get the same curve. Assuming we do, we could then compare it to your standard deviation curve and see what the differences are.
Thanks for your notes on the CET—I wasn’t aware of the splices. I’ve compared the CET with the GISP2 temperatures and they match pretty well. Would be interesting to delete the splices and see what it looks like.
Best to you,
Don
what we know happened during the Maunder
Don, I have reservations about that assertion, especially the word ‘know’.
Willis writes:
“Do I think it was colder during the Maunder Minimum? The problem I’ve always had with that, whether in the CET or the Lamb data, is that it is warmer at the end of the Maunder than in the middle. In the GISP data, on the other hand, it’s warmer than average in the middle. If solar variations were truly the cause, these seem unlikely.”
Well it would get warmer at the end of a cold bit wouldn’t it, else it wouldn’t be the end of the cold bit. Believe it or not it was also warmer before the cold bit, like in the 1650’s and much of the 1660’s.
Though the increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation driving the cold bit, is also driving the warm bit by Greenland.
A few thoughts – OT a bit but not really:
The Equatorial Pacific Ocean has a natural temperature cycle averaging about 36 months peak-to-peak.
Equatorial average air temperature and humidity follow Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature – about 3 months after the Nino34 SST Anomaly and about 5 months after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly.
Global average air temperature follows Equatorial average air temperature and humidity about 1 month later.
The rate of change atmospheric dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with global average air temperature, and its integral the atmospheric CO2 trend lags the air temperature trend by ~9 months.
Here is the relationship between the ~9-month CO2 lag and the average 36-month cycle in the Equatorial Pacific.
Observations and Conclusions:
I proved in 2008 that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.
The integral of the sine curve lags the sine curve by 90 degrees, which equals 1/4 of the 360 degree full cycle.
CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months, therefore this “short” cycle time is about 36 months.
Hypothesis: This approx. 36 month cycle is the Equatorial Pacific -> Global Temperature cycle.
Conclusion: Based on UAH LT peaks, the mean cycle is 36.3 months and the lag is 9.1 months vs the 9 months in my 2008 icecap.us paper.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1658389180905304&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Reference:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Spreadsheet at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
ralfellis wrote on March 18, 2018 at 11:40 am
“Allan – what would generate a temperature cycle, every two years instead if annually, as per your graph? Not really seen that before.”
Allan replied:
“The following paragraph is pure speculation – treat it with “a ton of salt”:
There is an apparent natural oscillation in Pacific equatorial sea surface temperatures which is (I think) about 3 years (36 months) rather than 2 years, and that is probably related to the ~9-month delay of CO2 after temperature (i,e. a 1/4 cycle delay). Frankly I haven’t given this much thought, so this paragraph is purely speculative.”
Ralf, if you are reading this post – my above post provides the proof to my prior speculation.
“The integral of the sine curve lags the sine curve by 90 degrees, which equals 1/4 of the 360 degree full cycle. CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months, therefore this “short” cycle time is about 36 months.
Hypothesis: This approx. 36 month cycle is the Equatorial Pacific -> Global Temperature cycle.”
(aka ENSO)
I suppose everyone else remembers this basic calculus, but I had to go back and prove it to myself. It has only been 50 years since I took calculus, so that is my excuse. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Instead of getting out the willow branch and flogging my back, I’m going to have a glass of Scotch and go to bed. “A drop of water to release the serpents…” … Aaaaahh! 🙂
___________________________________________________
Confíteor Deo omnipoténti
et vobis, fratres,
quia peccávi nimis
cogitatióne, verbo,
ópere et omissióne:
mea culpa, mea culpa,
mea máxima culpa.
Ideo precor beátam Maríam semper vírginem,
omnes angelos et sanctos,
et vos, fratres,
oráre pro me ad Dóminum Deum nostrum.
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
After a long drought, I’ve been enjoying having at least one decent active region with sunspots crossing the face of the Sun this week. This was AR12706 on April 25:
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/77/857277/1/167378168.w5BOzHYu.AR12706_Mono_Sun_094245.jpg
I also captured this little prominence the same day:
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/77/857277/1/167378169.mwgPqw12.SW_Prom_Sun_102432.jpg
Awesome images. When I see images like your colour image, I say to other people “See that little ball like structure? That’s about the size of, or larger than, the entire earth.”
I think its a little too early to state highly improbable based on magnetic fields. Well because they’re fields.
I am confused with sunspot numbers and their charts. The chart at the top of this post, Solarham and WFT show different amplitudes for SC24. Are they mixing up the data with Solar Flux?
Decline in solar activity causes global testosterone collapse
Light and Enlightenment philosophy
https://testosteronecivilization.com/light-and-enlightenment-philosophy/
Ah, now that could explain why I find myself more and more attracted to lesbians ..
To the extent that most Thermometers measuring whether there is global or warming or not are located next to airplane runways or concrete/asphalt parking lots it does not matter if only 1% of USA is roads. The asphalt and concrete next to the thermometers has caused reported temps to increase.
Whenever I see a solar post, I search/find replies by lsvalgaard and Willis E for the good info and to filter out the chaff. Thanks to you both…..
If you were truly so well discerning you would realize Leif nor Willis are at the stage of having a practical working knowledge yet of in terms of usefully applying solar activity indices to weather and climate on a daily to decadal scale, which is not an insult. Its not easy. If they did they would have seen the 2015/16 ENSO coming and the subsequent cooloff ahead of time and been among the first to predict those events.
Instead I happen to be the guy that did both those things. It is simply a matter of fact.
If you were truly so well discerning you would realize Leif nor Willis are at the stage of having a practical working knowledge yet of in terms of usefully applying solar activity indices to weather and climate on a daily to decadal scale
Neither has anybody else, including you [in spite of your claim]. ‘Applying solar indices’ to ‘weather and climate’ is just curve fitting with no physical understanding and therefore has little or no predictive power. There are many people who claim such ability [with differing results, BTW] but, again, without any physical understanding and quantitative predictions. In the forecasting business there is the concept of ‘actionable intelligence’; that is: the prediction must be so strong that you can reasonably take action [which always has a cost] on it. Saying that there is 1% chance of an earthquake tomorrow is not good enough to order mandatory evacuation of, say, a million people. A 90% chance might be enough. Where the border between 1% and 90% lies depends on the cost of the action.
usefully applying solar activity indices to weather and climate on a daily to decadal scale
The raw numbers make such an application very simple — a 1.5 watt variation between a quiet sun and an active one is not enough to make a significant climate effect. There’s no credible evidence for other significant effects often put forward like UV & cosmic rays, etc, etc.
Did you even read the testosterone posts above?
Its as if they’re all making predictions based in playing the field.
Mine is a physical understanding, and your stating that it isn’t is a lie. I have demonstrated very good skill and you have not. That is the truth.
The physical understanding is 1au TSI energy under clear skies operates within S-B cumulatively, incrementally, and this is the important part you all miss completely. The ongoing solar energy absorbed and released by the ocean is analogous to making money. If you earn enough over expenses you accumulate, if not you fall behind. My solar method is like a cash-flow breakeven analysis, based on the break-even warming threshold I first established as 120 sfu in F10.cm flux, then applied to other solar indices. Everything I did has been real-world tested successfully.
The fact is as I have demonstrated repeatedly it is the small TSI variations incrementally adding more or less electromagnetic energy within the ~1.5W variation into the ocean, converting it to sensible heat that upwells, surfaces, heating the air, becoming the wind. The entire solar-climate process repeats in a self-organizing manner around solar cycle activity in predictable ways as shown in my Fig 18 solar-climate cross correlations.
Leif Svalgaard has demonstrated no such skill and is in no position to claim otherwise, or that I don’t.
Leif Svalgaard has demonstrated no such skill and is in no position to claim otherwise,
I don’t. What I say is that any effect is in the noise and thus hardly observable and therefore not significant.
KLohrn
I do solar climate work now, but once I was an all conference football player and team captain who always played against guys who were bigger and supposedly better than me. I played offense and defense, all the special teams, etc. If someone wants to play rough, I can do that. Intellectually too.
It is significant over time, DOH!
It is significant over time
Perhaps not even that.
Over the life of the Earth the Sun’s output [TSI] has increased some 30%, yet the temperature of the Earth has hardly changed. In fact, probably decreased over time over the billions of years since.
“Over the life of the Earth the Sun’s output [TSI] has increased some 30%, yet the temperature of the Earth has hardly changed. In fact, probably decreased over time over the billions of years since.”
Pure conjecture based on pure conjuncture all the way down the rabbit hole…
We no facts about solar activity a billions years ago.
We no facts about solar activity a billions years ago.
The solar wind was probable hundreds of times stronger than today, but that is not what matters. As you say, it is TSI that is the driver. And TSI was 30% lower back then or some 400 W/m2. So with a sensitivity of 0.05 K/W, the earth would have been 20 degrees colder, yet we know from the geological evidence that it was not. It was probably warmer than today.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
There’s recorded evidence of climate change in Earth’s history, the recorded distance between it and the largest control knob in the solar system (the Sun) is a relatively recent development.
Bob Weber April 30, 2018 at 8:51 am
A citation to a dated forecast showing that you actually were able to foresee the 2015/16 ENSO and how far in advance you saw it coming would do wonders for your credibility … or not …
w.
PS—Saying that there will be a “cooloff” following an ENSO event is hardly a forecast …
I don’t have to worry about my credibility on this subject in spite of whatever is said. I’ll be nice too.
Willis the info you’re looking for is in my poster.
I generally don’t keep track of all my comments across the blogs, but if you recall there were many instances of my mentioning the progression of my work with accompanying predictions 2014-on, the 120 sfu and 1361.25W solar warming thresholds for example.
In my view I’ve already established my credibility on the matters I speak of with the accuracy of my predictions, but have yet to see a single person indicate they fully get what I’ve done, and part of that is my own fault for not communicating more, but there were reasons for that.
The recent LASP sun-climate symposium gave me an opportunity to consolidate my work in a poster and start talking about it with others in the field. I’m working on a blog article about it which will include spreadsheet(s). The ideas and math are simple, but deserve more explanation than what’s in the poster, which is coming. From there it’ll be on to journal articles. There’s more science work to do on top of it.
The ocean accumulates absorbed solar energy incrementally. There are multiple applications to this work including what you do in breaking down daily evaporation. The idea is right now because of insufficient TSI energy over time since the SC24 TSI maximum, there is less daily tropical evaporation leading to drought in the US right now and through the solar minimum. I specifically warned of the worsening drought a few months ago and in the spring of 2017 here at WUWT, before it was so apparent as it is now.
Under the present low TSI low evaporation conditions, the SW US skies are clear, increasing UVI, driving high daytime temperatures, further dessicating the ground, leading to more drought. It’s a system.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/jpg/20180424/20180424_usdm.jpg
The work I do touches all aspects of climate change, and now I’m working on getting you all to understand the first most important thing, the accumulative warming/cooling effect of small 1 au TSI variations over time.
I would ask today to take some time to read and digest it all. It’s finally nice here and I have yard work.
I intend to have this article ready within a week or two, depending on how fast my outside work gets done, and will then be happy to answer questions.
Bob Weber April 30, 2018 at 1:54 pm
Bob, the date on that poster is 15 April 2018 … which makes predicting the 2016/17 El Nino kinda easy.
No, I don’t recall them. Remember that I’m writing, reading, and commenting on dozens of posts every single week of the year.
However, if you can predict ENSOs a year or more out, as far as I know, you’d be the first person in the world to do so … so what is your current prediction for the timing of the next ENSO event?
Best regards,
w.
“Bob, the date on that poster is 15 April 2018 … which makes predicting the 2016/17 El Nino kinda easy.”
If you had read what I wrote you would know when I made the prediction, June 23, 2014.
The prediction I made about the then 2014/15 ENSO is located in the middle of page 1. It is one of my blog comments I do have bookmarked:
I did not predict the next peak of sunspot activity and that is not the point. The point is here I realized that only another sunspot spike would drive TSI high again to drive the ENSO back up again, only after F10.7cm rose above the 120 sfu warming line, which I had just determined only months before.
?dl=0
The cooling prediction also came in the form of a blog post prediction on Dr. Spencer’s site in Dec 2015, also noted in the poster. I made it here too a few times.
I think that because at the time I didn’t know where this was all going for me I didn’t make the predictions in the way I would now. Now that I’m through the learning curve ‘discovery’ process, I intend to make future predictions available on my upcoming website, and make them better specified.
No one else saw either of those two things coming.
The discovery and application of the solar warming threshold by itself, that was tested and verified, would’ve stood on its own in the poster even without those two predictions. My warming threshold works very well. So even if you were predisposed to pan my two blog post predictions, my main warming/cooling threshold worked as described perfectly, across the five solar cycles I first developed and tested it on.
The purpose of the two blog predictions is to demonstrate I made the right judgements, and they reinforce the threshold work, which worked perfectly.
“so what is your current prediction for the timing of the next ENSO event?”
Right around the corner, starting just before the cycle minimum, as it did prior to the last minimum:
Clear(er) sky equatorial insolation will start it and the rise in new cycle TSI will reinforce it.
The timing depends on the end of the solar cycle. I hope you appreciate that I depend on others for sunspot forecasts, and what happens depends on a bit of an unknown, how the sun will exactly develop over time, which limits the ability to be more specific.
High insolation under low TSI low evaporation is mighty effective at warming. Top of cycle TSI makes it happen faster and deeper.
We can talk about this again some other time.
“TSI was 30% lower back then or some 400 W/m2.”
That is just another unverified and unverifiable theory so anything said of it is speculative.
That is just another unverified and unverifiable theory so anything said of it is speculative.
No, that is the result of the very successful stellar evolution theory, backed up by observations of thousands of stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
If you begin to claim that the theory is nonsense, all further discussion stops.
Correction: “starting just before the cycle minimum” – just after
There are a few older cases of this type of ENSO starting before the cycle ends.
To review the bidding, Bobo Weber said:
So I asked him for verification. He pointed me to a poster from 2018. I said “Whaaa”?
Here’s the response:
Bob Weber April 30, 2018 at 5:23 pm
Gosh … here I was, looking for a prediction of the 2015/2016 El Nino … but no, you were talking about some mythical ENSO event in 2014/2015 … no wonder I couldn’t find it. You’ve changed the goalposts from 2015/2016 to 2014/2015.
But setting that aside, here’s your prediction:
Now, just hang on.
First, in June of 2014, the El Nino Index was NEUTRAL, and there was no putative “2014/2015 El Nino” in sight. If it were to occur it would have already started by June, the signs would be there. Typically, the ONI starts ramping up a year before a strong El Nino. Since the ONI was neutral, the odds of an El Nino in 2014/2015 were slim.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
Next, you claimed that you predicted an El Nino … but in fact, you predicted that an El Nino would NOT happen, and you did it midyear when the Oceanic Nino Index was neutral … and you are claiming success based on that?
There have been eight strong El Ninos in the last 58 years, meaning the odds of there not being an El Nino in any random year are about 50 / 58 = about 85%. So … you predicted something would not occur, with an 85% chance of not occurring, and ONI evidence that it wasn’t occurring … and you claim success?
Man, you’re trying to out-Corbyn Piers Corbyn, who famously predicted a 50% chance of a typhoon in the Pacific, and claimed success when no typhoon formed …
Come back when you’ve actually predicted an El Nino a year in advance and you’ll have something. Until then, I’m sorry, but that don’t impress me much.
w.
Powerful eruptions expelled mass from our unstable sun early on. Before that it was 10 percent more massive and hotter, allowing Mars to have liquid water. Mass released from the sun’s core? Interesting ideas.
You are truly a distortion artist Willis. You are always looking for ways to be clever w/o substance. The quick rush of a back stab – you’re like a crack addict – you can’t wait for the chance to stab someone in the back. I’m betting that what I’m about to say will go in one ear and out the other, because you’re just too proud.
“You’ve changed the goalposts from 2015/2016 to 2014/2015.”
I have changed no goal posts. The discussion started then, its that simple. You distorted the meaning of what was clearly said in sequence in my poster. That is directly lying about my work, right off the bat.
“Next, you claimed that you predicted an El Nino … but in fact, you predicted that an El Nino would NOT happen, and you did it midyear when the Oceanic Nino Index was neutral … and you are claiming success based on that?”
Let’s clue in real close on this big lie here:
” but in fact, you predicted that an El Nino would NOT happen, “
You lied by omitting my qualifier, “unless there is another spike in solar activity.” AND AND the big one, you did not follow your own advice to everyone, which is quoting the exact words I used. You misquoted me and put what I said out of context. That is the exact kind of thing you complain about in others, hypocrite!
“Now, just hang on.
First, in June of 2014, the El Nino Index was NEUTRAL, and there was no putative “2014/2015 El Nino” in sight. If it were to occur it would have already started by June, the signs would be there. Typically, the ONI starts ramping up a year before a strong El Nino. Since the ONI was neutral, the odds of an El Nino in 2014/2015 were slim.”
You’re going to have to explain that to Bob Tisdale who had written the 11th article on your supposedly non-existent ENSO development when I made my prediction, and maybe you can ask him why he was writing about something you say wasn’t there. I will look for you to be a smart-aleck to him for it too.
So right here in a few short sentences you have distorted the meaning of what I said, and essentially you indirectly called Bob Tisdale out for having some nerve to write about what you said was non-existent.
The 2014/15 ENSO developed into the 2015/16 ENSO, and if you had actually paid attention to Tisdale’s posts you’d know that, but no you’re too busy telling everyone the way it is or isn’t to learn from others.
“Man, you’re trying to out-Corbyn Piers Corbyn, who famously predicted a 50% chance of a typhoon in the Pacific, and claimed success when no typhoon formed …
Come back when you’ve actually predicted an El Nino a year in advance and you’ll have something. Until then, I’m sorry, but that don’t impress me much.”
Piers Corbyn calls you a churlish charlatan. Everything you did here to me proves it more.
BTW you can’t do simple math. My prediction was made more than one year prior to the ENSO peak!
“I’m sorry, but that don’t impress me much.”
It is you that is unimpressive, well, except your ego. Very impressive ego that is too… My my what a big oversized ego from someone so unencumbered by truth or a practical knowledge of the sun-climate.
You lied shamelessly here. I can see you get a big rush from GETTING AWAY WITH IT. Not with me.
Of course most of the smarter people here have already seen through you too, and they’ve said so, and they’ll keep right on saying it as will I as long as you keep it up.
Go on big ego, flail away. I know all you do is leave people with the “impression” you are right all the time, but there is little substance there with you – too much ego, and your constant lies are so unimpressive, and really, you should take this to heart – it really takes away from the good you do otherwise.
Willis Eschenbach is a serial liar and I just proved it again. Go on Willis, do it again!!!!
Javier is right about you, you are not a person who acts on good faith as others do.
I just responded to Willis at 8:18pm today and my comment went into moderation.
What’s the matter?
You are truly a distortion artist WE. You are always looking for ways to be clever w/o substance. The quick rush of a back stab – you’re like a crack addict – you can’t wait for the chance to stab someone in the back. I’m betting that what I’m about to say will go in one ear and out the other, because you’re just too proud.
“You’ve changed the goalposts from 2015/2016 to 2014/2015.”
I have changed no goal posts. The discussion started then, its that simple. You distorted the meaning of what was clearly said in sequence in my poster. That is directly laying about my work, right off the bat.
“Next, you claimed that you predicted an El Nino … but in fact, you predicted that an El Nino would NOT happen, and you did it midyear when the Oceanic Nino Index was neutral … and you are claiming success based on that?”
Let’s clue in real close on this big lye here:
” but in fact, you predicted that an El Nino would NOT happen, “
You lyed by omitting my qualifier, “unless there is another spike in solar activity.” AND AND the big one, you did not follow your own advice to everyone, which is quoting the exact words I used. You misquoted me and put what I said out of context. That is the exact kind of thing you complain about in others, hypocrite!
“Now, just hang on.
First, in June of 2014, the El Nino Index was NEUTRAL, and there was no putative “2014/2015 El Nino” in sight. If it were to occur it would have already started by June, the signs would be there. Typically, the ONI starts ramping up a year before a strong El Nino. Since the ONI was neutral, the odds of an El Nino in 2014/2015 were slim.”
You’re going to have to explain that to Bob Tisdale who had written the 11th article on your supposedly non-existent ENSO development when I made my prediction, and maybe you can ask him why he was writing about something you say wasn’t there. I will look for you to be a smart-aleck to him for it too.
So right here in a few short sentences you have distorted the meaning of what I said, and essentially you indirectly called Bob Tisdale out for having some nerve to write about what you said was non-existent.
The 2014/15 ENSO developed into the 2015/16 ENSO, and if you had actually paid attention to Tisdale’s posts you’d know that, but no you’re too busy telling everyone the way it is or isn’t to learn from others.
“Man, you’re trying to out-Corbin Piers Corbin, who famously predicted a 50% chance of a typhoon in the Pacific, and claimed success when no typhoon formed …
Come back when you’ve actually predicted an El Nino a year in advance and you’ll have something. Until then, I’m sorry, but that don’t impress me much.”
Piers calls you a churlish charlatan. Everything you did here to me proves it more.
BTW you can’t do simple math. My prediction was made more than one year prior to the ENSO peak!
“I’m sorry, but that don’t impress me much.”
It is you that is unimpressive, well, except your ego. Very impressive ego that is too… My my what a big oversized ego from someone so unencumbered by truth or a practical knowledge of the sun-climate.
You lyd shamelessly here. I can see you get a big rush from GETTING AWAY WITH IT. Not with me.
Of course most of the smarter people here have already seen through you too, and they’ve said so, and they’ll keep right on saying it as will I as long as you keep it up.
Go on big ego, flail away. I know all you do is leave people with the “impression” you are right all the time, but there is little substance there with you – too much ego, and your constant lies are so unimpressive, and really, you should take this to heart – it really takes away from the good you do otherwise.
WE is a serial lyre and I just proved it again. Go on do it again!!!!
Javier is right, you are not a person who acts on good faith as others do.
Bob Weber April 30, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Sorry, Bob, but there were too many ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness in your comment for me to pick it up, even if I were wearing welder’s gloves.
You’ll have to boast to someone else about your wonderfully prescient El Nino predictions, you’ve just burnt your bridges with me.
w.
I doubt you’re sorry about anything Willis.
Willis you deserved every word. You earned it you own it.
I am the one today who first extended the olive branch and now you can’t even take responsibility for your own ad hominems.
“The point is here I realized that only another sunspot spike would drive TSI high again to drive the ENSO back up again, only after F10.7cm rose above the 120 sfu warming line, which I had just determined only months before.”
Piers gets that backwards too, El Nino increases during weaker solar states.
Solar minimum effects like cool summers in 2009 plus declining AMO plus no extreme super El Nino this time will make the Global Warming crowd truly distrusted by the general population and make its political protagonists run silent.
Willis,
Here is a historical description of the Maunder climate, one among several thousand. It is an example of why your conclusion that ““this does NOT show the Maunder Minimum as being unusual in any way. In fact, three of the four “grand sunspot minima”, including the Maunder Minimum, were warmer than the overall average” is so at odds with what we know about the Maunder climate and why it is so important that we resolve the discrepancy.
“Between 1680 and 1730, the coldest cycle of the Little Ice Age, temperatures plummeted, the growing season in England was about 5 weeks shorter than it was during the 20th century. The number of days with winter snow on the ground in Britain and the Netherlands rose to between 20 and 30, as opposed to 2 to 10 days through most of the 20th century.
The winter of 1683-84 was so cold that the ground froze to a depth of more than a meter in parts of SW England and belts of sea ice appeared along the coast of SE England and northern France. The ice lay 30-40 km offshore along parts of the Dutch coast. Many harbors were so choked with ice that shipping halted throughout the North Sea.
Conditions around Iceland were now exceptionally severe. Sea ice often blocked the Denmark Strait throughout the summer. In 1695, ice surrounded the entire coast of Iceland for much of the year, halting all ship traffic. The inshore cod fishery of the Faeroe Islands failed completely as the sea surface temperatures of the surrounding ocean became 5 degrees C cooler than today.
The effects of colder Little Ice Age climate were felt over enormous areas, not just Europe, but all over the world.” (Fagan, 2001)
In addition to all of this, glaciers all over the world extended far downvalley and pollen from peat bogs showed marked changes in vegetation.
Best regards,
Don
+10
Leif,
There are 2-3,000 publications on the LIA climate, including many historical accounts (like the one above), many glacial studies, GiSP2 (if Willis and I can get squared away), pollen studies of vegetation changes, lowering of freezing levels in mts., changes in ocean sediments (Sargasso Sea), and much more. I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Maunder was a deep cooling.
Best regards,
Don
There are 2-3,000 publications on the LIA climate,
The LIA began long before the Maunder Minimum and lasted long after, so it is probably not quite kosher to associate the LIA with the Maunder Minimum per se.
How many publications are there in support of AWG?
Leif,
Of course–I didn’t imply that. I haven’t gone thru 3,000 papers to see which are about the Maunder and which are about other cold periods in the LIA! The point is that in those thousands of papers is a mountain of finite evidence that the Maunder was cold.
mountain of finite evidence that the Maunder was cold
As were several centuries on either side of the Maunder.
You try to make it seem that the low solar activity during the Maunder was the reason that the Maunder was cold [and if not you, then many, many others]. There would have been evidence for that if ONLY the Maunder had been cold, but it wasn’t the sole cold snap during the LIA.
Now I would expect an intellectually honest person to declare that he did not imply that there is a mountain of evidence that low solar activity was the reason for the cold Maunder.
What say you?
How many publications are there in support of AWG?
I don’t know.
Thousands. Does that prove that AWG is real?
mountain of finite evidence that the Maunder was cold
As were several centuries on either side of the Maunder. You try to make it seem that the low solar activity during the Maunder was the reason that the Maunder was cold I DIDN’T SAY THAT AND THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSS–WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT THE MAUNDER WAS COLD.
[and if not you, then many, many others]. There would have been evidence for that if ONLY the Maunder had been cold, but it wasn’t the sole cold snap during the LIA. OF COURSE NOT–NO ONE IS SAY THAT IS WAS.
Now I would expect an intellectually honest person to declare that he did not imply that there is a mountain of evidence that low solar activity was the reason for the cold Maunder. I DIDN’T SAY THAT–IT’S NOT THE POINT OF DISCUSSION! THAT’S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE POINT HERE IS–WAS THE MAUNDER COLD (FOR ANY REASON).
What say you?
C’mon Leif–you’re twisting my words into things that I didn’t say and straying from the main point here–that the Maunder was cold. That’s the issue we’re discussing–we’re not saying anything about the other cold periods in the LIA, we’re talking specifically about just the Maunder–was it cold or not? The number of papers published is irrelevant–it’s the CONTENT of those papers that is important. Can you read the except from Fagan (2001) that I posted earlier about specific dates in the later 1600s within the Maunder and still deny that it was cold? I can give you another hundred publications citing the same kind of evidence that 1650-1710 was REALLY cold! Then there is the strong advance of glaciers that extended far downvalley. Glaciers don’t lie and certainly don’t advance during warm periods. Can you give me any concrete evidence that the Maunder was NOT cold?
With best regards,
Don
we’re talking specifically about just the Maunder–was it cold or not?
If it were or not is of little interest if it were not for the implied assumption that it was caused by low solar activity. So, do you think so or not?
Thousands. Does that prove that AWG is real?
C’mon Leif–you know this is irrelevant!
you know this is irrelevant!
Not at all. You used the argument that 3000 papers support a cold Maunder.
I point out that the number of papers is not an argument for solid support, hence should not be used.
“we’re talking specifically about just the Maunder–was it cold or not?
If it were or not is of little interest if it were not for the implied assumption that it was caused by low solar activity. So, do you think so or not?”
You’re missing the point, Leif–we’re just talking about whether or not the Maunder was cold because of Willis’s assertion that it wasn’t. That’s all we’re talking about! What caused the cold climate is altogether another issue that we’re not concerned with here. Was the Maunder cold? Yes, indeed it was, especially in the late 1600s. Do you know of any evidence that it wasn’t?
What I think about solar activity is NOT the issue here.
What I think about solar activity is NOT the issue here.
You are just evading the important point: why was it cold?
Why was it special [if it even was]?
And you don’t seem to have the cohones to go there…
you know this is irrelevant!
Not at all. You used the argument that 3000 papers support a cold Maunder. NO, NO, NO I DID NOT!! WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THOUSANDS OF PAPERS WAS CONCLUSIVE!
I point out that the number of papers is not an argument for solid support, hence should not be used. WE AGREE–THE NUMBER OF PAPERS IS IRELEVANT! SO LET’S MOVE ON.
Leif–as I have already said (several times) the number of papers is irrelevant–it’s the EVIDENCE in the papers that I’m talking about, not the number of papers. As I have asked several times–do you know of any credible EVIDENCE that the Maunder was not cold? I don’t know of any. If you do, tell me what the evidence is.
I enjoy discussing scientific issues, but we seem to be wasting time talking about irrelevant stuff. Let’s get back to scientific stuff!
With best regards,
Don
do you know of any credible EVIDENCE that the Maunder was not cold?
Nobody is disputing that the Maunder was cold. The question is whether it was especially cold compared to all the other cold times during the five hundred year log LIA, and if so, what made it so special.
Don Easterbrook April 30, 2018 at 9:12 pm Edit
Whoa there, cowboy. I didn’t “assert that [the Maunder Minimum] wasn’t [cold]”.
I said that YOUR CITED DATA said it wasn’t cold, which is a very different matter. I made no assertion myself either way.
This is why I ask people to quote my words …
w.
Don, Just sitting in the peanut gallery here, as an interested observer, reading some of these posts. Not only do we have fiddling of historic temperature anomalies, and from what I understand historic Sun Spot Numbers, I am getting the impression that not only do we have a “hide the decline”, but also a “hide the correlation”. We will never know.
Roads and LIA have a bias in the temperature record.
Firstly all thermometers are beside roads in spite of roads occupying well under 1% of the surface of the earth.
I might add that the correlation between roads and surface alteration of the ground around them is very strong also.
If you ask people about building more roads they often say we cant just keep building roads otherwise the world will be covered, ask them what proportion or percentage of their country is urbanized and roaded. Few realize its much closer to 1% than covered.
This I believe biases the measured climate as measured not sure if hotter but certainly different. that being day night etc.
The LIA bias comes in mind from the impact of a possible small number big peaks up or down. Aging memories remember big events, these are also recorded in paintings of ice covered lakes and floods. It is likely to be a cherry picked memory impact, that is anecdote. Youth think everything is the worst ever they suffer from Piaget’s ego centrism, but they grow out of it we hope.
This year has been very hot in NZ against a background of falling SH global temperatures and the frenzy in the press is that its proof of CAGW where as its actually proof of human stupidity.
If there is something to study its the frequency of blocking weather patterns which define freak weather patterns both hot cold wet and dry. These define the frenzied press.
Just a persistant SST anomoly around NZ.
https://www.windy.com/?sstanom,-44.277,174.551,3,p:off
Typically when I hear the words highly and improbable put together in a sentence, I rely on more recent concrete evidence than just fields to fill any gaps.
Pan’s gap
@ur momisugly Salvatore,
“… The combinations and hence resultant effects are endless and this is why it is so hard to obtain clear cut solar/climate correlations. …”
—
No, it’s because the variability of TSI is so incidental in quantity as to be almost but not quite amusingly insignificant.
You and others seem to be verging on saying induction heating of the oceans can explain the missing watts per meter squared of E input.
At least Stephen Wilde has a viable somewhat testable conceptual mechanism for solar modulation of weather, then on to longer term natural climate variability (as opposed to political IPCC “climate-change” propaganda terms).
“No, it’s because the variability of TSI is so incidental in quantity as to be almost but not quite amusingly insignificant.”
Wrong. TSI is cumulative like earning money, you either make enough and get ahead, or just stay afloat at breakeven, or you don’t and fall behind over time. Solar deposited energy in OHC is like your retained earnings after expenses, your savings. When earnings are low you draw off savings.
What is amusingly insignificant are the opinions of Stephen Wilde and Salvatore, who are two of the biggest hand-wavers around, who are always quick to take credit but with no supportive evidence.
When did Wilde or de Prete make a single successful prediction? What did they explain?
“Wilde has a viable somewhat testable conceptual mechanism for solar modulation of weather, then on to longer term natural climate variability”
You realize Wilde has never posted a thing except his opinion. I don’t dislike him. Salvatore neither – but there’s no demonstrated skill there.
Those weren’t Wilde’s ideas in the first place, and he has done ZERO work to show anyone anything in all the years I’ve been here. I remember no evidence ever forwarded from him in realtime nor any specific falsifiable predictions. I asked him once to show data and he said nature was proving him right. Sure, OK.
You have to ask yourself why hasn’t someone else stepped up to help them and provide the evidence they need. They rely on the very thin ozone layer, so if you think a very thin passive low concentration gas in the atmosphere is more powerful than the sun’s variable energy, and that the solar wind or UV modulation can outperform and outwarm TSI, just show the evidence for how it caused anything to happen at all. You’d think by now if this was such an obviously dominate mechanism everyone would be showing evidence.
Even once would be a start. But that’s too much to ask of the handwaving crowd and their synchophants.
Everyone against TSI is not facing up to reality. It works incrementally on the ocean, which heats the air, as I showed in several prior posts. People must face up to the truth that just about everybody was wrong about TSI.. The solar wind does not warm the ocean. The solar wind did not cause climate change, TSI did.
WZcycles you could be the one to prove them right. Why don’t you?
Bob,
I’m observing the data, and the propositions of many. I don’t feel compelled to take sides, or pick a favorite, and I don’t think I need to have a working solution.
It would be nice, if progress were made, but given the time scale of climate variability, I realistically accept I will most probably not understand it much better before I keel-over, in ~20 years or so.
I’m more put off by deluding ideas being spread, and the seeing of imaginary patterns in processed data, and the avid assertions accompanying, than I am put off by an abscence of viable explanations for 100 to 1000 year time scale oscilations’, dips and peaks.
I see you’re working to build up a website, and will visit it when it goes up, to try and figure out why you feel you’ve found and defined the so far indefinite. Good luck to you.
I am far from impressed by the cycles pseudo-paradigm, in this post, and others along these lines, as I’ve seen it all before in other areas, so I’m more interested in the counterpointing views.
I mention Stephen Wilde as I think he took a sensible approach, no arm twisting, just keep it simple, state it logically, sit back and watch the WX cycle noise patterns develop, let it stand or fall on its approximation to observations. As for him not being 100% original, we all learn things from others before attempting to posit notions that testably approximate the observed data, more closely.
And your proposals would also nessesarily need to touch on or utilise some same concepts that he used to account for the natural variability patterns.
Although I seen no clear evidence of a solar driver the warming/cooling is still occurring, somehow, so ruling out the Sun as an indirect or lagged regulator seems an objectionable idea to me. Thus I remain interested. So I’ll enjoy seeing what you have to say, but I must admit I’m currently not clear what that is. So best of luck with your web effort.
The climate is a function of the relative strength of the solar magnetic field and geo magnetic field.
When these two fields move in tandem and compliment each other that is when the climate will respond in a more significant way.
This against the back drop of Milankovitch Cycles , land ocean arrangements, and the initial state of the climate, asteroid impacts, super nova in relative terms near by or far, at the time the weakening magnetic fields are taking place.
The combinations and hence resultant effects are endless and this is why it is so hard to obtain clear cut solar/climate correlations.
As I speak both the solar/geo magnetic fields continue to weaken and I think if this trend continues it is going to translate into climatic effects. This is why I have felt confident enough to call this year a transitional year when it comes to the climate meaning the relative warmth is not going to make any further progress on the upside and indeed global cooling should be the rule moving forward.
Only time will show but by time I mean now and over the coming several months to perhaps a year or two.
My climate prediction is not based on some way out future date which from my point of view is meaningless.
Salvatore
The climate is a function of the relative strength of the solar magnetic field and geo magnetic field.
When these two fields move in tandem and compliment each other that is when the climate will respond in a more significant way.
This against the back drop of Milankovitch Cycles , land ocean arrangements, and the initial state of the climate, asteroid impacts, super nova in relative terms near by or far, at the time the weakening magnetic fields are taking place.
The combinations and hence resultant effects are endless and this is why it is so hard to obtain clear cut solar/climate correlations.
How can you continually assert the first sentence so confidently then go and write the last?
How could one not ?
“Whoa there, cowboy. I didn’t “assert that [the Maunder Minimum] wasn’t [cold]”.
I said that YOUR CITED DATA said it wasn’t cold, which is a very different matter. I made no assertion myself either way. This is why I ask people to quote my words” …
OK–here is what you said: “this does NOT show the Maunder Minimum as being unusual in any way. In fact, three of the four “grand sunspot minima”, including the Maunder Minimum, were warmer than the overall average”
“warmer than the overall average” seems to me to be an assertion that the Maunder wasn’t cold. I’m not interested in arguing with you–I just want to clear up the discrepancy
between your plot of standard deviation and my plots of delta 18O. They seem to be quite different. It isn’t clear to me why you plot standard deviation instead of delta 18O. What do you get from the dataset if you plot delta 18O? Is it identical to your plot of standard deviation? If we can look at the same data, hopefully we can agree on whatever it tells us.
Don
Thanks, Don. As you point out, I said “THIS (meaning the dataset you recommended) does not show, etc.”
I did NOT say “I believe” or “I think” or “I assert” in that statement about the Maunder Minimum. I said your recommended dataset does not show it.
Now, I can post the same plot in d18O, but all that does is change the units. The rest is identical. I put it in standard deviations so that I can see how unusual in standard deviations the results are, and which direction the averages are regarding the mean of the dataset. But hang on … OK, ten minutes elapsed, kicked R into gear, took out the standardization of the data, here’s your new graph, same as the old one …
As I mentioned above, in native units (per mil) it’s harder to tell if the averages are above or below the mean, and how significant that difference might be … which is why I standardized it.
But as you can see, it’s the same thing no matter which units you use …
In friendship,
w.
Thanks, Willis. I appreciate your taking the time to make the new plot. So, looks like I need to take a look at my end and see what I can figure out. I use much shorter time intervals to see greater detail, but the plots should be the essentially the same. With your new plot, I can now compare values directly. I’ll let you know what I find out.
With best regards,
Don
Thanks, Don. The data I’m using is their 1-year-average data.
Regards,
w.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/SolarWind.html
Bob this my interest you.
Leif,
“Nobody is disputing that the Maunder was cold”
Yes! Now that we agree that the Maunder was cold, we can move on to the interesting question of why. I’d love to discuss this with you (and perhaps Willis).
Don
Now that we agree that the Maunder was cold, we can move on to the interesting question of why.
You miss the point that the Maunder was not any different from many other intervals during the LIA, so a special explanation of why the Maunder was cold is not of interest. The interesting question is why the LIA was cold:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-and-Temps.png
Leif,
Yes, I totally agree! The correlations you show (and several others) are truly remarkable. They can’t be coincidental–there must be cause-and-effect relationships here.
Don
Yes, I totally agree! The correlations you show (and several others) are truly remarkable.
Except there are no correlations.
What is truly remarkable is some people’s total disregard of the facts.
Lief? Stop beating that dead horse, it is just covering you in bloody bits of dead horse. This guy just keeps twirling round in circles with no apparent desire to actually get anywhere.
lsvalgaard May 1, 2018 at 9:11 am
You beat me to it, Leif. The TSI is at its lowest in about the year 600 and rises from there to about 1300. But the temperature started rising about the year 250 or so, rises until about 900, and starts dropping.
Then the TSI bottoms out around 1450 and starts rising again, but the temperature drops until about 1700.
No correlations …
w.
2hotel9 May 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Are you talking TO Leif, or ABOUT Leif, or TO Leif ABOUT someone else? Who is beating the dead horse? Who is twirling round in circles?
You’ve descended into total incoherence, hotel. This is why I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so that we can understand both who you are talking to and what you are talking about.
w.
From the context I gather that ‘this guy’ is Don…
Yep, just seems to be arguing simply to argue.
Directed to Lief about Don.
lsvalgaard May 1, 2018 at 9:57 pm
Thank, Leif. I had no clue what he was saying. Still don’t for that matter.
On another subject, about the reconstructions above, do you have a link to the data for whatever you consider the best ∂14C reconstruction?
w.
http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htm
Thanks, Leif, much appreciated. One more request, if you’d be so kind. Do you have a link to what you consider to be the best TSI reconstruction?
All the best,
w.
There is no generally agreed upon ‘best’ TSI reconstruction. They all have problems, and the experimenters are loath to [admist and] fix the flaws. I discuss some of those in http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf Slide 48 ff. My own assessment [FWIIW] is that TSI can be calculated from the Sunspot Number SN version 2 and the Group Number GN (Svalgaard & Schatten) as follows:
TSI = 1360.5 + (0.0304 SN^0.7 + 0.239 GN^0.7)/2
Bob I will say this which is you ,Javier and myself are on the correct path even though we all differ to some degree.
I hope these next few yeas will yield more clues. I think there is a good chance they will .
“Lief? Stop beating that dead horse, it is just covering you in bloody bits of dead horse. This guy just keeps twirling round in circles with no apparent desire to actually get anywhere.”
“From the context I gather that ‘this guy’ is Don…”
Leif–are you saying that I “just keep twirling round in circles with no apparent desire to actually get anywhere.” That’s really a dirty thing to say–such smut is not worthy of an intellectually honest scientist. You should rise above such smut. I back everything I say with data and try to get to the truth.
Leif–are you saying that I “just keep twirling round in circles with no apparent desire to actually get anywhere.
It would help if you took the trouble to see who said that, instead of just shooting your mouth off like this.
Sorry to leave this hanging for a week, my computer died. No, Leif did not, I did. On one hand you tell him he is correct and then go on, at length, explaining how he is wrong. Circular. Not sure why, going back through this thread it is what I see. Just gave Leif a friendly advisory, you are the one getting all offended and nasty.
Enough insults–I’m outta here!
Willis I hate to ask but I will.
What is your theory on why Ice Ages have come and gone?
I do not think you have ever gave your theory on this subject.
Salvatore Del Prete May 2, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Questions are how I learn, they’re always welcome.
I wrote a couple of posts on this a while back. Basically, I think the Milankovich theory of orbital variations is correct. But there are two problems.
First, we do get swings in the NH insolation, but they are only 21,000 years apart, and the ice ages are about 100,000 years apart. So … why don’t we get ice ages every 21,000 years? Nobody knows. It’s called the hundred thousand year problem. To illustrate it, here are the changes in northern NH insolation, along with the ice ages per the ice cores:
Look for example at the ice age that started about 400,000 years ago … why there? I mean, we’ve had many, many swings in insolation greater than that … why not then?
Second, once we’ve gone into the ice ages, what brings us out? The best hypothesis I’ve read on this question says that it’s the gradual buildup of dust on the surface of the ice, reducing the albedo and driving the glaciers back into their ice caves. But that still doesn’t solve the hundred thousand year problem.
So I think the real answer is, we have tenable hypotheses, but no certainty.
Best regards,
w.
My posts on the subject:
Into and Out of the Icebox 2015-01-23
Inspired by a random comment by Steve McIntyre over at his marvelous blog Climate Audit, I got to thinking about the ice ages. I’ve long heard that the ice ages are caused by the changes in summer insolation in the northern hemisphere. As the story goes, the Milankovitch cycles of…
The Icebox Heats Up 2015-01-24
Well, either it’s a genetic defect or I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I’m going to delve some more into the ice ages. This is a followup to my previous post, Into and Out Of The Icebox. Let me start by looking at the cycles in the insolation and…
THANKS