The Tale Told by the Heliospheric Tilt Angle

Guest essay by David Archibald

Some of the ancients worshipped the Sun as the source of all life. It is much the same today. Most of the energy we use as a civilisation is fossilised solar energy, conveniently provided by Nature as solids and liquids and gasses – whtatever you want.

Only the little bit from nuclear power has a non-solar source. So it is appropriate that we should learn as much about the Sun as possible. We have only a few decades of data on solar activity in the electromagnetic spectrum to aid that understanding.

The data on the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle provided by the Wilcox Solar Observatory has recently updated and it shows that the Sun isn’t just a sloppy old ball of plasma in which things happen in a random walk. It is a quite disciplined ball of plasma.

clip_image002

Figure 1: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2018

Figure 1 shows the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle from the start of the records kept by the Wilcox Solar Observatory just west of Stanford University. It is apparent that the declining phases of Solar Cycles 23 and 24 formed descending wedges with the wedges narrowing to the point at which the heliospheric current sheet flattened. It is said that the solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet has flattened. For Solar Cycle 24 the month of flattening will be from July to September 2019. We have just over a year to minimum now and Solar Cycle 24 will be slightly shorter than average.

In Solar Cycle 23 activity jumped out of the wedge but the month of flattening was as predicted by the descending wedge. The previous cycles did not form apparent wedges by activity was constrained by a downtrend line. Solar Cycles 21, 22 and 23 are from a time of anomalously high solar activity. Solar Cycle 24 may represent a return to normal solar activity.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 to 2018

The values at minimum for the last three solar minima line up suggesting that there may be a process that controls this. If this process exists, and holds for the 24/25 solar minimum, then the low will be 2.9 in late 2019. Last month the interplanetary magnetic field plunged to a new low for the instrument record. The Earth’s magnetic shield is down and falling further with the consequence that we are headed for a new high in the Oulu neutron count in late 2020 of about 7,000.

Svensmark theory says that will result in further terrestrial cooling due to an increased albedo of the planet due to high cloud cover. The bellwether of ice sheets, the Greenland Ice Sheet, is already responding with ice accumulation at a near-record rate in 2018:

clip_image006

Figure 3: The accumulated surface mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet from September 2017 to now


David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “The Tale Told by the Heliospheric Tilt Angle

  1. Excellent post David. The plots of the heliospheric tilt angle and the magnetosphere show a regularity that surprises me, it appears to strongly suggest that there are organized events inside the plasma furnace that is our Sun. That the Sun also goes through cycles is also a suggestion of this. I think I will go outside and take off all my clothes and let this Sun send me some direct energy. See you on the News at 6:00.

    • How do they measure the tilt angle? Does it exist at all? See the next comment by Leif Svalgaard @10:06.

    • Excellent post ? Well some interesting factors to consider but I really object to his arbitrary , eyeballed lines that he puts on all his graphs. This has no scientific value and is subjective injection of his own through processes , not data processing.

      It is blatantly inconsistent and clear cherry picking. Either learn to do some kind of model fitting for the data and explain why you do it and apply it consistently or JUST SHOW THE DATA.

      Frankly what you are doing with these red lines is BS. I’ve made this point before but you persist in this non -scientific nonsense.

      • In the financial markets, these types of trend lines are very common and are a respected way of analyzing market trends that are too complex to be modeled. The line connecting the ‘tops’ and the line connecting the ‘bottoms’ often form these wedges that signal a future market turning point of some kind. I see no reason why they could not also apply to other complex systems, such as solar cycles.

        • Stock market technicals can influence a trader’s emotions about a stock. Traders react to those emotions and create movement in the stock prices. That is not true of such things as solar cycles that are not influenced by human emotions and actions.

          • “…technicals can influence a trader’s emotions..” Not really. Most active traders use computer models to pinpoint buy and sell signals. The programmer’s “human emotion” are now built into the computer model similar to “climate models” Are they “be all end all” ? Nope, they miss stock and market moves about as often as throwing dart at a chart.

        • I agree with the comments of Steven and Tom above.

          Seeing the red trend lines I instantly thought of “technical” stock charting and instantly noticed that several trend lines were NOT shown (presumably because they don’t fit the author’s thesis).

          Application of technical stock chart methodology to charts of the Sun’s heliospheric current sheet tilt angle needs some justification. None has been given.

          Wise financial minds observe: “a trend continues, until it doesn’t.”

          • I can and do make a lot of money observing and trading on these trends, until I have to look for another trend to trade on.
            Technical analysis is based on more than psychology and self fulfilling prophesies.
            Although those two things alone make them tradable and thus a way to gain an edge…and therefore make money.
            Options prices are based on the theory that stock price movements are basically random with some upward bias over time.
            And a lot of us make money on a regular and predictable basis due to this blind spot on the part of market makers.
            Algo traders get filthy rich exploiting these trends.
            A large number of professional traders refer to technical analysis as “tea leaf reading”.
            It is far from that…it is a well known and much exploited strategy to make a lot of money.

        • “In the financial markets, these types of trend lines are very common …”

          That is not a recommendation. Econometric predictions are about as much use as climate predictions. (For similar reasons.)

          Neither does David seem to have any consistent way to chose what peaks to choose other than to ensure ending up meeting the minimum. The third peak in fig 1 totally ignores the last peak and following data to rig the wedge to point to the minimum.

          I do not know haw financial people to this trick but if it is just eyeballing data and sticking a line where you like, why do they call it “technical analysis”? There is nothing technical about it.

          “market trends that are too complex to be modeled.”
           
          If you fit a regression trend to the data you ARE modelling it. If you do a flaky wedge fit , you are doing a non scientific statistically worthless model but you are still modelling it.

          If you project / invest based on that you are expecting your model to have some predictive ability.

          • @Greg said-‘The third peak in fig 1 totally ignores the last peak and following data to rig the wedge to point to the minimum.’
            .
            .
            When Analyzing raw data it is allowed to exclude outliers. Especially when looking for understanding and Trends in the process.
            .
            .
            Sandy,
            Minister of Future

          • The red lines seem more based on joining the outliers than ignoring them. That is part of the problem. What is the statistical reason to ignore the vast amount of the data and join a few outlying extrema?

            There is no logic or method here it is just eyeball cherry picking. Now it may well be that many people do non methodical eyeball cherry picking in financial “analysis”. That would not surprise me.

            You seem to think that saying “raw data” changes the rules. Any proper analysis should start with raw data or as near to it as can be obtained.

        • In the financial markets, these types of trend lines are very common and are a respected way of analyzing market trends that are too complex to be modeled. The line connecting the ‘tops’ and the line connecting the ‘bottoms’ often form these wedges that signal a future market turning point of some kind. I see no reason why they could not also apply to other complex systems, such as solar cycles.
          ___________________________________________

          Harald Lesch gives this example:

          Every day the farmer comes to the chicken shack to feed the hens. So the hens know the trend to more food as there’s more hens to feed.

          One day the farmer comes to the shack and dekapitatates 20 hens to send them to the markets.

          Lesch’s tip: there is no such thing as ‘trend’ that could be modeled.

          Our worshipped ‘Masters of the Universe’ the last 20 ys ‘Modelled the complex Market Trends’

          and

          sent global economy 10 times to some kind of economy butcher.

      • Greg, you seem to be saying that unless one first has a theory as to why those peaks and valleys on the charts line up in perfectly straight lines, one should just ignore them and consider that information meaningless.
        Is that what you are saying?

      • Yes, it is a very good post, and it’s food for thought.
        There’s no cherry picking. Cherry picking occurs when people – often climate scientists – simply leave out part of the graphs which don’t fit their beliefs.

        I don’t think the lines are objectionable. In fact the line in Fig 2 is quite useful, because it shows how the minima are falling at a consistent rate.
        Chris

        • There is cherry picking if fig 2 since he had draws a straight line through three minima and ignores the first one which does not fit the line.

          In fig 1 , the last two peaks get the wedge treatment and the first two just get a line. If you have to do different processing to get your pattern you are inducing the pattern , not discovering something shown by the data.

          ie cherry picking.

          • Greg, i’m curious. How many years have you spent analyzing raw data?
            .
            Sandy,
            Minister of Future

          • Not sure what your 4.5 to 3.5 means but I agree there is a general downward trend in the bumpy section of that data. I don’t see anyone saying otherwise.

      • Still an excellent post. David sees an effect and doesn’t claim to know the cause. This is the tendency in science, the effect is noticed first, then searching for answers (sometimes) leads to the cause. And, nothing wrong with putting trend lines on minimums and/or maximums.

    • In eight years time another descending wedge will start forming and from that wedge we will be able to predict the month of minimum.

  2. There is some confusion [due to confusing nomenclature]. here.
    A: the current sheet is not tilted, but warped [because the sun is rotating
    B: the heliospheric magnetic field has two components:
    B1: an almost constant floor [near 4 nT for yearly averages], on which
    B2: a variable flux due to CMEs the number of which follows the sunspot cycle.
    C: there are usually four ‘sectors’ [of varying strength] so again there is no tilted ‘plane’, but a warped surface with four warps.

    Finally, the sun varies with a large amount of random magnetic flux emergence, so it is hard to maintain a ‘memory’ of past behavior, making predictions based on similarity with past cycles a rather suspect activity.

    • But I’m sure his method will work well for stock market technical analysis. Once the sun or a tech stock breaks out of the 90 day trendline you know it’s going to test a new high or low.

        • Wrong.
          Every person who uses technical analysis to trade does not employ proper methodology to minimize risk, keep their emotions and prejudices out of their decision making, pay attention to news and new information, and allow for uncertainty.
          Those that do employ proper methodology make a lot of money on a very consistent basis.
          Relying completely on one thing or another is not a strategy that makes sense, because stock prices, trends, breaks in trend, reversals, etc… respond to numerous complex factors.
          I will clue you in on something which should be obvious: Casinos make money because they assume little balls bouncing around on wheels, the arrangement of cards in a shuffled deck, the rolling of dice, etc, are random. They determine the odds and make sure that the house has a (typically) small edge, which over time means that they are statistically certain to make money, in amounts which is proportional to the amount bet over time and the house advantage. They spend tons of money watching for and banning people who uses strategies that tilt the odds slightly. Because even a slight edge that a player gets from counting cards (or some other such method of altering the house edge) means that the house edge that has been calculated is no longer valid…some of the randomness has been removed. The MIT teams that devised card counting methods, and employed them properly, beat the house consistently…they did not win every hand, they only tilted the odds slightly, and made this pay off by exploiting a carefully planned strategy. If those same players from MIT had ignored the preplanned strategy and “gone with their gut instincts”, they would have destroyed their advantage, and become gamblers. And then they would not have made money consistently.
          This is exactly why some traders are able to make money using technical analysis, and other do not. It must be used as an edge, not thought of as some foolproof method for determining what the next move in a stock price will be. If a carefully planned strategy is employed and stuck to, something which requires patience and discipline, a small edge is all one needs to be right more often than wrong…and thus make money. If someone with an edge abandons the plan, say by increasing the size of the bets every time they are right and make money, then they will lose money the first time they are wrong.
          Swing traders consistently make money if they employ the methodology correctly.
          People who forget what they had planned to do become gamblers, and have the same odds as everyone else.

    • A swinging pendulum does not require “memory ” of previous cycles to swing back but previous cycles may indicate a phenomenon which leads to cyclic behaviour . However, the pre-1975 IMF data, if it was consistently measured, seems to dampen the expectation that this is a simply cyclic process. Maybe the oscillatory behaviour is linked to warmer climate and a subsequent flat period will lead to cooling.

      Why does IMF go back to 1966 and sheet tilt start in ’76?

      • A swinging pendulum does not require “memory ” of previous cycles to swing back
        Yes it does, because it stores up potential energy in the previous cycle as it swings to become kinetic energy later. The total energy is conserved. That is the memory.

      • IMF go back to 1963 because that was the when the first spacecraft can could measure the IMF was launched. The current sheet ’tilt’ [actually ‘warp’ = maximum latitudinal extent] was first accurately measured by the Wilcox Solar Observatory which started observing in 1976.

    • For some reason Wilcox Solar Observatory calls it the Tilt Angle. If they called it the Warp Angle that would sound too much like the Warp Drive and they wouldn’t get taken seriously. As for the activity floor, one year out to 2.9.

      • The name is wrong, but as long as you know that, it doesn’t matter. It is the same as with ‘cosmic rays’. They are not ‘rays’ [but particles] but everybody knows that, so no harm is done. Here you can see what the current sheet looks like a near solar minimum:
        http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html

        http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/helio.gif

        It is not tilted at all, but gently warped. The ’tilt’ is a historical accident. WSO actually calls it the ‘Maximum Inclination of the Current Sheet’.

        Your 2.9 is wrong too, as it is based on non-scientific eyeball extrapolation from only a few hours of data for rotation 2522 [3.4 nT], rather than the full 27-days of the rotation. If you do it right, the latest full rotation-averaged value of the interplanetary magnetic field is 4.3 nT.

        When you are corrected take it a man [and learn].

        • From the WSO website:
          “WSO Computed “Tilt Angle” of the Heliospheric Current Sheet
          The following table gives the maximum extent in latitude reached by the computed heliospheric current sheet (HCS) for the indicated Carrington Rotations. ”
          Note that “Tilt angle” is in quotes.

        • I think you are a bit confused. The last Carrington rotation I can get a date on is 2300 which starts in 2025. Rotation 2522 is some time away. It seems you are discussing an alternate universe.

  3. The present cooling is from low TSI, not cosmic rays.

    Sept 2019 is a reasonable prediction.

    There isn’t far for cycle TSI to drop until then…

    So don’t expect much more cooling from SC24.

    Be ready for SC25 solar warming.

    • For the next 12 years, I’d put my money on a declining AMO (internal variability) before I’d bet on a rising SC25 TSI (external forcing).

      • Joel,

        Can you see the cumulative solar cycle influences on the AMO?

        http://climate4you.com/images/AMO%20DetrendedGlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif

        http://climate4you.com/images/AMO%20DetrendedGlobalMonthlyIndexSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

        The June AMO anomaly was just below zero.

        The AMO increased after the last minimum in 2009 right through the SC24 solar max, because of external TSI forcing, as did HadSST3, and both have since fallen from low TSI.

        AMO ‘internal variability’ is another mis-attribution that truly belongs to solar forcing.

        Bob Weber

        • that simply tells me the 1+1/2 decade of 2020-2035 will be cold like the 1960-1975 period was.

          • will be cold like the 1960-1975 period

            That entirely depends on the timing and duration of future solar cycle activity, and, HadSST3 still hasn’t returned to where it started in SC24, in late 2008, in spite of the AMO falling now, so no net cooling yet in SC24.

            The AMO annual index was below the zero anomaly line almost all the way through 1960-1975, through SC20, while HadSST3 experienced large warming/cooling changes from a roller coaster of solar activity changes, and twice reached levels that exceeded the record during all of SC21.

            The AMO annual index was negative most of the time through to the 1998 El Nino, while HadSST3 was climbing. Using just a negative AMO anomaly level as the exclusive indicator of warming/cooling is therefore faulty. If the AMO is increasing, it’s warming, and vice versa, on a short-term basis.

            http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

            The top of SC20 exhibited solar activity smack dab near the “solar sweet spot” in the SSN-TSI non-linear relationship, where TSI is maximal, at the top of the arc, where sunspot area and number aren’t too high (which causes a TSI reduction). This almost perfect level of just high-enough sunspot and F10.7cm flux activity over four years powered the top of solar cycle high SST spike in 1969/70 (annual SIDC v2 SSN, F10.7cm):

            1966 67, 102
            1967 133, 143
            1968 150, 149
            1969 149, 151
            1970 148, 156
            1971 94, 118
            1972 98, 121
            1973 54, 93

            My empirically derived solar warming/cooling thresholds were determined over the 26 years from May 1960 through 1986. The thresholds are 94 for v2 SSN, 120 sfu F10.7cm flux, equivalent to 1361.25 in SORCE TSI.

            1967-1970 and 1972 were above both the 94 sunspot and 120 F10.7cm warming thresholds. 1971 cooled slightly, F10.7cm was under 120 sfu.

            1972-73 sunspot activity was very similar to the top of SC24, both resulting in HadSST3 spikes. An outstanding temperature spike in 1973 driven by this solar spike had rapidly increased for a year to become the largest short-term ocean temperature variation in the HadSST3 record since 1960.

            It was nearly 3 years from the top of that spike to the bottom in late 1975. Three years from the February 2016 SST spike puts us into next year.

            Another point is what happens at the end of the cycle counts too…

            Temperatures quickly change by TSI warming/cooling when the sun varies from 0 (or very low) to a higher number of sunspots during the same rotation.

            The Aug 6 1975 sunspot number spike of 146 is analogous to the Sept 5 2017 spike of 119. Last year Nino3.4 dropped with falling TSI that was produced over several solar rotations by the growth and decay of a sunspot area. Were it not for these sunspot induced TSI reductions and subsequent equatorial OHC reductions, HadSST3 wouldn’t have dropped so much thereafter. The same goes for the August 1975 activity.

            Now that current sunspot activity variation is smaller, the range of current rotational TSI is smaller and the level no longer going below the last solar minimum, the recent cooling has slowed to a crawl, then stop. HadSST3 (and UAH) recently responded to the recent several month increase in TSI, ie see the last few months HadSST3 uptick ending June 2018.

            2018 1au TSI
            Jan 1360.6808
            Feb 1360.6342
            Mar 1360.6537
            Apr 1360.6866
            May 1360.7115
            Jun 1360.7318
            Jul 1360.7391

  4. “The bellwether of ice sheets, the Greenland Ice Sheet, is already responding with ice accumulation at a near-record rate in 2018:”

    It’s weather you mean ( one season) and if anything it’s responding to there being more WV in the atmosphere which on the Greenland plateau would fall as snow even, for much of the time, in summer + the fact that the Arctic has had a cold summer, which would cause a preponderance of west to SW’lies across the plateau.
    Also high cloud warms the planet overall, via the GHE, negating increased albedo.

    “In a world with high clouds, much of the energy that would otherwise escape to space is captured in the atmosphere. High clouds make the world a warmer place. If more high clouds were to form, more heat energy radiating from the surface and lower atmosphere toward space would be trapped in the atmosphere, and Earth’s average surface temperature would climb.”

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/44250/clouds-and-global-warming

    • How in the world could you “control for the Sun, the U H I effect on water vapor, the impact of CO2”, it does not make sense.

      • This is why you must stop trying to use Google Translate to understand this blog:

        If you control for the sun is NOT properly translated:
        Si vous contrôlez le Soleil

        Of course, it’s nonsense to say if you control the sun. It means, if you account for the effects of the sun, etc., then you will find that the actual change in temperature has been minuscule.

        • Sorry Sir, I never use Google translate, I was merely reproducing CO2isLife’s words. By the way, you should know that “control” is usually Pentagon-speak, and thus does not make sense in most cases. If you want to sound more ridiculous, use “command and control”.

          • So there you go instructing us on the nuances of English language again? You must have missed my advice about that on the other page.

            Clearly, you misinterpreted the meaning of “control for”, which contrary to your ridiculous assertion, is standard language for statisticians. When there is an effect influenced by multiple factors, it is necessary to control for or account for the other factors before you can make a claim about a particular factor causing some effect. Perhaps you have heard of a “control group”? No, I thought not.

            Well at least you remembered to stop addressing people as stupid assholes. Some progress.

      • Francois,
        You have misquoted CO2islife.
        He did not say “control for the Sun, the U H I effect on water vapor, the impact of CO2”.
        You changed the word “and” to the word “on”, and thus completely altered the meaning of the sentence.
        When you quote someone, using actual quotation marks, it is generally considered improper to alter the words and then attribute your alterations to the other person.
        I think it would have been more grammatically correct if CO2islife had employed a comma after the word “Effect”, like so ” If you control for the Sun, Urban Heat Island Effect, and Water Vapor, the impact of CO2 is immeasurable, in fact, it may cool the atmosphere.”

        This makes it clear that he is not speaking of UHI affecting water vapor, but rather speaking of controlling statistically for these three separate factors.

        Words matter, and criticism becomes invalid when you argue against something that was not even said or implied, by changing someone else’s sentences around.

      • Thank goodness Steven. Earlier you agreed with me about technical analysis of stocks and I was beginning to fear that I might be losing my mind. Especially since it was only a few days ago, that Nick Stokes agreed with me on something. 🙂

      • Mosher…see above where I detail how to properly declare wrongness.
        In general, one word is not very convincing.

  5. what is not being considered…and doesn’t appear to be indicated…is the magnetic pole reversal of Earth which appears to be approaching or in progress already. If solar maximum occurs at pole reversal it could be catastrophic for civilization as we’d be unprotected against bombardment by the Sun’s proton wind and UV radiation.

    • I thought the pole reversal was supposed to happen over a period of time long enough to ensure at least 1 solar maximum during a pole reversal?

      Wouldn’t the ozone layer persist through a pole reversal, providing continued protection from UV?

      SR

    • If it were true that a pole reversal resulted in earth’s magnetic field disappearing for some period of time (leaving us unprotected against solar wind), and we know that there have been many pole reversals in the past, then why is there not a record of mass extinctions correlated with pole reversals?

    • I’m afraid pole reversal just won’t work as a global catastrophe. Unless you can avert it through changes in human behavior nobody is going to pay you to study it and I just don’t see where the profit would be. Also, I don’t see how to blame Capitalism or the oil industry or Donald Trump. Maybe the Russians but it’s a stretch. They can’t even seem to control the weather anymore. /sarc

    • It’ll be OK. We can just wear tin foil hats. (It is fortunate this is happening after most people stopped using magnetic compasses.)

    • Unfortunately, we do not need to speculate about unknows like the effect of pole reversals and coincidental solar maximums.
      In fact, we do not even need to be having a solar maximum to have catastrophic consequences of, say, a large Earth-directed Coronal Mass Ejection on the scale of the Carrington Event…which I do not think has been shown to be any sort of upper limit for such an event but which would nonetheless be somewhere between pretty dang awful and a complete catastrophe, according to many people who study such things and the effects they would have on our modern technological and electric infrastructure.
      There are plenty of bad things that are not a maybe but only a question of when, and so there is no need to imagine things or make stuff up.

  6. David,
    2nd paragraph after Figure 1 :
    “The previous cycles did not form apparent wedges by activity was constrained by a downtrend line.”
    Did you mean ‘but’, rather than ‘by’ at ‘…wedges by activity…’?

    • August 4, 2018. The heliospheric tilt angle (whatever that means), corals, wild fires here and there in Australia… How about the -rather warm (should I say hot?)- summer season in the Northern hemisphere? Most of us live there (by the way, on the surface, not at Mount Everest’s altitude)…

      • When is your first memory François, around 2000? It’s hot in Europe and in California. It’s not so hot in many parts of the US. There are weather patterns and natural variations, oscillations in the ocean. There are very hot days and very cold days. If you live to be 70 or 80, you will realize that weather fluctuates. Yes, there is a trivially small trend since the end of the last ice age. It is nothing compared to the internal variability.

        What brings you here today to troll around? tu t’ennui comme un rat mort?

        • J’ai 69 ans et je ne m’ennuie pas (je te pardonne la faute d’orthographe). Who cares about some “parts of the US”? Some Americans, I should think, but I was wondering about Europe and Asia, the rest of the Northern hemisphere, you know, where most of us live.

          • When I say “most of us”, I am refering to the human race, not to “we, the people” who happen to have survived the year 1934 in the US of A.

            More seriously, Steven Mosher seems to make much more sense than the inventors of the “heliocentric tilt angle”, whatever that is.

          • How gracious of you to pardon my French spelling. The thing is, I’m not on Le Monde’s web site correcting people’s French idiom am I? Nor am I misunderstanding their plain language and ridiculing them for it.

            If you seriously wanted to discuss the science, you would not have behaved so badly. The fact is that you imagine that a period of hot weather somehow proves your statist religion and you just come to taunt us.

      • Considering we need to grow enough food for billions of hungry mouths every Summer, it is a good thing that the Summer season is “rather warm”.
        My recollection, and I pay attention to such things and have been doing so for many decades, is that every Summer season is, at the very mildest, “rather warm”.
        Some of them, plenty in fact, going back as far as we have records, have been “hotter than hell”.
        I seem to recall something about entire states worth of topsoil drying up and literally blowing away.
        Has anyone noticed anything like that?
        Last time I checked, crop yields were expected to be somewhere near or over the largest ever in recorded history…again.
        Maybe stop getting your weather news from panic-mongers and rent seeking jackass warmista liars.
        Now…as for warm Summers, let us hope they continue to occur unabated, at a frequency of one per year.
        Because if/when we start skipping one or two here and there…THAT will be some Really Bad News.

  7. The “wedges” seem to be drawn in an arbitrary manner. I used to try this with stock charts, and you have to be careful not to fool yourself. For cycle 23, I could draw a credible wedge that would put the end of that cycle in 2011.

    • This is more fun than watching stock charts. There, in the shadows of my mind, I see dollar signs — not always positive.

      • Hint: When the stock trends turn negative, sell short or buy puts…and get ready to make the really big money, and then do so again when the market reverses, you sell the shorts and the puts and go long and buy calls, and then goes higher.
        Or just buy and hold large baskets of stocks, like an SPY index…and do not even pay attention, iffen if bothers you see the daily gyrations of a constantly adjusting market.
        If you dollar cost average by buying a set amount of stock every week or every month, you will make money in the long run, no matter what anyone says.
        Because every single downward move in the market has (sooner or later, usually sooner) reversed and wound up with the markets higher than ever, an observation that has been true for several lifetimes…in a row.

        • You should include the warning about the potential for major losses when shorting stocks as all traders know.

          • True, one can lose money.
            But so too can one lose money when going long.
            It is impossible to separate possible gains from risk.
            Even with bonds, if one is forced to liquidate them before maturity, substantial losses can result, if between when you bought them and sold them yields have risen.
            And yields may be about to rise dramatically.
            Some people have declared the bond market the biggest bubble in history, and bonds have been having a bull market since the early 1980s.
            David Stockman, Peter Schiff, Rand Paul…have been harping on this for over a decade.
            Just because they have not been right yet, does not mean they will not someday be right.
            If people lose faith in the bond markets and there is a rush for the exits…very bad times may result.

            Back to your point, Tom…every brokerage has rules and warnings built in, to remind everyone making such trades of the risks.
            My comments are of a broad and general nature, and are not advice.
            Just hints, or ideas.
            And of course, not factual in any way…just my opinion.

      • Of course, if you are near or past your retirement age, you had best keep the majority of your money out of such large baskets of stocks. Stick to safer investments, like tax free municipal bonds, high dividend paying stocks of large multinational corporations, etc.
        Decide how much you can risk, if any, without endangering your retirement income or plans, and use that amount for riskier investments

  8. too funny.
    every time you drew a wedge you used different rules.
    also.
    svensmark is wrong, sorry.
    next.

  9. Davud, the technocrats will hate this…”oh no. We can’t have such a simple hindcast trend on a chart predict the future..must have compkex model thta only I know hiw to tweak”. the crying and nashing of teeth will be the Same as Lord Monktons take- down of CO2 sensivity. Get over it. Its just a chart.

  10. Hi David. A very interesting post. I for one think drawing lines through a data graph is a very scientific method. You have to start somewhere. And to that end I have this observation that I stated on 3 May 2018 in a comment on this website.
    .
    .
    The Schaudies Theory on Cold German Septembers. Within 2 yrs of a minimum following an even numbered solar cycle peak, like 24, the average temperature will be 3 C below the 65 yr average.
    .
    .
    This was the post:
    I noticed a chart stored in my tablet of September temperature in Germany for the last hundred years. What caught my eye was very cold Septembers. The average was about 13.3 C and the cold Septembers were 10.3 C. They were at 1930, 1952, 1974, and 1996. So I would predict one for 2018 also. These were at the end of even solar Cycles number 16 number 18 number 20 number 22 and number 24. Stay tuned.
    .
    .
    And Bob Weber comment:
    In Sep 1930 the sunspot number dropped from 122 to zero in 13 days, half a solar rotation. 1952 & 1974 were the at least a year before the minimums, and 1996 was a solar minimums. Look at what happened last year as TSI responded as sunspot number fell from 119 to 11 in eight days:
    .
    .
    Sandy, Minister of Future

  11. This is slightly off topic about solar energy stored as oil. And it is a lure troll for David Middleton.
    .
    .
    As we go forward without developing replacement sources of oil the existing Wells are declining at an increasing rate. So if they go from 6% decline to 8% to 10% … we would see 90 Mbpd drop to 44 Mbpd by the year 2024. I would suggest buying a heavy duty Mountain bicycle soon, heh.
    .
    90.0 Mbpd x .94=84.6 Mbpd in 2019
    .
    84.6 x .92=77.8 2020
    .
    77.8 x .90=70.0 2021
    .
    70/0 x .88=61.6 2022
    .
    61.6 x .86=52.9 2023
    .
    52.9 x .84=44.4 2024
    .
    .
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxons-Shocking-Supply-And-Demand-Predictions.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+oilpricecom+(Oil+Price.com+Daily+News+Update)
    .
    .
    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-A-Supply-Crunch-In-Oil-Markets-Inevitable.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+oilpricecom+(Oil+Price.com+Daily+News+Update)

    Sandy, Minister of Future

    • Yes, we are about to run out of oil, and there are charts and graphs and anecdotes to prove it.
      In fact, we have been about to run out for a very long time, since shortly after oil was first used commercially.

    • Along with all of these laughably wrong predictions, one should keep in mind that for most of the time oil has been being produced, the amount being pumped has been rapidly increasing.
      Venezuela and Canada alone have vast quantities of petroleum, dwarfing current usage.
      Total world reserves are in the trillions of barrels, and such numbers have always greatly minimized the actual amounts of oil in place, and say nothing about as yet undiscovered oil.
      There are giant amounts waiting to be found…amounts no one has any idea of the size of.
      And, BTW…the oil in known reservoirs is only a tiny fraction of the oil that is under the ground…reservoirs are simply the rare rock formations that allow oil to be trapped and concentrated in a place that it is easy and feasible to suck it out of the rocks.
      These reservoirs are always being filled from underneath.
      There are wells that were capped off decades ago that can now be reopened and production resumed.
      And some wells seem to not be being depleted at all. They fill up from below as fast as oil is pumped out.
      And for all capped off wells, new technology can be used to extract oil that was then or is still unrecoverable.
      Much to the chagrin of doomsters and panic stricken greenies…we have likely barely scratched the surface of what is under the ground. What we have done is find a lot of the shallow and easy to find oil.

      http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Oil%20Production%201900.JPG

      • @Menicholas said-‘Total world reserves are in the trillions of barrels, and such numbers have always greatly minimized the actual amounts of oil in place, and say nothing about as yet undiscovered oil.
        There are giant amounts waiting to be found…amounts no one has any idea of the size of.’
        .
        .
        I’ve heard this cornucopian argument before. So why are Exxon and other Majors not finding any giant amounts of oil? It could be they have been cutting their exploration and development budgets drastically since Q4 2013. They’ve been putting the money into solar and wind energy and rockets to Mars.
        .
        .
        I know; when the daily production drops to 70 Mbpd in 2021 and the price is $500, they will rush out and discover / develop secret reserves, bringing them online by 2025, when all the oil consuming vehicles are rusted into dust.
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

        • It is a good question why the oil majors are not finding giant new supplies of oil.
          The answer is, that they know of plenty of places where large amounts of oil exist.
          I am not in the oil biz, but some people who have spoken about it at length are.
          What they say makes a lot of sense.
          There has remained something very close to a twenty or thirty year supply in what is called proven reserves for a long time.
          Something about the economics of oil exploration and corporate profits, etc, makes it infeasible to keep looking once a company knows where it’s next 20 or 30 years of production will come from.
          Notice that none of these large companies is running out of oil to pump, either, despite a steady stream of some sites becoming depleted below the point of being profitable.
          All of the oil ever produced is a volume that is notable for it’s infinitesimal size compared to the volume of the sedimentary rocks comprising the crust of the earth.
          If the Earth was the size of a billiard ball, all the oil ever extracted is a volume smaller than a bacteria.

          • Ten to fifteen years ago, half the people in the US wanted to drill baby drill, and the other half said there was no point…there was not enough to make a difference, that was available for the finding, and also that it takes forever to bring a new find online and start producing anyhow…so it is futile.
            Up to now, all of the huge increases in US production have occurred on private lands, despite the majority of the US being public lands…because Obama stopped selling new leases for exploration.
            And he completely shut down exploration in the Gulf water, IIRC.
            Macondo was a disaster, but one caused by the fact that the deepest well ever drilled hit a pocket of oil and gas under so much pressure and of such a size that it blew out the drilling rig and blew up the whole platform, and spewed a giant and possibly unprecedented gusher of oil for months and months with NO sign of abating or decreasing, until it was finally capped off and the well permanently sealed.
            Now, I am no petroleum geologist…but despite the tremendous depth of the blown out well head, and the pressure at that depth, oil spewed from that hole in vast amounts.
            No one has any idea how much oil is under the Gulf Of Mexico, but I know one thing…it is a effin’ whole dang lot.
            Besides for all that, we have now the capability to obtain prodigious supplies of tight oil and gas from shale, and have been doing so, in amounts large enough to make the US suddenly on the verge of if not already the largest producer in the world…again.
            Nat gas in the US has been under $3 for a long string of years…and I will leave it to you to find out how cheap that is compared to oil on a dollars per unit of energy basis. Hint: It is cheap.
            And vast parts of the US and the whole world have never even started to tap this source…but trust me…they will all be tapped the first time it is drill them or go cold and hungry.
            Likewise Venezuela…it is there, waiting to be exploited.
            Do you suppose it will stay there forever?
            Only if it is not needed will that be true.

      • @Menicholas said-‘Venezuela and Canada alone have vast quantities of petroleum, dwarfing current usage.’
        .
        .
        Venezuela oil is sludge that has to be mixed with regular oil to pump it out. And Venezuela is no longer a functioning country. The oil sand in Canada is karagen which has to be processed before it can be pumped as well.
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

      • Likely non-biogenic oil. It was an open secret among colleagues the reservoirs were refilling.

        • @Bonbon said-‘Likely non-biogenic oil.’
          .
          .
          You mean ‘Abiotic Oil’? Ha ha ha ha ha. Not on Earth. Only liquid abiotic methane seas on Titan. Long haul tankers required.
          .
          .
          Sandy,
          Minister of Future

          • Here is Richard Heinberg’s excerpt on abiotic oil, link at end to full length …
            .
            The Gist of the Situation
            .
            The debate over oil’s origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial – that it dates back to Earth’s origin – or that it is made through an inorganic process, while others argued that it was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment in fortuitous circumstances.
            .
            During the latter half of the 20th century, with advances in geophysics and geochemistry, the vast majority of scientists lined up on the side of the biotic theory. A small group of mostly Russian scientists – but including a tiny handful Western scientists, among them the late Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold – have held out for an abiotic (also called abiogenic or inorganic) theory. While some of the Russians appear to regard Gold as a plagiarist of their ideas, the latter’s book The Deep Hot Biosphere (1998) stirred considerable controversy among the public on the questions of where oil comes from and how much of it there is. Gold argued that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar system’s formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have flourished in the past.
            .
            The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.
            .
            Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.
            .
            The abiotic theorists also hold that conventional drillers, constrained by an incorrect theory, ignore many sites where deep, primordial pools of oil accumulate; if only they would drill in the right places, they would discover much more oil than they are finding now. However, the tests of this claim are so far inconclusive: the best-documented “abiotic” test well was a commercial failure.
            .
            Thus even if the abiotic theory does eventually prove to be partially or wholly scientifically valid (and that is a rather big “if”), it might have little or no practical consequence in terms of oil depletion and the imminent global oil production peak.
            .
            That is the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it, and it is probably as much information as most readers will need or want on this subject. However, as this summary contradicts some of the more ambitious claims of the abiotic theorists, it may be helpful to present in more detail some of the evidence and arguments on both sides of the debate.(in full length see link below)
            .
            .
            http://richardheinberg.com/richard-heinberg-on-abiotic-oil
            .
            .
            Sandy,
            Minister of Future

          • The Fischer-Tropsch process which combines hydrogen and carbon monoxide at high temperatures over a cobalt catalyst to product straight chain hydrocarbons, works just fine here on the surface. With that in mind I would have no problem believing that abiotic oil is being produced naturally at depth. I just need a little bit of confirming evidence.

          • At least part of this is incorrect:

            “From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial – that it dates back to Earth’s origin – or that it is made through an inorganic process, while others argued that it was produced from the decay of living organisms (primarily oceanic plankton) that proliferated millions of years ago during relatively brief periods of global warming and were buried under ocean sediment in fortuitous circumstances.”

            Oil is still being formed in places like the Gulf of California, although it takes a long time and the right circumstance for it to be cooked just so and than collected into producible reservoirs.
            There is not getting around the fact that we use oil faster than ever, there is more of it known to be in place than ever, and neither of those facts is in any danger of becoming untrue anytime soon.
            Why is it that some people place their faith in the predictions of people who have never ever made an accurate prediction?

          • InterZonKomizar :
            WHAT A PITY ! There I was enjoying the LINK on abiotic oil
            [ or not ! ] when Richard Heinberg went all CAGW on me !!!
            I guess , since it was written back in 2003 ( I think ? ) , that he
            was simply parroting the accepted
            supply-and-demand-situation of the time !
            SO EVIDENTLY NOT TRUE TODAY !
            Especially his view that the human race would have been
            better-off WITHOUT OIL !
            My immediate reaction was….”what a klutz ! “……
            .and then I remembered I don’t understand Yiddish……
            ……………..so I settled for “block-head ! ”
            ABUNDANT ENERGY IS WESTERN CIVILISATION !
            Without oil and coal we would be living as they were
            in the 1850’s surrounded by “horse-manure”
            and leading an EXISTENCE rather than A LIFE-STYLE !
            NO THANKS !!

        • I am agnostic on the question of abiotic oil, mainly because there seems to be no oil in places where there is no sedimentary rock.
          Reservoirs refill because oil migrates upwards from sedimentary rock underlying the places where it can be trapped in rock formations suitable for production.

  12. @David Archibald

    My finding is that global temperature especially minima is already declining.
    (click on my name to read my final report on this)

    As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

    My point is that there is no need for a ‘Svensmark theory” to explain more clouds and rain in around the equator and decreasing insolation: it is as a result of global cooling.

  13. About figure 3 – DMI has lately removed a graph from this figure… It was showing Acc. SMB value s from 2016-2017, and it was very similar to this season 😉

  14. For over a hundred years in Friesland, the Netherlands, we have held the so called 11 city iceskating tour (Elfstedentocht) (some 200 k’s on skates). On those 200 km’s of water one needs a minimum of 15 centimeters of ice, the Dutch weatherstation De Arend has an excellent graph on the subject:

    http://www.dearend.nl/WeatherLink/nieuws/2004/elfstedentocht_zonnevlekken/elfstedentochten.gif

    From the graph it is clearly visible that the Elfstedentocht was held mostly in or around a solar minimum, with the exeption in the 1970’s. The graph above of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field with minimums in april 1987 (Elfstedentocht in 1985), april 1996 (2 Elfstedentochten in 1996 and 1997), a close call in 2009 (1 day of frost was needed, the ice was 13.5 centimeters on average that winter on the route), clearly shows how the solar activity has an enormous impact on the severity of the winters on the NH.

    Be sure to take a look at the graph of De Arend, when I discovered that graph many years ago, I was really taken aback. Ever since then I have severe doubts regarding the AGW theory.

Comments are closed.