Hunger Stones and Tree Ring evidence suggests solar cycle influence on climate

The Solar Cycle is responsible for extreme weather and Climate change According to Tree ring and Hunger Stone events

by Francis Tucker Manns Ph.D., P.Geo (Ontario) Artesian Geological Research

Abstract

Recent discovery of the relationship between the location of the North American Jet Stream and extreme weather is a breakthrough in the understanding of solar forced climate change.

Five episodes of extreme weather over a period of 282 years deduced from tree ring data show meandering of the North Atlantic Jet stream. It is fair to say that the summers of 2017 and 2018 qualify as a sixth event because of world-wide extreme weather in the northern hemisphere and also globally, resulting in flooding, wildfires and drought on every temperate continent. The monsoon has truly gone global.

The tree ring data is the only time series data available that determines the position of a jet stream. Moreover, tree ring extremes correspond to weak portions of the solar minimum of the sunspot cycle, a cycle that is a proxy for the magnetic shield of the sun. The so-called ‘Hunger Stones’ also mark notorious years of extreme drought in Central Europe. The emergence of the Hunger Stones and the tree ring data independently support each other and support a solar cycle climate hypothesis.

These extreme weather events correspond (75%) to years of sunspot minima. Therefore, it is likely the extreme weather is a function of the solar cycle. Solar forcing is an important factor in causing extreme weather. It follows that the sun controls Earth’s climate.

image

Figure 1: Kochi City, Kerala State, India. 20 August 2018 (The Hindu.com).image

Figure 2 Horseshoe Falls portion of Niagara Falls (dates from ca. 1909 – 1912).

Introduction

The North Atlantic jet stream currently wanders northward and southward as it meanders around the globe. Tight bends in the flow are called Atmospheric Rossby Waves after an oceanographer who recognised them in the ocean currents (Rossby, 1939). The recent emergence of a ‘Polar Vortex’ in North American weather forecasts is an Atmospheric Rossby wave in the jet stream that brings Arctic air deep into the North America (Figure 3). The Rossby wave also carries warmer air north between Polar vortices. As long as the wave moves from west to east in the Prevailing Westerlies, the weather created is transitory.

image

Figure 3: Illustration depicting the interrelationship between jet stream Rossby wave and surface weather.

If a Rossby wave, however, becomes a fixed standing wave, it will result in extreme surface weather. This effect applies globally as the jet streams circle the earth in the thrall of the coriolis affect. When a Rossby Wave becomes a standing wave, a cold front can behave like a stuck lawn sprinkler and produce unusually heavy rain overwhelming equilibrium systems causing flooding; it can cause drouth[1] in its wake. In summer, thunderstorms commonly ignite wild fires in the lee dry areas. Apparently, when the Jet Stream achieves a stable standing wave it can create havoc.

Meandering Rossby wave anomalies in the Atlantic jet stream track began to appear in the middle 1990s (Francis and Vavrus, 2015). Each succeeding sunspot peak since 1980 cycle 21 peak has been smaller (Fig.4). Cycle 24 just ending is the weakest in 110 years, since Cycle 14 (1902-1913); toward the end of Cycle 14, Niagara Falls froze over and people walked across Horseshoe Falls (Figure 2), and there was significant media fear of the next ice age.

image

Fig 4: The last three solar cycles have been smaller than cycle 21 which peaked in 1980. All three are noticeably bimodal.

Extreme weather at differing latitudes was reported by Trouet et al. (2018) for five years (Table 1). They teased out the connection to extreme weather and the latitude of the North Atlantic Jet stream using the maximum latewood density records of tree rings in August over the period from 1725 to 2007. It may be inferred that the summer of 2018 qualifies as a year of extreme global weather also because of the wildfires and flooding on a global basis. The entire period from 2016 to 2018 qualifies as extreme weather for North America (Manns, 2016).

British and northeastern European weather for these years defined by Trouet (et al. op. cit.) are opposed. When one region is cold and wet the other is typically hot and dry on a proverbial seesaw. This combined with the latitude data imply the existence of a standing Atmospheric Rossby Wave in August of those years separating and governing Britain and northeastern Europe areas and their extreme weather.

Results

Table 1: Five Years held to represent extreme weather as delineated by August tree rings over a period of 282 years (Trouet, et al., op. cit.). Eighteen (18) years inscribed on Hunger Stones document low water on the Elbe River at Decin, Czech Republic and four years from Dresden Germany. The years 1417 and 1616 inscribed on two of the the Hunger Stones predate the reliably recorded solar cycle and thus are not included; 1893, 1899, 2003, and 2015 are from a Dresden, Germany, Hunger Stone.

Tree Rings 1782 1799 1912 1976 2007
Hunger Stones 1716 1842 1911
1746 1847 1921
1790 1868 1930
1800 1892 1934
1810 1893 2003
1811 1899 2015

Additional support to tree ring analysis has become available in the ‘Hunger Stones’ of central Europe. Due to dry weather the water level in the Elbe River has dropped, revealing boulders that were once used to record low water levels. More than a dozen Hunger Stones have been found in and near the town of Decin, Czech Republic, along the banks of the Elbe River. One Hunger Stone near Dresden has four years scribed. The earliest year currently visible is 1616, but the oldest year cited is 1417[2]. The name ‘Hunger Stone’ is self explanatory. Table 1 lists 18 years of extreme weather in central Europe as chiseled on Hunger Stones and 5 years represented by tree rings.

This paper compares the years of weather extremes to the solar cycle. Sunspot cycles have been studied since sunspots were discovered by Thomas Harriot (1610), Johannes Fabricius (1611), Christophe Scheiner (1611), and Galileo Galilei (Brody, 2002).

The solar cycle has been tested against economic cycles, agricultural cycles, and numerous other cycles in nature (Brody, op. cit.). This paper compares the years of weather extremes compared to adjusted solar record from the Royal Observatory of Belgium. Of the combined extreme dates, 75% correspond either perfectly or reasonably well with solar minima of the sunspot cycle.

image

Figure 5: Arrows point out the years of extreme weather mostly at or near the solar minima delineated in August tree rings from 1725 to 2007 and scribed into the emergent ‘Hunger Stones’ along the Elbe River. 18 out of 24 (75 %) extreme weather years occur in weak solar minima. One arrow marks the current year, 2018.

Extreme weather is clustered around Solar cycle 5 (April 1798 to August 1810), and, again, bracket Solar cycle 14 (January 1902 to July 1913) and not surprisingly, Cycle 16 (1920 to 1935) and there is a last cluster around recently ended cycle 24. All were weak, similar to cycle 24 which just ended.

It can also be observed that extreme weather may follow decreases in amplitude over two or more weakening declining cycles. From Figure 4, one would expect a record of extreme weather on or about 1755. The following are records from 1755-1758 reported in the Booty Meteorological Information Source housed at the British Library.

1755, 1756 & 1758 All wet summers in the London area. More generally, April of 1756 was notably wet by the EWP series: amongst the top 3 such-named months. (See also 1782 and 1818).

1756 (May) May 1756 was notably cold. With a CET value of 9.1deg C, this placed it just outside the ‘top-10’ or so coldest Mays in that long series, with an ‘all-series’ anomaly of over -2C.

1756, 6th May: Almost every day for a fortnight there has either been snow (large flakes) or large hailstones, and excessively cold. (as reported in the Journals of Ralph Jackson/Newcastle upon Tyne).

image

Figure 6: The years 1616, 1716, 1790, 1811, 1842, 1868, 1921are inscribed into a stone (near Decin, Czech Republic).

image

Figure 7: The years 1417, 1616, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1842, 1847, 1868, 1890, and 1900 are inscribed (near Decin, Czech Republic).

 

image

Figure 8: The years 1911 and 1930 are cut in this stone (near Decin, Czech Republic).

image

Figure 9: The years 1893, 1899, 2003, and 2015 are inscribed on this stone (near Dresden, Germany)

It is not sufficient to show a correlation between any two items of interest to suggest a connection. After all, the alleged connection between nicotine and lung cancer is accepted but has never been proven; neither has the connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Each is an hypothesis waiting for experimental support. There are solid scientific reasons we have seen no experimental support. From the time of Arrhenius (1896, 1906) to NASA, it has been impossible to resolve the relative effect of carbon dioxide and water vapour. The subject matter is complex and to isolate a repeatable test is not possible, or experiments were performed but failed to support the hypothesis and were never reported. The latter possibility would never be revealed.Discussion

For a sun – climate connection there are several lines of evidence supporting an hypothesis that the sun is fundamentally responsible for climate change – both warming and cooling. Firstly, Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991) estimated a 95% correlation between the temperature trends of Earth for the northern hemisphere temperature anomalies between 1861 and 1989 (128 years). They plotted anomalous temperatures against the frequency of the sunspot cycle. When the peak frequency (spacing) was close together, the northern hemisphere warmed; when the peak frequency was spread, the northern hemisphere cooled. The peak frequency method trumped many early sunspot cycle studies which used the sunspot number. Frequency capitalizes on the trend of several 11+ year cycles in a row; perhaps 33 to 45 years for a trend to build in the climate that otherwise went unnoticed because of the human research lifespan. But, correlation is not causation.

The cloud theory of Svensmark (Svensmark, et al., 2006), however, is a predictive supported theory that states more clouds are likely to form during solar minima than any other time. Clouds are nucleated by cosmic radiation from deep space normally blocked by the sun’s magnetic shield. When the shields are down, in a solar minimum, it rains or snows more than when the sun’s magnetic shield is in place. Moreover, Earth’s albedo from snow reflects Sun’s rays back to space.

The same research group, accordingly, at the Technical University of Denmark built a 7 m3 cloud chamber in the basement of their lab in Copenhagen. The objective was to simulate the atmosphere and test for cloud nuclei. The reaction was nearly instantaneous; visible cloud nuclei droplets formed in a matter of seconds (Svensmark, op. sit.). The experiment was duplicated later in the Large Hadron Collider and results repeated yet again in a high altitude vacuum chamber. Hadron gave the directive that the experiment could be published but not the conclusions.

Standing waves of the Jet Stream are clearly responsible for extreme weather. Why the jet stream achieves a stable standing wave is a question beyond this report. I will suggest a hypothesis. The atmosphere shrinks during solar minima. It seems possible that some resonance might exist between the volume of the atmosphere and the constriction of the jet streams. The Rossby waves began to show up in the 1980s (Trouet et al., op. cit.). During the last solar minimum between 2007 and 2009, NASA scientists noticed anomalous shrinkage more than anticipated in the thermosphere, a thick hot layer of atmosphere where satellites orbit. The jet streams, however, are thousands of metres lower, 9,000 – 16,000 m elevation in the atmosphere and well below the thermosphere. The relationship requires further research.

In 2012, it was reported by NASA that global average cloud height had declined by roughly one percent over the decade, decreasing by around 30 to 40 metres. This was mostly the result of fewer clouds forming at the highest altitudes. If these are evidence of a cooler shrinking atmosphere, and it continues to shrink, how will the jet streams behave? NASA scientists have assumed but not proven that carbon dioxide is responsible for the unexplained behaviour. They also concur that water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

The Seif dunes of the Sahara might be a clue, up to 100 km long and 90 metres high, Seif dunes are far out of equilibrium with modern Sahara wind. Do Seif dunes represent a time during the Ice Ages when very high winds blew for a long time as the Earth’s winds were compressed toward the equator? Were these the jet streams of the deeper past? Were jet streams closer to the ground and longer lasting?

Further objective examination of historical weather records and further objective examination from the tree ring record is required.

Conclusions

Extreme weather events, mostly drought are considered, but floods as well, correspond to solar minima in more than 75% (18 out of 24 of the cases known).

Current concentrations of carbon dioxide cannot be invoked for extreme weather in the historical past.

The sun controls the climate of the Earth.

During summer it is inevitable that lightning storms ignite fires and produce heavy rain. The intensity of what we have come to call extreme weather is magnified by standing Rossby waves.

Sunspot research tends to emphasize sunspot peaks and sunspot numbers; more may be gained by evaluating trough events and peak and trough frequencies.


References

Arrhenius, Svante, 1896: Phil. Mag.(5) 41. 237, April 1896. Bihang der Stockh. Ak. d. Wiss. Bd. 22 Abth. 1 No 1 1896, Drudes Annalen d. phys. Bd. 4, 690,1901, Öfversigt d. Stockh. Ak.1901, No 1, p.55 & 56.

Arrhenius, Svante, 1906: The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations –A Translation of his 1906 Amended View of “Global Warming” Original title: “Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen” Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut Band 1 No 2. www.friendsofscience.org

Brody, J., 2002: The Enigma of Sunspots – A Story of Discovery and Scientific Revolution, Floris Books, Edinburgh.

Francis, J. A. and S. J. Vavrus, 2015: Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming , Environ. Res. Lett. 10 () 014005

Friss-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, 1991: Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, New Series, Vol. 254, No. 5032. (Nov. 1, 1991), pp. 698-700.

Manns, F.T., 2017: It’s not the heat; it’s the humidity. Unpublished essay on the solar cycle trend based upon peak frequencies of both peaks and troughs. Available from the author.

Rossby, C.-G., 1939: Relation between variations in the intensity of the zonal circulation of the atmosphere and the displacements of the semi-permanent centers of action. Journal of Marine Research. 2: 38. doi:10.1357/002224039806649023.

Svensmark, H., J. O. P. Pedersen, N. D. Marsh, M. B. Enghoff and U. I. Uggerhof, 2007: Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proc. R. Soc. A (2007) 463, 385–396, doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773, Published online 3 October 2006.

Trouet, V., F. Babst and M. Meko, 2018: Recent enhanced high-summer North Atlantic Jet variability emerges from three-century context, NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02699-3

 


[1] A dust bowl term: Granddad Manns always pronounced it “Druth”.

[2] “If you will again see this stone, so you will weep, so shallow the water was in the year 1417.”; Fig. 7, (Business Insider.com, 27 August 2018).


NOTE: I don’t necessarily agree with this article, but thought it was worth discussing – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 1, 2018 3:40 am

2 (obvious) corrections for the article:

1) The picture of frozen Niagara Falls is of the American Falls not Horseshoe Falls.

2) Carl-Gustav Rossby was a meteorologist not an oceanographer. He did have a passing interest in the ocean only to the point of the ocean-atmosphere interface. He did some work with Woods Hole…as a meteorologist but his main study, work & recognition is in meteorology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl-Gustaf_Rossby

Not even going to comment on anything else in this article.

October 1, 2018 4:07 am

That the Jet Stream is heavily influenced by solar activity is increasingly well understood. Expansion and contraction of the upper levels is well established; with the result that the temperature and pressure profiles within the atmosphere are pushed and pulled – and with them the jet stream.
It must, of course, always be remembered that a sunspot does not necessarily imply a terrestrial impact, nor does the absence of spots imply the absence of incoming material. Sunspots are therefore little more than a general indicator of overall activity.
However when such influences are minimal, the principal factor becomes the “Sea/Land Differential” (warm land/cool sea and vice versa), profiles and the Jet Stream tending to lock to a fixed position related to that pattern, giving repetitive surface weather pattern responses.
Recommend: https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/
and the Ap index historical analysis on the same site.

Reply to  The Atmosphere Guy
October 1, 2018 1:00 pm

The 2003 heatwave as with heatwaves in 1976 occurred during periods of high solar wind temperature, and along with heatwaves in 1949 and 1934, all occurred at the same type of heliocentric Jovian configuration of Jupiter opposite Uranus square to Saturn. The most extreme European heatwaves of the last 800 years occurred on the configuration of Saturn opposite Neptune square to Jupiter. The inferior planets, notably Earth and Venus, then order the timing of the peak monthly temperature anomalies within the Jovian setting.
Solar wind temperature, density, and pressure:
comment image

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 1, 2018 1:26 pm

Ulric
I also found a relationship between the positions of Uranus and Saturnus versus the 86.5 year GB cycle.

Reply to  HenryP
October 1, 2018 7:00 pm

I don’t believe it, and it’s irrelevant as the Gleissberg-Centennial cycle of solar minima varies between ~80 and ~130 years.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 3, 2018 12:16 pm

http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg

it might be relevant if you want to predict periods of droughts? Note that my finding is that we are already globally cooling.

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.

Reply to  HenryP
October 1, 2018 10:36 pm

HenryP October 1, 2018 at 1:26 pm

Ulric
I also found a relationship between the positions of Uranus and Saturnus versus the 86.5 year GB cycle.

Henry, since various “authorities” have given lengths for the Gleissberg Cycle ranging from 55 years to 105 years, I find that totally meaningless.

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 3, 2018 10:46 am

Willis
In fact I did reply to that, here,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/hunger-stones-and-tree-ring-evidence-suggests-solar-cycle-influence-on-climate/#comment-2475845

giving you at least 2 modern investigations that confirm the existence of the GB – and DeVries cycle,
are you also rejecting their work? Please answer me on that.

Obviously, most of you did not catch my reference to the Egyptians that I hinted at, i.e. the ancient Egyptians.[Willis thought I was pushing ‘the bible’]

The ancient Egyptians, for various OBVIOUS reasons, were notoriously watching the fall and rise of the river Nile. The details that Joseph predicts that were going to happen {explaining the dream of the Pharao] must have been because of some of his own and previously employed observers recordings of what happened to the level of the Nile. There is no way he could have known this by some miraculous ‘revelation’ although it would have looked like that by some of the casual observers, e.g. the writer of the book of Genesis.
Most likely, as part of his work in prison, he was to update the records meaning he also had access to the previous records and could sort of predict what was going to happen next.

Apparently, even Mozes was aware of the records, namely, that every 49th year or so, the Nile would be exactly at its ‘average’ level…..
ANNO 1983 William Arnold of the Cycle institute was aware of it. announcing an apparent 100 year[or so] weather cycle. But that was of course just before they started with the CO2 nonsense. He even found the connection / correlation with the position of the planets that I also found.

Eish. Now when you ask me to predict…. I can tell you exactly what is going to happen. The plains of America are due for a big drought similar to the Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939. Of course they will call it ‘climate change’ , i.e. AGW,

the stones in Europe are in fact hunger stones. 1930’s in Europe was also the time when hyper food inflation happened in Germany…

Ask me if you want to hear more.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 1, 2018 10:55 pm

Ulric, a couple things. First, we don’t know when there was a heatwave in Europe in the 1300s.

Second, there are potentially an infinite number of astronomical time periods, from minutes to millennia. As a result, finding correlations with some specially chosen climate variable is a trivial task.

Because correlations are so easy to find and so numerous, before claiming that one or more of them is actually affecting the climate on earth, you need a plausible physical explanation for how, for example, Jupiter opposing Uranus affects surface climate variables. You need to demonstrate causation and not trivial correlation.

Here’s a drawing to clarify the difference between correlation and causation …

Without establishing causation, I fear you’re just practicing astrology … so …

What physically happens when e.g. Jupiter opposes Uranus that affects the climate?

Please don’t tell me it is the tidal force on the sun until you are prepared to tell us the range of say the Jupiterian tide on the sun. How high and low does that tide range?

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2018 9:07 am

“First, we don’t know when there was a heatwave in Europe in the 1300s.”

We know that there was a heatwave in Europe in 1540, and also 179 years earlier in 1361.

“Second, there are potentially an infinite number of astronomical time periods, from minutes to millennia. As a result, finding correlations with some specially chosen climate variable is a trivial task.”

Meaningless unrepeatable correlations for sure. I haven’t mentioned time periods.

“Because correlations are so easy to find and so numerous..”

They are not, that opinion is just a product of your false premise.

“What physically happens when e.g. Jupiter opposes Uranus that affects the climate?”

You missed out the Saturn quadrature. I posted the solar wind data above.
It has nothing to do with solar tides or any gravitational mechanism.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 3, 2018 2:25 pm

Ulric Lyons October 2, 2018 at 9:07 am

“Because correlations are so easy to find and so numerous..”

They are not, that opinion is just a product of your false premise.

Indeed they are numerous. Just take the tides as a simple example. There are no less than 31 lunar cycles of different types used to calculate the tides. Then we have nine planets, each of whose cycles has a period, amplitude, and phase. Then you get the interactions between all of those. And of course, you have to include multiples of those times, like Henry talking about about how 17 Gleissberg cycles equals one motorcycle or some damn thing. Numerous? The ineractions between all of those give you thousands of numbers to play with. And folks like you do exactly that.

Take a look at the work of Scaffeta for an example. Here is a summary of his claims about climate cycles, as I discussed here. He explains the variations in surface temperatures using fitted sinusoidal cycles of various lengths. Here are the cycles he used in a string of posts.

First Post: 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to some astronomical cycles which were never made clear, albeit there was much mumbling about Jupiter and Saturn.

Second Post: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 year cycles. Here are the claims made for these cycles:

9.1 years : this was justified as being sort of near to a calculation of (2X+Y)/4, where X and Y are lunar precession cycles,

“10-11″ years: he never said where he got this one, or why it’s so vague.

20 years: supposedly close to an average of the sun’s barycentric velocity period.

60 years: kinda like three times the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn. Why three times? Why not?

Third Post: 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 year cycles. These are claimed to be

9.98 years: slightly different from a long-term average of the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn.

10.9 years: may be related to a quasi 11-year solar cycle … or not.

11.86 years: Jupiter’s sidereal period.

The latest post, however, is simply unbeatable. It has no less than six different cycles, with periods of 9.1, 10.2, 21, 61, 115, and 983 years. I haven’t dared inquire too closely as to the antecedents of those choices, although I do love the “3” in the 983 year cycle. Plus there’s a mystery ingredient, of course.

Seriously, he’s adding together six different cycles. Órale, that’s a lot! Now, each of those cycles has three different parameters that totally define the cycle. These are the period (wavelength), the amplitude (size), and the phase (starting point in time) of the cycle.

This means that not only is Scafetta exercising free choice in the number of cycles that he includes (in this case six). He also has free choice over the three parameters for each cycle (period, amplitude, and phase). That gives him no less than 18 separate tunable parameters.

Just roll that around in your mouth and taste it, “eighteen tunable parameters”. Is there anything that you couldn’t hindcast given 18 different tunable parameters?

The “spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn”? … yes, Ulric, the possibilities are indeed “numerous” as I claimed above …

w.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 4, 2018 10:18 am

“The ineractions between all of those give you thousands of numbers to play with. And folks like you do exactly that.”

I do not. I’m not even discussing periods here, but events with a limited number of quadrupole permutations of strictly four bodies. Please pay attention. What you are talking about is endless possibilities of non correlation.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 2, 2018 6:03 pm

For your benefit I will expand. I checked as many examples as I have weather records against stand alone two body syzygies and quadrature events, and then on to three and four body permutations in syzygy and quadrature. This revealed the following:

Extreme hot and cold weather events regularly occur at syzygies (particularly superior conjunctions) and quadratures of the four gas giants, with greater extreme events involving configurations of 3-4 bodies. The logic of two body configurations of superior conjunctions and either quadrature, derived from consistent correlations with many centuries of weather records, is as follows.

Jupiter opposite Neptune = cold events.
Jupiter square Neptune = hot.
Saturn opposite Neptune = hot.
Saturn square Neptune = cold.
Jupiter opposite Uranus = hot.
Jupiter square Uranus = cold.
Saturn opposite Uranus = cold.
Saturn square Uranus = hot.
Uranus opposite Neptune = hot.
Uranus square Neptune = cold.
Saturn opposite Jupiter = cold.
Saturn square Jupiter = hot.

According to these rules, the 1976 Jupiter opposite Uranus and both square to Saturn, is acting as one hot opposition, and two hot quadratures. The same configuration type occurred in the warmth of 1686 in the Maunder Minimum, and in the 1934, 1949, and 2003 heatwaves.

The hottest known European heatwaves of the last 800 years all occurred on the configuration of Saturn opposite Neptune, square to Jupiter. In 1252, 1361, 1540, 1757, and July 2006.

The apparent logic dictates that 3 body peak hot or cold events have to occur on tee-squares.

Mechanisms would likely involve interaction of the magnetic connections from the Sun to each body, with the solar equatorial quadrupole magnetic moment, which is ordered N S N S. This could account for the opposing hot and cold event results for any two given bodies in superior conjunction and then in quadrature. As for the effective polarities that are being expressed between the bodies, I haven’t a clue on that yet. Though I have both quantity and quality of observations on which to base the theory. Most investigators in this field tend to start with a postulate of the mechanism and then make no useful observations, rather like the AGW theory.

jim hogg
October 1, 2018 4:09 am

There are too many unquantified variables in this for it to carry any weight, and at very best, if every influential factor could be identified and controlled, and the record was complete, it would still be no more than an insubstantial and indirect proxy. But, as social history, it’ is interesting.

If sunspot incidence is in some way related to Earth’s climate in the context of the AGW debate (to show that recent temperature increases are due to natural variation/the sun) then the clearest way to do this would be to graph the relationship between sunspots and the temperature record – if there is one. I think I recall a piece by WE that showed there is no such relationship.

James Cross
October 1, 2018 5:02 am

“Solar forcing is an important factor in causing extreme weather. It follows that the sun controls Earth’s climate.”

Weather in the first sentence doesn’t lead to a conclusion about climate in the second sentence.

Sara
October 1, 2018 6:37 am

I hope you guys having an online argument aren’t going to start pulling out the charts and graphs again to show that all of you are right. The AMIRIGHT? gets kind of theatrical after a while.

I’m more interested in how the jet stream is going to affect this fall and the coming winter. The two Almanacs give different forecasts, so I’ve bought both to compare the real-time results with what they’ve both said. Also, I’m far more interested in what to stock in the freezer and the pantry, and how far ahead, than I am in silly quarrels over who is right and who isn’t.

I’ve known about Rossby waves for a long time. According to a local meteorologist, who may be retired now, there was a summer pattern and a winter pattern. The summer pattern (warm weather) was pretty flat, and the winter pattern (cold weather) was markedly different with deep waves reaching far into the north and quite far into the south. The wave pattern in the last year or so, maybe further back, seems to have been changing into the “winter pattern” carrying over into summer and staying there.

That is what should be looked at. How much it has to do with deep space radiation, changes in the planetary magnetic field strength, and the sunspot count, which has been on the fritz since 2006, is a good question because they seem to all have a relationship with each other. There’s another hurricane forming in the Atlantic – Leslie, I think. So how is THAT going to affect this winter’s weather?

Reply to  Sara
October 2, 2018 6:08 am

Joe Bastardi’s forecasts are very good, and a pic of his winter forecast is on the site. Very cold in the east and decreasing to avg then slightly above avg toward the Pacific Northwest. Grain of salt of course, but again, he’s darn good.
http://www.weatherbell.com/premium

Jack Dale
October 1, 2018 6:52 am

From 6 years ago

Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns
By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:40 PM GMT on April 02, 2012

Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

Francis, J.A., and S.J. Vavrus (2012), “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” Geophysical Research Letters, 21 February, 2012.

Jaiser, R., K. Dethloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, J. Cohen (2012), Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation, Tellus A 2012, 64, 11595, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595

Liu et al. (2012), “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Published online before print February 27, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114910109

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/arctic-sea-ice-loss-tied-to-unusual-jet-stream-patterns.html

Editor
October 1, 2018 6:39 pm

Do the hunger stones correlate with times of low sunspots? Nope. No statistically significant correlation.

As you can see, the average sunspot number in the years with hunger stones is NOT statistically different the sunspot count from all years.

I was going to do a similar analysis of the Trouet study data, which the author failed to link to … but I couldn’t figure out why the author chose those five years out of all of the years analyzed by Trouet.

Finally, someone above accused me of “dominating” the discussion. The only thing I am dominating is actual mathematical analysis of the author’s claims, which few other people seem to be interested in doing. Lots of cheering and high-fiving, lots of “It’s the sun, stupid” … very little actual mathematical analysis …

w.

Editor
October 1, 2018 10:09 pm

I gotta say, this idea that we can tell if the sun or most anything else “affects” the jet stream seems like handwaving to me. Here’s an illustration of what the meanders of the jet stream look like …

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Aerial_Superhighway.ogv

Having seen that, what units could you use to measure the “position of the jet stream” that the author finds so revealing?

Regards to all,

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 1, 2018 11:23 pm

Hi Willis, There is a naturally occurring ‘crease’ in the upper atmosphere, most readily defined by the 550mb isobar, or thereabouts. As the upper atmosphere moves seasonally and expands and contracts under the influence of the solar impacts, this ‘crease’ gets pushed about (to put it simply) and the profile made steeper or more shallow. The Jet Stream tends to form in this crease and its speed is influenced by the steepness of the profile. Most deep atmosphere met charts will show the current position. Not the only thing involved – never that simple – but a principle factor.

Editor
October 3, 2018 2:10 pm

henryp October 3, 2018 at 10:46 am

Willis
In fact I did reply to that, here,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/hunger-stones-and-tree-ring-evidence-suggests-solar-cycle-influence-on-climate/#comment-2475845

giving you at least 2 modern investigations that confirm the existence of the GB – and DeVries cycle,
are you also rejecting their work? Please answer me on that.

Sure. The first one uses the INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. Unfortunately, this is known to be contaminated with weather data, so it is totally unclear whether this represents solar variations, weather variations, or some combination of both.

The second one involves a “conceptual bistable model” that is supposed to relate to 17 “Gleissberg cycles” to give a 1470 year cycle that is “similar” to a Fourier analysis of proxy paleo data … say what? You actually believe this stuff?

Obviously, most of you did not catch my reference to the Egyptians that I hinted at, i.e. the ancient Egyptians.[Willis thought I was pushing ‘the bible’]

The ancient Egyptians, for various OBVIOUS reasons, were notoriously watching the fall and rise of the river Nile. The details that Joseph predicts that were going to happen {explaining the dream of the Pharao] must have been because of some of his own and previously employed observers recordings of what happened to the level of the Nile. There is no way he could have known this by some miraculous ‘revelation’ although it would have looked like that by some of the casual observers, e.g. the writer of the book of Genesis.
Most likely, as part of his work in prison, he was to update the records meaning he also had access to the previous records and could sort of predict what was going to happen next.

Apparently, even Mozes was aware of the records, namely, that every 49th year or so, the Nile would be exactly at its ‘average’ level…..
ANNO 1983 William Arnold of the Cycle institute was aware of it. announcing an apparent 100 year[or so] weather cycle. But that was of course just before they started with the CO2 nonsense. He even found the connection / correlation with the position of the planets that I also found.

I wrote about the Nile River here. Most people analyzing it use standard statistics, which is a huge mistake in datasets like the nilometer data which have a high Hurst exponent.

Next, Henry, you really should learn the math and run the analysis yourself. Otherwise, you’re at the mercy of every guy with a smooth tongue, a good story, and pretty graphice.

For example. Here is a CEEMD analysis of the nilometer data.

Note that the so-called “Gleissberg Cycle in this one is quite weak, and is at about 74 years …

Don’t like CEEMD? OK, here’s a Fourier periodogram of the same Nilometer data;

Same result. There is NOTHING at your claimed Gleissberg length of ~87 years … you see why I encourage you to roll your own?

Eish. Now when you ask me to predict…. I can tell you exactly what is going to happen. The plains of America are due for a big drought similar to the Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939. Of course they will call it ‘climate change’ , i.e. AGW,

That’s not a prediction, that’s handwaving. There is no way to tell if that comes true. We could wait 20 years and you could say, just like Paul Ehrlich says about his failed serial doomcasts, “It’s coming, just you wait!”

To be a true prediction you have to include boundaries in time, space, and the variable in question. Here’s a valid prediction, just as an example:

“Before the end of 2025, the Palmer Drought Severity Index will be more than three standard deviations above the 1950-2000 average in at least three of the following states at the same time: Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, South Dakota, and North Dakota.”

It’s helpful to think of a prediction as being a bet, where on a certain day you and I can get together and see who has won.

Best regards,

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
October 4, 2018 8:44 am

Willis
I am not sure where your nilometer data came from {the link did not work] , but perhaps there could be contamination because of the increase in population and people putting in dams, etc.
You guessed right: I am not your maths man but I think I am not too bad in stats. In fact my diploma in Datametrics (UNISA) says ‘Cum laude”
I picked up the GB cycle from analyzing the data of maximum temperatures from one station in Alaska with reliable daily data going back to the 1940s. I was sure it was a sine wave, and the closest that correlated with mine was the 88 year cycle as quoted in the first investigation. … I went on to analyse the daily data of 54 stations, for the past 43 years, especially looking at minims, and looking at the speed of warming/cooling I came to a sine wave with wave length 86.5 years, as found in the second investigation.

Now you say: do you believe this stuff? I am saying: I measured it, and to measure is to know. So, obviously, yes, you can stand on your head, laughing at me, but you cannot change my mind about what I found.

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 vapor 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.

True enough, I cannot predict exact years or dates for droughts to occur, simply because there are too many factors, apparently influencing global T, as outlined in my final report [click on my name]

but it is sort of very coincidental to me to find that that the decimation of the bison population is now more connected with the droughts from 1845 onward rather than from human intervention, as was previously thought. Now, 1932 – 87 = ??? 1932 + 87 = ???
Remember my name.

Johann Wundersamer
October 3, 2018 6:06 pm

If someone writes on a stone something as

“Eighteen (18) years inscribed on Hunger Stones document on the Elbe River at Decin, Czech Republic and four years from Dresden Germany. The years 1417 and 1616 inscribed on two of the Hunger Stones”

and if he is literate enough to write on a stone, educated enough to discriminate calendar years:

then we know this is a high government official. That is serious.
________________________________________________

and he informs the government official, who might find himself in the same situation in 100 years after.
________________________________________________

tears are flowing while typing.

Johann Wundersamer
October 3, 2018 6:32 pm

History is a drag.

Verified by MonsterInsights