The Millennial Turning Point – Solar Activity and the Coming Cooling

Guest opinion by Dr. Norman Page

When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”.

My recent paper presented a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposed that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991.

Zharkova et al 2015 DOI:10.10381/srep15683 says ” Dynamo waves are found generated with close frequencies whose interaction leads to beating effects responsible for the grand cycles (350-400 years) superimposed on a standard 22 year cycle. This approach opens a new era in investigation and confident prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale. ”
Svalgaard concluded in his essay on WUWT 10/27 2018:

“The Wu et al. (2018) reconstruction of the sunspot number since 6755 BC combined with modern Multimessenger proxies covering the 19th century until today goes a long way to reconcile the cosmogenic solar activity record with recent assessments of long-term solar activity.”

This is entirely consistent with my approach and forecasts. The empirical temperature data is clear. The previous millennial cycle temperature peak was  at about 990. ( see Fig 3 in the link below)  The recent temperature Millennial Turning Point was about 2003/4 ( Fig 4 in link  below ) which correlates with the solar millennial activity peak at 1991+/. The cycle is asymmetric with a 650 year +/- down-leg and a 350 +/- year up-leg. The suns magnetic field strength as reflected in its TSI will generally decline (modulated by other shorter term super-imposed solar activity cycles) until about 2650.

The temperature increase since about 1650 is clearly chiefly due to the up- leg in the natural solar activity millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” Fig 5

Lean 2018 Fig 5.

This Lean figure shows an increase in TSI of about 2 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak . This TSI and solar magnetic field variation modulates the earths albedo via the GR flux and cloud cover.  From the difference between the upper and lower quintiles of Fig 4 (in link below) a handy rule of thumb a la Fermi would conveniently equate this to a Northern Hemisphere temperature millennial cycle amplitude of about 2 degrees C with that amount of cooling probable by 2,650+/-.The MTP in cloud cover was at about 2000.

The decline in solar activity since the 1991 solar activity MTP is seen in the Oulu neutron count.

Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity MTP and the varying climate metrics. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years. The arctic sea ice volume minimum was in 2012 +/-  lag = 21 years. Possible sea level Millennial Turning Point – Oct 2015  lag = 24 years +/- (see https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ ) Since Oct 2015 sea level has risen at a rate of only 8.3 cms/century. It will likely begin to fall within the next 4 or 5 years. For the details see data, discussion, and forecasts in  Figs 3,4,5,10,11,and 12 in the links below.

See the Energy and Environment paper
The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html          See also the discussion with Professor William Happer at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small.
Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
Advertisements

211 thoughts on “The Millennial Turning Point – Solar Activity and the Coming Cooling

  1. The temperature increase since about 1650 is clearly chiefly due to the up- leg in the natural solar activity millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” Fig 5

    Except that there is no slowly varying ‘background’, so Lean’s reconstruction is not valid.

      • So, TSI varies by 2 W/m2 and EUV varies by 6 W/m2, right? That means EUV is not properly included in TSI or something else in TSI is offsetting the EUV change, right? Which is it and why?

          • Non-linearity(s) abound in climate. They are everywhere.
            They propagate instabilities that force a system to move to new equilibria. Constantly nudging a system.

            And EUV has a large control on ozone production.
            [O3] is intimately involved in stratospheric temperature profile.
            Stratospheric temperature profile effects on troposphere energy loss is poorly understood.
            Despite what the cargo cultist modellers want us to believe.,

          • Stratospheric temperature profile effects on troposphere energy loss is poorly understood.

            Yet, based on your poor understanding, you postulate that it has great effect…

          • ” Already the natural ozone variability in the stratosphere seems to be closely correlated with the 11-year solar cycle of irradiance changes and has, via a dynamic coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere, a significant impact on climate.”

            http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5412/305

            “Results from a global climate model including an interactive parameterization of stratospheric chemistry show how upper stratospheric ozone changes may amplify observed, 11-year solar cycle irradiance changes to affect climate.In the model, circulation changes initially induced in the stratosphere subsequently penetrate into the troposphere, demonstrating the importance of the dynamical coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere. The model reproduces many observed 11-year oscillations, including the relatively long record of geopotential height variations; hence, it implies that these oscillations are likely driven, at least in part, by solar variability.

            Keyword: “may”

            We really do not know shit about what is happening with ozone, and climate.

            “It’s not so much what we know, but what we think we know is true but ain’t.”

          • “Stratospheric temperature profile effects on troposphere energy loss is poorly understood.”

            Actually they are very well understood.
            However, as one would expect from a complex system other mechanisms have to combine to trigger SSW’s (Sudden stratospheric warmings) – what is needed to influence a tropospheric response (see Cohen link below).

            As Leif points out, milliwatts per m^2 of TSI variation does not materially alter the Earth’s energy balance.
            What it does, is slightly weaken the winter-times Arctic stratospheric vortex at times of low solar, this then allowing easier/greater penetration of tropically and topologically generated gravity (Rossby) waves, causing disruption and -ve AO events.

            That meridional extension of the PJF then moving arctic air south – preferentially over the eastern half of the US and over Europe. There is a consequent balancing thrust of warm tropical air northward through the Bering Strait/ Alaska area (wave 1) and also at times, the Norwegian sea (wave 2). The later causing a split in the vortex and total disruption.
            It is a stirring of the pot and NOT the addition of more energy.

            https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90156/1/jgrd52180.pdf
            https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/LimpasuvanetalVortexJC_04.pdf
            https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/
            https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/mag/research/middle-atmosphere-dynamics/sudden-stratospheric-warmings/?doing_wp_cron=1541240510.0108449459075927734375

          • Leif Svalgaard
            November 2, 2018 at 10:27 pm

            Stratospheric temperature profile effects on troposphere energy loss is poorly understood.

            Yet, based on your poor understanding, you postulate that it has great effect…

            lol, testy much?

            I do know, as evidenced by your comments often on here, that like the climatariat, any inquiry that goes against what you “think”, irks the bejesus out of you 😀

            Might have considered it was a postulation of the inquiry type, not the assume type?
            “And EUV has a large control on ozone production.
            [O3] is intimately involved in stratospheric temperature profile.”

            You left out those two lines intentionally so you could have your little snark 😛

          • To Mark Pawelek,

            I did not say (nor imply) the climate system was a equilibrium, neither static nor dynamic. It is a constantly shifting response to chase the weaving rabbit, never caught as the influences (climate forcings) are constantly changing.

          • To Anthony Banton,

            We know that ozone is created by EUV/UV.
            We know that the stratosphere’s inverted lapse rate is due to ozone and UV heating.
            We know that the stratosphere can undergo rapid warming events (SSWs).

            But the dynamical coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere and the resulting varying of geopotential heights is poorly understood. This is the difference between knowing what will happen, and knowing why it happens. Empirically it can be modeled from observations, but not understood why. And hindcasting years when the results re known are all the rage in climate physics when a model output shows a fit to the past. Forecasting out years not so much. A John von Neumann problem.

      • Leif there is an interesting question in what you are showing and saying.

        To some degree the TSI is totally unimportant in greenhouse effect because we are interested in the quantum effects not the classical effect. To make the absolute point lets show popping a blue ballon inside a red ballon hit with a ruby laser .. the incoming power is not real useful to the retained heat problem and actually gives little insight to how it will react
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-pqC1NFpHw

        However what got my attention is you are showing dielectric and electron effect in the atmosphere and that may very well change things. I am scratching me head trying to think what experiments that are running may be interesting to look at

      • Maurice
        make your comment here
        in a reasoned explanation.
        Don’t refer to books that must be bought first ‘to acquire’ said information.
        Basically, I think your comment that you made here is spam and the moderator should remove it.

      • I do love the false accuracy of the “18,139-year sunspot cycle”, as though we knew the length of the cycle to within ± 0.003% … when I see claims like that it’s a good thing. I know I can save myself the trouble of reading the underlying calculations.

        Pass …

        w.

    • I’m sick and tired of “reconstructions” and predictions.

      After 21 years of reading about climate science. as a hobby,
      there is one thing I’ve learned that I believe everyone should know:

      Predictions of the future climate are less useful than a pile
      of steaming farm animal digestive waste products !

      We’re in an interglacial.

      Can’t people just be happy about that?

      Who cares if the average temperature
      moves a degree or two in either direction?

      No one would even notice if not for
      the braying leftists !

      Only people who are demonizing CO2,
      for personal or political gains, would make
      such a big deal out of +1 degree C. warming
      since 1880, +/- 1 degree C., to be honest about
      the likely margin of error !

      If we are leaving the interglacial,
      which will happen someday,
      some warming now
      will be very good news.

      And if CO2 causes warming,
      let’s put more CO2 in the air now,
      and keep this wonderful interglacial
      going a little longer.

      My climate science blog
      with almost 27,000 page views:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      ,

  2. If the possible sea level Millennial Turning Point is Oct 2015 with a lag = 24 years +/-, how does it follow that sea level will likely begin to fall within the next 4 or 5 years?

    • If the temperature peak was “2003/4” [paragraph after the Oulu Neutron Monitor chart], then add 24 to get, say 2027. That gets close to the suggested “to fall within the next 4 or 5 years” – sort of a near miss.

      For sea level to fall there needs to be a lot of snow that doesn’t melt. I know places in the mountains of Washington State where this snow accumulation ought to occur. I’m watching.
      When I see these new snow fields growing, I’ll check back for refinements on this idea.

      • On a clear day from where I live in Vancouver, BC I can see Mount Baker.
        I’m watching as well.
        However, the charts of snow cover for both NH and NA have been interesting.
        Two melt seasons, now, with snow cover above the mean band.

        • The WA DOT (on Sunday 28 Oct) “. . . closed the State Route 542/Mount Baker Highway seasonal gate to Artist Point to vehicle traffic due to snow and unsafe conditions. This year the highway was open for 130 days, the second longest season on record. In 2014 it was open for 115 days and in 2015 for 171 days.”

      • There are three parts to sea level rising:
        Thermal expansion from the oceans warming, Glacier melt, and
        Ground water extraction.

        For sea level to even plateau would take ocean cooling causing thermal contraction and glacier mass increasing just to offset the continued ground water extraction

        • Four. You left out net snow melt/accumulation on the Greenland, Baffin Is, Antarctic icecaps. Unintuitively, thermal expansion of the oceans is probably the largest item in the current SLR budget. Even if Sea Surface Temps (SST) stabilize, warming at depth as previous SST increases work their way down will likely continue.

          Ground water extraction is currently thought to be largely offset by new surface impoundments. But that probably won’t last. We’re running out of places to put big dams. But water extraction is unlikely to stop in synch with the end of dam construction.

    • But your post showed a ~220 yr and a ~360 yr cycles if I recall correctly.

      Dalton minimum, call it 1810.
      Maunder minimum, call it 1680.

      We’re due.

      But of course, according to the climate model prophecies, global warming due to a trace gas increase is the “consensus science” from cargo cultists in need of grant money.

        • He made predictions. They are within a reasonable time frame. Feel free to nit pick all you like, but I h ave yet to see you offer anything similar. Your entire purpose seems to be to wave away the sun. When you have one purpose, that is all you can do. You are like a man with only a hammer. Everything is a nail.

          • Leif is a true scientist. He calls it out when he sees statements that are not well grounded or are based on questionable deduction, and always provides evidence to back up his case. It isn’t up to him to “offer anything similar” at all – maybe that request just shows how desperate you and others are for an answer – any answer: when there may not be one.

            Just wish some sceptics were a little bit more sceptical.

          • Everything is questionable. And I question everything. Everything from the speed of light to global warming. Particularly anything that requires massive computational power to “model” to tell us what it is or what it is doing.
            When you have a chaotic system like we have with thousands of overlayed systems with some regular and many irregular oscillations along with thousands of individual daily one off inputs, I find that his die hard arguments against any solar forcing to be biased and unreliable at best.
            It is one thing to argue that you do not see the connection. It is another to arbitrarily dismiss is it out of hand repeatedly and in the manner of an acolyte.
            There is physical evidence that GCR can have an effect on cloud seeding. There is physical evidence that the GCR is driven by solar output. Thus, there is opportunity for the sun to be playing a role.
            He steadfastly fights against it, going so far as to reconstruct the past, and because he has a bias against the sun having any effect on changing our climate, guess what he is going to find?

        • I would expect to see some power in sunspot number at 166 years and at 345 years. Neither connected with centennial solar minima.

    • “the is no power at a 1000-yr period during the last 9000 years.”

      Of course there is. Steihilber et al., 2013 found it very clearly, and agrees extraordinarily well with Bond series of ice-drafted debris in the North Atlantic.

      https://i.imgur.com/Dcz5WXr.png

      It has low power between 4000 yr BP and 1500 yr BP. Enough to confound you.

    • can’t beat people with your guestimates truncheon. “There is no power “shown” in what we have have managed to guestimate so far”

      Scientist speak, it’s so funny

  3. Policy for “until about 2650” is meaningless.

    All that is really happening is the Western society socialists are setting-up mankind for an epic, biblical failure; planning on temperatures increasing, when in fact they are about to take a nose dive. A climate crisis indeed, but one of cold and global crop failures, and exacerbated by fossil fuel restrictions under IPCC recommendations.

    But like Rahm Emmauel said, (paraphrasing) they are intent on not letting any crisis go to waste. The Socialists intend on spinning it whatever way climate goes for their power and privilege.

  4. If the climate is indeed going to cool due to solar events, this makes it all the more urgent to reduce CO2 NOW so that can be plausibly linked to cooling.

    • Unfortunately for the climate cargo cultists and their religion, CO2 emissions and the MLO CO2 record are not tightly causally linked in any near (seasonal) or intermediate term (3-5 years) time scale.
      An objective analysis of 3 years of OCO-2 observations demonstrates that.

      And on the longest time scales, global CO2 follows global temperature. SO causality reverses.

      • Joel O’Bryan – November 2, 2018 at 10:02 pm

        And on the longest time scales, global CO2 follows global temperature.

        “YUP”, and that would be, … global “multi-century” climate temperatures.

        And also “YUP”, on a shorter time scale, the seasonal or biyearly global atmospheric CO2 quantities follow the surface temperature of the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere.

        And on an extremely short time scale, the outgassing of CO2 from a carbonated beverage (beer/soda) is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and/or the surface that is in contact with said beverage container and/or its liquid contents..

        • Certainly makes sense that warmer oceans can hold less CO2, so the planet’s largest sink is diminished by henry’s law. When the oceans cool they hold more CO2 and things can swing the other direction. The AMO appears to be swinging to a negative phase. We might get to see what effect cooling SSTs have on CO2 rise, if the OCO site will share it.

          • Pop Piasa – November 3, 2018 at 8:25 pm

            The AMO appears to be swinging to a negative phase. We might get to see what effect cooling SSTs have on CO2 rise, if the OCO site will share it.

            Just keep your eyes on NOAA ESRL DATA base – Mauna Loa Record because the measured CO2 ppm will begin to slowly decrease just as soon as the ocean surface temperatures in the SH begins decreasing. In other words, the normal yearly average 1 to 2+ ppm increase in CO2, …. will stall out, …. and then begin decreasing, …… and thus the upward “arc” of the Keeling Curve Graph will reverse directions and “track-it” accordingly.

    • Couldn’t agree more, hence latest doom-laden hysteria from the IPCC ….BEFORE the current signs of global cooling become too apparent.

    • Jeff
      My calculations on Tmax global (54 weather stations) show that the sun gave its maximum output somewhere in 1994. This is not far away from what Norman Page is reporting.

      minimum temperatures have already started falling now…
      click on my name to read my final report on this.

      … and climate change is playing out exactly as I predicted it would:
      warmer and drier summers at the higher latitudes and cooler and drier winters at the higher latitudes.

      John H
      yes, expect to see less retreat of the snow

      According to Leif the Gleissberg is 87 years. 2018-87= 1931
      1932-1939 was the Dust Bowl drought. I

      The hunger years are almost here. I wonder how they plan to feed all the people of the world.
      Pity all ‘climate’ scientists and relevant governments still believe in the CO2 nonsense.

      saying surely, we can/ must blame the fires/droughts/disasters on man?

      but offering no solutions to the impending disasters.

  5. Again its very interesting, but out the re in the Political World, the Warmers are still winning. And as said when we do see cooling, they the Warmers will claim the credit for it, “We told you so”

    MJE

      • Phillip Bratby – November 3, 2018 at 12:17 am

        How can they claim that when CO2 is still rising?

        The “Warmers” or “Warminists” can and will claim the credit for it simply because they can claim two different isotopes of CO2, …… the naturally occurring one (which is still rising) and the anthropogenic one (which they will claim is not rising)

        What most people don‘t know is the fact that there is two (2) isotopes of CO2, ….. a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that contains an H-pyron or Human-pyron ….. which defines said molecule as being “anthropogenically” created/emitted.

        Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.

        And there ya have it, ….. the “greenhouse” gas source of the thermal (heat) energy that’s been causing global warming climate change.

        Cheers

  6. Again its very interesting, but out there in the Political World, the Warmers are still winning. And as said when we do see cooling, they the Warmers will claim the credit for it, “We told you so”

    MJE

  7. I would like to bet AGAINST this prediction of cooling in the next years/decades. In particular, I bet we won’t see again another year as “cool” as 2008, nor a period of 5 years with an average as “cool” as 2004-2008, anytime before 2030 (could bet for a longer period but I want to be able to claim my money within a reasonable time frame). Anybody accepts? Or are there no real believers in the “cooling to come”?

    • I wouldn’t bet on anything.

      Climate is a chaotic system and we have no idea where its attractors are, or whether it needs any external changes to trigger a move to a mew one, or whether it is capable of doing it all by itself.

      I am afraid I look on people who say it’s all ‘cycles’ – the product of time integration of simple linear differential equations – with about as much credibility as people who say ‘chémtrails’ are an explanation of anything.

      As far as I can tell, the climate is perfectly capable of wobbling all over the place for years before wobbling off to a new ‘average without human or indeed solar, or cosmic, intervention at all.

      That in short, is the nature of the beast. Like the Tao, Climate is that which causes itself…

      • Exactly how I view it. Complex, non-linear systems only have the appearance of stability – or perhaps they have any number of places where they can be stable for a period.

        In such a system, I have no problem with changes in the sun “causing” changes sometimes but not other times. Looking at only one measurement of the system – temperature – tells you pretty much nothing about the state of the system, as hugely different states can produce the same temperature.

    • I would bet that within 5 years we get a year colder than 2008, but would only get that for maybe 2 years and due to a volcanic event. Which would be an insurance policy on any rapid cooling. That would really help having that 1.5 degree C warming if we have an everyday well timed VEI-7 eruption in the tropics. Or if we do have a beginning to a natural cooling trend of 5 years or more like some predict, then we can probably concur that low solar activity is probably complicit in slightly cooling temps following soon after. And that the sensitivity of CO2 is low overall, within its scientific prediction range and without the huge water vapor feedback that the whole climate change industry is built on. If the warming doesn’t continue until 2030 with CO2 going up to 450 ppmv, then we can relax a little and plan for a long term replacement of FF’s in 30-50 years. We shall see fairly soon which direction all this really goes.

    • Hi Nylo – you wrote:
      “… bet we won’t see again another year as “cool” as 2008, nor a period of 5 years with an average as “cool” as 2004-2008, anytime before 2030”

      I’ll take your bet, However, I really hope to be wrong.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/17/oddly-quiet-sun-3-weeks-without-sunspots/#comment-2407423

      [excerpt]

      In 2002, I predicted that natural global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030, in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald. I am now leaning closer to 2020 for cooling to start, possibly even earlier. I hope to be wrong. Humanity and the environment suffer during cooling periods.

      I suggest that it is long past time for society to prepare for the possibility of moderate global cooling. This would involve:
      1. Strengthening of electrical grid systems, currently destabilized by costly, intermittent green energy schemes;
      2. Reduce energy costs by all practical means.
      3. Development of contingency plans for food production and storage, should early frosts impact harvests;
      4. Develop contingency plans should vital services be disrupted by cold weather events – such as the failure of grid power systems, blocking of transportation corridors, etc.
      5. Improve home insulation and home construction standards.

      The current mania over (fictitious) catastrophic global warming has actually brewed the “perfect storm” – energy systems have been foolishly compromised and energy costs have been needlessly increased, to fight imaginary warming in a (probably) cooling world.

      I suggest this is the prudent path for Western societies to follow. It has no downside, even if global cooling does not occur, and considerable upside if moderate cooling does commence.

      Best, Allan

      New Little ICE Age Instead of Global Warming?
      Theodor Landscheidt,
      First Published May 1, 2003 Research Article PAYWALLED
      https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646

      Abstract
      Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

      • Let me say DR. ZHARKOVA is spot on and is the premiere solar authority. We will see how her forecast pans out. I think she is correct.

        We MUST include solar/geomagnetic field strength when making predictions

        Many do not seem to understand that the models do not incorporate the strengths of the solar/geomagnetic fields when making predictions, so here are my own predictions.
        Earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or higher have increased more than 25% over the last few weeks. The latest geomagnetic storm (K7) may spur ) even more activity.
        I’m waiting for THE ! volcanic eruption.

        I said 2018 (the only one) would be a transitional year. Sure enough, global temperatures are down and overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down.

        They are going to continue down.

        Getting back to the models/analogs: The more extreme either way the solar/geomagnetic fields may be (in this case weakening), the more off those (inadequate) tools will be.

        My simple theory is: Very weak solar/geomagnetic fields equate to lower overall global temperatures due to lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures (less UV/NEAR UV light) and a slight uptick in albedo. The uptick will be due to an increase in major geological activity and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage tied to an increase in galactic cosmic rays. Those increases, in turn, will be in response to very weak magnetic fields.

        In addition, there are threshold levels of magnetic weakness out there that could result in a major, as opposed to a slight, climatic shift. If one looks at the historical climatic record/ice core data, major/abrupt climatic changes show up more often than not.

        Something is causing it, and it is not the slow gradual change of the ocean’s heat content. Besides, ocean heat content does not matter: it is the surface oceanic temperatures that matter when it comes to the climate and they can change fast.

        In closing I say the so called AGW ended in late 2017.

        None of the mainstream buy into this, even the ones who do not believe in AGW. They are all stuck and believe in their inadequate models, which are useless in this environment ..

      • Hi ALLAN MACRAE, sorry for the late reply. You wrote:
        “I’ll take your bet, However, I really hope to be wrong”.

        Fantastic. Let’s clarify the ammount and the terms. I am willing to bet up to a maximum of one hundred dollars, feel free to choose a smaller ammount if you wish. You can choose the global temperatures database (for either the global surface temperatures OR global lower troposphere temperatures) to be used to decide the winner. There should not be any escape clauses, meaning that a huge volcanic eruption would make temperatures drop and make me very likely to fail, but I accept the risk, and you must also accept risks that may play against your bet, like for instance, the classic revisions of past temperatures making them colder. It is up to you to choose a temperatures data set that you feel is less likely to suffer past temperatures revisions.

        Should you publicly accept the bet here, I publicly authorise the Mods to provide to you the email address that I am using to post this comment (which is the same address that I have always used in WUWT), for any further communications. Please do the same.

        Best regards.

      • Hi HenryP,

        Yes, we can, as long as it is a data set for global surface temperatures OR global lower troposphere temperatures, see above my reply to ALLAN MCRAE.

        • Nylo

          you did not get it.
          I don’t trust the SAT’s because of the degeneration of the probes and the instability of exact trajectories.
          [must also say that initially the SAT’s results did correspond with my own results]
          I do not trust any of the terra data sets because they are all biased towards the NH. My own data set, a sample of 54 tera weather stations carefully balanced to zero latitude show that it is warming in the Nh and cooling in the Sh. However, the net result of my sets show that earth is cooling on both Tmax and Tmin .

          so for the bet: I chose my own data set on Tmin global. It shows cooling, at present.

          Now , according to the position of the planets, by my calculations, it will continue to cool until 20337 or 2038 or so. Perhaps I can find a picture for you on this./

          You still want to bet with me to say that it will warm rather than cool [somewhat] in the next few decades ?

          Click on my name and read my final report.

  8. It would be interesting to work out how often (per year, month, week) one can read on this website about the ‘coming cooling’ or ‘we’ll see what happens over the next few years’!

  9. There is far more to it than the TSI or the UV.
    Both the Earth and sun are part of a larger system of causes, consequences and intricate feedbacks.
    Until it is understood why there is an apparent link between solar activity and tectonics
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN-NAP.gif
    ( more recent the data, higher the correlation)
    the apparentl link between tectonics and the Nth Atlantic SST (AMO)
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/NAP-SST.gif
    and finally global temperature trend and the Earth’s deep interior events (as manifested in the changes of the Earth’s magnetic dipole intensity
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm
    we can not make more than an educated guess where the global temperature trend is going.

  10. FWIW, my sense of this whole debate is we can wail and gnash out teeth (on both sides) as much as we like – we’ll just have to wait and see what happens, and keep trying to think our way through the question. It’s not a warming “problem” contrary to the views of the loudest screamers. A “problem” would be the shrinking of the N American and Eurasian grain-belts by 50 miles or more as a result of a return to cooler temperatures of say 400 years ago….

    Absent a truly compelling and all-embracing hypothesis (and neither theories about the impact of anthropogenic CO2 levels nor “narrow” theories about insolation levels, or cloud cover levels etc is compelling or all embracing, interesting though they may be), the fact is we simply do not know what the originating cause/s are of long term temperature variations on the planet.

    We think we know the climate “system/s” are chaotic and dynamic. We think we know there are too many variables in play to say “x” is the direct cause of temperature increase or decrease. That’s probably all we can say. Absent an understanding of what the originating cause is of climate variations, the sheer chaos of the system makes it impossible to identify more “proximate” causes (which might really only be “effects” of the originating cause) of climate change.

    What may be clear from ice-core records is CO2 lags temperature increases – if this is correct, it is a major problem to be explained away by the “Warmists”. Equally, the one overwhelming source of “energy” for the planet is the Sun. The problem for the “Solar Cyclists” to explain (peddling like gerbils in a wheel against the pseudo-science of the IPCC, some might say proffering their own pseudo-science in the IPCC’s stead) is why they can’t prove fluctuations in the “solar energy” received on the planet cause climate change, any more than the Warmists can prove their hypothesis.

    On the basis of a reductio ad absurdum argument is it not probable that in what is in essence a cold dark vacuum (space), any fluctuation in “energy output” of the Sun (however that output is defined and measured – might it be “something” our scientists haven’t even thought to measure yet?) is likely to have a warming or cooling effect on the planet and other planets in the solar system. Is it not probable that the effect of fluctuations in Solar “energy output” is modulated in ways we have not yet discovered – whether in space or in the atmosphere?

    Should we be asking ourselves what is happening on Mars, the Moon or Venus – is it cooler or warmer than it was 30 years ago (do we even have a reliable temperature record for Mars or other inner planets?)? If it isn’t, then the Sun probably isn’t the cause of heating or cooling is it? On the other hand if climate on the inner planets is variable in ways similar to ours, then we need to think some more…

    • What may be clear from ice-core records is CO2 lags temperature increases – if this is correct, it is a major problem to be explained away by the “Warmists”.

      Has been explained decades aho.

      What is uncertain is the multiplier: How many K for doubling with feedbacks in certain interglacial state.

      People don’t really know what stops interglacial from ending the ice age, and people don’t know what stops glacials to not end up in snowball. There are large feedbacks with different signs, making the present era unstable to the cold direction.

    • KO, where in this thread do you detect the phrase

      ‘fluctuations in the “solar energy” received on the planet cause climate change’.

      • Why don’t you go to the top of the thread, and have a look at Prof Svalgaard’s opening remark and those immediately following.

        In English “fluctuation” is a synonym for “variation”…

        What pray tell is TSI other than a form of “solar energy”?

        Nitpicking really isn’t helpful. If you have a point, make it.

  11. Hi to KO,with ref to your question re planets warming ,i came across the following article some years ago (not sure where from ).It may help
    I suggest you search Hammel ,H.B. and G W Lockwood,2007. Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability,and Earth’s temperature .Geophysicalresearch letters,34,LO8203dol:10 .1029/2006GL028764.

  12. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years. –>

    The temperature peak -in- about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years.

  13. CORR-el
    Correlation!
    Its the best science
    In the nation
    If we can’t do direct
    Experimentation
    F it we’ll use aleast squares
    Approximation

    CORR-e
    Correlation
    Proxy objects prove
    Causation
    Lets us predict the
    Devestation
    With pinpoint accurate
    Extrapolation

    Correlations!!! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

  14. Seemingly during the last few years of his life, Stephen Hawking was seriously vexated.
    ‘Someone’ came along and put a dirty great fly in his 2nd favourite ointment, Black Hole Theory.
    (His 1st favourite was of course ‘women’. There goes a scientist with his priorities the right way round. Much more rewarding than being a guilt-ridden and stressed-out tedious little nobody busybody spending *their* life telling *everybody* else how to live theirs)

    This vexation involved Information Theory, the belief being that Information cannot be destroyed – as per Energy cannot… etc etc
    Therein was Stephen’s problem – Black Holes must surely contain ‘information’ on *everything* that has ever fallen into them and certainly not least, about the star that created them.

    How does all this Information within any given Black Hole manifest itself?

    Slight tangent:
    Here we may venture into Gravitational Waves. People will assert that they travel at Light Speed, *entirely* implying that Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon BUT, how do we know black holes are there if not by the gravity they inflict upon the rest of everywhere. But by definition, things moving at Light Speed cannot escape Black Holes so, how does the Gravity escape?
    So, what speed does Information travel at?
    I think we can understand Stephen’s problem
    End tangent and back to Sol

    Presumably Sol contains *all* the information about its past and, by NOT being a Black Hole, this information escapes and we can thus see and/or read it.

    Did Sol come from a huge cloud of gas. yes/no
    How dense was it, on average *and* locally – was it a lumpy cloud of gas?
    What else was in there, rocks and boulders, embryo planets and God-only-knows-what bits of junk. We know that because we are riding around on one of those bits and we can see atoms of similar stuff twinkling away in the Sol’s corona.
    Are we save to assume that some of those lumps were ‘pretty damn big’
    Baby Sol would thus comprise an epic blob of gas, at varying densities, rotating as a whole, with rotating vortices within it and being pounded by (probably) gobsmacking sized rocks coming in from, what angles?

    Might we picture a beach-ball sized jelly at a children’s jelly, on a rotating turntable with bricks being thrown at it.
    It is going to bounce.
    And 5 billion years later, is it still bouncing? The non-destruction of Information says that it is.

    Who now, is going to predict which way it will go next……..

    • children’s jelly PARTY

      Would you believe, the kids have Good Instinct there. YET AGAIN. Do not trash it with soda-pop!

      It seems ‘jelly’, being Gelatin, is good at repairing/replacing Collagen within us and thus slows the ageing process

      • “Did Sol come from a huge cloud of gas. yes/no
        How dense was it, on average *and* locally – was it a lumpy cloud of gas?
        What else was in there, rocks and boulders, embryo planets and God-only-knows-what bits of junk.”
        _____________________________________________________

        Nonsense, Peta: sun burns hydrogen to helium.

        Full stop.

        All stuff for Planets, moons, asteroids gathered around in the gravity field of our ALREADY EXISTING SUN.

        some “proof”: our sun inherits >97% mass of that solar system of ours, incl. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune etc.

        The “stuff” of the remaining 3% like “Did Sol come from a huge cloud of gas. yes/no
        How dense was it, on average *and* locally – was it a lumpy cloud of gas?
        What else was in there, rocks and boulders, embryo planets and God-only-knows-what bits of junk.”
        _____________________________________________________

        Nonsense, Peta: sun burns hydrogen to helium.

        Full stop.

        All stuff for Planets, moons, asteroids gathered around in the gravity field of our ALREADY EXISTING SUN.

        some “proof”: our sun inherits >97% mass of that solar system of ours, incl. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune etc.

        the mass of the remaining 3%

        was burned in bevore existing suns that turned to supernovae and sent that “stuff” through the galaxies.

    • “Did Sol come from a huge cloud of gas. yes/no
      How dense was it, on average *and* locally – was it a lumpy cloud of gas?
      What else was in there, rocks and boulders, embryo planets and God-only-knows-what bits of junk.”
      _____________________________________________________

      Nonsense, Peta: sun burns hydrogen to helium.

      Full stop.

      All stuff for Planets, moons, asteroids gathered around in the gravity field of our BEVORE EXISTING SUN.

      some “proof”: our sun inherits >97% mass of that solar system of ours, incl. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune etc.

      • Somehow missing there is Bohm’s active information.
        See any article by Bohm and Hiley.
        See J.S.Bell , CERN : “La nouvelle Cuisine” on what can not go faster than light. The perfect tachyon crime is humorously investigated.

    • “People will assert that they travel at Light Speed, *entirely* implying that Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon ”

      Gravity is definitely NOT an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is fairly strong (but not conclusive) evidence that gravitational waves move with lightspeed, but that does not imply that gravity is electromagnetic, only that the interaction particle is massless.

      • Yep. The speed of light is ‘one’, if you use good units. Everything without a rest mass moves one lightsecond in a second in all inertial frames.

  15. Figure 4 of “The coming cooling…” paper linked to in the main article shows a chart of RSS TLT temperature anomalies with a trend line that stops in mid-2013. The trend at that point is 0.2 C/dec.

    This trend line is replaced by a second trend line, this time starting at mid-2003 and ending in early 2015. This second trend line is reported to indicate “the cooling trend from the Millennial peak at 2003”.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s640/trend201708.png

    However, if you just run a trend line through the full RSS data set from 1980 to the most recent update (Sept 2018 at time of writing) you still get a trend of 0.2 C/dec – exactly the same as the trend during the period 1980-2003 (shown below).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1980.1/trend

    So much for the ‘cooling’ from the Millennial peak at 2003.

        • The author chose RSS, not me; but for what it’s worth, the warming rate in UAH from Jan-1980 to Aug-2003 (the author’s dates, not mine) was +0.16 C/dec. That drops to +0.13C/dec if you carry it on to the present. However, that’s not because the rate slowed after Sep-2003, the supposed ‘Millennial peak’, it’s because the warming following the 1998 El Nino was slow to start in UAH. In fact, since Sep-2003 the warming rate in UAH is faster than it was up to Aug-2003 (+0.17 C/dec). There is zero evidence in either satellite TLT data set of a temperature decline starting ~2003.

          • The SATs were correct initially when it corresponded with my own dataset. However. Lately the sun has taken its toll. You cannot recalibrate that what does not function properly anymore.

  16. Reading some of the comments makes one consider that the Church of warming is truly a religion. The modern day Oracle of Delphi, computer models, cannot be questioned.

    • Or, Is it like a highschool football cheer, a chant repeated endlessly that gives us a feeling of being bonded together in a cause? So that our behavior is controllable because we fear being expelled from the group?

  17. There will be cooling over large areas of the northern landmass as “ice age weather patterning” takes hold from the 8th/9th of this month. Plenty of cold air will be flowing over Canada, the northern Atlantic and northern Russia. Which is likely to see the NH snow cover extent pushed above its trend range line.
    Funny how the real world seems to be ignoring “man made warming. 🙂

  18. You have it wrong, Norman. I’ve told you on several occasions. The millennial peak is ~ 50 years in the future. This is just a centennial low in solar activity that should provide much needed respite from global warming madness until ~ 2035. Then back to high solar activity and some more warming. 22nd C will see the cooling in reverse to 20th C.

    https://i.imgur.com/j2hbCiv.png

    • From the historical records it seems certain that a 1000 years ago settlements were established in Greenland that only now, with the Greenland ice melt, are becoming visible and ready to be explored.
      In the 1500ths AD one of my forefathers, Willem Barentz was somehow convinced (by word of mouth tales?} that a passage to the east existed. Regretfully, he died trying to find it. Hence, we still have the ‘Barentz” sea. Up there. North.
      So, there is strong historical evidence that a warmer climate existed, similar to ours or even slightly warmer,
      ….1000 years ago…
      hence the claim that the USA and Canada were discovered by the Vikings….

        • Ja. Ja. Must be terra. Because I am finding cooling in the SH. Must be because earth’s inner core has been moving north east.
          OTOH.
          It must be solar again as well. Magnetic stirrer effect.

          • Vuk
            My point is: how would earth’s inner core decide to start to move [north east, much faster in the past century]
            unless it gets some instruction from the sun?
            ‘… the magnetic stirrer effect…?
            Did you think about this?

          • Hi Henry
            Not really, if I did I might get a nervous breakdown, neither I am
            partcularly convinced in any of it, but if it is in the data then either there is something to it or data is wrong; natural events follow laws of cause and consequence, while a coincidence is human inability to comprehend the nature’s intricacies, more often lately I hear another cop out called ‘chaos theory’.

          • Vuk

            the inner core of earth consists of hot molten iron that turns around
            come down 1 or 2 km down into a gold mine here and meet the elephant in the room…
            see the sweat on our faces and begin to think.

            Its course must be directed also by the sun = irrespective of its variance in irradiance =

            this is the magnetic stirrer effect.

            You never heard of this? In the labs I worked we used a magnetic stirrer to stir a solution in the flask by turning around a big magnet below …

      • The Vikings visited North America. That doesn’t mean that they discovered it. Discovering implies realizing what you have done and communicating it to somebody else. Vikings visit to North America was worthless to the rest of humankind, and it was inconsequential. For the same token we could say that America was discovered in the Late Pleistocene by Beringian hunters. Vikings were certainly not the firsts there.

        And Columbus was a Genoese working for the Castilian Crown. Portugal was not involved in the discovery of America. I hope you get your climate facts a little bit righter than your history facts.

        • Javier

          ja, no, true enough. I hated history. Thanks for making it all clear to us. The point however was that history seems to support a ca. 1000 year cycle, as claimed.

    • Javier. I’m sorry – as the post says “The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small.Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. ” Your Figure shows three peaks over 200 years 1760 -1960 with the data running back only to 1700.At least try retrofitting it back another hundred hundred years to 1600 as in the Lean Figure above.The empirical temperature data is clear. The previous millennial cycle temperature peak was at about 990. ( see Fig 3 in the link above)

      • Norman, I have studied the millennial cycle all the way back to 11,300 BP when it caused the Pre-Boreal oscillation.

        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/figure-82.png

        The cycle has ~ 980 years and it has repeated 11 times over the Holocene. Between 4500 and 1500 BP it had little power and it is not well registered in cosmogenic and climate records. That is what allowed the Roman Warm Period to be so long.

        For your information, a millennial cycle implies ~ 400 years warm periods. The low of the millennial cycle was ~ 500 years ago during the Sporer minimum, the climatic low had a certain delay. So the warm period started around 1850-1900 and has at least 200 more years to run, so don’t get overboard with your cooling predictions. Climate is going to be cozy for a couple more centuries. Whatever cooling that happens in the meantime is going to be transient and modest, except humans are such whiners.

  19. Dr. Svalgaard:
    “there is no power at a 1000-yr period during the last 9000 years.”
    Javier:
    “Of course there is. Steihilber et al., 2013 found it very clearly…”

    What Seinhibler found is the influence of the Earth’s magnetic field and its effect on the climate / precipitation as shown in his data analysis of Dongge cave in China.
    btw The Earth’s field influence is by far greater than that of the solar fiekd.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Stein-Vuk.htm

  20. Dr. Leif Svalgaard is a great Historian.
    If the low Solar Activity does cause climate cooling, Dr. Svalgaard will be sure to claim that he predicted it.
    If the low Solar Activity does not cause climate cooling, Dr. Svalgaard will be sure to claim that he predicted it.

  21. Until someone can accurately predict the moment a spinning top makes that 30 degree deflection before coming upright again…. well, I’ll just watch.

  22. Vuk

    I am not sure you are getting my point
    and also why we are really having so many solar cycles

    the most likely causes:
    a) difference in irradiance coming from the sun {change of the gravity centre, planets positions, etc]
    b) change in the position of the magnetic centre of the sun / that is time related – which would automatically re-align earth’s magnetic centre
    …the magnetic stirrer effect….

  23. The Western Arctic freezes quickly, which is a bad sign for America, because it means the shift of the stratospheric polar vortex above the eastern Arctic.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00973/zmxxv1mc2col.png
    The distribution of ozone at the level of 30 hPa shows circulation in the stratospheric polar vortex.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00973/v7k3nx8x4kgl.png
    The air flows from Siberia over the western Arctic to northern Canada.
    For comparison, circulation in the middle stratosphere in December 2017.
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00973/onx0x3aehcdb.png
    This is the pattern of winter circulation over North America.

  24. Now, this is the TSI in action:
    Mysterious interstellar asteroid ‘Oumuamua could be a giant solar sail ‘sent from another civilization to look for signs of life,’ claim astronomers
    (They must have a mighty strong sun outhere to send sale through interstellar space)

    Astronomers from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) analyzed the strange cigar shape of the object, and an unexpected boost in speed and shift in trajectory as it passed through the inner solar system last year. They concluded that the strange asteroid ‘might be a lightsail of artificial origin.’
    (no need to say anything more is there?, oh yes it is, but let the DM the bastion of unquestionable scientific provenance speak
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6347379/Interstellar-asteroid-Oumuamua-giant-solar-sail-sent-civilization.html)

  25. I looked for a “millennial turning point”. According to the head post:

    The recent temperature Millennial Turning Point was about 2003/4 ( Fig 4 in link below )

    Here’s Figure 4 from the link


    CAPTION:
    Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)

    Wait, what?

    First off, claiming that a graph that starts in 1980 shows a “millenial” turning point makes no sense at all.

    Second, why doesn’t the right-hand trend line go to the end of the data?

    Finally, here’s his prediction of upcoming cooling from his paper, a prediction made in 2007:

    I was curious about that, so I digitized it and compared it to the actual GISS LOTI temperature anomaly. Here’s that result:

    Well … there’s your “Millennial Turning Point about 2003/4” … the only problem is, reality didn’t get the memo.

    I’m sorry, but Dr. Page’s lovely theory has run aground on a reef of hard facts …

    w.

      • Thanks, Dr. Page. I assumed that the prediction was made in 2007 because that is the limit of the “observational data” in your graphic above.

        If you made the prediction after 2007, why did the observational data end in 2007?

        In any case, regardless of when it was made, it most definitely has not been a good prediction, as shown above.

        Best regards,

        w.

        • Willis. The intent of this Guest Opinion was to draw attention to Firmi’s wise approach to analyzing scientific problems with multiple interacting variables he said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. In other words you need first to make sure your possible solutions are in the ball park. I adapted the Akasofu paper to show the conceptual difference in forecasting trends when the Millennial Turning Point is ignored.
          The paper says:
          “Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed”
          The green curve is not meant to have great precision. In the real world we do not know enough to calculate short term outcomes – look at Leif’s attempts to forecast the amplitude of the next solar cycle. He thinks that when this solar cycle bottoms out he can successfully estimate the amplitude of the next cycle – about 6 years ahead.Currently the cooling trend has been interrupted by an unanticipated El Nino as explained in the text accompanying Fig 4.(You might want to read the whole paper before commenting)
          The post says “The empirical temperature data is clear. The previous millennial cycle temperature peak was at about 990. ( see Fig 3 in the link below) The recent temperature Millennial Turning Point was about 2003/4 ( Fig 4 in link below ) which correlates with the solar millennial activity peak at 1991+/. The cycle is asymmetric with a 650 year +/- down-leg and a 350 +/- year up-leg. The suns magnetic field strength as reflected in its TSI will generally decline (modulated by other shorter term super-imposed solar activity cycles) until about 2650.
          The temperature increase since about 1650 is clearly chiefly due to the up- leg in the natural solar activity millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD Fig 5” I believe the evidence presented for these statements here and in the paper is strong.
          I’m pleased that you think I have a “lovely theory ” Maybe you can agree that it is more plausible than the consensus nonsense.
          PS I think you’ve cracked it with your time of day of cloud formation in the tropics as the planetary temperature safety valve. (if I understand you correctly)

          • Norman
            note that my calculation on Tmax global (54 weather stations/ balanced to zero latitude)
            -which is a good proxy for incoming energy-

            puts the solar output at maximum `1994′

            My results on Tmin global seems to go over the line at exactly the new millennium,
            more or less.

            Don’t put too much trust in the terra data [biased towards the NH] and the SATs [probes cannot really withstand the solar irradiation without atmosphere]

            Anyone else here: do not make a mistake. All signs are there that it is globally cooling and it [climate change] plays out exactly as I thought it would.

            Click on my name if you would like to read my final report.

            Best wishes

            Henry

          • No, I am reminding you that there is no 88-yr cycle in recent solar activity.
            Until you realise [and acknowledge] that there can be no reasonable discussion of any kind.

          • Dr Norman Page November 4, 2018 at 10:53 am

            Willis. The intent of this Guest Opinion was to draw attention to Firmi’s wise approach to analyzing scientific problems with multiple interacting variables he said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. In other words you need first to make sure your possible solutions are in the ball park.

            and

            The green curve is not meant to have great precision.

            and

            The post says “The empirical temperature data is clear. The previous millennial cycle temperature peak was at about 990. ( see Fig 3 in the link below) The recent temperature Millennial Turning Point was about 2003/4 ( Fig 4 in link below ) which correlates with the solar millennial activity peak at 1991+/.

            Dr. Page, several points. First, I have no idea what Fermi’s quote has to do with your hypothesis or your results.

            Next, as my graph shows, your possible solution is NOT “in the ballpark”. Here’s your prediction starting from 2007 versus the reality. Your prediction is the red line, the reality is the yellow line.

            That’s not only not in the ballpark, it’s not in the same country.

            You say that the Millenial Turning Point was in 2003 – 2004. And your prediction shows just that … but your prediction failed miserably. It wasn’t slightly right. It wasn’t kinda correct. It wasn’t “more accurate than absolutely necessary”.

            It was 100% totally wrong.

            Despite that, you continue to push the same beautiful theory … at this point, you’ve done the experiment, which has disagreed with your theory, and you need to follow the wise advice of Richard Feynman, viz:

            It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

            Best regards,

            w.

      • Willis You say “First, I have no idea what Fermi’s quote has to do with your hypothesis or your results” This is obvious from your reply . I repeat “The green curve is not meant to have great precision. In the real world we do not know enough to calculate short term outcomes – look at Leif’s attempts to forecast the amplitude of the next solar cycle. He thinks that when this solar cycle bottoms out he can successfully estimate the amplitude of the next cycle – about 6 years ahead. Currently the cooling trend has been interrupted by an unanticipated El Nino as explained in the text accompanying Fig 4.(You might want to read the whole paper before commenting)”
        When ,or if ,you figure out the relationship between the Fermi quote and the paper as a whole you will understand that your statements re the significance of the Red line ( That’s not only not in the ballpark, it’s not in the same country.You say that the Millenial Turning Point was in 2003 – 2004. And your prediction shows just that … but your prediction failed miserably. It wasn’t slightly right. It wasn’t kinda correct. It wasn’t “more accurate than absolutely necessary”.
        It was 100% totally wrong. ) are not relevant. They are founded on a basic error in scientific judgement – the sample size is too small.
        Best Regards Norman

        • You said:
          In the real world we do not know enough to calculate short term outcomes – look at Leif’s attempts to forecast the amplitude of the next solar cycle. He thinks that when this solar cycle bottoms out he can successfully estimate the amplitude of the next cycle – about 6 years ahead.

          The difference between what you do and what I do is that if one knows [or understands] the basic physics behind a phenomenon [as we do for the sunspot cycle, at least in broad terms] then prediction is indeed possible even without centuries of past data. Without that, prediction is just guesswork or wishful thinking.
          Even if the physics is wrong it can still be useful for prediction, e.g. the ancients’ idea of the sun god traveling in his carriage behind mountains in the north to re-emerge in the morning. One must have a mechanism [even if wrong] in order to make successful forecasts. You have no such thing and hence cannot make a reliable forcast.

        • Dr Norman Page November 4, 2018 at 5:44 pm

          Willis You say “First, I have no idea what Fermi’s quote has to do with your hypothesis or your results” This is obvious from your reply . I repeat “The green curve is not meant to have great precision. In the real world we do not know enough to calculate short term outcomes.

          I’m not expecting it to have “great precision”. I am expecting it to have the right sign (increasing as reality did, not decreasing as your theory claims it would do). It is not lacking precision—it is laughably and totally wrong.

          You continue

          … your statements re the significance of the Red line

          (You say that the Millenial Turning Point was in 2003 – 2004. And your prediction shows just that … but your prediction failed miserably. It wasn’t slightly right. It wasn’t kinda correct. It wasn’t “more accurate than absolutely necessary”.

          It was 100% totally wrong. )

          are not relevant. They are founded on a basic error in scientific judgement – the sample size is too small.

          I don’t understand. Your excuses for the total failure of your prediction shown in your graph are that the prediction is “not meant to have great precision”, and “we do not know how to calculate short term outcomes”, and “the sample size is too small” … but if so, then why on earth did you make a prediction?

          I’m sorry, Dr. Page, but knowing all of that, you still made the prediction. And I’m quite sure that if temperatures had fallen as you predicted, we’d never hear the end of your theory. You’d be crowing about how good your prediction was until it was coming out of our ears.

          But since the temperatures didn’t do what you predicted, now you have one excuse after another after another as to why you couldn’t even get the sign right, much less the amplitude …

          Let me suggest that if you are not going to stand behind your predictions, that you don’t make them in the first place. That way you can avoid the humiliation of having to come up with a list of bogus excuses when your predictions crash and burn …

          w.

        • Leif. The Post above says
          ” This Lean figure shows an increase in TSI of about 2 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak . This TSI and solar magnetic field variation modulates the earths albedo via the GR flux and cloud cover. From the difference between the upper and lower quintiles of Fig 4 (in link below) a handy rule of thumb a la Fermi would conveniently equate this to a Northern Hemisphere temperature millennial cycle amplitude of about 2 degrees C with that amount of cooling probable by 2,650+/-.The MTP in cloud cover was at about 2000.” This describes and even quantifies my mechanism . What is your mechanism – I’ll be happy if you use only “broad terms”

  26. “Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity MTP and the varying climate metrics. The temperature peak is about 2003/4 – lag is about 12 years.”

    There is no such delay. From the mid 1990’s declining solar wind temperature/pressure has driven a warm AMO phase via negative North Atlantic Oscillation states, which has driven the decline in low cloud cover. The GCR postulate is backwards as low cloud cover has declined in the same time frame as GCR’s have increased. North Atlantic and Arctic ocean warming is normal during a solar minimum. It was in its warm phase during the late 1800’s Gleissberg solar minimum, and must have also been during the Dalton minimum for British naval ships to have reported great loss of sea ice 1815-1817.

    SST’s off SE Greenland:
    https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-13246-x/MediaObjects/41598_2017_13246_Fig2_HTML.jpg

  27. Dr. Page may have been a little too quick in including economist William Nordhaus in this statement:
    “The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement.”

    Nordhaus rigorously used IPCC numbers to calculate cost of achieving certain CO2 production reduction scenarios and compared them to the speculated costs of global temperature increases. His conclusion was that the costs of foregone GDP increases, or indeed of GDP reductions, necessary to achieve the modelled temperature limits were far greater than the cost of the presumed climate change consequences.
    Tom Woods and Robert Murphy have a great podcast on this:
    https://contrakrugman.com/ep-160-climate-change-alarmists-prematurely-cheer-new-nobel-winner/

    • Nordhaus’ analysis says “The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is based on the analysis of Olsen et al. (2012). The reasons for using this approach are provided in Gillingham et al. (2015). The final estimate is mean warming of 3.1 °C for an equilibrium CO2 doubling. The transient climate sensitivity or TCS (sometimes called the transient climate response) is adjusted to correspond to models with an ECS of 3.1 °:C, which produces a TCS of 1.7 °C.” Here is what the linked paper says re climate sensitivity :
      “The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4): “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
      What could be clearer? The IPCC itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5): “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures.

      • The point of the Woods/Murphy podcast was that, using the IPCC’s own numbers, Nordhaus concludes that limiting AGW to 2C will be more costly than living with the (purported) consequences of doing nothing. Nordhaus is an economist, he is examining the economic implications of scenarios provided by others, not critically examining the premises themselves. Like so much of the rest of the population, he appears to accept the ‘science’ from what he considers authoritative sources. You and I know that this ‘science’ is compromised.

  28. Must be really frustrating that the 70,000 publishing climate scientists producing 60,000 papers a year, science endorsed by the Royal Society, National Academy of Scientists, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Statistical Association etc etc etc, can’t be persuaded that it is the bloggers on here that are the real experts – who should be advising the governments of the world – not them.

    • Stephanie, please provide a cite showing that there are “70,000 publishing climate scientists”. I don’t believe that number for one moment.

      Next, your claim that there are “60,000 paper a year” published about climate science is equally bogus. See here for real numbers.

      Next, you are making the consensus argument. Richard Feynmann famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” … but nooo, Stephanie believes them.

      Next, the endorsements of the various societies are NOT what you think they are. They are statements made by a few members and have NOT been voted upon or approved by the membership. They are political statements, not scientific statements. You seem to think that science is decided by votes, but it’s not … and even then you’re miscounting the votes.

      For a clear view of the foolishness of the consensus argument, see here.

      Best regards,

      w.

      • Anthropenic Global Warming is a comprehensive and coherent explanation based on many lines of evidence (consilience) that has widespread acceptance (consensus) with no competing theory.

        It’s exactly the science that goes into the textbooks, such as these two from Cambridge University Press. Andrew Dessler: Introduction to Modern Climate Change. John Houghton: Global Warming the complete briefing.

        It’s perhaps the most scrutinised science ever. You think the learned scientific societies would lay their reputations on the line unless they were very sure the evidence was overwhelming and the science likely irrefutable…

        Based on nothing but fear and wishful thinking.

        • I got intrigued by your name so looked up someone with the same name on twitter, some good comments there.
          You entered into a non-consensus domain at your intellectual peril.
          You say ‘it’s most scrutinized science ever’ that may be right, but it doesn’t make it right.

        • Dear Stephany,
          Unfortunately Global Warming is a textbook example of how bad our science became.
          It is no longer possible to discuss a scientific hypothesis, the argument of authority is thrown immediately at the opponent followed by insults.
          Nothing about the science itself.
          What you do here is trolling on a thread that should be talking about the solar hypothesis. Do you have any arguments that invalidate anything that has been posted? Or supporting arguments?
          No, you just ran your chicken little, “the sky is falling” story. Off topic, but on message.
          Much ado about nothing.
          But when one goes to real data all the alarmism is easily debunked:
          UAH shows +0.22°C for 40 years. Nothing unusual, within normal variances. The Earth has seen much more dramatic changes contrary to what alarmists say.
          The polar ice is melting…. screams the alarmist. We can row to the North Pole!
          Funny, look at what happened to the rowers, there were some funny posts about those people here on WUWT.
          On the other hand, satellites show +20% greening in 30+ years. A fact that alarmist like yourself try to hide, denigrate, contest. So much for your science loving arguments.
          How much more food did increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 410 ppm result in?
          This is a question that alarmist avoid to answer. Let me hear your answer? But maybe no, I should not feed the trolls…

    • What are you worried about Steph?
      I bet it’s you that’s frustrated.
      Your lefty socialist World will not prevail.
      But I think you increasingly know that and that’s why you’ve been having a peek here!
      Another climate talkfest is due soon, then another and another and what do they achieve; well nothing really.
      So it’s you that has the problem Steph, not us!

  29. It is a profound error to imagine the climate to be passive, only changing in response to external “forcing”.

    Whether the forcing-de-jour is CO2 or solar variability, the error is the same.

    Even the word “forcing” is rich in ignorance. It implies heaving with difficulty, against resistance, an object reluctant to move.

    Climate changes by itself. There is plenty of internal nonlinear oscillatory dynamic to propel centuries and millennia of climate change even with constant solar input.

    Solar variability can entrain ocean driven climate change as it does – with a 6500 year delay – with obliquity driven Milankovitch glacial-interglacial pacing. Solar variability can entrain internal oscillation. But the relationship between periodic forcing frequency and the emergent responsive frequency of the system is not simple.

    This was the main point of Richard Lindzen’s recent climate lecture: climate is deeply complex and changes by itself by chaotic redistribution of internal energy.

    But ignore all this, expect every climate wiggle to have direct astrophysical or magnetic forcing (or CO2 / particulate forcing) and you commit yourself to and endless, fruitless and pointless search for epicycles.

  30. Stephanie Hawking November 4, 2018 at 11:59 am

    Anthropenic Global Warming is a comprehensive and coherent explanation based on many lines of evidence (consilience) that has widespread acceptance (consensus) with no competing theory.

    Actually, I’ve put forward a competing theory which is slowly gaining acceptance. This is the theory that the earth’s temperature is NOT a linear function of forcing. Instead, it is thermally regulated by a variety of emergent phenomena. See below for a host of evidence that my theory is correct.

    Also, if the current paradigm that change in temperature = climate sensitivity times forcing were actually correct, over the last fifty years we’d expect to see a narrowing of the possible values of climate sensitivity. We’ve not seen that, despite hundreds of thousands of hours studying the question … you do the math.

    Best regards,

    w.

    The Thermostat Hypothesis 2009-06-14

    Abstract: The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at a equilibrium temperature.

    Which way to the feedback? 2010-12-11

    There is an interesting new study by Lauer et al. entitled “The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study” [hereinafter Lauer10]. Anthony Watts has discussed some early issues with the paper here. The Lauer10 study has been controversial because it found that…

    The Details Are In The Devil 2010-12-13

    I love thought experiments. They allow us to understand complex systems that don’t fit into the laboratory. They have been an invaluable tool in the scientific inventory for centuries. Here’s my thought experiment for today. Imagine a room. In a room dirt collects, as you might imagine. In my household…

    Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis 2011-06-07

    For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.). This is the idea that cumulus clouds and thunderstorms combine to cap the rise of tropical temperatures. In particular, thunderstorms are able to drive…

    It’s Not About Feedback 2011-08-14

    The current climate paradigm believed by most scientists in the field can be likened to the movement of balls on a pool table. Figure 1. Pool balls on a level table. Response is directly proportional to applied force (double the force, double the distance). There are no “preferred” positions—every position…

    Estimating Cloud Feedback From Observations 2011-10-08

    I had an idea a couple days ago about how to estimate cloud feedback from observations, and it appears to have panned out well. You tell me. Figure 1. Month-to-month change in 5° gridcell actual temperature ∆T, versus gridcell change in net cloud forcing ∆F. Curved green lines are for…

    A Longer Look at Climate Sensitivity 2012-05-31

    After I published my previous post, “An Observational Estimate of Climate Sensitivity“, a number of people objected that I was just looking at the average annual cycle. On a time scale of decades, they said, things are very different, and the climate sensitivity is much larger. So I decided to…

    Sun and Clouds are Sufficient 2012-06-04

    In my previous post, A Longer Look at Climate Sensitivity, I showed that the match between lagged net sunshine (the solar energy remaining after albedo reflections) and the observational temperature record is quite good. However, there was still a discrepancy between the trends, with the observational trends being slightly larger…

    Forcing or Feedback? 2012-06-07

    I read a Reviewer’s Comment on one of Richard Lindzen’s papers today, a paper about the tropics from 20°N to 20°S, and I came across this curiosity (emphasis mine): Lastly, the authors go through convoluted arguments between forcing and feed backs. For the authors’ analyses to be valid, clouds should…

    Observations on TOA Forcing vs Temperature 2012-06-12

    I recently wrote three posts (first, second, and third), regarding climate sensitivity. I wanted to compare my results to another dataset. Continued digging has led me to the CERES monthly global albedo dataset from the Terra satellite. It’s an outstanding set, in that it contains downwelling solar (shortwave) radiation (DSR), upwelling solar radiation (USR), and most…

    A Demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity 2012-06-19

    Well, after my brief digression to some other topics, I’ve finally been able to get back to the reason that I got the CERES albedo and radiation data in the first place. This was to look at the relationship between the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance and the surface…

    The Tao of El Nino 2013-01-28

    I was wandering through the graphics section of the TAO buoy data this evening. I noted that they have an outstanding animation of the most recent sixty months of tropical sea temperatures and surface heights. Go to their graphics page, click on “Animation”. Then click on “Animate”. When the new…

    Emergent Climate Phenomena 2013-02-07

    In a recent post, I described how the El Nino/La Nina alteration operates as a giant pump. Whenever the Pacific Ocean gets too warm across its surface, the Nino/Nina pump kicks in and removes the warm water from the Pacific, pumping it first west and thence poleward. I also wrote…

    Slow Drift in Thermoregulated Emergent Systems 2013-02-08

    In my last post, “Emergent Climate Phenomena“, I gave a different paradigm for the climate. The current paradigm is that climate is a system in which temperature slavishly follows the changes in inputs. Under my paradigm, on the other hand, natural thermoregulatory systems constrain the temperature to vary within a…

    Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet 2013-03-11

    I’ve mentioned before that a thunderstorm functions as a natural refrigeration system. I’d like to explain in a bit more detail what I mean by that. However, let me start by explaining my credentials as regards my knowledge of refrigeration. The simplest explanation of my refrigeration credentials is that I…

    Dehumidifying the Tropics 2013-04-21

    I once had the good fortune to fly over an amazing spectacle, where I saw all of the various stages of emergent phenomena involving thunderstorms. It happened on a flight over the Coral Sea from the Solomon Islands, which are near the Equator, south to Brisbane. Brisbane is at 27°…

    Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind 2013-06-08

    The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate…

    Stalking the Rogue Hotspot 2013-08-21

    [I’m making this excellent essay a top sticky post for a day or two, I urge sharing it far and wide. New stories will appear below this one. – Anthony] Dr. Kevin Trenberth is a mainstream climate scientist, best known for inadvertently telling the world the truth about the parlous…

    The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine 2013-12-21

    I’ve been reflecting over the last few days about how the climate system of the earth functions as a giant natural heat engine. A “heat engine”, whether natural or man-made, is a mechanism that converts heat into mechanical energy of some kind. In the case of the climate system, the…

    The Thermostatic Throttle 2013-12-28

    I have theorized that the reflective nature of the tropical clouds, in particular those of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) just above the equator, functions as the “throttle” on the global climate engine. We’re all familiar with what a throttle does, because the gas pedal on your car controls the…

    On The Stability and Symmetry Of The Climate System 2014-01-06

    The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is…

    Dust In My Eyes 2014-02-13

    I was thinking about “dust devils”, the little whirlwinds of dust that you see on a hot day, and they reminded me that we get dulled by familiarity with the wonders of our planet. Suppose, for example, you that “back in the olden days” your family lived for generations in…

    The Power Stroke 2014-02-27

    I got to thinking about the well-known correlation of El Ninos and global temperature. I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific, but I’d never looked at the actual physical

    Arctic Albedo Variations 2014-12-17

    Anthony has just posted the results from a “Press Session” at the AGU conference. In it the authors make two claims of interest. The first is that there has been a five percent decrease in the summer Arctic albedo since the year 2000: A decline in the region’s albedo –…

    Albedic Meanderings 2015-06-03

    I’ve been considering the nature of the relationship between the albedo and temperature. I have hypothesized elsewhere that variations in tropical cloud albedo are one of the main mechanisms that maintain the global surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. within ± 0.3°C during the entire 20th Century). To…

    An Inherently Stable System 2015-06-04

    At the end of my last post , I said that the climate seems to be an inherently stable system. The graphic below shows ~2,000 climate simulations run by climateprediction.net. Unlike the other modelers, whose failures end up on the cutting room floor, they’ve shown all of the runs ……

    The Daily Albedo Cycle 2015-06-08

    I discussed the role of tropical albedo in regulating the temperature in two previous posts entitled Albedic Meanderings and An Inherently Stable System. This post builds on that foundation. I said in the latter post that I would discuss the diurnal changes in tropical cloud albedo. For this I use…

    Problems With Analyzing Governed Systems 2015-08-02

    I’ve been ruminating on the continuing misunderstanding of my position that a governor is fundamentally different from simple feedback. People say things like “A governor is just a kind of feedback”. Well, yes, that’s true, and it is also true that a human being is “just…

    Cooling And Warming Clouds And Thunderstorms 2015-08-18

    Following up on a suggestion made to me by one of my long-time scientific heroes, Dr. Fred Singer, I’ve been looking at the rainfall dataset from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite. Here’s s the TRMM average rainfall data for the entire mission to d…

    Tropical Evaporative Cooling 2015-11-11

    I’ve been looking again into the satellite rainfall measurements from the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM). I discussed my first look at this rainfall data in a post called Cooling and Warming, Clouds and Thunderstorms. There I showed that the cooling from th…

    How Thunderstorms Beat The Heat 2016-01-08

    I got to thinking again about the thunderstorms, and how much heat they remove from the surface by means of evaporation. We have good data on this from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellites. Here is the distribution and strength of rainfall, and thus …

      • Ralph, ROTFLMFAO, not a single comment on any of the actual ideas, just an attack on where they were published. If I’d written them on a blackboard, you’d attack the blackboard.

        Next, anyone depending on peer review is an idiot … if you want a system to squelch new interesting ideas, peer review is perfect. Peer review is meaningless.

        Finally, you link to Dr. Roy’s comments, but not my reply … biased much?

        w.

        • Don’t care about your reply to Spencer. He’s a climatologist, and you are an amateur. Recycling previously published ideas because you are not familiar with previous (prior) work is the sign of a bumbling amateur. Furthermore, if you want your ideas seriously considered, you have to get away from publishing them on a blog.

        • “Next, anyone depending on peer review is an idiot”

          Typical response from someone that can’t pass peer review. What the matter? You always seem to boast about your peer reviewed comment that was published in Communications Arising…..now you diss it?

        • Ralph Dave Westfall November 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm

          Don’t care about your reply to Spencer. … Recycling previously published ideas because you are not familiar with previous (prior) work is the sign of a bumbling amateur.

          Dave, point me one idea that I’ve “recycled”. Dr. Roy is a long time scientific hero of mine, but in his claims about my ideas he was just plain wrong. He claimed that I had not acknowledged Ramanathan, but he didn’t do his homework—I had indeed acknowledged him. He also claimed that I had recycled Ramanathan’s ideas. Not true—my ideas were completely different from those of Ramanathan. You should care about my reply to Spencer. It pointed out exactly where Dr. Spencer’s claims were incorrect … which is probably why you don’t care about it.

          Next, you rave on …

          “Next, anyone depending on peer review is an idiot”


          Typical response from someone that can’t pass peer review.

          “Can’t pass peer review”??? What are you smoking? I have 6 peer-reviewed pieces published in the scientific journals, including the Brief Communications Arising published in Nature that you mention above. That one has ten citations in the scientific literature, and in total I have about 125 citations in the journals. A search of my name on Google Scholar turns up 140 references … and a search of your name turns up … a study entitled “Does Telecommuting Really Increase Productivity?”.

          So I’m sorry, but I’ll take the opinion of the peer-reviewers at Nature and other scientific journals over your opinion as to whether my ideas regarding climate merit consideration … but I’ll get in touch if I have questions about telecommuting and productivity …

          In closing, let me note to date that all you have done is attacked me personally. You have not identified one single error in any of my work. Not one math error, not one logic error, not one data error, nothing.

          And as a result, your pathetic attempt to bite my ankles has failed …

          Come back when you want to discuss the scientific issues. I’ll be here. But let me suggest in friendship that you give up on the personal attacks. You’re destroying your own reputation, not mine …

          Regards,

          w.

          • You claim Spencer was wrong. I claim he is right, so therein lies what we disagree on.
            ..
            You can do better than reinventing the wheel.

          • Willis says: “I’ll take the opinion of the peer-reviewers at Nature”

            Willis says: “anyone depending on peer review is an idiot.”

            Does this mean you consider yourself an idiot?

          • Ralph Dave Westfall November 5, 2018 at 12:05 pm

            You claim Spencer was wrong. I claim he is right, so therein lies what we disagree on.

            Sorry, amigo, but that’s total BS.

            I have provided EVIDENCE in my post that Spencer is wrong.

            You have flapped your lips about Spencer and by all appearances you’ve been mightily impressed with the sounds coming out.

            Therein lies the difference,

            w.

          • Ralph Dave Westfall November 5, 2018 at 12:08 pm

            Willis says: “I’ll take the opinion of the peer-reviewers at Nature”

            Willis says: “anyone depending on peer review is an idiot.”


            Does this mean you consider yourself an idiot?

            Seriously? That’s your best shot? Logic fail. Go away, you’re embarrassing yourself.

            w.

          • Spencer’s assessment of you is correct. You are an amateur. You posited a “hypothesis” which was something already considered in the past. Your lack of exposure to the literature cause your failure.

            You may have lots of articles written, but all are commentary, and you have never, not once provided a new and significant insight into anything.

            And my logic is sound. You diss peer review when it rejects your work, and you praise peer review when it accepts it. That in and of itself shows your amateur status.

          • And you have a significant character flaw. When someone is critical of your work, you think it’s a personal attack on you. Your problem with Spencer is that he is right, and your oversized ego can’t deal with it.

          • Once again, Ralph is not producing a single scrap of evidence that any of my scientific claims are incorrect.

            Instead, once again he’s flapping his lips and getting impressed by the sound of his own voice.

            Ralph, come back when you want to discuss the scientific issues and give up on the ad hominem attacks, and I’m your man. Until then …

            … pass …

            w.

          • Saying Spencer is correct is not an ad hominem attack. Your response proves my prior claim, that when anything critical of you is posted, “you think it’s a personal attack on you”

          • Ralph Dave Westfall November 5, 2018 at 12:36 pm

            Saying Spencer is correct is not an ad hominem attack. Your response proves my prior claim, that when anything critical of you is posted, “you think it’s a personal attack on you”

            Are you really this stupid, or do you just play an idiot on the web?

            Dr. Roy falsely claimed that I was a plagiarist and that I did not give credit where credit was due. Saying he is correct is absolutely a personal attack, and a very untrue and ugly attack.

            w.

          • Acknowledging that Spencer is correct is not a personal attack on you. It’s a criticism of YOUR WORK.

            Again, you’re continuing to prove my point that you consider ANY criticism to be a personal attack.

          • Willis, don’t reply to this dickhead. He’s using a stolen email address and a proxy server, and several sockpuppet names.

            aka Remy Mermelstein, C. Paul Pierett, Ralph Dave Westfall.

            Right David?

    • Oh? Must have missed out the word plausible in “no competing theory”. (To AGW.)

      If the sea level rose 2m by 2050 some people would be repeating their mantra:
      A B C D Anything But Carbon Dioxide.

      • Stephanie, for the sea level to rise two metres by 2050 it would have to rise at 60 mm/year. There is no time in recorded history, including the end of the last ice age, that it has risen this fast. Do you really think it will suddenly happen? Really?

        w.

        • Willis says to Stephanie: “You really should lay off of the heavy drugs”
          ….
          Yet Willis tells me: ” give up on the ad hominem attacks”

          I suggest Willis, you practice what you preach.

        • I did NOT say the slr would be 2m. I said IF… But since you ask me to tutor you here we go:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A
          Meltwater pulse 1A (MWP1a) is the name used by Quaternary geologists, paleoclimatologists, and oceanographers for a period of rapid post-glacial sea level rise, between 13,500 and 14,700 years ago, during which global sea level rose between 16 meters (52 ft) and 25 meters (82 ft) in about 400–500 years, giving mean rates of roughly 40–60 mm (0.13–0.20 ft)/yr.[1]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1B

          • MWP1a has no relevance in an interglacial stage…

            In the first significant jump (meltwater pulse 1Ao, or MWP 1Ao), 19,600-18,800 years ago, ocean levels climbed at least 10 m within 800 years. However, not all sea level proxies register this event. A faster rise began 14,600 years ago during the comparatively mild Bølling-Allerød interstadial, accelerated about 300 years later and peaked about 13,800 years ago (meltwater pulse 1A, or MWP 1A) (Stanford et al., 2011). Sea level rose ~16 m during this event at rates of 26-53 mm/yr. Computer models that “fingerprint” spatial patterns of sea level rise attribute much of the meltwater to Antarctica. Different sources of ice melt leave geographically distinctive sea level fingerprints, because their ice unloading histories and gravitational pull between shrinking ice masses and ocean vary. On the other hand, geological data indicate significant deglaciation in Antarctica starting only toward the end of MWP 1A, which suggests that most of the meltwater originated from the breakup of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_10/

            MWP1a occurred while this was happening…

            At the end of the last Pleistocene glacial stage, there was enough ice available for melting to raise sea level by more than 10 mm/yr for nearly 10,000 years.

            There simply isn’t any physically realistic mechanism to replicate the Holocene Transgression or MWP1a during a warm interglacial stage.

            It would require the destabilization of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which hasn’t happened since at least the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum…

            Neogene T High Latitude SST (°C) From Benthic Foram δ18O (Zachos, et al., 2001) and HadSST3 ( Hadley Centre / UEA CRU via http://www.woodfortrees.org) plotted at same scale, tied at 1950 AD.

            Possibly not since the Late Eocene…

  31. Willis it looks like Dr Roy didn’t challenge you; too funny!
    Fancy Dr Roy coming on here (primarily a citizen blog) to lecture you of all people.
    Ralph and Steph are equally foolish but somehow worse as they clearly don’t have the ability to generate original thought (they’re parrots).
    Keep up the good work Willis and know your detractors are one of the following:
    Jealous.
    Academic snobs.
    Profession ‘protectors’.
    Socialist ideologues.
    Left-wing sponsored attack dogs.

  32. Leif re your 6:02pm comment. The Post above says
    ” This Lean figure shows an increase in TSI of about 2 W/m2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak . This TSI and solar magnetic field variation modulates the earths albedo via the GR flux and cloud cover. From the difference between the upper and lower quintiles of Fig 4 (in link below) a handy rule of thumb a la Fermi would conveniently equate this to a Northern Hemisphere temperature millennial cycle amplitude of about 2 degrees C with that amount of cooling probable by 2,650+/-.The MTP in cloud cover was at about 2000.” This describes and even quantifies my mechanism . What is your mechanism – I’ll be happy if you use only “broad terms”

      • Leif The wiki link states
        “During the solar cycle’s declining phase, energy shifts from the internal toroidal magnetic field to the external poloidal field, and sunspots diminish in number. At solar minimum, the toroidal field is, correspondingly, at minimum strength, sunspots are relatively rare and the poloidal field is at maximum strength. During the next cycle, differential rotation converts magnetic energy back from the poloidal to the toroidal field, with a polarity that is opposite to the previous cycle. The process carries on continuously, and in an idealized, simplified scenario, each 11-year sunspot cycle corresponds to a change in the polarity of the Sun’s large-scale magnetic field”
        This is certainly compatible with and incorporated in my mechanism in the term “solar magnetic field variation modulates ……”. As to the first link the paper says :”We would like to argue that they figured out the correct physics partially, but not fully.Their success in predicting cycle 24 was due to a combination of intuition and luck”.
        As to the 1000 year cycle, I note that you are not denying its existence just asking for its cause.
        Here is a clue from a previous comment
        “Great post Vuk. I hope all readers check it out to see the millennial cycle. I estimate that the periodicity drifts between 960 and 1020 years ie between 16 and 17 Jupiter/Saturn Lap cycles+/- The last millennial temperature cycle ran from 990 – 2004 ie 1014 years. I didn’t start with the astronomical cycles they just pop out of the temperature and solar activity data.”
        Also check http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Stein-Vuk.htm

        • As to the 1000 year cycle, I note that you are not denying its existence just asking for its cause.
          I do deny its existence in the sense that it has no mechanism for its generation and therefore cannot be used for prediction as there is no reason for it continuing into the future.

          Their success in predicting cycle 24 was due to a combination of intuition and luck
          No, is was due to understanding the physics and using it to also successfully explain the last six cycles.

        • Their success in predicting cycle 24 was due to a combination of intuition and luck
          Actually this is what it said:
          “In order to model actual cycles, one needs to incorporate the actual fluctuations in the BL mechanism into the code. Choudhuri et al. (2007) devised a scheme of figuring out actual fluctuations of the BL mechanism from the observational data of the poloidal fields and then incorporating these in the dynamo code. Since such data are available only from the 1970s, actual cycles could be modelled only from that time. Choudhuri
          et al. (2007) succeeded in modelling cycles 21–23 reasonably well and cycle 24 was predicted to be a weak cycle. Their prediction of cycle 24 was a robust prediction, since they had incorporated the weakness of the polar field at the beginning of cycle 24 in their model and the high diffusivity of their model would make this correlated with the strength of cycle 24. As we have already pointed out, this prediction has been borne out triumphantly—making this the first successful prediction of a solar cycle based on a theoretical dynamo model in the history of this subject.”

  33. Leif
    you said there is no evidence for a 87 year cycle Gleissberg in the solar data
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/02/the-millennial-turning-point-solar-activity-and-the-coming-cooling/#comment-2509681
    As before, it seems you are stuck on SSN.

    yet, I have repeatedly responded by saying that I can see the last GB half cycle in the recent data on the sun’s solar polar magnetic field strengths, namely from 1971 to 2014;
    any good mathematician can see that you can draw the 2 binomials (parabola / hyperbola) that represent the average field strengths, from the 2 last Hale cycles that ran from 1971 – 2014

    You honestly cannot agree with me on that?

    • for those interested,
      obviously all planets arrived in time and we did make the switch to the new GB cycle – or the new half cycle – if you so wish –
      meaning there is no extended solar minimum.
      It makes it all fairly easy to predict the strengths of the next few solar cycles.

      • obviously all planets arrived in time
        The planets have nothing to do with solar activity:
        https://leif.org/research/aa22879-13-No-Planetary-Influence.pdf
        “If the hypothesis of Abreu et al. is correct, it should be possible to find the same periodicities in the records of cosmogenic nuclides at earlier times [actually: all]. As mentioned above, 10Be in ice cores can be measured over several hundred thousand years in the past. We look here at the record of 10Be in the EPICA (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica) Dome C (EDC) ice core from Antarctica during the Marine Interglacial Stage 9.3 (MIS 9.3), 325–336 kyr ago. This record is part of a data setbetween 269–355 kyr that was produced (Cauquoin 2013) in the framework of a project to measure a continuous high-resolution profile in the EDC core over the past 800 kyr. ther data from this project are being published separately. The resolution of our measurements between 325–336 kyr (20–29 yr) is comparable to that (resampled at 22 yr) used by Abreu et al. (2012), and allows us to investigate all five of the periodicities cited by them….
        In Fig. 3 [below] we show the same procedures applied to our 10Be flux for the period 325–336 kyr. For the Fourier spectrum, we find only one highly significant (greater then 99%) peak having the same periodicity (104 years) cited by Abreu et al. (2012). There is also a modestly significant peak (∼95%) at 150 years. The other frequencies cited by Abreu et al. (2012), at 88, 208, and 506 years, all have a significance of less than 95%, and appear consistent with red noise. The most significant periodicity in our record is at 130 years. Interestingly, a 130 year periodicity is also seen in the Fourier spectrum of Abreu et al., but not in the spectrum of the planetary torque. While the wavelet spectrum shows isolated periodicities at ∼500 and 1000 years, they are only about one cycle long, and therefore not considered significant.”
        https://leif.org/research/No-Planetary-Influence.png

    • As before, it seems you are stuck on SSN.
      No, the SSN is just the metric. If you would take the rouble to read my paper you would see that all our solar data [incl. cosmic ray data] agree with each other and show that there has not been an 88-yr cycle in recent centuries.

      I can see the last GB half cycle in the recent data on the sun’s solar polar magnetic field strengths
      That does not show tha there actually is such a cycle repeating through centuries. All you see is a 44-yr segment, from which you cannot honest deduce the existence of a persitent 88-yr cycle.

      • Leif
        My own data on Tmin and Tmax confirm the last 43 or 44 year segment. In addition there are papers that I can quote that extend the data to previous times, before they started with the CO2 nonsense. But, as we said to each other before: You believe in your figures and I will believe in my mine. That is science. Let us therefore agree to disagree. I find there is definitely correlation between what happens on the sun and the planets’ position. I am just not yet sure if it is caused by or cause to the varying degrees of solar activity.
        I wonder how Vuk and Javier think about that?

        Otherwise, I think I am quite happy with my final report.

        [click on my name to read it]

  34. Leif
    My own data on Tmin and Tmax confirm the last 43 or 44 year segment. In addition there are papers that I can quote that extend the data to previous times, before they started with the CO2 nonsense. But, as we said to each other before: You believe in your figures and I will believe in my mine. That is science. Let us therefore agree to disagree. I find there is definitely correlation between what happens on the sun and the planets’ position. I am just not yet sure if it is caused by or cause to the varying degrees of solar activity.
    I wonder how Vuk and Javier think about that?

    Otherwise, I think I am quite happy with my final report.

    [click on my name to read it]

      • Must add
        I don’t think TSI changes all that much over solar maxima and minima.
        What [I think] actually happens during a period of declining solar polar magnetic field strengths, is that the chi square distribution shifts a bit to the left, but the area [energy] beneath the curve stays more or less the same.
        so
        more of the lower wavelength particles are released => luckily we have an atmosphere who converts this type of very harmful radiation to ozone, peroxide and N-oxides.
        Hence: don’t go to Mars until you have created a reasonable earthlike atmosphere…

        Anyway, the extra ozone, peroxide and N-oxides blocks some of the incoming UV radiation and that means less warmth going into the oceans [mostly]

        hence, you will have some global cooling during a period of declining solar magnetic field strengths.
        Always keep an eye on SST!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *