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.
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

211 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 2, 2018 9:04 pm

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.

DonG
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 9:35 pm

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?

Reply to  DonG
November 2, 2018 9:53 pm

EUV varies by 6 W/m2, right?
Wrong, EUV varies by 6 mW/m2; 1 mW = 1/1000 W

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 10:23 pm

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.,

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 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…

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 10:42 pm

” 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.”

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 3:22 am

“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

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 6:02 am

Joel O’Bryan:

What evidence do you have that the “system” is in equilibrium? What “system” would that be anyway?

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 7:34 am

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 😛

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
November 3, 2018 8:02 am

Good point. Actually.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 3:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 4:01 pm

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.

LdB
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 10:26 pm

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

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 4, 2018 1:52 am

To understand how to calculate the 11.49-year sunspot cycle, the 187-year sunspot cycle, and 18,139-year sunspot cycle see http://www.MauriceCotterell.com ‘The Cause of Global Warming and Global Cooling’.

Reply to  Maurice Cotterell
November 4, 2018 8:54 am

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.

Reply to  Maurice Cotterell
November 4, 2018 8:56 am

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.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 4, 2018 2:21 pm

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

,

noaaprogrammer
November 2, 2018 9:12 pm

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?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 2, 2018 9:56 pm

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.

Bob Hoye
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 3, 2018 8:26 am

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.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 3, 2018 12:34 pm

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.”

Alec aka Daffy Duck
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 3, 2018 11:17 am

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

Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 3, 2018 11:36 am

If it cools it cools…

Don K
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 4, 2018 2:49 am

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.

November 2, 2018 9:27 pm

In addition, as I showed in the post you referenced: the is no power at a 1000-yr period during the last 9000 years.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 9:45 pm

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.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 9:54 pm

But your post showed a ~220 yr and a ~360 yr cycles if I recall correctly
But barely, if at all, significant.

adsii
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 2, 2018 10:06 pm

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.

Reply to  adsii
November 3, 2018 2:44 am

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.

adsii
Reply to  adsii
November 3, 2018 8:28 am

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?

Eric Barnes
Reply to  adsii
November 3, 2018 2:01 pm

Well said.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 3:06 pm

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

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 7:13 am

“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.

comment image

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

Reply to  Javier
November 3, 2018 8:16 am

Here is the last 9000 years of solar activity:
comment image
No 1000-yr cycle to speak of.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 8:55 am

Leif
May I remind you that not so long ago you denied there even was a Gleissberg cycle of 87 years?
I say there is a 1000 year cycle.
History says so.

Reply to  HenryP
November 3, 2018 8:57 am

May I remind you that not so long ago you denied there even was a Gleissberg cycle of 87 years?
May I remind you that there has been no sign of the 87-yr cycle the last many centuries?

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 10:19 am

Leif
I am not sure if somehow you are somewhat mentally handicapped?
Your last paper applicably admits and proclaims there is a 87 year solar cycle…Now take a stance.
I can easily see it in the latest information coming from the sun, 😊not only from my own results, but also from your own results
how about giving me a comment on my comment here,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/svalgaard-paper-reconstruction-of-9000-years-of-solar-activity/#comment-2504461

??

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 8:59 am

Like Vuk suggested it is a Terra cycle.
But somehow I think even that cycle is ruled by the sun. .

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 5, 2018 1:50 am

Cycles don’t exist until Leif Svalgaard discovers them.

The millennial cycle is extraordinarily clear in the Early Holocene:

comment image
Marchitto et al., 2010

Observe that there are two different cosmogenic records and four different climatic records in that figure. What you say disagrees with what is published, as usual.

And has become active again in the Late Holocene:

comment image

Since it has the same duration and phase, it can be assumed that it responds to the same unknown causes.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 3, 2018 7:36 am

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

November 2, 2018 9:32 pm

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.

anthropic
November 2, 2018 9:52 pm

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.

Reply to  anthropic
November 2, 2018 10:02 pm

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 3, 2018 6:47 am

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..

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 3, 2018 8:25 pm

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 4, 2018 4:56 am

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.

Old England
Reply to  anthropic
November 3, 2018 2:29 am

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

Hugs
Reply to  Old England
November 3, 2018 4:46 am

The Signs are so clear.

After the prediction fails, both yours and IPCC’s, the churches will just tighten their grip.

Jeff
November 2, 2018 9:54 pm

Back in 2012 you predicted that cooling was about to start.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/

” that the global warming temperature trend has peaked .
The peak is broad with only a little cooling to date but this will likely accelerate from 2015 or 2016″

A broken clock will be correct twice a day.

Reply to  Jeff
November 3, 2018 6:10 am

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.

November 2, 2018 11:15 pm

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

Reply to  Michael
November 3, 2018 12:17 am

How can they claim that when CO2 is still rising?

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 3, 2018 6:06 am

Warmers are still winning

Which explains why Hillary is in the White House.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 3, 2018 7:43 am

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

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 3, 2018 10:43 am

lol

November 2, 2018 11:18 pm

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

Nylo
November 2, 2018 11:31 pm

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”?

Reply to  Nylo
November 3, 2018 12:18 am

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…

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 1:59 am

You got the picture right. The changes are called ‘spontaneous climatic variations’ and they are known to exist in real sciences. https://compphys.go.ro/chaos/

Phoenix44
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 3:04 am

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.

Earthling2
Reply to  Nylo
November 3, 2018 1:23 am

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.

Reply to  Nylo
November 3, 2018 3:21 am

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.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 3, 2018 5:11 am

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 ..

WXcycles
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
November 3, 2018 8:11 pm

Do we need to push another religion? I’d prefer reality to teach rather than to self-select and believe, to try and sate confirmation-bias hunger-pangs for cooling.

Anyway, Zharkova was adequately dealt with here”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/

Ha she said anything new since?

Nylo
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
November 7, 2018 12:28 am

Hi Salvatore, does that mean that you would accept the bet?

Nylo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 7, 2018 12:27 am

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.

Dr K.A. Rodgers
Reply to  Nylo
November 3, 2018 11:42 am

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”

Reply to  Nylo
November 4, 2018 6:08 am

If we can agree on my data set?

Nylo
Reply to  HenryP
November 7, 2018 1:39 am

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.

Reply to  Nylo
November 7, 2018 7:20 am

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.

Reply to  henryp
November 7, 2018 7:26 am

sorry.
2037-2038

here is my picture on that

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

Nylo
Reply to  henryp
November 7, 2018 11:58 pm

henryp,

Sorry, I cannot accept your data set made of 54 stations carefully chosen by you as anything close to “global”. You would have to choose a publicly available and supposedly serious (accepted by the scientific community) global temperatures data set. I won’t bet on anything else.

Reply to  Nylo
November 8, 2018 2:13 am

Nylo
They are all fake news…
Best of luck with your bet.

JMurphy
November 3, 2018 1:34 am

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’!

Henry Galt.
Reply to  JMurphy
November 3, 2018 3:59 am

Point me at the forces that are stopping you from achieving what you suggest. I anger quickly.

Hugs
Reply to  JMurphy
November 3, 2018 4:41 am

Indeed. A few times a year? ‘The coming cooling’ is something that activates my BS radar.

November 3, 2018 1:46 am

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.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 5, 2018 10:07 am

true

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2018 10:18 am

not true, only non-scientific speculation.

Poor Richard, retrocrank
November 3, 2018 2:33 am

Just last year, I was saying to a True Believer: “Don’t sell your winter coat.”

KO
November 3, 2018 3:14 am

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…

kendo2016
Reply to  KO
November 3, 2018 4:29 am

To KO,
Try a search of Hammel,HB.and GW Lockwood, 2007.
It refers to warming of Neptune,&Mars.Hope this is useful.

KO
Reply to  kendo2016
November 4, 2018 1:51 am

Thanks. Fascinating – what’s the take from the “its not the Sun brigade” I wonder. Will dig about.

Hugs
Reply to  KO
November 3, 2018 4:36 am

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
Reply to  Hugs
November 4, 2018 2:03 am

Link/s?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  KO
November 3, 2018 7:24 am

KO, where in this thread do you detect the phrase

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

KO
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
November 4, 2018 1:57 am

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.

kendo2016
November 3, 2018 4:16 am

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.

Reply to  kendo2016
November 3, 2018 4:32 am
Johann Wundersamer
November 3, 2018 4:25 am

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

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

November 3, 2018 4:30 am

The automated related articles section at the bottom of this post links to this prediction from 2014 –

New study suggests a temperature drop of up to 1°C by 2020 due to low solar activity

Has any recent prediction of imminent global cooling been successful?

Reply to  Bellman
November 3, 2018 4:34 am

So far 95% of the warming predictions and 100% of the cooling predictions have been wrong.

Johnny
November 3, 2018 4:57 am

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!!

Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 5:11 am

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……..

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 5:17 am

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

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 8:18 am

“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.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 7:48 am

“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.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 8:20 am

There are many meanings of Information, beyond Hawkings focus., see the five levels of information classified by Werner Gitt “In the Beginning was Information”. https://bruderhand.de/download/Werner_Gitt/Englisch-Am_Anfang_war_die_Info.pdf

Reply to  David L. Hagen
November 3, 2018 9:16 am

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.

tty
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 3, 2018 9:45 am

“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.

Hugs
Reply to  tty
November 3, 2018 11:56 am

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.

DWR54
November 3, 2018 5:21 am

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”.

comment image

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.

DWR54
Reply to  DWR54
November 3, 2018 5:22 am

Mid 2003, not mid 2013, sorry…

EdB
Reply to  DWR54
November 3, 2018 6:56 am

How about UAH?

DWR54
Reply to  EdB
November 4, 2018 1:43 am

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.

Reply to  DWR54
November 4, 2018 7:04 am

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.

Billyjack
November 3, 2018 5:32 am

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.

pochas94
Reply to  Billyjack
November 3, 2018 8:52 am

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?

taxed
November 3, 2018 6:35 am

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. 🙂

November 3, 2018 7:30 am

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.

comment image

Reply to  Javier
November 3, 2018 7:49 am

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….

Reply to  henryp
November 3, 2018 8:03 am
Reply to  vukcevic
November 3, 2018 8:49 am

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.

Reply to  HenryP
November 3, 2018 9:07 am

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?

Reply to  HenryP
November 3, 2018 10:29 am

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’.

Reply to  HenryP
November 3, 2018 11:22 am

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 …

Reply to  henryp
November 3, 2018 9:55 am

and not by Columbus….
from Portugal

John Tillman
Reply to  henryp
November 3, 2018 12:28 pm

Not just a claim that Norse visited NE North America, but a fact confirmed by archaeology.

Reply to  henryp
November 5, 2018 1:36 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 5, 2018 5:40 am

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 3, 2018 8:59 am

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)

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
November 3, 2018 9:02 am

as in the Lean Figure above
The Lean Figure is not correct as you have been told repeatedly.
And certainly does not show a 1000-year cycle…

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
November 5, 2018 2:08 am

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

comment image

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.

Reply to  Javier
November 5, 2018 6:43 am

The oldest trick in the book is to show something that only occurs over a subset of the data and not show where it is absent. Here is the best reconstruction of solar activity for the last 9000 years:

comment image

No persistent 1000-years cycle.

November 3, 2018 7:56 am

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

Reply to  vukcevic
November 3, 2018 9:32 am

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 2014 years. I didn’t start with the astronomical cycles they just pop out of the temperature and solar activity data.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
November 3, 2018 12:36 pm

Obviously should be 1014 years

Reply to  vukcevic
November 3, 2018 11:49 am

The sun’s magnetic field determines the direction of those of the planets’???

Reply to  vukcevic
November 3, 2018 4:05 pm

Vuk
Have you ever thought of changing your name to Magneto?

https://goo.gl/images/UzacK6

You should get that metal helmet to shield your brain from thoughts about chaos and internal nonlinear oscillation.

Jerry 2
November 3, 2018 9:07 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jerry 2
November 3, 2018 9:15 am

+ 137.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 3, 2018 9:58 am

+200

the problem is that global cooling is already happening
yet it seems nobody has noticed it
except that there is some change in climate
let us therefore call it
‘man made’ climate change?

Verified by MonsterInsights