Quietest Solar Cycle In 200 Years May Put The Brakes On Global Warming

Solar Cycle 24 has had the lowest solar activity since the Dalton Minimum around 1810.

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone

Our sun was also very sub-normally active in December last year. We are writing the 121st month since the beginning of cycle number 24, in December 2008, and since 2012 we could only reformulate the opening sentence once: In September 2017 when the sun was 13% more active than the long-term (since 1755) average.

All other months were below average. With the sunspot number (SSN) of 3.1 for the monthly average for December and a total of 24 days without any spot (throughout the second half of the month the sun was spotless) we are in the middle of the cycle minimum.

Fig. 1:  Solar Cycle 24 – red – is almost over. Since October 2017 (cycle month 108) we have been at the minimum and the next cycle should start at the beginning of 2020. The blue curve is the respective monthly average over the 23 cycles completed so far. The black curve (for comparison) SC 5, which was recorded around 1815 and was as similarly weak as the current cycle.

The following chart compares all the cycles observed thus far:

Fig. 2: The sunspot activity of our sun since cycle 1 (1755). The numbers are calculated by adding the monthly differences with respect to the mean (blue in Fig.1) up to the current cycle month 121.

Clearly SC 24 is the lowest activity since the Dalton Minimum (SC 5,6,7) around 1810 when using the entire cycle and not only the maximum activity in short peaks (see Fig. 1).

Full story here

0 0 vote
Article Rating
329 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 3, 2019 1:07 pm

We have pause already but oceans will take couple of decades to cool to see convincing downturn.

pochas94
Reply to  vukcevic
February 3, 2019 1:17 pm

Thankfully, if it happens it won’t all happen at once.

SLC Dave
Reply to  vukcevic
February 3, 2019 2:35 pm

If this last solar cycle was so weak then why were the last 5 years the top warmest years on record?

rbabcock
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 2:44 pm

Warmest on what record? Since 1979? Since 1950? Since 1900? Since 1800? Since 0 AD?

Y. Knott
Reply to  rbabcock
February 4, 2019 4:33 am

– More to the point, “whose” record?

“Inquiring minds DON’T want to know…”

Bindidon
Reply to  rbabcock
February 4, 2019 9:02 am

According to the Japanese Met Agency, these years were ‘warm’est since 1891:

comment image

On the page, you read:

The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2018 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.67°C above the 20th century average), and was the 4th warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.73°C per century.

JMA is known to have the least surface temperature anomaly trend for the satellite period (0.14 °C / decade compared with UAH’s 0.13 in the lower troposphere).

K.C.
Reply to  Bindidon
February 5, 2019 12:57 pm

I find it hilarious that anyone acts alarmed or surprised that the most recent years of a relatively young warm period are the warmest on record considering that the global temperature record began around the same time the earth transitioned from the coldest cool period of the Holocene famously known as the Little Ice Age.

tty
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 2:46 pm

They weren’t. The 1930’s were warmer until they were “homogenised”.

John Tillman
Reply to  tty
February 3, 2019 3:06 pm

Also globally the late ’90s super El Nino years were warmer than all other years since 1979 except the 2015-16 Super El Nino. Since February 1979, Earth is back to cooling again, having blown off ocean heat in the late El Nino.

Warmunistas had great hopes for another El Nino this year, but a frigid start to the year in the NH doesn’t bode well. At least not in unadjusted “data”.

Moa
Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2019 3:27 pm

Both El Nino and La Nina are natural phenomena. Anyone who takes them as anything to do with the UN AGW Hypothesis is either very confused or deliberately deceptive.

I’m not suggesting you were confused, just reminding all readers not to confuse the natural effects of El Nino and La Nina as anything to do with AGW – because even ‘climate scientists’ seem to make that mistake–.

Greg
Reply to  John Tillman
February 4, 2019 12:08 am

We have little understanding of what drives or triggers Nino/Nina “cycles”. Even calling it a cycle or an oscillation ( ENSO ) is deceptive in that it infers that it is a net neutral , pendulum swing, kind of process while that is not case.

If is a process of stockage and transfer of solar energy in and out of the system. There is no reason that should be a symmetrical , net zero process.

Calling these natural variations “oscillations” is a word game which is used to ASSUME they have no long term effect and thus any long term change must be human induced.

In short it is a con, linguistic slight of hand plant an unjustified and unproven assumption at fact.

William Astley
Reply to  John Tillman
February 4, 2019 6:43 am

This is a link to the paper that explains what likely caused the 1996 and 2016 El Nino events and likely the warming for the period.

Remember global warming was not global.

The 1996 to 2016, ‘Global’ warming correlates to a 300% and 400% increase in mid-ocean Seismic Activity in mid-ocean ridges. The increase precedes by two years the 1996 and 2016 El Nino events.

The mid-ocean seismic activity is average 300% higher for the entire 20 year warming period.

Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5]. .

there is a 95% probability that global temperatures in 2019 will decline by 0.47°C ± 0.21°C from their 2016 peak. In other words, there is a 95% probability that 2019 temperatures will drop to levels not seen since the mid-1990s.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf

Two previous studies, The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) and the Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming: 2016 Update (CSARGW16), documented a high correlation between mid-ocean seismic activity and global temperatures from 1979 to 2016 [1,2]. As detailed in those studies, increasing seismic activity in these submarine volcanic complexes is a proxy indicator of heightened underwater geothermal flux, a forcing mechanism that destabilizes the overlying water column.

This forcing accelerates the thermohaline circulation while enhancing thermobaric convection [3-6]. This, in turn, results in increased heat transport into the Arctic (i.e., the “Arctic Amplification”), a prominent feature of earth’s recent warming [7-9]. .

h/t to the NoTricks Zone.

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.BlxTY2Yc.EpayRG49.dpbs

Philo
Reply to  John Tillman
February 4, 2019 9:02 am

It’s probably time to switch to El Nino Periodic Variations, rather than oscillations. Oscillations implies something like a sine wave, up and down in a regular fashion. E. Nino is anything but regular.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  tty
February 3, 2019 4:27 pm

Wrong. Check ocean temps son

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 3, 2019 9:12 pm

Mosher Man –

So you reckon that shallow ocean records going back 70 y are high quality?

Or, for that matter, you know someone who has a clue about deep ocean temperatures and cycles?

Hubris can bite.
Hard.
History teaches us that.

Scarface
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 3, 2019 11:56 pm

Your liking of discovering parenthood and ancestry is popping up even in this superficial response. Any new discoveries yet?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 4, 2019 12:14 am

OH, I suppose Mosh thinks that SST has not been adjusted and homogenised to hell as well.

HadSST includes a -0.5 deg C adjustment, which is probably the only “correction” that has not either warmed the present or cooled the past. But even that was done by often flatly ignoring recorded sampling metadata when it did not fit expectations.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 4, 2019 10:16 am

The claim is that the oceans have warmed by 0.04 degrees, using a couple of hundred probes individually accurate to 0.1 degree.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  tty
February 3, 2019 11:53 pm

The USA was warmer in the 1930s, the UK wasn’t.

Mirco Romanato
Reply to  tty
February 4, 2019 5:59 am

About “homogenized” records and lost raw records.

We MUST and NEED to record the data in an immutable and uncensorable way so some people can not play around with records.

I suppose the people here have access to raw data (surface, satellite, temperature, humidity, position of the stations, etc.). This data could be compiled in Daily, Weekly, Monthly dumps of data and recorded in a immutable and uncensorable ledger (the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision blockchain). It is pretty cheap to upload data in this way.

In the last few weeks it become possible to store a fair amount of data in the BSV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) blockchain using Op Return.
For now it is possible to store just 99KB of data per Op Return used; but the developers are working hard and fast to increase this limits to 1 MB and far beyond (in the GB and TB in the next years). By the end of THIS year we should have 1-2 GB blocks and 1-10 MB data in Op Returns.

https://www.yours.org/content/_unwriter-s-tools-explained–practical-use-cases-reviewed-93d7bff2fef8

If someone compiled the data in packets (maybe programmatically compiled from sources) some other people could pay to upload the packets in the blockchain.

of course, there are ways to build an explorer to browser to retrieve the data published on the blockchain.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 2:49 pm

Because the oceans are still warm. It can take a long time for those effects to be realised. I can’t fathom how so many people entirely miss everything else that goes on in the Solar System and Earth itself then wonder why everything doesn’t happen immediately like millennials expect.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 3, 2019 3:04 pm

Why are you russian letter Ya (it means I, me as a person) instad of R, there is perfectly good Greek ro, there are also lambda (L) and Cyrillic Y (u) available and you are missing another O or omega.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  vukcevic
February 3, 2019 3:13 pm

Lol.. You’re trying to apply a language (yours?) to something I had no intention of doing in the first place. I could have chosen Japanese characters instead and confused everyone, although I’m not even close to Japanese myself.

BCBill
Reply to  vukcevic
February 3, 2019 4:38 pm

I thought it was quite witty, another take on seeing how many letters can be left out (or in this case changed) with affecting comprehension.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 4, 2019 12:03 am

I just happen to know few greek and russian letters but I’m far from being either greek or russian.

goldminor
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 4, 2019 10:48 am

+10 @ Revolution

Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 2:49 pm

Don’t ask me a question that you have a better answer already, ask me something you don’t know and hope I might know. For educated answers I’m not your man, address it to our old friend Dr. S.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 3:06 pm

SLC Dave

That has to be addressed more directly: The past five years were not the warmest anything meaningful. Remove the recent padding and check with the historical record. Not only was the past 5 years about the same as the early 40’s, they were cooler than many years in the Medieval Warm Period, and significantly cooler than many years during the even warmer period 8000 year ago.

What is hopeful is that we are starting off warmer now than the beginning of the two most recent minima. This means the catastrophic crop failures may be lesser and the strain on the global food supply reduced.

Fortunately we have more CO2 around to help food production. The serious food supply problems will come if the oceans start to cool and absorb the CO2 from the air as it does during the plunges into the glaciations.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 4, 2019 3:47 am

The serious food supply problems will come if the oceans start to cool and absorb the CO2 from the air as it does during the plunges into the glaciations.

The above is an EXTREMELY important statement that everyone should take notice of because it is the “temperature” of the ocean water that is the per se “control knob” for adjusting atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

And ps: it was a similarly caused “serious food supply problem” that caused the demise of the dinosaurs.

Cheers

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 5, 2019 8:48 am

One seldom sees “significantly warmer” – just warmer. Like the 2015(?) warmest ever that was +0.04 with a probability of some 38%. I have best results explaining things to the folks by relating that when the vikings return to farm in Greenland, and the forests found under ablated glaciers in the Alps regenerate, and the forests again cover the several hundred kilometres of tundra to the shores of the arctic ocean in Russia, then we may be warmer than we have been before.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 3:32 pm

SLC Dave
Well, the atmosphere is cooling since the 2016 peak. Having gone up through a high temperature, it will have to go through those numbers again as the temperature goes down! If there is a long-term cooling in progress, it will take awhile to show up in the oceans because of thermal inertia. That is why air temperatures and ocean temperatures should not be conflated. Water temperatures are a ‘lagging indicator.’

Mark Freeman
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 3:47 pm

For the same reason June isn’t the hottest month of summer even though the sun is at its highest in the sky.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Mark Freeman
February 4, 2019 4:03 am

Right, …. beginning in the Spring, …. when the succeeding nighttime temperatures do not cool down as much as the previous nights, ……. then daytime temperatures will follow suite.

Then the opposite occurs beginning in the Fall.

John in NZ
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 6:53 pm

Because warming has stopped but cooling has not yet begun.

Klohrn
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 3, 2019 8:18 pm

To my old memory Summers in the 80’s and 90’s were much warmer than anything available since 2009 I have yet to see any heat waves lasting nearly as long as they did back then.

Winters have been wet since 2009 and probably a major reason for current years posting high, Oceans blowing off heat.

Bob Weber
Reply to  SLC Dave
February 4, 2019 8:49 am

If this last solar cycle was so weak then why were the last 5 years the top warmest years on record?

SC24 was unique compared to earlier cycles as it’s sunspot activity wasn’t so high for TSI to be driven low very often, which happens due to the competition between faculae and plage areas, with the most pronounced effect during passages of very high sunspot area, which creates a non-linear SSN-TSI curve, unique to each solar cycle’s magnetic field strength, see Fig. 6.

Cycles 21-23 in Fig 7a below had more numerous TSI downturns due to higher sunspot number and area than did SC24, see Fig 7b. This lower number of downward TSI spikes of a lesser degree lead to higher solar forcing for the pronounced El Nino charge-up in 2014/15, TSI spikes that were driven by the sun’s mean field spiking, see Fig. 7d red dashed oval.

In Fig. 19, TSI ranged from very low to very high in fall/winter 2013/14, before becoming predominately higher for most of 2014/15. The largest sunspots in 2013/14 with numerous very low TSI spikes below the solar minimum level drove extensive record-breaking cold waves before sunspot activity settled to a point where TSI was more evenly high, ie by also not being driven so low so much for the rest of 2014/15, which lead to rapid warming and record high temperatures.

Solar effects are layered and time dependent.

Duane
Reply to  vukcevic
February 4, 2019 6:50 am

What exactly is the relationship between sun spots and earth’s climate?

We keep seeing these posts on sunspot activity and solar cycles, and the fact that sunspot activity has been at a minimum recently as part of its continuous cycles observed over the centuries.

But how exactly do sunspots cause our climate to change? Do they represent higher or lower solar radiation levels? If so, how does that interact to change the climate on earth?

Bob Weber
Reply to  Duane
February 4, 2019 10:09 am

What exactly is the relationship between sun spots and earth’s climate?

The first thing to know about the sun is sunspot numbers aren’t the measure of solar energy, TSI is, if you didn’t already know. In Fig. 5, TSI at 1au relates to sunspot number and observed F10.7cm microwave flux measured from the ground in monthly data, scaled to the solar minimum and at the red line, my empirically derived solar-ocean warming-cooling threshold of solar activity, see Fig. 1.

But how exactly do sunspots cause our climate to change? Do they represent higher or lower solar radiation levels? If so, how does that interact to change the climate on earth?

The ocean depends on insolation, mainly via TSI; whereas land warms from high UV index and latent heat in water vapor.

The Sun’s UV energy component is smaller than the combined energy from visible light and infrared wavelengths, therefore full TSI has a much greater ocean climatic significance than UV. High UV index over land is climatically significant, most effective at land warming under cloudless skies, a condition brought about often by low TSI low tropical evaporation. Solar minimum conditions lead to dry hot land temperatures for this very reason, while extended solar maximum high TSI eventually yields warm wet El Nino conditions released from higher absorbed solar energy accumulation in the ocean.

http://gakuran.com/eng/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/light_penetration_ocean.jpg

http://geologycafe.com/oceans/images/insolation_curve.jpg

comment image

I derived a solar-ocean warming-cooling threshold in 2014/15 that was real-world tested in 2016, see Fig. 10.

The equatorial ocean heat content rose and fell with TSI and in March 2016 it fell below the line as did SST within days of daily TSI falling below the line. The original Fig. 1 principle was verified.

The ocean accumulates heat during times of rising and high solar activity and vice versa. The warming of the late 20th century was owed to the Solar Modern Maximum, a period when solar activity often fluctuated above the warming threshold:

Sunspot numbers averaged 65% higher during the 70 years from 1935-2004
than during the previous 70 years, 108.5 vs 65.8 annually from 1865-1934.

Extreme weather & climate extremes are limited by the duration of solar extremes.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2019 11:01 am

Sunspot numbers averaged 65% higher during the 70 years from 1935-2004 than during the previous 70 years, 108.5 vs 65.8 annually from 1865-1934.
Bad cherry-picking.
Here are two 70-yr intervals with their Sunspot Number and their Group number:
1726-1795 93.4 5.57
1935-2004 108.5 5.48
The differences are not statistically significant

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 11:45 am

Bad cherry-picking.

There was no cherry-picking. That’s how the numbers work out mathematically so your accusation fails, as they were not “picked” nor selected, but calculated. So it is you who is bad for making a false allegation.

So what if there were two intervals. You changed the subject. The modern maximum refers to the modern period, the period of concern for the climateers, and my comparison to the prior 70 years (1865-1934) takes things back to before 1880, the real cherry-picked time the climateers chose.

There was a significant difference in TSI output for the two intervals, as the 93.5 average was right at the warming line I empirically established for v2, whereas the modern maximum 70-year average at 108.5 was solidly above the line. There was an ebb and flow not a constant level during both periods, with some downturns too.

Now it’s my turn to change the subject. Where were your constant complaints to the climateers for cherry-picking 1850-1930 as the period the climate was supposedly in ‘radiative equilibrium’?

comment image

Or for using a clearly fake solar forcing in RCP8.5?

comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2019 11:56 am

The modern maximum refers to the modern period, the period of concern for the climateers, and my comparison to the prior 70 years (1865-1934) takes things back to before 1880, the real cherry-picked time the climateers chose
And you choose to ignore the 18th century data when we were still in the LIA although the SN was as high as now.
That is the cherry-picking.
Ignoring data that doesn’t fit is the oldest trick in the book.
Javier shows you time and time again how it is done.
Be better than him.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 12:40 pm

I’m very disappointed you’re endlessly stuck at this level of argument.

The problem with your argument is no matter where someone starts in time with a solar-climate analysis, you will accuse them of cherry-picking and neglecting what happened before. My work indicates we can understand the system by understanding the basic principles I discovered as applied to whatever time period for which we have both good solar and climate monthly data, so I’m not bothered by a particular starting point that meets those criteria.

Javier calculated the v2 SSN running average to find the modern maximum inflection points and the highest average from 1935-2004, as I did in 2014. This was low-hanging fruit. You can also find the inflection points by detrending v2 SSN, and then you can calculate the average between the changepoints. Either way you get the same 108.5 average and nothing anyone says will ever change that.

There’s nothing about the climate change from the 1850-1880’s onward that needs sunspot activity from before then to explain it, other than the starting point in SST.

There isn’t HadSST3 data to work with from prior to 1850. BEST land starts earlier. You might notice in Fig 17c the detrended and normalized v2 SSN and PMOD modeled TSI curves indicate there was rising TSI in the 18th century but not to the level or duration reached during the modern maximum, and this TSI model isn’t much different than yours.

I think your group numbers are inconsistent with the regular v2. Your second period GN is smaller than the first period while the regular numbers were the opposite.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2019 12:45 pm

I think your group numbers are inconsistent with the regular v2. Your second period GN is smaller than the first period while the regular numbers were the opposite.
Just shows the typical error bar. The uncertainty for the early data is in double digits percentage.
Ignoring the LIA is bad science.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 1:03 pm

Ignoring the LIA is bad science.

I really don’t ignore the LIA, but since your sunspot numbers are very sparse for the 1600’s, and there is no SST monthly data available, what is there to work with?

There are other researchers who cover the LIA more extensively with smoothed out data.

I don’t find it useful right now to use others’ work that more or less generalizes. Dr. Soon and others can do that. Perhaps in my final paper I’ll put references in for perspective but right now for the exacting kind of work I do the data for the LIA is too low resolution. Trying to do something with it that it can’t provide – high certainty – would be bad science.

Highflight56433
Reply to  vukcevic
February 4, 2019 1:05 pm

Never saw that before. Seems the Arctic has been warming every summer, and cooling every winter accumulating ice. Same with Antarctic waters. Seems an el Nino appears and disappears rather quickly. Same as la Nina. Some years cooler and some warmer. So explain why it take decades for surface water to cool? Water is water with a specific heat index. Does it change just because it’s associated with solar activity when seasonally it changes quickly at the poles? Thanks.

Donald Kasper
February 3, 2019 1:11 pm

Overlays and time series are not scientific correlations at all. A correlation is the x-axis is global mean temperature anomaly, and the y-axis is sun spots. Graph that. Data from 1958 to present shows zero trend and zero correlation of sun spots to temperature, just random noise. The recent data infers nothing including episodes with zero sun spots. So if the pattern is longer than that, temperature has nothing to do with sun spots, and as the solar cycle is 11 years, there are hundreds of opportunities in the past thousand years to match them to something interesting.

Editor
Reply to  Donald Kasper
February 3, 2019 2:45 pm

We know that a single sunspot cycle is undetectable (or almost so) in the temperature measurements. But what about longer periods? If several low sunspot cycles together can noticeably affect temperature, then, looking at Fig. 2 above, there should have been a temperature drop between 1879 and 1923 (solar cycles 12-16). There was.
comment image
Interestingly, the effect was almost exclusively in sea surface temperatures, not over land ..
comment image
.. which tallies nicely with the idea that the sun does have a long term influence on global temperature.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 4, 2019 4:35 am

Mike Jonas – February 3, 2019 at 2:45 pm

Interestingly, the effect was almost exclusively in sea surface temperatures, not over land ..

“DUH”, the only sensible and/or legitimate uses for “near surface air temperatures” is for short-term (7 day) weather forecasting and for appeasing the curiosity of the populace by weather forecasters/reporters and/or meteorologists.

Like being “WARNED” that the end of January 2019’s Polar Vortex would occur. But 4 days later, February 2019, ……. that Polar Vortex is “old” news that no one cares about except the “fearmongers”.

Archer
February 3, 2019 1:12 pm

inb4 lief defending his fief.

commieBob
February 3, 2019 1:15 pm

Here’s a list of solar cycles by date. Off hand, I don’t see any obvious connections between the strength of the cycles and the climate.

If we have a really quiet cycle or two and the climate doesn’t cool, will that be enough to refute the theory that there is any connection between sunspots and the climate?

Curious George
Reply to  commieBob
February 3, 2019 1:46 pm

The weasel word “may” does not prove anything.

Reply to  commieBob
February 3, 2019 1:58 pm

Willis’ graph already refutes that theory:
comment image

Sunspots at 200 year low and Temps warmest ‘ever’.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 2:46 pm

Willis’ graph only refutes Willis’ understanding of the issue.

DMackenzie
Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 4:38 pm

But Willis graph is right….so his understanding is just fine…

Ian W
Reply to  DMackenzie
February 3, 2019 5:54 pm

Yet the Willis graph shows current temperatures well higher than the 1930s. Was this really the case or have they been ‘homogenized’ i.e. corrected to match the narrative?

Editor
Reply to  DMackenzie
February 3, 2019 7:43 pm

Not so. I’m with Javier on this. See my comment above February 3, 2019 at 2:45 pm.

Javier
Reply to  DMackenzie
February 4, 2019 1:54 am

Willis’ gross misrepresentation of the change in solar activity (it did not decline between 1965 and 1995) only shows that there is no direct linear relation between sunspots and temperature. That’s it.

It is like excavating to find Troy and saying it is a myth because you didn’t find it. You only demonstrated that it is not where you excavated. And if you don’t want Troy to be found then you won’t excavate anywhere else.

There is a huge bibliography on solar effects on climate that Willis chooses to ignore. It is better for him to say that Troy doesn’t exist and is a myth.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 2:46 am

Different scientific teams have attempted to create a continuous record from the satellite data. Each long-term record shows the rise and fall of two 11-year sunspot cycles, but they differ from one another in the average trend over the full period. When stitched together one way, the satellites seemed to record a slight increase in solar activity, but in other analyses, solar activity remained constant.

Source
You’ll may continue ad infinitum 😀

Bindidon
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:41 am

Javier

I don’t understand what you exactly mean with your critique.

You wrote:

Willis’ gross misrepresentation of the change in solar activity (it did not decline between 1965 and 1995)…

Where did Willis Eschenbach misrepresent ‘changes in solar activity’ ?

Is his graph incorrect? Or did the SILSO Sun Spot Number series suddenly stop to accurately reflect these changes?

What now concerns the representation of the data, here is the original data, with both the absolute SILSO data and HadCRUT’s anomalies scaled to percentiles being per se independent of any anomaly concept:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CP_hHiovNA02XSlQK4Hn8HuSSd46YcZ1/view

You see over the data 3rd order polynomials, and 120 month running means.

As we can see, Willis’ representation is correct; thus if he did anything wrong, than he did it at the interpretation level.

But exactly that you did not explain…

An explanation for example would be that there is some 60 year lag between solar activity and surface temperatures.

Do you mean that, Javier?

Javier
Reply to  Bindidon
February 4, 2019 9:50 am

Where did Willis Eschenbach misrepresent ‘changes in solar activity’ ?
Is his graph incorrect? Or did the SILSO Sun Spot Number series suddenly stop to accurately reflect these changes?

In this graph:
comment image
The trend in solar activity is very sensitive on when you start and when you end, given the huge difference between solar maximum and solar minimum. Between 1964 and 1996 (both solar minima) there was no decline in solar activity, so saying that temperature and solar activity have been going opposite ways during that period is incorrect.

Now the issue of SC21-SC22. There is a decline in sunspots, but there is no decline in 10.7 cm solar flux:
comment image
And there is no decline in sunspot area:
comment image

And Willis knows this since I have told him on a number of occasions.

Solar activity did not increase over the second half of the 20th century, but it was above long-term average and it did not decline either until 2004.

There is no contradiction between solar activity and temperature. There is no linear relationship between temperature and sunspots but there shouldn’t be one in the first place. If the level of solar activity determines if the planet warms or cools it is the direction and the temperature rate of change that should relate to the level of activity. And a decrease in activity should still produce an increase in temperature unless it is strong enough to change the sign of the rate of change.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 10:12 am

but there is no decline in 10.7 cm solar flux:
Yes, there is a declining trend
comment image
and in a very important physical parameter, the solar magnetic field:
comment image

Your trick is to make the time interval too short in order to get what you want.
Bad Science [actually No Science]

And your ‘fit’ to the F10.7 flux is as bad and dishonest as it gets:
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Bindidon
February 4, 2019 11:54 am

Yes, there is a declining trend

Not between SC21 and SC22, as I said.

And your ‘fit’ to the F10.7 flux is as bad and dishonest as it gets

A simple Excel 2nd order polynomial least-squares fit.
I see you flip out when data contradicts you.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 12:01 pm

Not between SC21 and SC22, as I said.
Trying to make a trend out of two sunspot cycles is Bad Science.
We can add that to your collection of such.

Javier
Reply to  Bindidon
February 4, 2019 12:13 pm

Trying to make a trend out of two sunspot cycles is Bad Science.

If you add SC20 and SC23 at both sides that’s four cycles and still no declining trend.
And if you use the entire record since 1700 to 2018 you get an increasing trend.

Ach! more bad science, because anything that you disagree with is bad science.

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
February 4, 2019 3:58 pm

Sorry Javier

I still don’t understand what you exactly mean.

Unless you manage to explain that much more clearly, the SSN-HadCRUT graph imho remains correct.

It would of course be the same when using F10.7cm solar flux:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view

Javier
Reply to  Bindidon
February 5, 2019 3:53 am

Bindidon,

I tried to explain. There is a fake meme going around that during global warming solar activity has been decreasing and temperatures increasing and therefore the sun cannot be responsible. Willis is a big supporter of that fake meme.

As your graph shows, solar activity did not decrease from SC20 to SC23. It is only in the declining phase of SC23 from around 2003 when solar activity starts decreasing, and this is about the time the pause started. So the point is that solar activity did not decline during the global warming phase, as supported by solar activity evidence. particularly F10.7 cm flux evidence.

ralfellis
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 2:53 pm

I would not be too cirtain about those temperatures Leif.

The CET tamperature dataset has three locations, and until 2010 one of those stations was in the middle of Manchester International Airport – in the middle of the taxiways next to the jet engine test stands. Another of the CET stations was at Blackpool airport.

Yes, there may have been some warming, but these datasets have had so many dodgey locations and suspect adjustments, they are not entirely trastworthy. Which is why they are now called tamperature datasets.

R

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 3:05 pm

Leif, I have no reason to doubt you on the sunspot- temperature lack of consistency in correlation, but the corruption of all official on surface temperature series makes them less than sterling evidence to support the case. Raw temperature data from North America, Greenland, Europe, Siberia, South Africa , Paraguay, Bolivia, even Australia… all have similar shape with 1930s to mid 40s the record highs. Here from Capetown.

comment image

See Paul Homewood’s site for a number of others showing the hotter 30s and 40s.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 3, 2019 5:26 pm

Leif, I have no reason to doubt you on the sunspot- temperature lack of consistency in correlation, but the corruption of all official on surface temperature series makes them less than sterling evidence to support the case
Yet, Javier claims there is an excellent correlation with solar data; so you are saying that this correlation is just ‘less than sterling’?

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 1:56 am

I didn’t say excellent. I said better than for any other forcing, indicating solar is the main one.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:35 am

I didn’t say excellent. I said better than for any other forcing, indicating solar is the main one.
Actually, the fit to GHGs is a much better forcing

Javier
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 4, 2019 11:28 am

Actually, the fit to GHGs is a much better forcing

Do you think so? Most people here at WUWT disagree. CO2 only goes up since 1700, while temperature presents periods of no warming or cooling deceivingly named hiatuses.

Edim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 5:22 pm

Another millennial here.

Just joking, 😉

Peter K
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 2:49 am

We had some very active cycles recently. SC19 was the peak of the harmonic. Logically that big heat sink needs to cool first, before we can expect to see any global temperature decline.

Jim G.
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:01 am

I was wondering if you could explain why you believe that earth temps must follow the solar cycle in a lock-step fashion? The assumption with that claim is that the energy over multiple cycles does not accumulate in periods of high activity, or decline in periods of low activity.

I would postulate that weather/climate has more unknown unknowns than we realize.

Reply to  Jim G.
February 4, 2019 10:17 am

The assumption with that claim is that the energy over multiple cycles does not accumulate in periods of high activity, or decline in periods of low activity.
The Earth is very good at radiate away any incoming solar energy. Think of nigh time temperatures in the dessert…
Solar activity has declined the past 60+ years, but temperatures keep going up, up, up,…

Peter K
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 12:24 pm

Yes solar cycles have been in declined since SC19, coming down from the half sine wave, you see when you join up the peaks. I am certainly not convinced that a concentration of 0.04% of CO2 , of which man’s contribution is only a small part of that total, can be attributed to climate change or global warming etc. There is strong evidence of data manipulation and that is more likely the cause.

Jim G.
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:15 pm

I thought that the 2/3 of the earth’s surface that isn’t land was pretty good at storing energy as well.

Regarding deserts, since I live in one, brings up a pretty good question.
Since humidity is not much of a factor in the summertime, due to increased CO2, is less heat radiated out at night for any given daytime high? I would take this to mean the the delta T would be declining. This would only pertain to low humidity environments.

Reply to  Jim G.
February 4, 2019 10:50 pm

I thought that the 2/3 of the earth’s surface that isn’t land was pretty good at storing energy as well.
Arguments like this must be followed by numerical analysis to make comparison possible. I thought that the ocean temperatures pretty much follow the land temperatures. Prove me wrong.

Jim G.
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 5, 2019 11:25 pm

Leif.
>>Arguments like this must be followed by numerical analysis

Please hold yourself to the same standard.
You were the one who brought up the desert reference.

Reply to  Jim G.
February 6, 2019 7:42 pm

Please hold yourself to the same standard.
You were the one who brought up the desert reference.

I sincerely apologize for incorrectly assuming that numerical details of desert climate was well-known [even by you] that details of such was not necessary, but I see now that it was, so here is for your education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_climate

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 9, 2019 6:39 am

If I look at the work of Nir Shaviv, I see, that sunspots isn’t the only proxy for suns activity. Ther a others indicating that suns activity increased in later 20th century, even when sunspots number decreased by correction.
You may read here more about “Sunspot 2.0 and solar activity

Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2019 7:23 am

Krishna
SSN has been compromised as are other proxies.
However, if you look carefully you will find bending points for [any] relevant proxy of incoming energy
at around
1927/28
1971/72
2014/15
which conform with the last relevant GB cycle.

Reply to  commieBob
February 3, 2019 6:59 pm

As it is being accomplished it will go down in history as evidence.
Such evidence in running long enough could prompt a theory about solar minimums and a cooling climate.
If you don’r accept the evidence to date, try a little patience.
Old saying in physics:
“If you keep your data base short enough it will fit your theory.”

Cube
February 3, 2019 1:25 pm

Darn it’s not CO2 and it’s not sunspots. That pesky climate remains a mystery….

Reply to  Cube
February 3, 2019 1:44 pm

Sun provides the free energy, and lot of it, far more than required to keep us warm. What the Earth decides to do with all that free energy (you can see if you bother to look here http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm, but don’t ask me how does it work) it’s not any of the sun’s particular concern, our planet is just a dot in space.

Skeptikal
Reply to  vukcevic
February 5, 2019 5:18 am

Oh, I think you know how it works.

jim heath
February 3, 2019 1:29 pm

In Australia we’ve just had a 200 year flood event! we had one last year, and the year before? er’ hang on minute.

TedM
Reply to  jim heath
February 3, 2019 3:17 pm

Actually Jim a so called one in “100 year” event. Just that there wAs a more extensive flood event in 1974. Just that because Brisbane was flooded at the same time that was where all the media attention was. Also the flood events that you refer to were not in the same place in the sequential years.

RickWill
Reply to  TedM
February 3, 2019 4:32 pm

If there are 1000 large dams in Queensland, each designed for a 100 year ARI there would be 10 incidents each year, on average, where the design criteria was exceeded. Usually that just means water reaches the spillway and releases water with less severe consequence than the dam bursting.

Flooding is a relatively local event. A single thunder storm can produce a 100 year ARI event in a few locations. The occurrences are typically not spread evenly over time. There might be 50 incidents in one year and none for the next 3 years.

Dams having a catastrophic failure mode, resulting in high consequence damage such as loss of life, are required to have a safety margin above the probable maximum event for any sort of failure mode such as high rainfall or earthquake.

A C Osborn
Reply to  RickWill
February 4, 2019 4:06 am

A sensible person would see that a lot of rain is due and release the water from the dam BEFORE there is flooding.
Instead they wait until there is flooding and the dam is full and then release the water making the flooding even worse.
Whatever happened to common sense?

Jim G.
Reply to  TedM
February 4, 2019 10:18 pm

Unfortunately with land use changes can make a 50 year event seem like a 100 year event.
If the open land that once soaked up the water is no longer there, the water has to go somewhere.
And oh does it go!

ray boorman
Reply to  jim heath
February 3, 2019 9:42 pm

Jim, guess what? Australia is a rather large place, & a flood in one part of it does not mean the entire continent is flooded.

What we are seeing in Far North Queensland right now is a return to the sort of wet season that was common from the 1950’s to the 1970’s. When we see the regular passage of cyclones passing near or over South East Queensland, as also happened back then, it will be the same climate I grew up in.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ray boorman
February 4, 2019 4:01 am

we can hope
its been very patchy as to where its dropped also
mt isa and around have done well
between there and the coast while hres plenty of moisture up there its not dropping;-(
sth n east Vics got rains but west is damned dry presently and fires burning.
shes a damned patchy n chaotic yr so far

Serge Wright
Reply to  jim heath
February 4, 2019 12:53 am

Ah, that’s a fake news statement if ever there was.

The AU BOM has done a good job modifying temperature records to show an upward trend, but rainfall data is not so easy to adjust. The general meme from the alarmist camp is that rainfall is decreasing in SE and southern Australia, due to their 1% emissions and both the BOM and CSIRO cherry pick rainfall data from 1970 (the wettest decade) to push this false agenda and deliberately hide the pre 1950 data from rainfall studies that show dry decades with low CO2. In a large corporation you would be charged for misleading shareholders if you cherry picked data on that scale to show profit trends, go figure?. Flood frequency per region is static.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Drain%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3DT

Albert Brand
February 3, 2019 1:31 pm

A sort of theory by John Kerr is that the earth never achieves equilibrium and therefore is always oscillating due to overshoots in either direction. That is the MWP begot the LIA which in turn caused our warm spell. When the earth is warm it loses a lot of heat to outer space and when it cools down again it loses significantly less energy and therefore warms up again. This seems entirely plausible. Sort of a 2 or 3 hundred year cycle.

shrnfr
Reply to  Albert Brand
February 3, 2019 2:04 pm

One of the basic lessons that you learn in any EE course is that the introduction of some sort of energy storage mechanism into a resistive circuit will introduce some sort of phase lag into the output. The easiest version of that in terms of the earth is that the months of coldest and warmest temperatures occur over a month after the days of least and most energy input from the sun during the year.

For the moment, the question will be one of the heat engine known as the AMO that pumps warm waters up to the Arctic. It appears to be synchronized with solar activity. If so, we may see some 1970s style cold periods in 20 or 30 years.

Reply to  shrnfr
February 3, 2019 2:22 pm

Agreed. Then add in this:
“The temperature of the ocean at depth lags the Earth’s atmosphere temperature by 15 days per 10 meters (33 ft), which means for locations like the Aral sea, temperatures near its bottom reaches a maximum in December and a minimum in May and June.” (Source: Wikipedia)

Reply to  shrnfr
February 3, 2019 2:30 pm

AMO is result of solar cycles and the Earth’s magnetic field working in concert
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/Geo-Solar.gif
Where dF(t) spectral composition of the rate of change in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity.
Geo-Solar oscillations are obtained by adding the oscillations of the two principal frequencies (periodicity 16.13 & 21.28 years), which appears that the detrended AMO follows closely.
Long term rise in the AMO as well as global temperature is controlled by the change in the overall strength of magnetic dipole with about a decade of delay
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm

shrnfr
Reply to  vukcevic
February 3, 2019 3:59 pm

I have no argument on that. I use the word “appears” since I am not sure that we have enough good records on AMO cycles to demonstrate the reality. In any case, I expect it to get colder through 2045. The utility of any hypothesis is in its ability to predict. I predict it will be a lot colder. We shall see. Still, I am sure the usual suspects will blame that on global warming.

Reply to  shrnfr
February 4, 2019 12:25 am

Often even appearances may be misleading. Numerics are there, might be an indirect association but all that is far from being a proof of causation.

sparko
Reply to  shrnfr
February 3, 2019 3:49 pm

Any integral of a cyclic wave form is lagged. Solar insolation as an input produces a lagged warming response.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Albert Brand
February 3, 2019 2:06 pm

Well, it also depends where the other planets are in relation to Earth and Sun, including Earth’s own tilt which changes. There will only be equilibrium when the Sun either grows and destroys us or after it shrinks into a cold lump. But even then we’re guessing either of 2 ways.

kalsel3294
Reply to  Albert Brand
February 3, 2019 2:12 pm

On a more regional note, a period of below average rain is followed by a period of above average rain, which looks as if it is happening now in Queensland, Australia, irrespective man made climate change or not.

Michael Carter
Reply to  Albert Brand
February 3, 2019 6:08 pm

“A sort of theory by John Kerr is that the earth never achieves equilibrium and therefore is always oscillating due to overshoots in either direction”.

As thermostats and regulators do , yep? The ocean is the place where we should be looking . Note how quickly LSTs respond to an El Nino. On land the energy signal (temperature) is just passing through – rapidly. As I’m seeing it right now.

Cheers

M

pat
February 3, 2019 1:35 pm

Of course the plethora of sunspots in the 1990s when the 11, 33 and 300 (more or less) sunspot cycles coincided had nothing to do with the decadal heat then.

Editor
February 3, 2019 1:42 pm

Hi Leif!

Regards,
Bob

February 3, 2019 1:47 pm

It will not only put the brakes on global warming but will reverse it to global cooling. This process(global cooling) has been in place since year 2016 -present which has seen although from high levels.

This colder trend should accelerate as we move forward from here.

What has to be watched are overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which are stuck in a range from +.10c – +.40c above 1981-2010 means. I am expecting this range to be broken on the down side sooner rather then later in response to the sustained very low solar activity.

It is not easy to say exactly when the down turn will occur.

That aside the other major hints for cooling will come from a continued increase in geological activity, greater snow/cloud coverage and a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern or a reorganization of the atmospheric circulation pattern.

The weakening geo magnetic field when in sync with a weakening solar magnetic field will enhance given cooling solar effects and this should become more and more apparent as we move forward.

Lag times especially when it comes to the oceans have to be appreciated, but it has now been close to 15 years of sub -solar activity in general with current solar activity very low ,meaning I think the low solar requirements necessary to show a more forthright solar /climatic connection are now satisfied.

The upshot is I expect the global temperature trend to continue in this current down trend which started in year 2016 to continue on balance for several years to come. How low the global temperatures will get I do not know for sure but I would say at the very least back to levels near the Dalton which would be around 1c lower then what is current by the next decade.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
February 3, 2019 6:06 pm

If the oceans do start to cool, it will be interesting to see what the lag time is for the CO2 parts per million to start declining.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
February 4, 2019 4:13 am

It is not just Solar input, it is also Cloud Cover that controls how much radiation enters the Oceans and also warms the land.
Mr Svalgaard knows this because he was on the threads where the graphs were posted.
So he knows full well that Sunspot Activity on it’s own will never correlate with temperatures.

GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 1:50 pm

These reports always seem to lead to back-and-forth between those who see solar-climate connections and those who do not (won’t call ’em “deniers”, no not me)

However, I’m befuddled by the “logic” of the “no-Sun-connection” folks in the face of so much ignorance/uncertainty about how the Sun might effect weather/climate on Earth.

Aren’t we supposed to be inclined toward curiosity, as scientists?

The Sun happens to be the only fusion reactor in the neighborhood and it belts out enough reliable energy 24/7/365/4.7-billion to make life possible here on our Little Blue Marble.

It does this with visible sunlight, invisible UV and IR radiation, particulate solar wind, solar magnetism, and other mechanisms that most of us know very little about. All of this “solar energy” impacts Earth in various ways on time scales that are not obvious. Some is reflected, some is absorbed, and some interacts with Earth’s own electromagnetic systems in ways that are little known.

Those who dispute correlations between (e.g.) Sunspot numbers and global temperatures (all constructed from various proxy measurements and historical accounts) seem to dwell on inaccuracies/changes in the proxies and/or weakness in evidence for absolute time-synchronous cause-effect.

Why is there such lack of curiosity about other possibilities? When the Solar energy flux changes (whether in the electromagnetic spectrum, particulate solar wind, or magnetic effects), where does that flux go? Where is it stored on Earth? How does it effect pre-existing Earth systems that store, transport, and exchange energy with other parts of the system?

Just wondering (from a curious geologist).

[cue snarky comment from resident Solar expert Leif]

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 2:02 pm

Why is there such lack of curiosity about other possibilities?
Because the solar TSI provides thousands of times more energy than all the other ‘possibilities’

JimG1
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 2:20 pm

Lief,

You are not answering Geologyjim’s question though I doubt there are any good scientifically verifiable answes, yet.

“where does that flux go? Where is it stored on Earth? How does it effect pre-existing Earth systems that store, transport, and exchange energy with other parts of the system?” That was his real question.

I don’t have the answers either but figure the oceans have a lot to do with the answers. You have any ideas/answers to these questions?

Reply to  JimG1
February 3, 2019 5:23 pm

You are not answering Geologyjim’s question
I was given a scientist’s answer.
comment image

JimG1
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 5:47 pm

Are there any such numbers for stored heat released from the oceans into the atmosphere by ENSO and AMO? Googled it but did not find any data. Perhaps I asked wrong.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 7:33 pm

As I asked you below (but earlier), I’m looking for an answer of more than 25 words.

In typical Leif style, you responded with smart-ass snark rather than data and logic. Your table of astronomical values does not answer the question – all you tabulate is average annual values.

Weather does not respond to annual values. Rather to hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and month-to-month changes in energy imbalances.

Similarly, “climate” does not respond to (or reflect) annual averages of energy inputs. Climate reflects cumulative imbalances in energy flows into and out of the whole earth atmospheric/hydrologic/cryogenic/biologic/geologic systems.

I have no doubt you know far more than I about how the Sun operates, but I think you are rather myopic about the whole climatic systems of Earth.

By the way, if you were aiming to imply that I am not a “scientist” [“I was given a scientist’s answer” – I presume you meant “giving”], let me inform you I have a doctorate in Geology and 40 years experience in interpreting the incomplete geologic record of Earth history and climate change. Geology has taught me humility. Suggestion.

I urge you to take more time to listen, rather than shooting from the hip. We can all learn from each other when we consider the actual conversation rather than “what I hear you saying”

Cheers

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 7:50 pm

As I asked you below (but earlier), I’m looking for an answer of more than 25 words.
I answered in 38 words. Perhaps you can clarify what you actually meant by your question?
And what you expected to hear in response?

Atmospheric and Solar scientists may have less interest in wild speculations than the general public [to which you belong in this case]. Most scientists are concerned with the day-to-day pursuit of nitty-gritty questions that can be answered with a few papers within a funding cycle [grants of a few years] and only few dare deviate much from the current paradigms [career-killing] especially if outside their narrow special field.

cerescokid
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 8:03 pm

“…taught me humility .”

That is something climate science is in serious need of. Given the enormous complexities, one would think there would be an abundance of it. Maybe there will be when the level of true understanding increases in the next few generations.

kim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 3:16 pm

Well, steady output of energy by the sun does not mandate steady intake by the earth, and since no one understands what determines intake it is not demonstrated that some of the intake can’t be determined by the sun.

I had to read that several times before I thought I got the double negatives right, and am still not sure. Still, the jist is there; we don’t know now, do we?
==============================

A C Osborn
Reply to  kim
February 4, 2019 4:16 am

Cloud Cover.

kim
Reply to  A C Osborn
February 4, 2019 12:48 pm

Pretty likely, and there are at least two things sun related that have some influence on that, UV radiation, and cosmic rays. There may be more as yet unknown.

‘The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry violet rays.’

H/t Plum and that other dead white male librettist.
============

Michael Keal
Reply to  kim
February 5, 2019 2:02 pm

Zonal (active sun) or meridional flow (quiet sun) of jet streams.

My guess is that with meridional flow resulting in unusually warm spells near poles and cold spells in sub-tropics the transport of heat from tropics to space would increase.

kim
Reply to  Michael Keal
February 8, 2019 9:21 am

Could be part of the answer.
=====================

GeologyJim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 3:42 pm

Gotcha Leif

I agree that TSI provides all the energy necessary for weather, climate, and life here on our Little Blue Marble

What we should be discussing and researching is the impacts of changes (as little as a few percent) in all the energy fluxes to the planet.

Why, by the way, do Solar scientists refer to the Sun’s output as the “Solar Constant”? What matters is the combined total of electromagnetic and particulate radiation received on Earth, day-by-day, month-by-month, year-by-year, and millenium-by-millenium etc.

Because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical (and variable), doesn’t the sensible TSI vary from place-to-place, hour-to-hour, month-to-month, and year-to-year?

just wondering

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 5:32 pm

Because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical (and variable), doesn’t the sensible TSI vary from place-to-place, hour-to-hour, month-to-month, and year-to-year?
It does, indeed. The variation through the year is almost a hundred times larger than the variation over a solar cycle. It is called the solar constant partly for historical reasons and partly because for all practical purposes it varies so very little [one part in a thousand for the solar output].

GeologyJim
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 5:44 pm

Still waiting, Dr. Svalsgaard –

Earth at apihelion is 3.4% farther from the Sun than it is at perihelion. At 1/r^2, I think that means about 7.2% less solar energy at Earth’s surface during northern hemisphere summer (June) than at southern hemisphere summer (December).

The energy imbalance does not “average out” because the northern and southern hemispheres have wildly different proportions of (absorptive) ocean and (reflective) land.

So the notion of “TSI” and “Solar Constant” are inconsistent with the fundamental geometries of the Earth’s hemispheres and its elliptical orbit around the Sun.

I believe the seasonal and hemispherical imbalances in “received” solar energy are major factors that drive both weather and climate.

What say you? [in more than 25 words, if you please]

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 6:42 pm

So the notion of “TSI” and “Solar Constant” are inconsistent with the fundamental geometries of the Earth’s hemispheres and its elliptical orbit around the Sun.
Sigh…
TSI is what the sun puts out, not what the earth receives. The variation of TSI is very small [one in a thousand] so for all practical purposes the sun’s output is constant, hence the ‘solar constant’. [38 or so words].

frankclimate
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 11:36 pm

Please note that the 2nd. law of Keppler also works: when the earth is nearer to the sun ( in December) it’s also faster on it’s orbit and vice versa. Over a year the flux of energy is canceling out.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 5, 2019 5:05 am

“I believe the seasonal and hemispherical imbalances in “received” solar energy are major factors that drive both weather and climate.”

Yup that’s why it’s cold in winter and hot in summer. But that’s not climate change unless there’s statistically significant deviations from at least 30-year average.

“Please note that the 2nd. law of Keppler also works: when the earth is nearer to the sun ( in December) it’s also faster on it’s orbit and vice versa.”

Solar flux decreases by 1/r^2. Orbital velocity decreases 1/r^0.5. Net effect is solar energy decrease by 1/r^1.5 which means winter is colder than summer is warmer all things equal

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 5, 2019 5:13 am

BTW my winter and summer are in the southern hemisphere. Northern hemisphere is reversed, perihelion is winter

jtom
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 4:59 pm

Leif, I’m sure this has been asked and answered, so if you could point me to the answer I would be grateful. Given the positive feedback mechanisms of increased temperature posited by climatologists and their models, by what percent would the TSI have to vary to see the temperature increase that we have seen SO FAR (NOT the multi-degree rise predicted in the future)? Could that amount of variation be lost in the noise of the data?

Much thanks for your lessons.

Reply to  jtom
February 3, 2019 6:51 pm

how many percent would the TSI have to vary to see the temperature increase that we have seen SO FAR? Could that amount of variation be lost in the noise of the data?
The equation is dTSI/TSI = 4 dT/T. For dT = 1 K we have dT/T = 1/288, hence dTSI/TSI = 4/288 = 400/288 % = 1.38 %. The solar cycle variation of TSI is 0.1 % or 14 times smaller.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 8:02 pm

[sigh]

responding to your exhaustion above, Leif

“Sigh…
TSI is what the sun puts out, not what the earth receives. The variation of TSI is very small [one in a thousand] so for all practical purposes the sun’s output is constant, hence the ‘solar constant’. [38 or so words].”

So what is your point? More precisely, what matters more than “what the earth receives”?

Fercyrinoutloud, aren’t we talking about Earth’s climate??

What is the point of talking about what the Sun emits in this conversation – – if we are not fundamentally talking about how it effects the weather/climate of the Earth on which we live?

Sheesh, nobody cares a whit about the Solar radiation on the Moon or Venus or Mars or any other body in the Solar system. The only object of interest here is the impact on Earth.

Where we live.

Just sayin’, Dr. Svalgaard. Might be time to adjust your priorities.

Dr. GeologyJim [not that I care much for academic titles]

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 8:16 pm

More precisely, what matters more than “what the earth receives”?
We receive what the sun puts out modulated by its distance.
The reason for the term ‘solar constant’ is that what the sun puts out is very nearly constant.
By now I have quite forgotten what your original problem was.
Could you remind me? Preferably in less than 25 words, please.

jtom
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 8:54 pm

Many thanks. I sincerely doubt if all the positive feedback mechanisms theorized by climatologists would come close to amplifying that change by a factor of 14.
Hard to grasp how the earth goes through the climate extremes it does with such a stable sun.

Reply to  jtom
February 3, 2019 8:58 pm

Hard to grasp how the earth goes through the climate extremes it does with such a stable sun.
Sloshing around of ocean currents, perhaps?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 5:10 pm

Why does it solely have to be about energy? Why can’t these other possibilities affect cloud formation or something else that affects climate or weather?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 3, 2019 6:53 pm

<i.Why does it solely have to be about energy? Why can’t these other possibilities affect cloud formation or something else that affects climate or weather?
Because climate and weather effects involve large amounts of energy [think hurricane]. That energy has to come from somewhere.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:33 am

“We receive what the sun puts out modulated by its distance.
The reason for the term ‘solar constant’ is that what the sun puts out is very nearly constant.
By now I have quite forgotten what your original problem was.
Could you remind me? Preferably in less than 25 words, please.”

My “problem” is that Earth’s received Solar energy varies far more than TSI and consists of all EM wavelengths, solar wind, and Sun’s variable magnetic field. Sun’s effect on Earth weather/climate is far more variable than TSI. That’s not so hard to recall, eh?

Reply to  GeologyJim
February 4, 2019 10:41 am

My “problem” is that Earth’s received Solar energy varies far more than TSI and consists of all EM wavelengths, solar wind, and Sun’s variable magnetic field.
Actually not:comment image
BTW, TSI includes ‘all EM wavelengths’…

Michel Jankowski
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:47 am

“…Because climate and weather effects involve large amounts of energy [think hurricane]. That energy has to come from somewhere…”

Ok, let’s “think hurricane.” Saharan dust would be a good start. That heavily influences hurricane development and strengthening. Is that “solely about energy” or is it a bit more complicated?

Reply to  Michel Jankowski
February 4, 2019 11:21 am

That heavily influences hurricane development and strengthening. Is that “solely about energy” or is it a bit more complicated?
Regardless of the complex cause and effect, the energy will have to come from somewhere; the sun is the only source of enough energy to have any effect.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 1:42 pm

“… the sun is the only source of enough energy to have any effect…”

The question being posed is related to non-energetic effects, hence my example of Saharan dust affecting hurricanes. It doesn’t have to be an energy source to have an effect.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 4, 2019 2:28 pm

Saharan dust affecting hurricane
Hurricanes expend a lot of energy. That energy did not come from Saharan dust, but from the sun initially, so it is all about energy in the end.

jtom
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 3, 2019 9:48 pm

Or that energy must be reflected/redirected somewhere else. Unfortunately (?), albedo measurements of the earth don’t correlate with sunspot activity, either, which pretty much rules out an increase in clouds reflecting solar energy.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 9:06 pm

Leif,

I respect your opinion.
I certainly don’t think the recent evidence suggests that “solar activity” (SSNs) ‘drives’ earth climate – tough to define – (but I don’t think it is wise to rule it out as a potentially strong contributing force, e.g., in conjunction with other parameters, such as natural multi-decadal oscillations & other natural occurrences.

Particularly an extended dearth of Sunspots.
Or do you think that the strong correlation between low SSN & Dalton/Maunder Minima is a mere coincidence?

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
February 3, 2019 9:12 pm

strong correlation between low SSN & Dalton/Maunder Minima is a mere coincidence
Yes, because TSI was only marginally lower during those minima. Not enough to explain the LIA.
Now, there should be a weak dependence on the sun, at the 0.1 degree level, which is hard to measure lurking somewhere down in the noise.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 11:33 am

So what do you think was the reason behind the anomalous dips to frigid temps (in Europe, at least) during the so-called Dalton & Maunder Minima (if they couldn’t possibly have been a result in changes coming from ‘our’ star?

By the way, how does one calculate TSI from those periods?

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
February 4, 2019 11:52 am

By the way, how does one calculate TSI from those periods?
We have measured TSI since 1978 and can determine how TSI depends on the sunspot number, then use that relationship to estimate TSI at all times where the sunspot number is know [or estimated].

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 3:28 pm

Thank you for clarifying how TSI & SSN are correlated in the modern record, so equivalent TSIs are inferred for the historical low SSNs.

But how can you be sure the low SSN correlation to low temps is just a coincidence? I noticed that you didn’t offer an alternate explanation for the cold spells. Just some unknown random natural change in ‘radiative forcing’ or deep ocean upturning, eruptions,…?

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
February 4, 2019 3:46 pm

But how can you be sure the low SSN correlation to low temps is just a coincidence?
We cannot be sure, but change in TSI is much too small to account for the low LIA if we use the sensitivity we derive from modern data. So, you have to come up with an explanation about why that is. So far, no credible explanation has been put forward [and generally accepted]. Scientists are normally loath to invoke unknown causes working through unknown mechanisms.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 5, 2019 12:02 pm

Thanks, Leif.

Thank you also for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience with laypersons.

I suppose the SSN theory gets its acid test during Solar Cycle 25.

All the best.

Javier
Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
February 4, 2019 7:16 am

Don’t believe in coincidences. Particularly when they are in plural.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 2:02 pm

where does that flux go? Where is it stored on Earth?

It goes to where it always goes – along away from the sun to the outer solar space.

When the Earth’s magnetic field weakens then sorry no sorries we can take the magnetic field from the ionized atmosphere.

und alles wird gut.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
February 3, 2019 5:24 pm

Johann, you miss the point

The question has to do with the balance of energy-in/energy-out on Earth

Space beyond is inconsequential to those of us on our Little Blue Marble, eh?

David Dirkse
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 2:04 pm

The solar sunspot cycle follows a 11-year period. There is no 11-year component in the observed temperature data for the planet. If the solar cycle influenced temperatures on Earth, one would see an eleven year “wobble” in the data.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 3, 2019 2:14 pm

The oceans are a huge buffer that can easily hide any 11 year “wobble” in any data as they don’t do anything entirely on a traceable basis either. Far too many variables influencing the system creates noise, and not just the oceans.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 3, 2019 2:45 pm

I think that this is a crucial point –
“Far too many variables influencing the system creates noise, and not just the oceans.”

Whilst we have some ideas of the effect of some of the variables, there are still several known unknowns, and [I guess, a scientific term] several unknown unknowns.

And then there are the interactions between all these many, many pairs and triplets of variables, not all of which are even imperfectly understood.

The foregoing, of course, dictates that I do not believe that CO2 is the magic molecule [TM or no TM!]. CO2 might have an effect; if so, it is probably far too small to be isolated amongst all the noise noted by ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N and many others

I think the IPCC itself said something of the same, albeit in rather ‘sciencey’ language.

Auto

ghalfrunt
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 4, 2019 3:14 am

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N February 3, 2019 at 2:14 pm
The oceans are a huge buffer that can easily hide any 11 year “wobble” in any
—————————
If this is the case then why is the noise on the temperature record not smoothed to a “nice” smooth curve?
How does the el Niño cause spike of a years length?

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 4, 2019 5:59 am

In whole degrees, what curve dude..? I don’t get why people are piffling about such tiny almost immeasurable changes in hundreths of degrees. It’s idiotic. (hopefully image shows up):

comment image

John Tillman
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 3, 2019 2:18 pm

The strong correlation breaks down because the temperature “data” for recent decades have been so fictionalized.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

And because, on our water world, there are lags in both the warming and cooling cycles.

Peter K
Reply to  John Tillman
February 4, 2019 5:58 pm

“Fictionalised” I smell a rat when I see that my previous temperature anomaly downloads do not match the current downloads right back to 1880. …1880 is now shown cooler and the more recent years have become warmer. It almost seems that there is an effort to hide any correlation.

Javier
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 3, 2019 2:32 pm

That is your assumption about how the sun must affect climate. But the sun does not need to do things your way.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 8:04 pm

Well stated, Javier

RobR
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 8:57 pm

Yet, we have just experienced a remarkably weak cycle without a noteworthy shift in climate.

Yes, the ocean is a massive heat sink but we know solar energy warms the air on a daily basis. Awaiting a miraculous ocean signal is convenient delay of game.

Javier
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 4, 2019 2:02 am

Yet, we have just experienced a remarkably weak cycle without a noteworthy shift in climate.

So you say the Pause is not noteworthy? It has filled library shelves with scientific literature on it. So many people looking for its cause and it is a bright huge sphere right above their heads. They can’t miss it when is not cloudy.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 3, 2019 4:58 pm

I think the argument is not for an 11-yr temperature cycle linked to the sunspot cycle. The argument is that there is some change in the sun which dampens or augments the sunspot cycle as a whole, and perhaps occurs over a time frame that includes several cycles…..and that this longer term change alters the total absorption of solar energy by the earth, either because the total irradiance is altered or some subset of the irradiance is altered which changes the absorption by the earth, hence changes the overall energy balance on earth.

For example, there is the argument that altering the “solar wind” or particle radiation alters the strength of the magnetic field of the earth which ultimately acts as a particle shield for the earth. This argument proposes this as a mechanism for changing cloud formation in the atmosphere by changing the cosmic ray flux reaching the troposphere. More clouds could alter the climate.

These are all measurable phenomena, and I guess people are measuring them. So answers will be available. …unlike the guesses of the CAGW crowd, which always seem set up to be irrefutable, hence unscientific.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 3, 2019 5:14 pm

Well there are “wobbles” in the data despite big bad CO2 and the influence of GHGs. Even with constant edits to the historical record, you’re not getting a perfect alignment with CO2 and temperature. It’s a little more complicated than that…maybe you should stick to the kids’ table.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  David Dirkse
February 4, 2019 1:02 am

There is a 22 year Hale cycle component to many weather datasets. The magnetic cycle linked to two 11 year solar cycles of oppoite magnetic polarity.

R Shearer
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 2:08 pm

Well, fundamentally you are right but I don’t see anyone presenting a convincing argument in either case.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  R Shearer
February 3, 2019 2:31 pm

As always, when you don’t see a convincing argument in either case then just ask ‘has anyone seen my convincing argument’ in either case.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  GeologyJim
February 3, 2019 3:20 pm

Geo Jim …. I agree with you! IMO, the reason for the lack of curiosity is that science and scientist have become so subcatogorized and vested in their own pet theory, that basic curiosity has gone the way of the dodo bird. This is all complicated by hard heads who insist you disprove their unproven pet theory in order for them to consider anything else.

Look at CO2 … looks good in theory, but proof for CO2 as the control knob for climate is non-existent. Same goes for a solar connection! There is plenty of pondering going on, but the solar-temperature connection is no more proven than the failed CO2-temperature connection.

I personally think viewing the earths climate in terms of radiation is a mistake. We should be looking at the system in terms of total joules, to include all the latent, radiative, chemical, and any other form of energy. Then you have to note that the energy received by the sun at any point and at any given time on earth is unequal. So, while there is the theoretical sweet spot, that 1 sq meter that is receiving ~340 w/m sq at any point in time, the rest of the sq meters on earth are not! Some are gaining and some are losing from a plethora mechanisms. The movement of heat from one spot to another is not something modeled vary easily, as it is chaotic. For example … we just had a polar vortex, and in that process, a huge chunk of heat was transported to the Arctic …. which at the present time is not receiving much or any SW from the sun. What ya reckon happened to that heat? Some got locked up in ice crystals and fell as snow. Some was radiated back to the ice below, where again it was absorbed, …. and I would imagine a large chunk of it radiates out to space. But regardless, it’s fate had little if anything to do with the 1387 W/m2 arriving somewhere else the TOA in the Southern Hemisphere. The temperature at any given spot is influenced to much by the chaotic actions of the earths own inner system that moves heat around everywhere.

I frankly am of the opinion that we don’t know squat about what controls the climate. Bout all we know is that we get x amount from the sun, most of which penetrates the surface of the ocean. As that heat moves from the surface to the outer atmosphere some of it gets trapped, but we can’t know the rate of radiation at the surface because the ocean is a great big heat sink, and the release varies. Thanks to the fortunate positioning of our planet and the presence of water, we have this constant evaporation process that provides the GHG effect that serves as a reservoir of heat to help keep some places on earth warm enough for us to survive.

We don’t know the formula, and we don’t have the computer power to calculate it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dr Deanster
February 3, 2019 3:40 pm

Dr Deanster
You said, “…have become so subcatogorized and vested in their own pet theory…” This is nothing new. It is the reason that T. C. Chamberlain write his little treatise on the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.

February 3, 2019 1:57 pm

This summer in Australia, we had bushfires in Tasmania and Victoria and floods in northern Queensland. On the whole it was an average year in the land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’.
Dorothea Mackellar remains our best climatological guide. “I love a sunburnt country/A land of sweeping plains,/Of ragged mountain ranges,/Of droughts and flooding rains.”

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 4, 2019 4:59 pm

Ragged Mountain ranges? Is that poetic license?

February 3, 2019 2:03 pm

Regarding the 11 year Sunspot cycle, I recall many years ago reading a book called “The Jupetor effect”, which stated that about every 11 years the planets headed by the biggest Jupiter lined up, and the pull of gravety on the Sun caused variations in its output.

Is this still true, and if so does it combine with the Maunder minumen to change the Suns energy output, or its magnetic effects.

MJE

Reply to  Michael
February 3, 2019 2:55 pm

The Jupiter Effect was the title of a book by Nigel Calder that attempted to predict the San Francisco earthquake on th stress placed on the Earth’s plates by the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter. It was also called the Age of Aquarius because five of the planets inclduing Jupiter were aligned in the sky and had a gravitational effect as well as implications for Astrology. Of corse, the classic planetary alignment that includes Jupiter is the variation in the Earth’s orbit, (orbital eccentricity) which is one leg of the Milankovitch effect.

There are a few who examine the effects of gravity of the Sun, the Moon, and the major planets on the climate. I am one of them. I know Piers Corbyn is another, but we are in a minority because as you can see from the discussion here they can’t even agree on the major source of energy on Earth, the Sun, and most reject the effect of geothermal energy. For the best brief explanation .of why there is no general theory about climate read a chapter in Essex and McKtrick’s “Taken by Storm’.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Tim Ball
February 3, 2019 3:17 pm

There was a certain Mr. Landscheidt who was searching correlations in planetar mouvements, sun and El Niño and was able to predict two or three.
Unfortunately he left us some years ago.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Tim Ball
February 4, 2019 1:45 am

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?

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 80 to 90-year 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 skillful 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.

Landscheidts publications

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Tim Ball
February 5, 2019 5:35 am

Dr. Ball

The tidal forces of the planets on Earth are negligible compared to the moon. The sun is more massive than all the planets combined yet the moon has stronger tidal force than the sun because it is closest to Earth.

Reply to  Tim Ball
February 6, 2019 8:56 am

Tim
true
there are indeed only a few of us who have seen the correlation between the position of certain planets and the amount of warmth reaching the surface of earth.
Back in the early 80’s William Arnold also figured it out but then came the AGW….Blame man…much more profitable if he feels guilty…
What a pitty.
And why do the lies continue? I give a hint for the reason on my new page.
Click on my name to read it.

Wsbriggs
February 3, 2019 2:06 pm

I’ll be glad when folks finally start working through Willis’ seminal works and understand that correlation is not causation. Futhermore that when the correlation goes away it means that the correlated item WASN’T the cause. End of story.

Javier
February 3, 2019 2:11 pm

Solar activity has not only increased for the past 300 years, but its periods of high and low solar activity show good coincidence with periods of higher and lower temperature with respect to the trend.

comment image

No other climate forcing has a better match to temperature

Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 5:19 pm

Solar activity has not only increased for the past 300 years,
You have been told repeatedly that this claim is false. Psy sttention now:
comment image
comment image

No other climate forcing has a better match to temperature
Obviously there is no match. As is plain for all to see from your graph.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 3, 2019 5:30 pm

Solar was very strong all of the last century and caused the warming up until year 2005.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
February 3, 2019 6:57 pm

Solar was very strong all of the last century
As it was in the two centuries prior to last century:
comment image

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 2:35 am

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal “Nature” from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 4, 2019 6:03 am

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years
No, that old paper is debunked by better data
comment image
Wu et al. 2018 and https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 8:26 am

Wu et al., 2018 didn’t debunk the modern maximum, because it ends in 1895, forty years before the modern maximum started.

As usual you deceive people.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:49 am

Wu et al., 2018 didn’t debunk the modern maximum, because it ends in 1895
They extended it to the present by adding the recent sunspot numbers.
Although they didn’t quite do it correctly. This is what you get if you do it correctly:
comment image

If you have a problem with that, study
https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf
and tell us precisely where you think it goes wrong.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 11:23 am

They extended it to the present by adding the recent sunspot numbers.

You continue deceiving people. They did not extend their reconstruction. Their reconstruction ends in 1895 and that is what one gets when one downloads their dataset.

They compared their result with the V2 SN dataset from SILSO (Clette et al., 2014) for the overlapping period 1700-1895. They had no data for the 1895-2018 period, so no comparison was possible for that period.

Isn’t it time you stop deceiving people at WUWT?

You plugged other data with a different origin to their reconstruction in a practice that is disavowed in science. It is called Frankesteinian reconstruction and is the same alarmists do when they plug instrumental temperatures to proxy data. Michael Mann is an expert. Perhaps you learned it from him.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 11:48 am

They compared their result with the V2 SN dataset from SILSO (Clette et al., 2014) for the overlapping period 1700-1895. They had no data for the 1895-2018 period, so no comparison was possible for that period.
Perhaps you should study their paper a bit. They derived and calibrated their reconstruction using the old version 1 SSN, and note that to compare with version one should multiply by 1.667. One thing one must demand is that if you do that, it should match v2. It is evident that their reconstruction fails to do that:
comment image
If you multiply by 2.0, you get a match with v2:
comment image
As simple as that.

I urged you to study https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf
and point out where it [in your opinion] goes wrong.
Instead you hand wave and spew your usual venom.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 12:05 pm

You’re so funny, Leif.

You start saying that Solanki et al., 2004 Modern Solar Maximum was debunked by Wu et al., 2018. When showed that you are deceiving people because Wu et al., 2018 does not contain data for the 20th century, you actually lecture me and encourage me to study their paper.

I am rolling over the floor.

Your butcher work on Wu et al., 2018 data doesn’t interest me the least. Knowing how biased you are about this issue I wouldn’t trust anything coming from you.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 12:09 pm

you actually lecture me and encourage me to study their paper.
Yes, that would the honest thing to do, before you dig your hole any deeper.
To help you out you can start with my take on it:
https://leif.org/research/Nine-Millennia-of-Multimessenger-Solar-Activity.pdf

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 12:18 pm

To help you out you can start with my take on it

Sorry, I prefer the original to the badly adulterated copy.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 12:20 pm

I prefer the original to the badly adulterated copy.
Sticking your head in the sand is Bad Science too.

Renee
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
February 4, 2019 8:27 am

Solar shows very strong 11 year cycles from 1930 to 2000 with a brief strong period from 1830-1860. The two prior centuries were not near as strong as the past century.
https://imgur.com/a/QnKDxVl

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 2:08 am

You have been told repeatedly that this claim is false.

I am as obstinate as the data. The international sunspot database
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
Shows an increasing linear trend. Very clear. 25% increase over the average in 300 years.

Your attempts to disguise what the data says are laughable.

Obviously there is no match.

The three coldest periods in 300 years coincide with the three lowest activity periods in 300 years. I call that a match. What other forcing does better?

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 5:41 am

The international sunspot database http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
Shows an increasing linear trend. Very clear. 25% increase over the average in 300 years.

Not so:
comment image
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 6:59 am

Yes so:
comment image

It is funny that you will try to refute what I say about http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt using different datasets and figures.

It is obvious for everybody except the mathematically challenged that what I say about http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt is correct. It shows a significant increase in sunspots for the past 300 years.

You are the one that refuses to learn what the data says. Now you will come and say that the uncertainty is too large. Apparently it is only large when it shows an increase.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 7:07 am

It shows a significant increase in sunspots for the past 300 years.
Perhaps you should put the R^2 value on your graph. If it is low, the change is not significant.
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 7:46 am

The R^2 is low because solar activity goes up and down, but the linear increase is from ~70 sunspots/year to ~90 susnpots/year over a long term average of 79 sunspots/year, so it is a very significant increase.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:33 am

The R^2 is low because solar activity goes up and down
The cycle average activity is a good measure of the evolution of the trend:
comment image
The low R^2 of 0.0287 shows that the trend is not significant

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 7:55 am

That’s what you say.

Over the last 300 years the trend indicates average yearly sunspot number went from 65.5 sunspots/year to 92.4 sunspots/year. A 60% increase in sunspots is not insignificant.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:40 am

Over the last 300 years the trend indicates average yearly sunspot number went from 65.5 sunspots/year to 92.4 sunspots/year
No, as in some years the average yearly sunspot number was close to zero…
If you plot the two highest years in each cycle as a function of time, R^2 of the trend is 0.0721; still not significant.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 10:23 am

Now the people at WUWT have the chance to contrast what Leif says. He has been accused multiple times by other commenters of being biased and partial. Now people can download the sunspot yearly dataset at SILSO:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
Put it into Excel, graph it and ask for the linear trend. Then contrast the result with what Leif says, that there has been no increase in solar activity for the past 300 years.

If after that they continue trusting what Leif says, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Pft
February 3, 2019 2:37 pm

So this means along with reduced TSI there will more GCR’s and more clouds that reflect light and less warming outside el nino years.

Not good. I kind of like it warm as I get old

Also all that carbon black that will be piling up in the sratosphere due to tens of thousands of 5 G satellite launches will make it cooler as well. Whether thats enough to push us into a LIA or worse I dont know

Javier
February 3, 2019 2:44 pm

Solar variability controls ENSO. It was reported by several authors. I already demonstrated that:

comment image

TSI changes cannot explain solar control of ENSO, at least completely. Leamon and McIntosh have proposed that solar particles are involved at certain times.

A lot of people here think they know everything solar because they can compare sunspots with temperature. Well, they don’t. Solar mechanisms affecting climate are multiple and complex, acting at different times and with different time lags.

Editor
Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 2:56 pm

Javier, regarding your comparison graph…
comment image
…it works in some cases but not others. Therefore, it’s wishful thinking on your part. Nothing more, nothing less. Just wishful thinking.

Good-bye

Javier
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 3, 2019 3:16 pm

Do the numbers Bob. The chances of a La Niña right before a solar minimum are 0.5. The chances of an El Niño right after are 0.5. The chances of such repetition for six consecutive cycles are 1 in 4000. If you then add the chances of having a La Niña when solar activity is rapidly increasing for six consecutive cycles, well the probabilities start to be amazingly low.

It is wishful thinking on your part that because it doesn’t happen every cycle the control does not exist.

kim
Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 3:22 pm

Roll dem bones,
No pens, no phones.
==============

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 3, 2019 11:39 pm
Ian Wilson
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 4, 2019 1:16 am

For those who can’t see the graph – It shows the power spectrum of the median summer [DJF] maximum temperatures for Adelaide, South Australia between 1888 and 2010. The median maximum summer temperature time series used to create this power spectrum was corrected for the longest-term variations.

Singular Spectral Analysis of the Summer (DJF) Median Maximum Temperature for Adelaide between 1888 and 2011

http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2012/06/singular-spectral-analysis-of-summer.html

What this spectrum shows is that the n=2 through to n=10 harmonic components of the 22-year Hale cycle are clearly evident in the temperature record. Meteorologically, this result implies that the vorticity (i.e. wind speeds about the centre) of the semi-permanent high-pressure system that lies off the South-Eastern coast of Australia every summer must vary with the 22-year Hale-cycle.

This is direct evidence that the 22-year solar cycle has an effect upon a regional part of the Earth’s climate system, however, it is ignored by the so-called experts because it does not fit the current pseudo-scientific narrative.

N.B.: That no one has come forward and scientifically refuted this specific result.

Reply to  Ian Wilson
February 6, 2019 9:07 am

Ian
I am with you!!!
must say that I have also identified the 22 year Hale cycle as being very significant for weather /rain, here in South Africa. Clickon my name to read my final report.
The 22 years is average, it can vary.

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 4, 2019 3:57 pm

The silence is deafening……!!!

Javier
Reply to  Ian Wilson
February 5, 2019 3:34 am

I don’t have much to add. I would expect summer temperature to depend in part on ENSO, being in that part of the world. And ENSO has a solar cycle associated periodicity. Part of the power in the 22-yr cycle might come from the 11-yr cycle.

I still have trouble figuring out how climate could detect and respond noticeably to the 22-year cycle, that as far as I know it is only detectable in the polarity of the solar magnetic fields, and small changes in GCR flux. It might be an artifact of the response to the 11-year cycle due to the Gnevyshev-Ohl rule producing a bigger response on odd cycles.

Ian Wilson
Reply to  Javier
February 5, 2019 3:34 pm

Thank you Javier, Some good points. I too am a bit perplexed as to why the 22-year cycle is prominent but not the 11-year cycle. However, the observational evidence is clear. At least you accept that a good scientist shouldn’t ignore direct observational evidence.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
February 5, 2019 3:52 pm

Au contraire. The most interesting observations are those for which we still don’t have an explanation. Instead of ignoring them one has to keep them in mind. That’s how Karin Labitzke solved the solar effect on the polar stratosphere. But we must be wary of beautiful hypotheses, as they tend to be slaughtered by ugly facts.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 3:56 am

You should be comparing ENSO to the solar wind speed rather than sunspot number, then you will see the inverse correlation to nearly all events. The only notable exceptions are two El Nino episodes associated with major volcanic events during faster solar wind periods, and the 2015-16 El Nino.

Javier
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
February 4, 2019 7:31 am

Solar wind speed periodicity is also 11-years, and the solar wind speed database is not easy to work with.

People that refute a solar variability role on climate change become silent when showed the evidence that solar activity paces ENSO. Their 0.1% argument becomes irrelevant. ENSO is the principal mode of tropical climate variability and is under solar activity control. Who is denying science?

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:58 am

Major lows in the solar wind 1969 and 1979-80 at sunspot maximum. and major lows in 1997 and 2009 around a year past sunspot minimum/ That is not a regular 11 years.
comment image

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 12:19 pm

Javier February 4, 2019 at 7:31 am

People that refute a solar variability role on climate change become silent when showed the evidence that solar activity paces ENSO.

Data, please. Which “solar activity”? Which “ENSO”? Here, for example, is the cross-correlation of sunspots with the NINO34 Index of ENSO activity …

Not seeing anything “irrefutable” about that even with a lag …

Regards,

w.

PS—If you’re going to show a graph, please provide links to the data sources … for my graph above they are:

NINO34 data source:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.anom.data

Sunspots data source:

http://sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_m_tot_V2.0.txt

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 12:45 pm

Not seeing anything “irrefutable” about that

Not looking properly.
Restrict your analysis to the periods when solar activity increases from 20% of maximum to 80% of maximum of the respective cycle. Check what value of Niño 3.4 corresponds to those periods. If random it should not be significantly different from zero. If significantly different from zero it is not random.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 3:16 pm

Thanks, Javier. Not sure why you are asking me to do it rather than doing it yourself, but I did it. I found that during the months on the upswing side of the solar activity from 20% to 80% of max value, the average NINO34 value was -0.14.

Is this statistically significant?

Turns out it is absolutely not significant. The only way to determine if it is valid is to do a Monte Carlo analysis. I did that by displacing the chosen dates (the months when sunspots were between 20% to 80% of the upswing) all a random distance forwards or backward in time, from -288 to +288 months (±24 years). I ran 100,000 of these Monte Carlo runs with the displaced timing. This let me see how unusual my result was.

In the event, some 18.5% of the Monte Carlo runs gave averages below the -0.14 value from the chosen times on the upslope. This means the result is far from being statistically significant.

Best regards,

w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 5, 2019 3:14 am

Willis,
I suggested a different approach if you are interested in the issue. I didn’t ask for anything because I can do it myself.

We are not getting the same result. I use the ONI (Oceanic Niño Index) from NOAA:
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
And the monthly smoothed sunspot dataset from SILSO:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_ms_tot_V2.0.txt

My 20-80% upslope sunspot comes with an average ONI of -0.396.
Being a little bit more restrictive and choosing 35-80% the average ONI is -0.649, which is full fledged La Niña.

Here is the data:
Month Sunspots ONI
SC19 35-80%
1955.874 103.5 -1.7
1955.958 114.8 -1.5
1956.042 125.8 -1.1
1956.124 139.4 -0.8
1956.206 154.7 -0.6
1956.29 168.1 -0.5
1956.373 180.4 -0.5
1956.456 193.9 -0.5
1956.54 206.1 -0.6
1956.624 211.8 -0.6
1956.708 214.5 -0.5
1956.791 220.6 -0.4
1956.874 226 -0.4
SC20 35-80%
1966.538 71.4 0.2
1966.623 80.3 0.1
1966.707 89.5 -0.1
1966.79 95.8 -0.1
1966.874 99.4 -0.2
1966.958 103 -0.3
1967.042 106.2 -0.4
1967.123 111.6 -0.5
1967.204 116.5 -0.5
1967.288 119.8 -0.4
1967.371 123.9 -0.2
SC21 35-80%
1978.204 98.7 0.1
1978.288 109 -0.2
1978.371 117.8 -0.3
1978.455 126.6 -0.3
1978.538 138 -0.4
1978.623 147.3 -0.4
1978.707 153.6 -0.4
1978.79 157.3 -0.3
1978.874 160.4 -0.1
1978.958 166.7 0
1979.042 175.2 0
1979.123 185.4 0.1
SC22 35-80%
1988.206 84.9 0.1
1988.29 93 -0.3
1988.373 101.4 -0.9
1988.456 114.3 -1.3
1988.54 128.5 -1.3
1988.624 141.1 -1.1
1988.708 151.2 -1.2
1988.791 156.9 -1.5
1988.874 164.4 -1.8
SC23 35-80%
1998.204 72 1.4
1998.288 76.9 1
1998.371 80.8 0.5
1998.455 85.4 -0.1
1998.538 89.8 -0.8
1998.623 93.5 -1.1
1998.707 96.4 -1.3
1998.79 98.2 -1.4
1998.874 102.3 -1.5
1998.958 110.4 -1.6
1999.042 118.4 -1.5
1999.123 122.5 -1.3
1999.204 122.3 -1.1
1999.288 125 -1
1999.371 132.6 -1
1999.455 136.3 -1
1999.538 138.1 -1.1
1999.623 142.9 -1.1
SC24 35-80%
2010.958 42.5 -1.6
2011.042 45.7 -1.4
2011.123 48.8 -1.1
2011.204 53.8 -0.8
2011.288 61.1 -0.6
2011.371 69.3 -0.5
2011.455 77.2 -0.4
2011.538 83.6 -0.5
2011.623 86.3 -0.7
2011.707 86.6 -0.9
2011.79 87.4 -1.1
2011.874 89.4 -1.1
2011.958 92.5 -1
Average ONI -0.648684211

Definitely statistically significant.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 5, 2019 7:54 am

With the data above, my 100,000 Monte Carlo runs analysis with the average of six random 12-continuous-month periods in the ONI dataset only came below -0.64868 in 0.696%, significant at p<0.01.

The occurrence of La Niña when there is a 35-80% increase in solar cycle activity is not due to random.

Solar variability control of ENSO is a fact. Given the importance of ENSO to tropical climate we can say that solar variability is an important climatic factor.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 3, 2019 3:09 pm

It seems that TSI might have a more powerful short term effect on climate and rainfall than sunspots. I remember seeing a chart on a certain river on one of Brian Cox’s Wonders of the Solar System vids, where it was shown to him by another researcher. It showed a pretty good correlation between TSI and river levels.

We all know that correlation doesn’t always mean causation, but certain things are drivers and others are caused by them. It’s possible that sunspots have more long term effects than TSI and need to be suppressed for a few cycles before the oceans and everything else catches up to show cooling as per Maunder etc. Then there are Milankovich Cycles to consider in the mix. After all it doesn’t take much change in distance from the Sun to have a hemisphere go from summer to winter and back.

As for Cox and DeGrasse-Tyson, I used to look up to those guys but since they appear to have been bought or their careers threatened unless they toe the CAGWist line, they can go jump if they’re going to be that cowardly. I don’t seriously think they’re THAT brainless to not be at minimum highly suspicious of the CAGWist narrative. Shame on them.

John Tillman
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 3, 2019 3:28 pm

TSI is less climatically significant than the variation in its UV component, which is about two orders of magnitude greater than in TSI, and qualitatively different from visible and IR spectra, thanks to its effect on ozone and its penetration of seawater, among other factors.

kim
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
February 3, 2019 3:29 pm

Check out Joan Feynman and the correlation between aurorae boreales and Nile River levels. Long time series and reliable data. But I’ve been round and round with Leif and Willis over this one, and still don’t know the truth of it.
===================

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  kim
February 3, 2019 3:59 pm

That’s true Kim. At this stage we might as well be predicting climate by researching swirly colours on a soap bubble. There are so many variables. If we could shoo the other planets out of the Solar System, Earth’s history would be entirely different. And for CAGWists to ignore all of this in favour of a trace molecule shows how corrupt and closed-minded they are.

Reply to  kim
February 4, 2019 3:43 am

Hi kim, ) ::

Professor WJR Alexander Uni of Pretoria published a a Report ‘A Critical Assessment of Current Climate Science’ April 2006, which I downloaded for my files in 2011. The Report is a well documented study of sunspot observations and correlation with flood data of the the River Vaal.and successful predictions he made bases on the data. Also connects with R E Hursts anomales of Nile River data. Can’t get Google to bring the paper up but this is available from Prof Pielke that includes the charts from the original research. Significance links with alternating cycles and river flow.
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/climate-change-the-west-vs-the-rest-by-will-alexander/

Reply to  beththeserf
February 4, 2019 11:37 am

Thanks, Beth, but unfortunately I can’t find the Vaal data that Professor Alexander used, so I can’t comment on it.

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 5, 2019 3:54 am

Found this, Willis, but not the original paper,.
‘http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.9766&rep=rep1&type=pdf

kim
Reply to  beththeserf
February 4, 2019 12:14 pm

Oh, thanks, Beth; that’s nice stuff from Alexander through Pielke Pere.

Now here’s something for you, germane it is.

“In brief, then, I have conceived the stupendous idea of reorganizing the climates of the earth according to the desire of the populations interested. That is to say, I will furnish climates to order for cash or negotiable paper, taking the old climates in part payment, of course, at a fair discount, where they are in condition to be repaired at small cost and let out to hire to poor and remote communities not able to afford a good climate and not caring for an expensive one for mere display. My studies have convinced me that the regulation of climates and the breeding of new varieties at will from the old stock is a feasible thing; indeed, I am convinced that it has been done before, done in prehistoric times by now forgotten and unrecorded civilizations. Everywhere I find hoary evidences of artificial manipulation of climates in bygone times. Take the glacial period. Was that produced by accident? Not at all; it was done for money. I have a thousand proofs of it, and will some day reveal them.

I will confide to you an outline of my idea. It is to utilize the spots on the sun–get control of them, you understand, and apply the stupendous energies which they wield to beneficent purposes in the reorganization of our climates. At present they merely make trouble and do harm in the evoking of cyclones and other kinds of electric storms; but once under humane and intelligent control this will cease, and they will become a boon to man.”

H/t Colonel Mulberry Sellers in ‘The American Claimant’ by Samuel Langhorne Clemons, AKA Mark Twain.
==============

Joel O’Bryan
February 3, 2019 3:24 pm

I have a formulated hypothesis about why the Sun got so active with multiple beta gamma delta flaring spots in 2nd half of August 2017 and the the big ones in the first 11 days of that September.

It’ll blow the socks off astrophysics, convective zone MHD physics, and helioseismology. Very specific predictions. No numerology or wiggle matching. Pure physics.

Maybe in the next 2 months I’ll have it put together. Some major new data dumped in last 30 days on arxiv.org so I’m still working on that.

Editor
February 3, 2019 3:25 pm

Solar input has been dropping since the cycle that peaked in 1980. Here is the data. Before anyone starts claiming that the slight solar variations associated with sunspots rule the temperature, it’s now been thirty years since the solar drop started … just exactly when are we supposed to see the cooling kick in?

w.

kim
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 3:31 pm

Hard to believe you and Leif can think it is that simple. Clue, it isn’t.
=====================================================

Javier
Reply to  kim
February 3, 2019 3:57 pm

It is laughable. A 19th century approach. It is obvious that if solving solar effect on climate could be done by correlating two simple variables, like sunspots and temperature, it would have been solved not decades ago, but centuries. These people try to keep science at the level of 200 years ago.

Olavi Vulkko
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 3:52 pm

Cooling has allready started. 5 years from now, you too are convinced.

kim
Reply to  Olavi Vulkko
February 3, 2019 3:55 pm

Heh, I’ve been saying that for years, and given that we really don’t know what the ocean is doing, I may have been right all along. Certainly, atmospheric temperatures are not the whole story.
======================

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 3:57 pm

Climate is weather averaged over decades, centuries, millennia, tens, hundreds and thousands of millennia. Please extend your graph plots back a mere five millennia to the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Or, failing that, consider just the past 400 years during which sunspots have been directly observed, not having to rely on radioisotope proxies. During extended solar minima, Earth cools, such as the long and low Maunder Minimum. But naturally, given Earth’s liquid water oceans and ice sheets, there are lags.

Even so, the Maunder was cold, and Earth has been warming, with ups and downs since then.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 4:32 pm

So far, only one person has actually answered my question, viz:

… just exactly when are we supposed to see the cooling kick in?

That person said cooling has “already started” but failed to provide any evidence or even any indication of what he was referring to.

It’s curious. You guys are saying it’s not simple, that my approach is “19th century”, and that my results are not valid unless I extend them back to the Holocene Climate Optimum.

None of that is even remotely scientific. What would be scientific would be for someone, any one of you, to explain why despite the clear fact that the solar activity has been decreasing for thirty years, the earth is still warming.

Failing that, you’re just flapping your gums and waving your hands …

w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 4:53 pm

Solar activity did not decrease for 30 years.
comment image
Did not decrease from 1965 to 1995.

So your clear fact is already wrong.

Reply to  Javier
February 3, 2019 6:37 pm

Solar activity did not decrease for 30 years.
It decreased for 63 [and 39] years as this Javier-style graph shows:
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 2:12 am

Still, solar activity did not decrease between 1965-1995, that includes the period of global warming between 1976-1998.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 5:54 am

solar activity did not decrease between 1965-1995
But it did 1980-2018, which includes the traditional ‘global warming’ years
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 6:52 am

And it increased 1700-2018, that includes all warming since the LIA.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 7:00 am

And it increased 1700-2018, that includes all warming since the LIA.
Not so: comment image
comment image
comment image

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 7:18 am

Yes so:
comment image

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 7:25 am

Yes so:

Afraid to put the R^2 (0.0087 for SN, 0.000002 for GN, 0.0022 for combined) on your graph?

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 4, 2019 7:57 am

There is a 60% increase in average sunspots over 320 years. You don’t need a R^2 to tell you that is significant.

Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 8:44 am

There is a 60% increase in average sunspots over 320 years. You don’t need a R^2 to tell you that is significant.
Nonsense. Average over what? A cycle?
comment image

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Javier
February 4, 2019 11:51 am
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 4, 2019 1:34 pm

Sorry, resourceguy, but I have no idea what you are trying to show with the non-detrended version of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. What your graph shows is that the North Atlantic is generally warming …

… and?

w.

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 5:11 pm

Earth isn’t warming.

It has been cooling since February 2016.

Before that there was no statistically significant warming between the super El Ninos of 1998-99 and 2015-16.

Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012. Antarctic land ice is growing. Antarctic sea ice grew in the dedicated satellite record from 1979 to 2014, then due to freak WX events in 2016, thanks to the super El Nino, briefly pulled back. Now it’s growing again.

How has all this cooling escaped your notice? Maybe if you lived in the Midwest, with record lake ice and snow year after year, you’d have noticed.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 3, 2019 11:55 pm

John, yes, you can cherry-pick endpoints between which it isn’t significantly warming.

But that’s not what I said. I said that since 1979, the MSU temperatures go up. The most recent year of the MSU data is almost half a degree warmer than the first year of MSU data.

Are there places in there where the temperature dropped? Sure. It dropped like crazy for 12 months after April 1988 … but then it rose like crazy for 12 months prior to April 1988.

So what? Seriously, you can’t think cherry-picking a special section of a long-term dataset is meaningful?

OVERALL, since 1979 MSU temps and HadCRUT temps have gone UP, and solar activity has gone DOWN. That’s the part I’m asking an explanation for, and haven’t yet gotten.

Regards,

w.

frankclimate
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 1:52 am

Willis, moreover who claims that TSI has a bigger influence on the GMST on shorter timescales ( decades) has to acknowledge a very high ECS to cancel out the “cooling” from solar activity (TSI) after SC23.

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 6:23 am

Willis,

No cherry pick at all. Over any climatically significant interval, solar output correlates with temperature, although of course other factors enter the picture, such as albedo, arrangement of continents and Earth’s tilt.

You’ve repeatedly been given at least one reason why Earth has warmed slightly while solar cycles have diminshed. Thanks to oceans and other causes, the effect of more or less solar radiation isn’t instantaneous. The Modern Warm Period owes partly to higher solar output compared to the Little Ice Age. It takes decades for the oceans to warm up and decades for them to cool off, thanks to thermal inertia.

Yet, even with lower solar power, Earth’s mild warming has effectively stopped in this century. The now trend of the past three years is cooling, coming off the super El Nino high for the century, which was not significantly warmer than the last super El Nino of the last century.

I’d have thought that this was obvious.

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 7:39 am

Here’s a summary of solar output and average global temperature for the past four billion years, ie on the scale of geologic eons and eras. The sun’s power increases one percent per 110 million years, so at the outset of the Archean Eon (4.0 to 2.5 Ga), it was about 64% to 77% of present level.

What evidence exists is that the Archean was about as warm as now, despite a less powerful sun. Consensus “climate science” tries to attribute this “faint young sun paradox” to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the alleged paradox is better explained by albedo on a planet without continents, plus stronger solar wind and greater radiogenic heating.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/48208677_Clouds_and_the_Faint_Young_Sun_Paradox

Continents, indeed the first supercontinents, appear in the Proterozoic Eon (2.5 Ga to 541 Ma), with Snowball Earth episodes. Both the Paleoproterozoic Era and Neoproterozoic Eras suffered extreme glaciations, with the Mesoproterozoic apparently less icy.

Extensive glaciation seems to require land over a pole during an “Icehouse” phase of the solar system’s journey around the galaxy, but weaker sun also appears to have made them more frequent and harsher in the past. The apparent lack of a major ice age in the Mesoproterozoic Era (1/6 to 1.0 Ga) might be explained by its supercontinent history.

Early Mesoproterozoic Supercontinent Columbia, as best it can be reconstructed, got closer to the North Pole than the South, but not near enough to initiate global glaciation, despite the sun’s power at 14.5% below now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(supercontinent)#/media/File:Paleoglobe_NO_1590_mya-vector-colors.svg

Plate tectonics seem to drive a cycle of supercontinents forming and splitting apart every 400 or 500 million years. The final amalgamation of Columbia didn’t happen until ~1.53 Ga. It broke up ~1.18 Ga during several rifting episodes, followed by a short period of independent drift of most continents. Rodinia didn’t assemble until 1.10 to 1.04 Ga, at the end of the era, setting up the Snowball Earth events of the Neoproterozoic.

Our present, generally balmier Phanerozoic Eon has suffered three major glaciations, but all less severe than Proterozoic Snowball Earth episodes. Thanks to higher solar radiation, even land repeatedly over the South Pole hasn’t produced low latitude ice sheets, as during Snowball Earths.

The relatively brief but severe Ordivician-Silurian ice age occurred about 440 Ma, with solar power four percent lower than now. CO2 was about ten times higher than present still dangerously low levels. The longer lasting Carboniferous-Permian glaciation saw CO2 dip to around 300 ppm, ie higher than during glacial intervals of our current ice age, but lower than Holocene highs. The Mesozoic Icehouse didn’t yield continental ice sheets, as it was generally warm and neither Pangaea nor its broken apart bits reached the South Pole until the Cenozoic, our present Era.

The early Cenozoic continued Mesozoic toastiness, but then Antarctica separated from South America and Australia with deep oceanic channels. As during an Icehouse phase, this produced the current ice age, with permanent but waxing and waning Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and intermittent North American and Eurasian sheets.

So in general, higher solar radiation has made the Phanerozoic generally warmer than the Proterozoic, but tectonics and albedo remain important factors. Ice is to feared. It will be at least another eon before heat is to be dreaded.

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 12:04 pm

Orodovician. Typo.

John Tillman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 12:35 pm

From last year, just another paper in the copious literature covering the effect of solar cycles on temperature and other climatic phenomena:

Solar cyclic variability can modulate winter Arctic climate

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22854-0

And another, from 2010 on a long record of SST:

Solar Cycles in 150 Years of Global Sea Surface Temperature Data

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2010JCLI3232.1

Of course, rainfall, wind, atmospheric pressure and other climatic paramaters are also affected by the ~11-year cycle and longer quasi-periods.

jtom
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 5:28 pm

Perhaps the assumption of a one-to-one correlation is wrong. Could it not be a step function, where any cycle with a max sunspot number of, say, 100, maintain equilibrium or produces warming, whereas multiple consecutive cycles under 100 initiate cooling?

Not advancing any theory, just looking at possibilities. Dr. S has the hard data and observational science to back his theories. I would not even think of challenge them. What bothers me is that much of the folklore developed by our ancestors, based on their own painstaking observations, have ended up being shown scientifically as having some merit once you discard the ritualistic nonsense.

rh
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 6:07 pm

According to the following chart, a major cooling event should start around 2032.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation#/media/File:Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation.svg

Reply to  rh
February 3, 2019 11:56 pm

Sorry, rh, but NOBODY knows what 2032 will be like. We can’t yet even explain the past, much less predict the future.

w.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 3:06 pm

the solar activity has been decreasing for thirty years

The most important solar indice, TSI, has not been ‘decreasing for 30 years’ even though sunspot activity has declined generally:

comment image

Sunspot number and F10.7cm are also non-linear TSI proxies.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2019 3:26 pm

The most important solar indice, TSI, has not been ‘decreasing for 30 years
The PMOD TSI calibration has been in doubt for some time now…
You should not base any conclusions on PMOD.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 5, 2019 4:31 am

Then PMOD should retract their data if it’s so bad. The TSI tweakers have gone too far…

Irrespective of PMOD calibration the years 2000-2002 are always the top years. You haven’t given a sufficient reason to counter the PMOD rankings I listed.

I told you last year their TSI was too low during this minimum, and that RMIB was too high. In December last year you were again singing the praises of the RMIB TSI data. Did you know RMIB retracted the data for several months that they’d already published, back to April 2, 2019, before republishing it again this month? It’s still too high for 2018.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 5, 2019 4:39 am

oops, that should’ve been “April 2, 2018′

Bob Weber
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
February 5, 2019 3:00 pm

and finally, the RMIB TSI rankings place 5 SC23 years in the top 10, with the same three years as PMOD at the top, but in a different order:

comment image

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 5:06 pm

Solar should have had a net warming of the climate until late 2005. There after lag times came into play and I always said 10+ years of sub solar activity in general combined with low average value solar parameters will result in cooling which we now have post 2016.

Right on target and it is going to continue as we move forward.

ColinD
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 3, 2019 6:28 pm

This must have been investigated somewhere but Willis’ graph shows potential for a lag response between sunspot activity and global temp. Surely that would make sense as the earth will have numerous buffering mechanisms.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 3:33 am

There is a strong inverse response from the AMO to changes in the solar wind via the NAO/AO, which is why the AMO warmed from the mid 1990’s. So notable cooling will ‘kick in’ past this centennial solar minimum and when the solar wind becomes stronger again.

‘Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed’

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
February 4, 2019 8:14 am

Willis

If you make the same errors everytime,
i.e.
no equal amounts of stations nh/sh,
data sets not properly balanced to zero latitude nh /sh,
uah and rss re-calibrated /adjusted on the same eroneous terrestrial data sets,
etc.

you will always get the same results,
i.e. it is warming….

Truth is that I could not find any man made warming, global or otherwise… Everything is following natural curves. There are periods of cooling and warming on earth.
We should be happy with a period of warming as cooling has proved to be quite disastrous in the past, e.g. think of the little ice age, never mind the last ice age.
Ice has been melting for the past 20000 years and we should celebrate it, not be afraid of it.
Anyway, by my own measurements, it is not really warming anymore, more especially it is in fact not warming at all here in South Africa where I live. I find it is just as warm now here as it was 40 years ago.
So much for your ‘global’ warming.
As to why the devil wants all the lies to continue? I have my suspicions. For anyone interested, I suggest to please read everything I reported on this?
http://breadonthewater.co.za/henrys-climate/

William
February 3, 2019 3:34 pm

Amateur radio is seriously hurting from this.

Javier
February 3, 2019 3:40 pm

The effect of solar cycle 24 on temperatures is this:
comment image

Why, with CO2 levels increasing by 35 ppm since 2002, and no significant volcanic eruption, what caused the planet to stop warming?

It was a coincidence that solar activity has been very low since 2004, as it was a coincidence that it was cold during the 1900s, when solar activity decreased with the Gleissberg Minimum, and another coincidence it was so cold during the 1800s, when solar activity was very low during the Dalton Minimum. And the Maunder Minimum, another coincidence.

Why climate is so full of coincidences. No wonder scientists prefer CO2. They don’t like coincidences they can’t explain. They rather have an explanation even if it is not the correct one that confess they don’t know how solar variability affects climate.