Solar Update December 2019

David Archibald

We are well into the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum but 24 may not have ended yet. A solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet has flattened. And that could be as late as March 2021. Solar cycle amplitude does matter with respect to climate and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25, from projecting trends from the last three cycles, looks like being about 80 in 2027.

clip_image002

Figure 1: F10.7 flux 2014 to 2019

The F10.7 flux has been flat for a couple of years now. What is interesting is that a low of 63.4 was recorded on 21st October, which may be a low for the instrumental record. Since then the F10.7 has been in a narrow range from 68 to 70.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Heliospheric current sheet tilt angle 1976 to 2019

The solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has flattened and as at Carrington rotation 2224, the tilt angle was still a few degrees from having flattened. If the date of flattening is constrained by the slope of the decline from the cycle peak then the latest date for flattening is March 2021.

clip_image006

Figure 3: Ap Index 1980 – 2019

This figure shows the break in the Ap Index in 2006 at the end of the Modern Warm Period to the New Cold Period. It also shows the relationship between month of heliospheric current sheet flattening (red arrows) and the month of minimum as determined by the low in sunspot activity (green arrows) which is far more subjective.

clip_image008

Figure 4: Aligned heliospheric current sheet tilt angle by month of minimum

Solar Cycle 23 was stronger for longer while Solar Cycle 24 is largely tracking 21 and 22, suggesting the end may be soon.

clip_image010Figure 5: Solar hemispheric sunspot area and F10.7 flux 1985 – 2019

This figure is included to show that solar activity, as measured by the F10.7 flux, is directly proportional to the sum of the sunspot areas of the solar northern and southern hemispheres. Sunspot number is proportional to F10.7 flux but is a less precise measure.

clip_image012

Figure 6: Sunspot area by solar hemisphere 1985 to 2019

In this figure the hemispheric sunspot areas are plotted individually instead of cumulatively. What is readily apparent is that each hemisphere has been driven by its own trend in activity – the peaks of both cycles all line up. Which begs the question of what will happen if those trends in activity continue? In Solar Cycle 24 the peak of northern hemispheric activity occurred three years before that of the southern hemisphere. If that repeats in Solar Cycle 25 with the amplitude of each hemisphere constrained by the blue trend lines, then the northern hemisphere would peak in 2024 with an amplitude of 200 millionths of the solar hemispheric area and the southern hemisphere would peak in 2027 with an amplitude of 600 millionths of the solar hemispheric area. For the whole solar cycle, the peak amplitude would be in 2027 with a smoothed sunspot number of 80, down a third from Solar Cycle 24.

clip_image014

Figure 7: Sunspot area by hemisphere 1874 to 1924

This figure is included to show that trends in hemispheric sunspot activity can hold for nearly four solar cycles as shown by the southern solar hemisphere (red line) from the late 19th century.

clip_image016

Figure 8: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 to 2019

This is the main part of where the rubber meets the road in terms of the effect of solar activity on climate. Weaker solar activity, as is predicted for Solar Cycle 25, means that more galactic cosmic rays make it into the inner planets of the solar system instead of being pushed away by the Sun’s magnetic flux carried on the solar wind. The shower of neutrons in the lower atmosphere increases and provides more nucleation sites for cloud droplets. The increased cloud cover reflects more sunlight and the Earth cools. The peak in neutron flux may be as late as 2022.

clip_image018

Figure 9: North Dakota December 3, 2019

The economic consequences of a cooling Earth are shown in this figure of part of a satellite photo of a rural area of North Dakota taken on December 3, 2019. White is snow and the brown rectangles are unharvested corn. In NASA’s words:

“a wet fall, combined with corn plants that contained too much moisture, provoked famers to leave the corn in the fields this year. Snow on corn stocks can clog harvesting equipment. But the bigger concern is the moisture content. It is more economically prudent for a farmer to wait and let the corn dry on the stalks—harvesting it in February or early March—than it is to harvest it now and have to dry it in storage facilities.”

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

Advertisements

189 thoughts on “Solar Update December 2019

  1. “The increased cloud cover reflects more sunlight and the Earth cools.”….

    Isn’t that what we’ve been seeing?…..warming at night

    • Lat, don’t forget that low (and high) temperatures are largely regulated by the dew point. Where I live, warm Gulf SSTs and the wind coming off the Gulf means that even during high pressure when the night is clear, the temp stays up. The balance is that it can’t heat up as much during the day.

    • There has been warming of both nights and days, with nights only fractionally ahead. And no, warming does not mean cooling.

      • But Loydo, that’s exactly what the socialists/marxists demonstrate every day — war is peace, diversity is conformity, lies are truth, love is hate, good is bad, etc, etc, etc.

    • In the South Island of NewZealand, for 18 months we have every type of cloud cover imaginable. NEWA the national weather people have had a policy of moving temperature measuring equipment to urban heat islands

  2. If only the global SST data were available for the Dalton minimum era, we could get a better idea of what changes we might see during the modern minimum.

    I wonder if the multiple volcano eruptions now compare to the big one then, and how much volcanic aerosol effect there was on cloud formation and temperature in the NH during Dalton’s minimum.

    • There were multiple large volcanic eruptions during the Dalton minimum era, not just the giant Tambora eruption in 1815 that led to the year without a summer in 1816 in much of the NH. Iceland, Central America/Mexico, South America and other mystery eruptions perhaps in the Southern Hemisphere that haven’t been properly documented all went off over a period of 35-40 years, from the 1770’s to the 1820’s.

      If solar minimums do have an increased cause and effect on vulcanism as many scientists believe to be the case, then any current cooling trend that can proven to be caused by solar minimums along with further cooling from an increase in vulcanism will lead to further temporary cooling of the planet putting mankind in the kind of jeopardy that our ancestors faced periodically. It only took a year or two of cooling to throw things into serious chaos. Perhaps we would fare better in todays world just because of more advanced technologies (including advanced agriculture) and wide spread fossil fuels.

      This is when the average person should be very grateful for any global warming, whether it be natural variation out of the the LIA or a combination of any small beneficial man made warming from UHI, land use change and CO2. What that ratio might be might never be known, as we can’t have do over with no human increase and extra CO2. But we should be grateful that the small amount of beneficial warming we do have might be enough to bring us through the worst of any major short term cooling trend. We should think of it as an insurance policy, that any warming we have will get us through the worst of an another ‘year without a summer’. If 1816 happened again in 2020, it would be a big bummer for a lot of people.

    • Global SST appear to follow the changes in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field with a strong inverse correlation and about 10 years delay.
      http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SST-GMF.htm
      Underlying hypothesis is based on the basic laws of physics, but is it credible?
      One of the basic principles of electromagnetism is that a force is required to move a conductor through magnetic field, due to the electric current induction (back EMF force), stronger the field greater the resisting force.
      Saline sea water is a good electric conductor, hence, as the Earth’s magnetic field weakens the oceans’ current circulate just a bit faster moving more heat and the further towards the poles than is the case at the times of the stronger magnetic field. Ocean currents have low velocity taking few years to move large volumes of subsurface warm water for the temperature change to take full effect.

      • Your plot shows an increasing terrestrial magnetic dipole, but it has been decreasing for the past 200 years.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#Secular_variation

        You said “One of the basic principles of electromagnetism is that a force is required to move a conductor through magnetic field, due to the electric current induction (back EMF force), stronger the field greater the resisting force.” You have it backwards. A charge moving perpendicularly to a magnetic field experiences a Lorentz force which causes it to move perpendicularly to its direction of travel. But no work is performed on the charge because the dot product of the force and the displacement is zero.

        But it is true that oceans and lithosphere are electrically conductive. In fact the magnetic fields generated by current flowing in the oceans, lithosphere and asthenosphere can be detected by low orbit satellites.

        Alexander V. Grayver et al.,”Satellite tidal magnetic signals constrain oceanic lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary”,https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/9/e1600798 [2016]

        • Johanus
          “Your plot shows an increasing terrestrial magnetic dipole”
          No it does not! With respect you got it wrong, have another look, any one can tell that my graph shows declining strength of magnetic dipole from around 126 to 124 microTesla since 1870.
          For the rest you got it wrong too. If there was no resistance to a conductor moving through magnetic field due to electric current induction, then the world would have all energy problems solved. Just look up what an electric current generator does and why it is that so much fossil fuel is required to drive electric power stations.

        • Vuk,
          You are right about the dipole strength. I failed to look at your y-axis direction. Sorry about that.

          But I believe you are wrong about the magnetic origin of electrical resistance. Ohmic resistance is due to thermodynamic collisons, not magnetism. Back-EMF (Lenz Law) is a counter magnetic field caused by a _change_ in current and merely reduces the overall current in a non-ohmic manner, the induced magnetic field displaces the charges orthogonally, so performs no work directly. Resistive losses are thermal, not magnetic.

          • Johanus
            No, again it is not Ohmic electrical resistance as it may be found in an electric motor. It is a mechanical resistance to flow of ocean currents due to the back EMF, analogous to an electric current generator, hence there is considerable difference between two. Mechanical force is required to move a conductor across magnetic field, be it a classic electric generator or in the case where the electric currents are generated by the oceans’ currents moving across the earth’s magnetic field. Also occasionally added ( + or -) to by the geomagnetic storms induction.
            If you look at the graph again, you may notice following:
            temperature rise for 1980-2010 is very similar to as for 1910-1940 period, but the best matching delay of 10 years is not constant, it is considerably longer during stronger field (1920-1940) more than 10 years compared to the weaker field (1980-2010) less than 10 years, the more recent warming.
            This shows that during the recent weaker field, the ocean heat energy is moved faster to the middle and higher latitudes, while the warming gradient is not much different, i.e. during weaker field ‘resistance’ to the ocean currents movement is a bit lower resulting in a faster warming.

          • @Vuk
            Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. In your first post you said it was back-emf in a motor

            a force is required to move a conductor through magnetic field, due to the electric current induction (back EMF force), stronger the field greater the resisting force.

            … now you are saying it is not a motor but a generator .

            it is not Ohmic electrical resistance as it may be found in an electric motor. It is a mechanical resistance to flow of ocean currents due to the back EMF, analogous to an electric current generator, hence there is considerable difference between two

            ‘Back-emf’ really only applies to motors, because it depends on mechanical motion to create changing current to generate a changing magnetic flux which induces the back-emf to oppose the original motion.

            Motors and generators both require an existing magnetic field from which to generate motion and/or electricity.

            Actually, I do not see the necessity to invoke a either of these mechanisms. A magnetic field can be generated simply by invoking the dynamo effect of electrical currents circulating in the ocean or lithosphere (Ampere’s Law).

          • Johanus
            First you got axis wrong, next there is no word ‘motor’ in my opening statement (provide a quote please) so you are wrong again, you said I was talking about electric thermal resistance which was not true, get your facts right before you hit the keyboard.
            There is a back EMF in the electric generator, think about it a bit longer.
            It appears you have no idea I am actually talking about. There is plenty of Earth’s magnetic field there for the ocean currents circulation to induce electric currents which in turn generate their own localised field which pushes against the Earth’s one to slow down circulation.
            It is waste of time discussing this subject with you any further
            Have a happy Xmas and good night.

          • “next there is no word ‘motor’ in my opening statement (provide a quote please) ”

            Well, you invited everyone to evaluate the ‘credibility’ of your concept, which you said involved ‘back EMF’, which ostensibly only applies to motors. (For generators it is called ‘generated EMF’
            https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-back-EMF-in-a-generator

            I offered apology for my axis mistake, but seems was not acceptable to you.

            Evidently you did not really want anybody to critique the credibility of your physics idea.

            Merry Christmas!

      • As I said on an earlier thread, this is fascinating stuff. Based on the ~10-year lag, it provides the opportunity to make predictions that can be falsified. Imagine that, a falsifiable hypothesis! With the magnetic field intensity flat to slightly strengthened recently, temperatures should remain roughly flat or slightly cooler for the next decade.

        For this hypothesis to be supported, ocean currents should have been flowing faster over time as magnetic field intensity has weakened. All those argo floats drifting around must be generating some data about this, no?

        • Indeed, good point, I have not looked in the Argo data, next stop.
          Logically it make sense, let’s consider two unlikely extremes e.g. if the Gulf current stops then UK would have the same winter temperatures as Labrador being on the same latitude on the opposite sides of the Atlantic, and vice versa, if the waters of Gulf of Mexico could reach the UK in just few days time, in the winter Bournemouth might be the UK’s Fort Louderdale.

  3. Ap index tells us little about solar magnetic cycle behavior. Earth’s Ap is just a composite of daily averaged 3- hour station K values. Ap spikes can and do happen with solar wind and particle increases with coronal holes at minimum.

    F10.7 and the butterfly diagram are the best indicators of SC magnetics. SC25 is now primed and ready to go.
    Just needs more triggers which are stochastic but give 17-19 day lead time to photosphere features.
    That’s why we see this now:
    https://solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20191221_hres.png
    and this:
    https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/f_304_211_171_1024.jpg

    • We call it silage here, cattle love it just like the sweet muck in the middle of a rotting round bale of alfalfa. It’s all worth $ to us. That might be what the farmers are actually thinking here. Not all the corn goes to market.

      • Don’t pigs also like that sweet muck corn in their slop?

        And I love bacon. on BLTs. And/or 3 slices with a plate of eggs in the morning with a cup o’Joe to fuel me all day.

        Ham sammiches are primo also in my book. Especially that Christmas meal Ham.
        “Woman!! Make me Ham Sammich… now!!”

    • At 4+ billion years on the main sequence, there is certainly nothing unprecedented about our Sun’s behavior. SC 24 seems to me to be a lot like SC 14, and not just that it is an even numbered cycle.
      And SC 15 peak was higher than SC 14.

      See here:
      http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
      Note: Jan Alvestad’s figure above is not updated from Summer 2019. We are now (23 December 2019 UTC) at 133 months (11 years, 1 month) since the December 2008 SC 24 start.

      Also note that SC 12 had a delayed SH spike, like SC 24, but the following SC 13 had unimodal peak. So there is no reason to expect (or predict) SC 25 NH and SH peaks will not (or will ) be synchronous simply because the previous cycle had separated hemispheric peaks.

      For understanding how weak SC 24 is, here is Jan’s comparison of recent (21, 22, 23, 24) Solar Cycles:
      http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

      So if anything, SC 25 to my guess likely to be a lot like SC 15, just like SC 24 is looking a lot like SC14.

    • Hi Doc
      In 2009 two of us agreed about SC24 and were correct, although I think you made your prediction in 2005 and my extrapolation was published in 2004.
      This time our methods diverge, for the SC25 you predict SC24+, my extrapolation says 0.6 x SC24 or even lower if the SC25max occurs later than 2026, both can not be right again.

    • Help us to see this too, Leif. Please update your WSO Polar Field and Active Regions pages to the present. They’re stuck on two years ago!

      • As you might see you didn’t miss much in the last two years, it hit another peak value (142) 20 days ago, the first one being 22 months ago, which would suggest that the SC24 minimum is at least a year away, it is going to be very, very long minimum, possibly twice as long as the SC23min one.

      • Here is the data in tabular form.
        http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html

        And the latest data point is:
        2019:12:02_21h:07m:13s 81N -42S 61Avg 20nhz filt: 88Nf -45Sf 66Avgf
        You can plot your own.
        As of that date (2 December, 3 weeks ago), the northern polar field is still slightly increasing strength while the southern polar strength has already been declining. This strongly suggest SC25 will begin with southern spots.

        Plot the 20nHz filtered data. That is the Nf and Sf values for northern polar and southern polar corrected for yearly geometric projection effects.

    • Leif, do any of the solar theories or models you are aware of explain or give a hint as to what caused the Maunder minimum? With our (ok, your, I don’t claim any understanding. I don’t even understand my wife.) current understanding of solar dynamics, would we get any warning that one was about to begin?

      I have no expectation that such a period is in the future, short or long term. I am just curious as to whether such a black swan event would be predictable in advance.

    • A given solar cycle can have hemisphere magnetics in synchronous peaks or delayed peaks. The important thing for a SC is the entire cycle’s magnetic activity, and integrated average.

      Us humans have adopted 30 years of weather averages as an average for climate her eon Earth. There is no reason to think that anything less than 3 cycles (~33 years) of solar activity are also the absolute minimum for solar “climate” that might affect Earth. And so far, we only have 1 cycle (SC24) of below average magnetics.

      The Maunder Minimum (1650-1715 AD) that coincided with the depths of the LIA (1400-1850 AD) was at least 3 “non-existent” cycles from 1650 to ~1690 before it lead to the very cold 1690’s, a cold so intense that took 100 years for the Earth to begin to recover by the mid-1800’s.

      So uni-hemispheric amplitudes don’t matter, and a single solar cycle may not matter much, but a prolonged solar minimum (3 or 4+ cycles), aka a Grand Solar Minimum, is quite lethal to humanity.

      But there is no reason to believe the Sun is about to repeat a Maunder-like minimum. None.
      Check back in SC 26 (roughly 2040) for an update.

        • Tycho Brahe glimpsed the possible and made observations and observations and observations. His many observations did not fit the paradigm of current consensus.
          But his his observations even were before the telescope.
          His student was Kepler. And Kepler broke it all open with his contemporary Galileo.
          There are so many parallels to 400 yr old Ptolemaic astronomy to today’s climate junk science, I think it is amazing (and fascinating) as we await that new young Kepler or Einstein to save us from the climate alchemists. He or she is out there somewhere.

      • Although the Maunder Minimum coincided with the depths of the Little Ice Age, it is not possible to describe it as a cause. The global decline in temps from the Medieval Warm Period began, as I understand the data, well before the Maunder Minimum, more like in the 1300-1400’s. I do not think we have accurate sunspot or other solar energy data from that period. Therefore the causality is only speculative. One might postulate that the Maunder Minimum accentuated a cooling trend already in place. Or one might suggest that solar activity began to drop long before the Maunder period. Or one might theorise that although correlated in time, there was no causality and only coincidence between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.

        Best for credibility to keep ones scientific powder dry for arguments where good, reliable data and testable theories are to be had.

        • The wolf GSM commenced 1280 -1350 followed by the sporer GSM that is well before the LIA and well into, the carbon 14 data low carbon 14 is correlated with low CS output the proxy data is good.

        • kwinterkorn, I’d agree. The slow, general decline of temps from the Holocene Max (~8k yrs ago or so) was punctuated by somewhat regular ups and downs, the LIA being the latest and greatest “down”. Don’t know why the Maunder Minimum occurrence was not simply coincidental w/it. Simple TSI variances from solar cycles (W/m2) & the other proposed but not demonstrated causes don’t cut it for me, just like the proposal that CO2 is the lone climate-control-knob.

          • The LIA had 4 GSMs within, 2 overlapped the beginning and at the end, 2 were before the maunder min, TSI is by far the greatest effect on the planet from the sun,a drop of 0.3 w/m2 can be the difference between life and death, from disease to reduced plant growth , a cold era such as the LIA does not just happen there has to be a causation, you never offered a causation , the above minima were the longest in recorded history ,the secondary effects of a minima contributed no doubt to its intensity but the overall duration I would put down to the four very long solar minimums themselves , if you do have other reasons for the LIA I would be very glad to hear them.

  4. Comments from Sept2002, June2018, June2019 and Oct-to-Dec2019 re cooling:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/why-some-climate-advocates-shouldnt-have-twitter-access/#comment-2368062
    [excerpt]

    Crop planting is about one month late across the prairies and there may even still be snow on the ground in the woods.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/23/the-setup-is-like-1315/#comment-2730429

    Last week, my friend Joe D’Aleo and I discussed the late planting in the USA grain belt. Planting occurred about one month late last year as well, but an excellent summer led to a good crop. This year the crop situation is more worrisome.

    Here in Alberta, it feels colder, like the Winters and Springs of several decades ago.

    Told you so , 17 years ago.

    “CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
    by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng. June 2019
    pdf: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf
    Excel spreadsheet: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final.xlsx

    10. I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:
    “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

    I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite accelerating fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2. Similar cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977 as fossil fuel consumption accelerated.

    I now think global cooling will start closer to 2020. The following plot explains why (Fig.10).

    I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods.

    Fig.10 – Apparent Coherence of Total Solar Irradiance, Sea Surface Temperature and Lower Tropospheric Temperature, interrupted by the 1998 El Nino
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/scale:0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/plot/uah6/from:1980

    Regards, Allan
    _________________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/16/its-official-we-are-in-a-deep-solar-minimum/#comment-2872906

    See details in these two papers:

    There were good harvests in the USA SE and South in 2019, and lots of grain in storage so prices did not escalate – but there were big crop losses across the Great Plains. Also lots of that grain will be feed grade only, if they do get it off the fields.

    “The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started”
    By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/

    “Growing Season Challenges From Start To Finish”
    By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Co–‐chief Meteorologist at Weatherbell.com, Nov 18, 2019
    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/growing-season-challenges-from-start-to-finish.pdf

    • “global cooling will start closer to 2020”
      “…cooling…may have already started” (caps removed)

      Allan, you continue to make these extraordinary claims, but you have provided absolutely zero evidence of this global cooling. Where is the data? You quote yourself, but that is not evidence it is opinion. You talk about crop yields on a small fraction of the Earth’s surface but that has nothing to do with anything global. You provide links to your own posts but they just have links to other posts – of yours, not data. Each time I politely challenge you, you reply with rancour. Where is the global data? Can you provide a data series that supports this idea of global cooling.

      • And yet extraordinary claims of catastrophic man-made global warming with zero evidence are A OK. Go figure.

      • Loydo
        “global cooling will start closer to 2020” “…cooling…may have already started”
        “Allan, you continue to make these extraordinary claims,”

        Loydo you seem to be extraordinarily upset, over a mere expression of an opinion, by someone who at the very least has put work into his opinions.
        You state you have read his opinion in some detail and wish to quibble with them.
        Your quibble is posed in a somewhat * form with * and *comments on the value of his work.
        *unprecedented , extraordinary, bombshell etc etc. apparently unprecedented is the word of choice for the year.

        There is nothing out of the ordinary in sceptics at a site like this suggesting that cooling might be occurring or has actually started. They do it all the time. What is out of the ordinary is your response.

        So simple question.
        What global data series are you comfortable with to show that he is wrong.

        Please feel free to take your time.

        • angech

          Here is a graph comparing SSN with the ‘coolest’ global surface temperature time series, that of the Japanese Met Agency:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HtQq7eVIaJ4zn182I6Kzs5fhxxvZzT7/view

          We are by no means in front of any cooling – CONUS excepted.

          Of course, a little drop lets the cooohling alarmists ride their hobbyhorse again:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XwvXfhkL5XcRBbsT09CybDsVNI_d7s-m/view

          Such drops have happened years ago!

          • Thanks Bindidon.
            Your second graph 36 month averages confirms AM comment.
            “…cooling…may have already started”
            In all 3 recognised global data sets it shows global temperatures have falling trends since 2016.
            Loydo not able to defend his comments obviously.

            It is not a matter of riding hobby horses,
            Merely making accurate statements.
            Which you at least acknowledged
            “Of course, a little drop”.(exists)

            Your attempt to blot your copy book
            “We are by no means in front of any cooling – CONUS excepted.”
            Stymied by your comment
            “Of course, a little drop” exists

      • @Loydo
        I’m missing evidence of man made global warming, you never provide it.

        You link nothing, I see no date, and I see nothing that give me at least a hint that the warming we had fortunately coming out of a strong cooling time is s.t. manmade.

      • Small amounts of “global” cooling (or warming) means nothing over the 70% of ocean. But significant seasonal variations over that 30% of land (caused by jet stream ripples), where the crops grow and heating fuel is needed, can have drastic implications. So, yes, the temps to pay attention to ARE the ones over populated land masses.

  5. “The economic consequences of a cooling Earth are shown in this figure…”

    Did you mean to say a warming Earth? The long term trend is warming, the short term trend is warming and the medium term trend is warming. You are talking about our Earth right?

    • Yes. What planet are you on?
      Long term we are into another ice age.
      Short term, it’s winter in the N hemisphere.
      Medium term it seems about the same as its always been if you disregrad teh obviously broken records from urban sited thermometers.

        • The ice age could start a lot sooner if you you look at our history. We are on overtime. Overall I would not use ground stations for climate due to issues I asume you are aware of. Satellite data shows cooling in the upper layers. At the very least our planet is not warming at the moment for the moment since 1998. Also not that there is ample evidence of warmer periods during the holocene each period going further back as being warmer.

        • We are in an ice age now, loydo. The question is, will we go through another glacial period, or eventually warm out of the present ice age.

        • Loydo how long ago was the LIA ,you have been here long enough to understand what people are saying , TSI Is by far the strongest measure of the suns energy upon the planet ,in the graph provided it correlates well with the decline in sunspot numbers, it takes 3 SCsfor aGSM to take effect, it takes even longer for the dynamics of the other players on earth to show sustained cooling , the major players are shaping up to a cooling event, stop being a dick loydo if your not reading and learning are you just here to troll,

          https://www.spaceweather.com/images2017/15dec17/tsi.png?PHPSESSID=egl2qdqv0lek3nqal69loo2gf3

        • Loydo,

          We have been in an ice age for around 2.6 million years now. Currently we are in the late fall part of the 100,000 year cycle, which means Glaciation is coming very soon now.

        • Right, correction pile-on for Loydo’s “ice age”, but willing to hold your nose and tolerate the stench of Archibald’s “cooling” nonsense, the substance of the criticism.

          • Ha ha,

            I have never supported Archibald’s cooling predictions, he gets carried away with it. I see that cooling trend will gradually pick up due to the Oceans waters El-Nino frequency decline in the future, which is currently the DOMINANT cause of atmospheric warming.

            You have made too many errors in your past comments to consider YOU a lightweight in the threads.

          • “I see that cooling trend will gradually pick up due to the Oceans waters El-Nino frequency decline in the future, which is currently the DOMINANT cause of atmospheric warming.”

            So to become a heavy weight around here I need to write more incoherent twaddle like this? Right, got it.

    • No, Loydo, the long term trend is prolonged glacial periods interspersed with short periods of warming, during which the ice fields melt back and land animals, including humans expand and increase. We’ve had about 18,000 years of warming, give or take few centuries, following the last glacial maximum. We’re in an interglacial period NOW and it may be ending – or might not.

      Every interglacial period has warming spells but they ALL come to an end. The ice sheets always return.

      OH, yeah – there are now five (5) SETI signals (including the original WOW signal) that are being tracked as candidates for possible occupied worlds, all within 100 light years of Earth. Let’s hope they’re friendlies.

    • I am in Chicago now during winter and can see Lake Michigan from the 18th floor of my building. 90% of the time, normal weather for Chicago is to be encased in a 5000 foot thick layer of ice. Every 100,000 years the ice melts and some primates wander thru the area and build huts for 10,000 years until the ice covers up Michigan Avenue again for another 100,000 years. Everyone arguing about weather for the last 30 seems pretty short sighted.

    • It really amazes me how short sighted the average alarmist is.

      They insist on measuring everything from the bottom of the LIA.
      The truth is that the Earth has been cooling for the last 10,000 years. The tiny amount of warming we’ve enjoyed for the last 150 years has recovered less than half of that cooling.

  6. It is worth noting that this new “Modern Cold Period” that David claims started in 2006
    is in fact the warmest period ever in the satellite data and according to other records the
    warmest decade for somewhere between 200 and several thousand years depending on which
    temperature reconstruction you prefer.

    • It’s also worth noting that the first satellite wasn’t launched until October 4, 1957, and satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements didn’t commence until 1978.

      So stating that a period starting in 2006 and extending, presumably, to today is “the warmest period ever in the satellite data” means that 13 out of 41 years of measurements have been “the warmest.” And by how many degrees is that?

      I’m sorry, but this whole idea that we can discern tenths of a degree temperature differences based on measurements that might be good to within +/- 1 degree (much, much worse for “reconstructions”) is just exhausting to me. Give it a rest until you see some actual effect.

      • Michael,
        All of your comments apply even more strongly to David’s claim of a “modern cold period”. Where is the evidence for that? Or do you agree that it is nonsense?

        • It’s impossible to know what kind of “thermal” period we’re in, because we simply don’t have enough actual data from the past, no matter how it was acquired. And people won’t stop “adjusting” what instrumental data we have (without anyone else checking their work or results) to ever hope to acquire a comparison to the so-called “instrumental record” period.

          You don’t know it, David doesn’t, and neither does anyone else commenting here.

          One thing I do know is that, in my 65 years on this earth, I haven’t personally seen any substantial change in the weather patterns versus time other than the marked reduction in tornado and hurricane activity. That’s it. You have anything else?

      • Michael S. Kelly

        Isn’t it interesting that you have rejected Isaak Walton’s reference to warming since 2006, but remain silent about the fact that that David Middleton indicated a modern cooling that is said to have started in the same year?

        How strrrange!

    • Would that be the NASA adjusted temperature data you are using Izaak? Or are you looking at the un-adjusted raw temperature data as provided by actual temperature measurement? That shows the past recorded NASA data, much warmer than the more modern NASA adjusted data?
      Just curious.
      See Tony Heller, for details.

      • Hi Rob,
        Can you provide me with a link to a global data set that doesn’t show the period since 2006 (the start of David’s modern cool period) being the warmest 15 year period on record? All data sets
        whether BEST, Satellite data, GISS etc all show the world warming and has been doing so since the start of the 20th Century.

        • Interesting mosher and loydo appear every time the GSM gets a mention desperate to avoid and play down any notion the sun is the climate driver on the planet ,the USA is a large continent in NH encompassing Canada as well, correction largest continent, some 17% of earths solid surface ,with the last two years smashing cold temperatures even year on year,and the NH as a whole for two years has smashed the 30 year record for snow fall, it’s not really a sign of AGW is it mosher , the MSM greatly exaggerating heat waves in the summer, there not heat waves mosher according to WMO, Heller has shown and proved temperature data is taken in heat sinc spots ,that dont really show a mean for a given area, hes also fully explored and shown the omittence,tampering of temperature records for the last century, did you forget mosher the dam right lies of the hockey stick graph mosher, have you read the emails from climate gate.

        • Tony Heller puts the hard yards in .
          He hates the adjusted data that cools the past deliberately.
          He may be wrong or he may be right.
          He does the work and labels it.
          Cannot ask for much more than that.

          • He really is a stalwart. Impressive work load. I see 2 things that drive him: 1) a hatred of liars, and 2) a, how shall we call it, vengeful love for Bill Gray.

        • Yet YOU Steve, are too cowardly to tell him that he is wrong on his blog. You attacked his temperature charts without the courage to answer HIS counter to your whining you make here about what he post in his blog.

    • Izaak, while I agree that we are in the warmest period of the instrumental record and therefore there is no “Modern Cold Period”, the data also shows that since the mid 1990s the rate of warming is decreasing. This not only completely contradicts the current hypothesis that human GHG emissions are driving climate change, but indicates that if in the near future the rate of warming were to fall below zero, then actual cooling would be produced.

      Don’t believe me? Take HadCRUT 4 global surface monthly anomaly. Subtract from each month’s temperature anomaly value the previous month value to transform the set of values from temperature (°C) to rate of change (velocity, or °C/month). Then run a 181 month centered moving average. Plot the result and add a 6th degree polynomial trend. Then you’ll see what the data actually says.

      Maximum temperature was Feb 2016, from then until summer 2018 the trend was downwards and it has been increasing since, but is still quite below Feb 2016. If the downward trend reappears in 2020-2021 as I expect from the coming Niña, and temperatures go below those of summer 2018, then we will have the longest most profound short cooling period since 1976, when recent warming started.

      Since 1990s global warming is decelerating, that means the effects of climate change in the 21st century will be smaller than expected. There is no climate emergency.

      • What is the “instrumental record”? Satellites? Most historical thermometer data are simply made up (anthropogenic data; computer generated; not real) due to the paucity of thermometers dispersed throughout the world in the early half (1880-1950), at least, of the historical record (1880-present); and are therefore meaningless in terms of scientific accuracy (because they’re not measured data). There were less than 50 thermometers continuously recording temperatures from 1880-1950 (half of the 140-year temperature record) in the entire southern hemisphere (nearly 100 million square miles).

        Hey, I have a great idea for job security for scientists: Let’s just make sh!t up and call it science.

        • That’s all irrelevant. The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age, and therefore we are in the warmest period for the past 600 years. There is plenty of evidence besides instrumental measurements that corroborates the warming.

          • Icisil points are not irrelevant, hes right to point out the temperature record is patchy at best Q(1880-1950) the temperature record we do have land based and satalite data have been shown to be corrupted by certain parties that’s what the IPCC mandate is to show global warming. Sure the temperature has risen since the little ice age other wise we would still be init, to what degree is uncertain because of the above ,temperature is cyclical within SCs and centuries, there is no linear progression to a warming planet, you said yourself earlier we have not seen temperature rise to and above the 2016 rise of 0.89c which inits self was a natural event , the dive after this 2016 event was as substantial as the rise. Data has been manipulated for the last 30 years the data in question going back go around 1850, a starting point that gives a unfair advantage to the global warming hypothesis.

          • Of course it’s warming, but how much? Within in the bounds of available data there’s no way they can accurately determine within a degree, much less a hundredth of a degree, how much it’s warmed.

          • Of course it’s warming, but how much?

            It doesn’t matter how much. Too much for some, not much for others. It is all relative. Only one thing matters from a scientific point of view: What causes the warming? A few look for the answer, most believe they already know, some are only concerned with how much money they can make out of this.

      • Hi Javier,
        I am bemused by the length you go to to find a decelerating warming trend. I
        did the analysis you suggested and if you fit the date with a polynomial of order
        2,3,4 or 5 the warming is accelerating but if you go as far as fitting a 6th order polynomial
        then yet the rate of warming peaked in about 1990. How do you justify fitting a 6th
        order polynomial to such noisey data and why on earth would you believe that such higher order coefficients have any physical meaning?

        • The answer is very easy Izaak. You have to choose the polynomial order that best fits the actual trend in the data. How do you know what is the actual trend in the data? Simple, take the 15-year centered moving average from 1990 to the end (the average goes to 2012 using data to present) and get the linear trend.

          Guess what, the linear trend since 1990 is decreasing as the 6th order polynomial says. Not only that but the speed of warming has dropped to half since then.

          How do you explain that? How can we increase almost exponentially the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and get a decelerating warming? It should be impossible for all we believe we know. And clearly it is not what we are being told, so we are being lied.

          • Javier,
            Can you define “best fit”? I can fit the data with an 8th order polynomial which is a better fit than a 6th order polynomial and in that case the rate of warming has been increasing since 1990 and is currently at a record high. It is only a 6th order polynomial that has the rate of warming decreasing since 1990.

            As I stated before fitting higher order polynomials to the data is meaningless given the amount of noise in the data.

          • You don’t want to understand. The decline in warming rate is present with a linear trend of the 15-year average rate of warming using the data between 1982 and 2019.

            The use of a polynomial fit is unnecessary to see the reduction in warming rate, so arguing against it misses the point and shows you are not interested in the truth.

            Besides you don’t seem to understand how a polynomial fit works. For your education, they are just a fit to the data, the degree has no physical meaning. It is related to the number of times the data changes trend, i.e. the number of points whose derivative is zero. If you use a gaussian filter the result on the warming rate is exactly the same, but it is not easy to apply a gaussian filter with Excel.

          • Javier,
            The degree of the polynomial fit has a lot of physical meaning if the data comes from a physical source. Suppose I track the position of a ball falling due to gravity. Then ideally it should be a parabola. So if I have n points they all should lie on a parabola even though I can fit them better using a (n-1)th order polynomial. But all of the coefficients of order high than two will just be noise while the coefficient of t^2 will be g (in the appropriate units).

            In general you can always fit n data points with a n-1 degree polynomial exactly. But using that fit to extrapolate the data will almost always produce nonsense because you are trying to fit noise rather than the underlying physics. The same with the noisey temperature data. Furthermore once you apply a Gaussian filter with a 15 year kernel then all data near the end of the time series gets artificially reduced and so the fact that the linear trend is decreasing is simply a sign that you are approaching the end of the time series. I can smooth the data using
            a Gaussian filter and fit a quadratic which gives an accelerating rate of global warming. I can also fit an 8th order polynomial to the data and again I get an increasing rate of global warming.

            Personally I think the data is far too noisey to make any conclusions about whether or not the
            rate of global warming is increasing or decreasing. You can reach whatever conclusion you like about whether or not global warming is accelerating by taking different filters, time periods, polynomial fits etc so unless you can justify them using an underlying theory it is all just playing.

            And if you want to apply Gaussian filters I would suggest using numpy rather than excel.

          • The degree of the polynomial fit has a lot of physical meaning if the data comes from a physical source. Suppose I track the position of a ball falling due to gravity. Then ideally it should be a parabola. So if I have n points they all should lie on a parabola even though I can fit them better using a (n-1)th order polynomial. But all of the coefficients of order high than two will just be noise

            It is not a physical meaning. A parabola has two trends separated by a point with derivative zero, so its correct fit is with a two degree polynomial regardless of the physical reason that produces a parabola. Each degree added to the polynomial allows for an additional derivative zero point and another trend.

            The physical reason why a sixth degree polynomial is correct is that it reproduces the 65-year oscillation discovered by Schlesinger & Ramankutty in 1994, that is clearly displayed in the 15-year averaged rate of warming data. The reason why the 15-yr average is the correct one is because it is a 1/4 of the oscillation period.

            So we can reach the conclusion that the rate of global warming is decreasing, and that is the reason why the Pause took place. Prepare for 15 years more of decreasing rate of warming.

      • Javier

        1. “Subtract from each month’s temperature anomaly value the previous month value to transform the set of values from temperature (°C) to rate of change (velocity, or °C/month).”

        What are you telling us here?

        The rate of change in a time series y = f(t) is expressed by: f(t[i+1]) – f(t[i]) / f(t[i])

        I just have global data at hand for JMA (surface, 0.14 °c / decade) and UAH6.0 (LT, 0.13 °C / decade), during the period 1979/2019.

        Here is a graph comparing, for the two time series, this rate of change (a constant was added to the monthly anomalies to avoid division by zero):

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GY8l3lWDV5j8Hb50XwOVkdWhVxv6eDUY/view

        For both time series, the trend of their respective rate of change is near to zero. The roc series are so flat that it is hard to distinguish the plot of a 4th order polynomial from the linear trend line.

        Please explain exactly what you mean, Javier. I really don’t understand.

        *
        2. “Maximum temperature was Feb 2016, from then until summer 2018 the trend was downwards and it has been increasing since, but is still quite below Feb 2016.”

        Is there any wonder about that, Javier? In the UAH time series, the ENSO peak month had the highest anomaly on record. After each ENSO peak, there is a subsequent drop, followed by a recovery.

        The same happened (with weaker peaks and drops) at the surface:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BEj60d0jVS51gDbSzBMhNvuP_14I3Wey/view

        Why do you expect from the global temperatures to reach the level of the last ENSO peak in 2016 faster than they did in the same time after the ENSO peak in 1998?

        Here are graphs showing you how similar the post-ENSO periods are for 1997-2001 vs. 2015-2019:

        – UAH: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1zmzMt_1gD5jxCOH13UVYvbocYulbNz/view
        – JMA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1fmSRnfC_TIRUYI6eQs2JeSFRHxhXqL/view

        You very probably would have told us the same ‘global warming is decelerating’ in 2001.

        Now: wether or not there is any climate emergency, that is something I don’t know enough to confirm or infirm. I have NO idea!

        ¡Feliz Navidad!

        J.-P. D.

        • What are you telling us here?

          Velocity is defined as the rate of change of position with respect to time. Average velocity is :
          v = Δx/Δt
          In the same way average velocity of warming can be defined as ΔT/Δt
          Subtracting a monthly temperature value from the following gives you ΔT/month, it represents the velocity of warming in °C/month. The data is too noisy. Obtain a 15-year average (181 month) as a centered moving average. It shows a decreasing trend since the mid 90s.

          There is no way to go wrong with this. Nothing is incorrect in that analysis. The velocity of warming is falling.

          No polynomial fit is necessary. Obtain a linear trend for the 15-yr averaged values since 1995 and it is decreasing.

          This 15-yr averaged velocity of warming shows the correct phase shift with respect to the temperature change oscillation as identified by Schlesinger & Ramankutty in their 1994 article using detrended global data.

          https://i.imgur.com/vqBSLC0.png

          It is real, it is in the data. The velocity of warming is falling, the warming is stalling, and in the future it may even become cooling if the velocity of warming turns negative.

          • Javier,
            I have followed your approach and can fit the monthly temperature data using a
            combination of quadratic plus a 67 year periodic oscillation (the best fit to the period according to a Fourier transform of the smoothed data). This does give a decreasing amount of global warming but extrapolating the fit into the future shows that at no point
            does it the warming rate become negative (i.e. cooling) and in fact the rate of warming starts increasing again in the future (not surprising given the quadratic fit).

            What this fit would suggest is that there is a natural periodicity of about 67 years but it is becoming increasingly swamped by the human driven warming trend. But any such extrapolation is meaningless since any future warming trend will depend on human emissions which are not accounted for in the simplistic model.

          • This does give a decreasing amount of global warming

            Good, so we do agree on what the data shows but nobody told us.

            What this fit would suggest is that there is a natural periodicity of about 67 years but it is becoming increasingly swamped by the human driven warming trend.

            Agree on the first, but not on the second. You are assuming that the underlying increasing trend is due to human GHGs emission. I suspect the long period of above average solar activity between 1935 and 2005 played an important role.

            Now you’ll have to agree that a decreasing speed of warming does not agree with the dominant hypothesis of global warming and directly refutes the alarmist arguments and the calculations about emissions needed to reach +1.5 and +2 °C based on models that do not include the 67-yr oscillation.

          • Javier,
            Actually the model fit of a quadratic plus a 67 year oscillation stills predicts about 1.7
            degrees of warming by the end of century. The reason being that the linear rise is much higher than the size of the periodic contribution. The best fit for the size of the periodic oscillation is about 0.2 degrees peak to peak over about 35 years. In contrast the linear contribution is greater than 0.1 degrees per decade. So a decreasing rate of warming does not invalidate the hypothesis about human caused warming but rather indicates that there are natural fluctuations in addition to the human caused warming. But the natural flucuations will average out whereas the human caused warming is monotonous.

          • the model fit of a quadratic plus a 67 year oscillation stills predicts about 1.7 degrees of warming by the end of century.

            Izaak, a fit has no predictive value.

            a decreasing rate of warming … indicates that there are natural fluctuations in addition to the human caused warming. But the natural flucuations will average out whereas the human caused warming is monotonous.

            Agreed, but it also indicates that extrapolations based on the upward phase of the oscillation are going to fail spectacularly.

            We don’t know the contribution of human caused warming, but it is unlikely that solar activity will be higher over the 21st century that it was over the 20th, and there is a real possibility that the warming slows down rather than accelerate as it is being projected.

            There is clearly no climate emergency.

          • Javier,
            If fits have no predictive power then you can’t claim there is a 67 year temperature cycle that is going to continue to cause a decline in the rate
            of global warming. How exactly do you think people make predictions about
            the future? I can predict that the sun will rise tomorrow based on a fit to previous data and it is almost certainly going to be true and no-one will argue.

            In general all fits have some predictive power which might
            be excellent over short periods of time but which in general will get worse as
            time passes. How long a fit will give reasonable predictions depends on the
            smoothness of the data being fitted and how much data there is.

            I would agree that simple curve fitting without any understanding of the
            underlying causal networks is unlikely to give accurate predictions for very long. But that applies to your predictions as much as it does to mine.

          • Izaak, we can project any pattern we observe in climate to the future, but to think that it constitutes a prediction of how climate is going to be is going too far. All we can say is that the 67-yr oscillation is still taking place and it is now making warming velocity go down. Whether it will continue happening in the future or the amplitude it will have we don’t know. If it does continue the projection will be correct, if it doesn’t it won’t. Quite often these climate oscillations are the result of some resonance and over time they weaken and go away.

            The certainty with which climate predictions are being made based on an unproven hypothesis and non-validated models built over very limited knowledge are evidence of the foolishness that has invaded climate “science”. There is no proper differentiation between what we know and what we believe. Most of what we believe will turn out to be wrong.

        • It is irrelevant to the argument. The velocity of warming is falling regardless of using a polynomial fit or not. No fit is necessary to see it. It is in the data.

          The dominant hypothesis for the cause of warming cannot explain it, therefore it must be wrong.

    • I love how the alarmists try to pick cherries in order to justify their desire to restructure the world’s economy.

      The satellite period started during the coldest period of the last 100 years. It’s hardly surprising that today is warmer than that period. It’s entirely beneficial that today is warmer than that period. There isn’t a shred of evidence supporting their belief that CO2 is responsible for this beneficial warming.

      • MarkW

        You love to name ne an ‘alarmist’.
        Good grief!

        Wether or not CO2 is responsible for anything should not be discussed here.
        We ALL are big zeroes concerning the knowledge about it.

        But an ascending sort of the global temperature anomalies (wrt 1981-2010) as recorded by the Japanese Met Agency probably will interest you:

        1917 2: -1.09
        1905 2: -1.06
        1911 2: -1.05
        1917 3: -1.05
        1929 2: -1.03
        1904 1: -1.02
        1908 3: -1.02
        1909 3: -1.02
        1911 4: -1.00
        1904 3: -0.99
        1911 3: -0.98
        1904 2: -0.96
        1910 12: -0.95
        1903 12: -0.94
        1909 4: -0.94
        1909 1: -0.92
        1909 2: -0.92
        1916 12: -0.92
        1909 12: -0.91
        1912 10: -0.91

        1979 appears at position 1256 of 1441:

        1979 12: +0.13

        JMA is the temperature series with the least trends, both for 1891-2019 and for 1979-2019.

        Yes: warming is nice! No snow on Xmas since years! Wonderful, I had enough snow in Feb 1956, Jan 1963, Jan 1979, March 1986, Feb 2010…

  7. I grew up in North Dakota. I don’t see how farmers can harvest corn in February or March if there is heavy snowfall this winter. There’s typically snow on the ground until early to mid-April, and once the spring thaw starts, farmers are fighting mud in the fields again. Seems pretty optimistic to think the corn will be harvested before the spring thaw (late March to mid-April) and the fields dry out.

    • Please note that the winter air is much drier than the summer / fall and will allow the corn moisture content to drop into the desired range before the spring thaw. Also, as long as the ground is frozen, the snow is not to deep (a few inches), and the corn has not been totally beaten down by the weather; the harvester can collect enough corn to justify the effort. The farmer will definitely want to do this before the spring thaw and the ground gets soft.

      • “the snow is not to deep (a few inches), and the corn has not been totally beaten down by the weather;”

        That sounds like being between a rock and a hard place. One farmer’s tweet I read said the upside to 4′ deep drifted snow in his corn was that the wind wouldn’t blow it over. But will it dry?

  8. I wouldn’t get too far ahead of ourselves declaring any “New Cold Period”. The oceans are a large thermal flywheel and last time we had two weak cycles the oceans were still relatively cold from the LIA. Today they contain a lot more heat relative to that period as we have been recovering from it for the past 100+ years. If increased GCRs have a direct impact on climate, it might take longer than two cycles to see any dramatic change.

    Since this would be the second two cycle dropout in the past 150 years, these events might be fairly common. The climate impact of these relatively short drops in solar activity might not be all that dramatic.
    We’ll just have to wait and see.

  9. Below is the global temperature anomaly at the end of the previous Solar Cycle, SC23. Note the strong global cooling trend at that time.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG

    The PDO went negative for a few years and then turned positive again. The global cooling that characterized the end of SC23 reversed and natural warming returned, culminating in the El Nino of 2015-2016.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6

    The PDO is about to go negative again.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo

    The AMO appears to be peaking and may also go negative – we will see.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo

    The current Solar Cycle, SC24 is much weaker than SC23 and is now ending. Total Solar Irradiance is now as low as the Dalton Minimum and still falling, almost as low as the Maunder Minimum.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod

    Loading all this data into my “Super-Ouija” climate computer, the planchette moves inexorably towards “global cooling”, starting about now.

  10. All of this is just more proof that we really don’t know squat. We pour over data, burn up markers on white boards and create a myriad of models to try and take a guess at what it is we are observing, but the bottom line remains, we really don’t know the “cause and effect” of anything to do with SC or Climate. Even the most expert among us predict ranges within existing ranges.

    Take the Maunder for example. Why were there practically no sun spots 30 years? And while we saw a cooling, what was the cause of the cooling? Was it volcanoes?, less solar energy? A decrease in CO2? …. an increase in ice albedo? AND …. if you pick one, what caused it to change?

    The best we can do is just continue to observe and document every possible angle we can imagine. It will be scientists in the distant future who will finally solve the puzzle. But it will be the agenda driven CAGW folk who prolong that discovery because they are so myopic in their world view, that they refuse to observe and document every angle, preferring to corrupt data and ignore data that does not agree with the narrative.

  11. How will climate unfold in the next few years?

    The failed very-scary catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which ASSUMES climate is driven primarily by increasing atmospheric CO2 caused by fossil fuel combustion, will again be disproved because fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, CO2 albeit at a slower rate, while global temperatures cool.

    This global cooling scenario has already happened from ~1940 to 1977, a period when fossil fuel combustion rapidly accelerated and atmospheric temperature cooled – that observation was sufficient to disprove the global warming hypothesis decades ago.

    Contrary to the global warming hypothesis, CO2 is clearly NOT the primary driver of century-scale global climate, the Sun is – the evidence is conclusive and we’ve known this for decades.
    _________________________

    In June 2015 Dr. Nir Shaviv gave an excellent talk in Calgary – his slides are posted here:
    http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Calgary-Solar-Climate_Cp.pdf
    Slides 24-29 show the strong relationship between solar activity and global temperature.

    Here is Shaviv’s 22 minute talk from 2019 summarizing his views on global warming:
    Science Bits, Aug 4, 2019
    http://www.sciencebits.com/22-minute-talk-summarizing-my-views-global-warming

    At 2:48 in his talk, Shaviv says:
    “In all cores where you have a high-enough resolution, you see that the CO2 follows the temperature and not vice-versa. Namely, we know that the CO2 is affected by the temperature, but it doesn’t tell you anything about the opposite relation. In fact, there is no time scale whatsoever where you see CO2 variations cause a large temperature variation.”

    At 5:30 Shaviv shows a diagram that shows the close correlation of a proxy of solar activity with a proxy for Earth’s climate. More similar close solar-climate relationships follow.

    Shaviv concludes that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is 1.0C to 1.5C/(doubling of CO2), much lower than the assumptions used in the computer climate models cited by the IPCC, which greatly exaggerate future global warming.

    At this low level of climate sensitivity, there is NO dangerous human-made global warming or climate change crisis.
    __________________________

    Willie Soon’s 2019 video reaches similar conclusions – that the Sun is the primary driver of global climate, and not atmospheric CO2.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/15/global-warming-fact-or-fiction-featuring-physicists-willie-soon-and-elliott-bloom/

    Willie Soon’s best points start at 54:51, where he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions.

    There is a strong correlation between the Daily High Temperatures and the Solar Total Irradiance (54:51 of the video):

    … in the USA (55:02),

    Canada (55:16),

    and Mexico (55:20).

    Note that in Willie’s plots, the ~11-year solar cycle is also evident in the maximum daily temperatures. Strong global cooling occurred at the end of SC23 – we should expect even more cooling at the end of SC24.
    _________________________

  12. This came as a surprise today: https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/postimage.org.html, so I don’t know if the two images I linked to earlier up thread will work.

    This might help to clarify the relative magnitude of TSI vs Volcanic forcing of SST:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0jhl46w7prrfx2j/Solar%20vs%20Volcanic%20Cooling.jpg?dl=0

    We already attained the most ocean cooling possible from ongoing TSI since 2016 into the minimum last year before Nino3.4 rebounded, driving SST upwards again. However the continuing cumulative low TSI effect will persist until new cycle activity ramps up, with it’s most negative influence to be felt during 2021, after the discharge of my expected impending new solar cycle onset El Nino, which I think will develop next summer. Nino4 is high to start with now.

    • Bob

      There hasent been a lot of stratospheric volcano action to influence TSI yet ,certainly not above the 33000ft to have a effect on the atmosphere, with increasing CRF it’s only a matter of time , we have not bottomed out yet of CS24 , to early to call what’s going to happen.

  13. DR SVALGAARD: MALL SANTA

    Here’s Dr. Leif Svalgaard, resident solar physicist of WUWT, moonlighting as a mall santa with little boy upon knee…

    Svalgaard: Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

    Little Boy: (silence)

    Svalgaard: And even if he did exist, there’s no way that he could deliver all those toys to girls & boys in one night.

    Little Boy: (silence)

    Svalgaard: And even if he could deliver all those toys in one night, he wouldn’t leave anything for a snot nosed little brat like you.

    Little Boy: WAAA(!!!)

  14. Having little vested interest, probably having popped my clogs before anything significant happens, I observe the heat in these discussions. I would like to think that it will all come out in the wash; but fear that Cognitive Dissonance is a very hard nut to crack.

    Meanwhile I get totally ignored by some of my progeny and grandchildren when I advise them that it would be very foolish indeed to give up any RIGHTS to use fossil fuels as required. Eyes glaze over and get lifted to the ceiling. So we move on and accept the death of curiosity.

    • Mr. Fairbairn
      I know exactly what you mean, but I don’t think they going to change their mind much any time soon or even in their life time, not that I am some kind of an AGW believer.
      Worst that is likely to happen by the end of this century is that sun would go imminently totally blank for the next 30 to 50 years. Last time it did, it it was for about 40 years, with the CET (only record available) estimated falling about 1 C degree and only for a decade or so. For lower latitudes fall was less, the estimate is about 0.7C for the large part of the NH land.
      Currently we are due for 30 years of the AMO cooling which on it’s own may amount for about 0.4C, but we are on a strong multi-centenary up-slope of warming, which may suppress most of cooling even if we were to have 30 years of blank sun coinciding with 30 years of cool AMO. In such case we might get back where we were in the early 1990’s which is not much of a big deal.
      From then on things get much better: if 30-40 years of blank sun doesn’t happen for another 20-30 years, but wait, if sun doesn’t go blank at all we might get lot more of warming about 30 years worth, starting around 2040. I hope this graph might give you an idea what I am on about
      http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/NH-GM.htm
      Your advice is wise, but the nature appears to has conspired against forcing hotheads into some sensible thinking. With things as they appear to be, our sceptic ideas have to wait another 100 years to gain any solid traction, but by then there will be total extinction of sceptics. Perhaps we should join extinction rebellion soon.
      Have a happy Xmas and prosperous New Year.

  15. angech

    In your comment above, concerning the graph I presented:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XwvXfhkL5XcRBbsT09CybDsVNI_d7s-m/view

    you wrote:
    “In all 3 recognised global data sets it shows global temperatures have falling trends since 2016.”

    Since 2016!!! Oh dear, oh Noes! That horrifying.

    1. Is it for me a wonderful thing, angech, to observe that
    – when a Warmista points on 40 years of warming, s/he gets immediately replied by Coolistas ‘8000 years ago, it was much warmer’,
    but also that
    – the same Coolistas suddenly can insist on ‘falling trends’ since little three years.

    What an amazing, delightful contrast!

    2. You speak about ‘since 2016’. Aha.

    What did you say in 2001, little three years after the 1997/98 El Nino, which was way stronger than that of 2015/16? Did the temperatures not fall too at that time?

    They did. And they did (or seemed to do) quite similar as they do (or seem to do) now.

    But inbetween, a little piece of warming happened. Not much! But enough to let a temperature series give the impression that right now, nothing is any more comparable to the period 21 years ago. Nonsense!

    I think since a while that the best way is to compare, using the UAH temperature series, the two El Nino events such that they both start at zero (we can do that by subtracting in the periods to be compared, the first anomaly from all subsequent ones).

    Let us compare, in the UAH time series, the periods Jan 1997 till Nov 2001 and Jan 2015 till Nov 2019:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y1zmzMt_1gD5jxCOH13UVYvbocYulbNz/view

    After the highest anomaly in the UAH record since beginning in Dec 1978, it is quite normal to observe falling trends. But when comparing the two El Nino situations I ask you:

    What is in these falling trends so different from what happened after 1997/98?
    Do not both periods show a rebound after their relative peak?

    Moreover, while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.

    *
    Interestingly, you can observe a quite similar situation at the surface.

    To show this, I selected the ‘coolest’ temperature series, namely that of the Japanese Met Agency: it reports global anomalies wrt 1981-2010 quite similar to those of UAH in the lower troposphere:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BEj60d0jVS51gDbSzBMhNvuP_14I3Wey/view

    Trend for 1979-2019: 0.14 °C / decade, com pared with UAH6.0 LT: 0.13 °C.

    Now let us look at the two El Nino periods, as we did for UAH:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1fmSRnfC_TIRUYI6eQs2JeSFRHxhXqL/view

    You could easily continue the game with the undetrended AMO…

    *
    Conclusion: may I propose to wait for a little year or two, and then to resume the comparison?

    Merry Xmas
    J.-P. D. in the (a bit too warm) Germany. I enjoy! I don’t need snow any more…

    • Happy Xmas Bindidon.
      Thank you for you graph showing the cooling trend in all 3 major global data sets since 2016.
      Which supported AM ‘s observation that some cooling had happed recently.
      And deflated Loydo’s snark.
      Trends are simply changes in direction over time periods.
      People are entitled to observe a trend change, as Allen did and comment on it.

      Your comments that 3 years is too short a time for a trend, that forty years is perfect and that 8000 years is too long and confuses two different concepts, definition and relevance.
      A trend can be observable over any time period.
      A trend has relevance only when associated with a meaningful idea or concept. it can help give a prediction or a possibility or a probability to past current and future events.
      So.
      Three years has very low relevance but you cannot complain about the mention of a trend.
      40 years has some slight relevance, you can mention the trend but it still indicates low probability.
      60 to a hundred years is starting to be useful but of course starts to lose relevance to us as we shuffle off the coil.
      8000 years of data would be very helpful but of little use to the current concerns.
      I strongly doubt that 2 years will resolve this issue.

      However “ while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.
      Raises the issue of good faith in discussions.

      We are talking about trends, remember.
      The rate of fall for that 0.72C was much sharper , ie over a much shorter period of time than that of the 0.99C fall. .

      In the long run the validity of AGW lies on increasing warming with CO2 and causing damage in doing so. A couple of years of cooling temperature will put a big dent in your argument. Much more than the gentle warming in a much too short 40 year span would do to mine.

      Moreover, while the difference between the highest peak in 1998 and the lowest subsequent drop was 0.99 °C, the difference between the (relatively higher) 2016 peak and its lowest subsequent drop was only 0.72 °C.

      • angech

        As I anticipated, you are so incredibly busy with communicating your meaning that you didn’t have time to inspect the two graphs in my comment above with the necessary attention.

        Perfect. Typical characteristic of what I use to name ‘pseudoskepticism’…

        I don’t care about warming or cooling.

        Have a nice time
        J.-P. D.

        • That’s funny bindidon you go out of your way to show warming and failed, if you dont care about warming or cooling what exactly are you doing here , your a warmest and I’m glad I burst your bubble .

  16. I know its only a correlation but weaker cycles are generally longer. Just 10 years for the weakest cycle in a century is unlikely.

  17. The part I don’t understand in all of this is, IF small sunspot-related solar variations make a difference in the climate, why is it so difficult to find an ~11-year cycle in surface datasets (e.g. temperature, SST, cloudiness, precipitation, etc.)?

    And before you say I haven’t looked, check out the list below of where I have looked …

    w.

    Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23

    Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…

    Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29

    Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…

    Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21

    I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…

    Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22

    Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…

    Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25

    In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…

    Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22

    There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…

    Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10

    I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…

    Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13

    In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…

    The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17

    A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.

    The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19

    ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…

    It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24

    I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…

    Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06

    I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…

    Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23

    In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…

    Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25

    Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…

    Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01

    So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…

    Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09

    I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…

    Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10

    Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…

    Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07

    In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…

    The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13

    [UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…

    My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17

    Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…

    Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19

    [UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…

    The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19

    Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …

    23 New Papers 2015-09-22

    Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…

    The Cosmic Problem With Rays 2016-10-17

    Normal carbon has six neutrons and six protons, for an atomic weight of twelve. However, there is a slightly different form of carbon which has two extra neutrons. That form of carbon, called carbon-14 or ’14C’, has an atomic weight of fourteen. It is known to be formed by the …

    • In the splicing clouds article you linked too , I think konrad defended his position very well, I also think it’s no coincidence that you regergatate your previous articles at this time , the general theme seems to be not many people agree with you, even though you clearly know what your talking about. If you cant prove something which seems to be your point then you cant disprove it.

      • B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 12:16 pm

        In the splicing clouds article you linked too , I think konrad defended his position very well, I also think it’s no coincidence that you regergatate your previous articles at this time , the general theme seems to be not many people agree with you, even though you clearly know what your talking about. If you cant prove something which seems to be your point then you cant disprove it.

        B d, I stated a number of times in those articles that no, they do not prove that the sunspot-related solar variations don’t affect the surface climate. You can never prove a negative about the existence of something. All that my research can do is show where I’ve looked and found nothing.

        Next, if you want to impress people with your vocabulary, learn to spell “regurgitate” …

        Next, konrad did NOT “defend his position”. I asked him to quote whatever it was that he was babbling about. He didn’t do so, just continued to put up and knock down straw men regarding what he thinks I believe.

        Finally, konrad said little about the subject, which is whether there is a significant ~ 11-year signal in the cloud dataset … probably because there isn’t one. The closest he came was this:

        What I and many others are saying is that just because there is no discernible 11-year cycle in current data sets, it does not necessarily follow that the phenomena listed (and the addition of TSI component variation in UV bands other than EUV) are not having longer term climate effects. In fact, given the way the sun heats the oceans, and the complexity of ocean circulation, I would consider it unlikely that a clear 11 year signal would be manifest.

        I have no idea what that had to do with clouds. In addition, the hourly, daily and monthly variations in solar input to any given ocean are clearly visible in the resulting changes in sea surface temperature. Nobody has ever explained to me what every surfer like myself knows, which is that changes in solar input easily change the ocean surface temperature on an hourly, daily, and monthly basis … but despite that, konrad and others claim that solar variations are somehow unable to do so on an ~11-year basis.

        Do you have an answer to that one?

        Best regards and Xmas wishes,

        w.

        • I dont really care if I’m impressing or depressing anyone with my grammar and spelling ,a rather cheap shot on your part, the sun warms the sea sure ,but it mixes every 12 hrs due to tides, which then increases or decreases the overall temperature, a prolonged SC will have a measurable effect on the main climate moderater, that drives the climate .a direct effect from the sun.

          • B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 12:50 pm

            I dont really care if I’m impressing or depressing anyone with my grammar and spelling ,a rather cheap shot on your part, the sun warms the sea sure ,but it mixes every 12 hrs due to tides, which then increases or decreases the overall temperature, a prolonged SC will have a measurable effect on the main climate moderater, that drives the climate .a direct effect from the sun.

            Thanks, B d. Pointing out that you can’t spell is indeed a cheap shot, my apologies. But if you wish to be taken seriously, it’s also an important shot—if you haven’t mastered spelling, folks are much less likely to take your scientific claims seriously. And you should “really care” about that.

            Next, actually, the ocean does NOT “mix every 12 hrs due to tides” anywhere but in a very thin band along the shores. For the overwhelming majority of the ocean, the tide has absolutely no mixing effect. The entire ocean (and the land underneath it) simply moves up and down without mixing. In mid-ocean, or anywhere away from land, which is almost all of the ocean, there’s no way to know from the ocean’s behavior that a tide even exists.

            In addition, in general, there are two tides per day … and if the mixing occurred as you hypothesize, we wouldn’t see the regular sinusoidal swings of sea surface temperatures over a 24-hour period. But we do see them, and there is no indication of any “tidal mixing” in the SST data.

            So I fear your tidal mixing theory has run aground on a reef of hard facts.

            w.

            PS—How do I know so much about the ocean? Well, I’m a surfer, a diver, a sailor, and a commercial fisherman. I’ve spent thousands of hours out of sight of land. Plus I’m naturally curious and studious, so I’ve spent heaps of time reading about ocean-related science. There’s a tale of one of my more curious sea voyages here if you’re interested, 145 days at sea. And at the end of a lifetime of doing that, despite not having any credentials (except for a Coast Guard skippers license and Openwater I, II, and Rescue Diving Scuba certs) I know more than a little about the briny blue …

          • Now I know your talking rubbish the oceans turn/mix every 12 hours there a heat sinc ,a radiative force that control climate over many decades, were do you think the solar radiation it picks up through the day goes,your analogy is false.your further claims that TSI are meaningless to 11 year cycles is also false you forget or omitting the cumulative effect of TSI over maxima and minima SC is huge , even the solar experts on this site agree on this, the debate is When consecutive SCs become a GSM 3 cycles appear to be the trigger, it’s not what you say in your case it’s what you dont say that matters, you belittle the effect of cosmic Ray’s and sun spots , yet these are climate drivers at present they correlate very well ,and correlate well with the transition of SC24 /25.

            https://www.spaceweather.com/images2017/15dec17/tsi.png?PHPSESSID=egl2qdqv0lek3nqal69loo2gf3

            Your choice of date for your release of past articles is suspect, your lack of support in these previous articles is obvious , your another global warmest arent you.

          • B d, I fear your latest spittle-flecked rant has convinced me to let this interchange go. You haven’t provided anything but more passionate mis-spelled incoherent claims.

            Science depends on EVIDENCE. You’ve given us exactly none

            Pass.

            My best wishes to you,

            w.

          • So that’s you completely blown out, another warmest completely stumped on CRF ,you claimed never heard of CRF having any effect on volcanic action yet papers proved you wrong, you were looking for a fight tonight and you got one, not even a mention of the correlation of sunspots and tsi here il post it again for you

            https://www.spaceweather.com/images2017/15dec17/tsi.png?PHPSESSID=egl2qdqv0lek3nqal69loo2gf3

            Your a global warmest who has been confusing the debate for years,you asked for proof I gave you proof ,you bow out on the excuse of bad spelling ,loydo puts up a better argument than you .

          • “loydo puts up a better argument than you”

            Thank you B d, I’ll take that as a compliment. Just about everything you’ve written, including the above, is total hogwash, but thank you. Btw, I, being an actual so-called “warmist”, disagree with plenty of Willis’ conclusions, but as far as “putting them up” goes, he is way ahead of me.

          • I posted this below, B d, but it seems you missed it.

            B d Clark December 23, 2019 at 3:19 pm

            … you knew CRF effects cloud nucleation and magma ,during low sun activity ,

            B d, I looked at volcanoes and sunspots and found no correlation of the kind that you claim. See here for the details.

            If you disagree with my analysis of volcanoes and sunspots, please quote the section you think is wrong, and tell us why. Handwaving and personal attacks go nowhere.

            w.

          • B d Clark December 24, 2019 at 2:47 pm

            So that’s you completely blown out, another warmest completely stumped on CRF ,you claimed never heard of CRF having any effect on volcanic action yet papers proved you wrong, you were looking for a fight tonight and you got one, not even a mention of the correlation of sunspots and tsi here il post it again for you

            https://www.spaceweather.com/images2017/15dec17/tsi.png?PHPSESSID=egl2qdqv0lek3nqal69loo2gf3

            This is why it’s so hard to discuss things with you. I listed above no less that three separate posts of mine about volcanoes and sunspot-related solar variations. These variations, as I’ve also discussed in various places, include inter alia the TSI, the solar wind, and the CRF. All of these vary in sync with the sunspots.

            So your claim above that I said that I’ve “never heard of CRF having any effect on volcanic action”, when I’ve written three separate posts on that very subject, is a joke. If you think I said that, point out where. And while you’re at it … please read my posts before you make an even greater spectacle of your failure to do your homework.

            And the claim that I’m unaware that the TSI varies in sync with the sunspots is equally ludicrous. In fact, as Leif Svalgaard pointed out, you can calculate the TSI very closely using just the group sunspot number, with the relationship being:

            TSI = 1360.43 + 0.24 * Group Sunspot Number ^ 0.7

            So please, dial back on your fantasies of what I do and don’t know … I not only know that TSI varies in sync with sunspots, I know the formula to calculate one from the other, something which AFAICT you never heard of, much less know and have used in your research as I have …

            Your a global warmest who has been confusing the debate for years,you asked for proof I gave you proof ,you bow out on the excuse of bad spelling ,loydo puts up a better argument than you .

            I “asked for proof”? That’s another of your fantasies. If you truly believe that, point out where I said it.

            Finally, you say you gave me “proof” of some unspecified thing … please point out where the proof is, and what it is the “proof” of …

            I do, however, love your claim that I’m a “global warmest” …

            w.

          • It’s fairly obvious to anyone reading this post,theres something wrong with you I’ve provided 3 papers for you ,that you have totally ignored , no discussion no acknowledgement, nothing, you just keep refering to your own rubbish from years ago. You write a lot of words that mean nothing.

  18. David Archibald predicted at the time of the last solar minimum that this latest one would herald enormous cooling. There was instead enormous warming. Why does David Archibald still have an audience?

    • His writing is exciting even when some of it is suspect. He gets carried away with low solar cycle = cooling in the near future predictions, doesn’t consider buffering effects in the atmosphere and ocean waters.

      Most of the “enormous” (not true) warming are from nearly continuous El-Nino phases, with very little La-Nina effects since 2008, that is a long time, which means the ocean waters have been cooling down for years now, eventually will peter out…..

  19. B d Clark December 23, 2019 at 3:19 pm Edit

    … you knew CRF effects cloud nucleation and magma ,during low sun activity ,

    B d, I looked at volcanoes and sunspots and found no correlation of the kind that you claim. See here for the details.

    w.

Comments are closed.