Solar Plasma Temperature is plunging – should we worry?

Guest post by David Archibald,

The solar plasma temperature has plunged to a new low for the instrument record. Coincidentally or not, the temperature of the southern hemisphere has also plunged over the last couple of weeks. When do we start worrying?

Figure 1: Temperature of the solar wind plasma

As Figure 1 shows, the temperature of the solar wind has hit a new low for the instrument record. As it is energy from the Sun that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto, the lower plasma temperature indicates that the Sun’s surface is cooling. Surely the Earth’s surface will follow.

Figure 2: Alpha particle to proton ratio in the solar wind

Similarly the alpha particle to proton ratio has hit a new low for the almost 50 years of the instrument record. The decline for the peak ratio in each solar cycle is even more dramatic. The question that naturally arises is this: Is there a lower bound for this ratio?

Figure 3: Solar wind flow pressure

Solar wind flow pressure has hit a new low for the instrument record. There a couple of interesting things about this chart. Note that the lows for the last three solar cycles are aligned as indicated by the blue line. This implies that there is a disciplined process involved. Note also the low activity in the late 1960s that set up the 1970s cooling period.

It is the solar wind flow pressure combined with the Sun’s magnetic field that reduces the flux of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. As these two parameters we can expect a spike in the neutron flux about a year from now. In turn that is expected to increase cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo.

Figure 4: Kp Index

The Kpindex is a global auroral activity indicator on a scale from 0 to 9. What is evident in this graph is the change in regime from the Modern Warm Period that ended in 2006 and the New Cold Period.

Figure 5: Ap Index 1967 to 2020

According to Omniweb’s data the Ap Index has also hit a new low for its data record.

Figure 6: 2 metre temperature anomaly for 2020

Figure 6 is from Oxford academic Karsten Haustein’s website. It is updated daily. It shows that the temperature of the southern hemisphere (the blue line) has plunged 0.6°C in the last couple of weeks and is continuing to plunge. Could it be that the new lows for some solar parameters is having an instant response? The Antarctic plateau is the Earth’s refrigerator.

David Archibald is the author of The Anticancer Garden in Australia.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
417 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 10:16 am

Maybe we can finally get all these alarmist to finally acknowledge that, Yes Virginia there is a Sun and it does play a primary roll in Climate Change. Then we can work on getting them to say that CO2 is a trace element that is very beneficial to life on planet earth.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 11:21 am

If the IPCC’s sensitivity was close to correct (don’t worry it’s not), a mere 4 W/m^2 decrease in solar input to the planet will result in an initial decrease of about 1C which will be amplified by unspecified positive feedback resulting in 16 W/m^2 less surface emissions corresponding to a final 3-4C decrease in the surface temperature. A failure to see this much of a temperature decrease in response to the apparently inevitable decrease in solar input will be as telling as the current failure to see as much increase from CO2 emissions as they required to support their existence.

Although, I’m sure they will make up some kind of convoluted physics defying excuse for why their mischaracterized and hugely influential positive ‘feedback’ amplifies warming, but not cooling.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 23, 2020 12:16 pm

Ahh, but see, you’re missing the key factor for heatists! Since this is a trend in the Southern hemisphere, your feedback would have to be negative, and hence the loss in solar radiation would result in a 4C INCREASE in temperature!

There’s no getting around it – we’re going to burn to a cinder no matter what happens!

Arnieus
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 24, 2020 6:51 am

The IPCC will do or say nothing to interfere with the carbon credit scam.

TonyG
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 24, 2020 2:03 pm

You’re assuming they even acknowledge it.

BR549
Reply to  TonyG
August 26, 2020 4:56 am

They will ignore it as long as they can in order to gauge how many brainless leftards are still naive enough to still assuage their guilt for being born by accepting carbon taxes from a group of globalist elites who, quite frankly, have no concern for the environment.

Matt G
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 26, 2020 1:18 pm

I spent a while years ago trying to find out how they got these values and many papers kept referring to these values, but none mentioned where or how it was actually calculated from. Even the IPCC reports at the time left out this information.

The 4W/m^2 or 3.7W/m^2 values that many choose to mention from the IPCC is actually bogus and a misleading calculation.

Why?

It relies on the surface temperature for it to be derived.

rf = f * ln([CO2]/[CO2]prein)/ln(2)
becoming
AF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) = 3.7 W/m^2

f = Factor including 0.6c that was used at the time representing all the global warming.

“The forcing due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is 3.7 Wm2[Andreae et al., 2005], while the observed change in surface-air temperature is taken to be 0.6°C.”

It fails to distinguish any temperature from natural or unnatural and presumes all the 0.6c was caused by CO2 to complete its misleading equation.

CO2 molecules cannot retain millions times more energy in Joules than the molecules combined for each individual pair as the 3.7 W/m^2 implies for a doubling of CO2 at TOA.

Reply to  Matt G
August 27, 2020 8:02 am

Matt

I remember that story now! Thanks.My understanding from the beginning was indeed that the IPCC put the cart behind horse by assuming that CO2 causes warming, when in fact, more CO2 is simply the evidence of more warming.
I had lost the details of this argument, so you don’t mind me filing it now somewhere where I will be able to find it back easily?

Reply to  Matt G
August 27, 2020 12:34 pm

Matt,

I’ve applied HITRAN based analysis on a standard atmosphere including the effects of clouds, and without any adaptation by clouds, the average amount of incremental surface emissions absorbed upon doubling CO2 since pre-industrial times is about 3.7 W/m^2, so lets call it 4. Only half of what’s absorbed is returned to the surface to offset additional emissions, while the remaining half is emitted into space. With everything else held constant, doubling CO2 is equivalent to about 2 W/m^2 more from the Sun resulting in an increase of about 0.6C (0.3C +/- <5% per W/m^2) and not the 3C +/- 1.5C claimed by the IPCC (0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2).

They either applied their bogus sensitivity to all of the incremental absorption instead of only the part that offsets incremental surface emissions, they failed to include for the significantly reduced effect of GHG's between the surface and clouds, or it was coincidentally close to the actual incremental absorption by being a value they pulled out of their collective arses that when combined with their bogus sensitivity made a climate catastrophe seem plausible.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 12:10 pm

Climate changes from land use, not changes in sunlight.

Destruction *IS* ‘use’.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 23, 2020 5:21 pm

Again, please

Do you mean “us”, meaning the sun has no effect?

goracle
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 23, 2020 6:51 pm

prjindigo… troll

bobdog
Reply to  goracle
August 25, 2020 9:18 am

This is all Trump’s fault for crawdadding on the Paris Accords, I tell ya.

We shoulda listened to Little Greta when we had the chance, I tell ya.

We all gonna die.

Now this from our sponsors. Stay tuned to CNN.

/sarc

Denileriverafter
Reply to  bobdog
August 26, 2020 7:57 am

Yes, it HAS to be “orange man’s” fault!! I just want to know HOW much more money I need to give Al Gore, to fix the sun! Seriously, IF, the Earth is getting warmer, and the Sun is getting cooler..isn’t that..A WASH?!!!

Robertvd
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 24, 2020 5:43 am

The climate depends on ocean temperature and ocean currents. A hot city is not climate.

RoyL
Reply to  Prjindigo
August 24, 2020 6:17 am

Warming and then increase of carbon dioxide which is essential to all life on this planet, follow the decrease of solar activity. Any true scientist can show this in records. The Chinese have been studying this for two centuries at least. Because their dynasties have fallen during each Grand solar minimum. Which is likely starting with solar cycle 25.
The ipcc was set up to enrich certain individuals are off of fraudulent carbon taxes. Research brings knowledge. Knowledge provides freedom.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 12:30 pm

We’ve had an unusually cold and wet winter here in Valparaiso, Chile, plus maybe windier as well. This week will be well below August averages, let alone September, and rainy M-W. Tuesday high is forecast at 10.0 C and low at 7.0, vs. Aug averages of 14.8 and 9.3. Lows later in the week mostly 4.0, with one each 5.0 and 6.0.

The weather should be improving, not getting more wintry. Even Iquique, in the driest desert on Earth, had rain last week.

Ron Long
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 1:38 pm

John, in Mendoza, Argentina, the other side of the Andes Mountains from you, we have had a very unusual winter, with strangely continuous freezing temperatures. The early fruit growers, like cherries, are very worried about this. Myself, I really want to fly to Miami, but the China Virus has me locked up. Double whammy.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ron Long
August 23, 2020 4:03 pm

I can’t flee, either, since dunno when I’ll be able to return.

Our current state of emergency will end September 30, but could be reupped. But even then, if cases remain high in the US, Chile might emulate the EU and ban Americans. Despite being married to a Chilean, I’m not a legal resident, since before this year, I always spent more than six months in the US.

Cherries are always vulnerable to frost, especially at 2500 feet.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 24, 2020 4:49 am

Now 3 degrees C is the low forecast for this week.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  John Tillman
August 24, 2020 12:07 pm

G’Day John. Thanks for the reference to Iquique. I went to Google – maps – street view. Noticed a Maritime Museum – with a fully rigged ship. Google actually took a camera onboard! But, right on the coast and normally dry? Or are there two locations with the same name?

Day 158 of the California lock-down. To pass some time – pick some place in the world and ‘visit’ with “street view”.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 25, 2020 9:09 am

Yes. It’s the Atacama Desert. Cold Western Marine Boundary currents in that latitude produce dry land. See the Namib, Sahara and Baja.

The colder the current, the drier the land. Chile has the Humboldt, the coldest, and Namibia the second, both flowing from Antarctica.

Iquique is a port, but surrounded by desert. Fog banks form among the coast, but only rarely move inland. The vegetation has evolved to be able to bloom without rain, just mist.

Some say the Pisco sour was invented in Iquique, when it still belonged to Peru. The story is that a US sailor from Kentucky jumped ship there and got a job as a bartender. He used the local brandy-like liquor, Pisco, in lieu of the Bourbon in a whiskey sour, plus the local Key Lime like fruit. The South American classic was born!

The advantage of this creation myth is that it allows both Peru and Chile to claim the Pisco. But its true origins are as murky as the Margarita’s, which is a Daisy made with tequila. Margarita means daisy.

Raymond Bélanger
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 9:43 pm

Here in Indonesia it is supposed to be the dry season. By dry it means we usually don’t get rain at all for 6 to 8 months. This year has been a wet dry season. Can’t get a few weeks without getting rained.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 12:31 pm

I agree whole heartedly Bill Regards, Rod Chilton

Roy
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 12:45 pm

Carbon dioxide is not an element. You made an elementary mistake.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Roy
August 23, 2020 3:24 pm

Maybe he was suffering from a little gas!

brians356
Reply to  Abolition Man
August 25, 2020 5:10 pm

Watt’s pots never Boyle.

RoHa
Reply to  Roy
August 23, 2020 5:28 pm

I should have read ahead. Probably a slip caused by runaway fingers. Frequently I find my fingers have typed something before I have decided what it is I want to type. They don’t always get it right, either.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  RoHa
August 24, 2020 4:36 am

Ah, IFS ( Independent Finger Syndrome ), there’s a lot of it about.

Here in Cape Town it has been a cold winter. Lots of cold fronts rolling through, heavy rain and snow on the local mountains. Two years ago droughts and mild winters was the new normal because of Climate Change®. Now it is the exact opposite because of, yes you guessed it, Climate Change®.

I keep on expecting to see icebergs offshore. Well, you never know.

Another Scott
Reply to  Roy
August 23, 2020 11:05 pm

In his defense warmists say they are trying to cut down carbon emissions instead of carbon dioxide emissions all the time. They also want to do things like deep decarbonization instead of deep decarbondioxideization.

rocketride
Reply to  Roy
August 25, 2020 10:28 am

So long as he doesn’t compound it.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 2:45 pm

What could the sun possibly have to do with the temperature of our planet? The science is settled and the sun doesn’t matter — only man made CO2 matters. Al Gore knew this decades ago after he invented the internet. Why should climate models waste their time with the sun because everyone knows it is constant. Nothing matters except man made CO2. In fact, man made CO2 controls everything, maybe even the sun. According to the climate models all the charts presented in this article should have had flat horizontal straight lines. But they do not. That is very suspicious. The government climate scientists should look into this immediately. How can one not trust people who work for the government, and are scientists too?

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 23, 2020 6:11 pm

As you know… the sun is not constant. You can check it’s intensity in W/m² every day with one of these in your shirt pocket: https://www.solarmeter.com/wp-content/uploads/Solarmeter-Model-10.0-Photovoltaic.pdf

Best way is check at solar noon every day at your location. Note cloud conditions for reference. After 1 year you have a current baseline. Continue for year 2, 3, 4 etc… making a spreadsheet to see your local temporal variations annually.

If you vacation at a different latitude… create a different spreadsheet for that spatial location. Become a citizen scientist before you know it!

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2020 5:45 am

Richard
You should know by now that no-one in blogs ever gets sarcasm.
Somehow when blogging everyone is autistic.
So you need to end with /SARC however obvious it may seem to you.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
August 24, 2020 8:49 am

I completely got the whole post was sarcasm (and well done at that)… which is why I started out saying “As you know…”. Just giving the readers an easy way to measure sun.

Tom
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 25, 2020 11:34 am

If it weren’t for the Yugo we would have never seen the end of the ice age:0)
Oh there were no cars then?
Must have been cow facts.
I know it sure can’t be the sun or the oceans that dwarf the dry surface of the planet. And the Earth’s magnetic field certainly dosen’t do anything.
Yup definitely cars and cows.

Trevor Jones
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 26, 2020 8:28 am

Nonono! It’s Acid Rain that is affecting the climate. Is that a thing still?
OR, OZONE.. yes ozone is affecting the climate. That’s still a thing, yes?
YESYES, its the spotted owls! As their population declined the temp went up.
There is your scientific Correlation. We just need to breed spotted owls to lower temps.

After CO2 insanity there will be something else stupid. The sun is cooling and that has to be ignored by CO2 faithful, and that is why this is thread has degraded from Sun discussion to CO2 discussion.

RoHa
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 5:26 pm

Trace gas, not element.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 6:13 pm

Molecule. Gas at all but very cold T.

Alfred (Cairns)
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 10:16 pm

“Maybe we can finally get all these alarmist to finally acknowledge that”

There is a misunderstanding here. Their leaders, the ones financing it, are perfectly aware of all of this. The virus plandemic is their attempt to reduce the world’s population. That is what lockdowns and fake vaccines are supposed to achieve. That is why so many politicians have been either bought up or blackmailed.

As Churchill reputedly said “never let a good crisis go to waste”

griff
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2020 11:47 pm

Human CO2 is now the main driver of climate change on top of/in addition to the sun, natural cycles, volcanoes, orbital mechanics etc.

There is no reason why there cannot be a new additional climate impact on top of existing ones from CO2. The physics are unanswerable.

And there is detailed research to show even a new Maunder minimum barely puts the brakes on temperature rise from CO2.

LdB
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 1:38 am

There is a basic problem with your story, I did this dance with old NicK Stokes.

So called “Natural emissions” of CO2 440 Gt per year, Human emissions of CO2 per year highest ever 38Gt.

So if CO2 is the culprit then Natural CO2 is the main driver by 10 fold over Human only emissions. What you greentards do is want to make Human Emissions special.

The fact is it would be a lot more cost effect and easier to make nature emit 38Gt less than to deal with the Human emissions. Why that isn’t the plan is because the whole emission control scam is about wealth re-distribution not actually cutting emissions.

Loydo
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 3:50 am

The basic problem with you story is that your overlooking natuaral sinks. Hint they’re actually larger than the natural sources.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
August 24, 2020 5:24 am

Again Loy-doh with his mindless suppositories.

“Hint they’re actually larger than the natural sources.”

So those Natural sinks are absorbing all that extra human released CO2

Its called the Carbon Cycle and Global Greening, bonehead

Of course plant life responds when there is just a bit more than just subsistence level in the atmosphere.

Greening by atmospheric CO2 is actually measured.

Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
August 24, 2020 11:18 am

HINT: You obviously are very stupid Loydo if you want to play your CO2 sinks are bigger shell game then you have 3 possibilities which solve the problem

(a) the natural sinks can absorb all the Human CO2 already
(b) reduce the Natural CO2 emissions and nature then sinks the human emissions.
(c) increase nature sinks and they sink all the human emissions.

If we say (a) isn’t true you still have (b) and (c) which do exactly the same thing but greentards don’t want to discuss.

DonM
Reply to  Loydo
August 24, 2020 3:32 pm

“… they’re actually larger than the natural sources.”

What the hell are you talking about, and over what time frame? If your simplistic statement was true we would have run out of CO2 a long time ago.

Rhoido, there are cycles, within cycles, within cycles … sometimes the sinks reduce reduce atm CO2 and sometimes they don’t. The level of atm CO2 influences the sinks (as well as other things), which then influences the CO2 (as well as other things) ….

And none of that ‘controls’ world temperature.

Lloyd made me think of rhoid (as in hemor) … which tied into thy so as analogy….

When you can figure out something as ‘simple’ as the thyroid interactions work, then mebbe you can move forward and tell us how simple the earth climate system is. Thyroid, pituitary, hypothalamus, parathyroid glands (integral but different), and external inputs such as iodine regulate a good portion of the human metabolism. If someone said iodine is the control know to the human metabolism they would be ignored by all (except for the useful idiots).

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
August 24, 2020 9:36 pm

It really is not that difficult to understand.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration that remained steady for millenia is now rising. Why?

Natural CO2 sinks and sources were roughly in balance when humans started emitting CO2. Natural sources haven’t changed much but, because of our extra CO2, natural sinks are now having to absorb more than before. About half of what we emit is absorbed by the expanded sinks, about half stays in the air.
comment image

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
August 25, 2020 3:14 am

First humans do a lot more than burn fossil fuels we change the enviroment on massive scales and all you want to talk about is the fossil fuels. Second even if it is the burning of the fossil fuels there are a lot of easier ways to push the natural emissions around if you are going to spend serious money. Nature doesn’t vote or complain and it’s emissions/sinks are a lot easier to target for that reason if you have cash to spend.

However it is like nuclear energy with greentards, you need to work out if you actually want to solve the problem or just keep dribbling about something that is never going to happen.

You are an Australian it should be bleeding obvious there isn’t a chance in the next decade that anything serious on emission control will happen here. The support numbers are woefully low and we will punish any politician who tries it at the polls.

John Tillman
Reply to  Loydo
August 25, 2020 9:16 am

CO2 was not stable for millennia. The so-called “pre-industrial” level of ~285 ppm was during the LIA. During the warm periods, it was around 320 ppm.

And higher than that during the Eemian. During glaciations, it gets close to plant starvation levels.

It has been 18 times higher than now it our present Phanerozoic Eon.

sendergreen
Reply to  John Tillman
August 25, 2020 11:44 am

Reportedly CO2 dropped to 180ppm during the most recent glaciation.

Just 50 ppm above the total Death Zone for plants.

Similar for a human to ascend above 26,000 feet mountain climbing without supplementary bottled oxygen.

Bellman
Reply to  Loydo
August 25, 2020 4:53 pm

John Tillman,

During the warm periods, it was around 320 ppm.

Do you have a source for that, and which warm periods are you talking about?

Ice-core data suggests CO2 hasn’t gone above 300 ppm in the last 800,000 years.

sendergreen
Reply to  Bellman
August 25, 2020 5:15 pm

Bellman says :
“Ice-core data suggests CO2 hasn’t gone above 300 ppm in the last 800,000 years.”
———————————————-

And that I see as a truly scary problem, where the ghost of CO2 “warming” is NOT.
To repeat the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm during the last glaciation.
Just 30 ppm above the Death Zone for plant life.
In the next glaciation cycle … and there will be one,
Could it possibly go even lower ?
That IS an existential crisis to all future life on earth.

I think humans should do all we can to maximize our production of CO2 with the aim of reaching 1000 ppm.
And provide a CO2 “buffer zone” to the next real climate transition phase which I believe is closer, and will hit faster than most people think. It is going to be “The Cold”.

Bellman
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2020 4:43 am

Sendergreen

To repeat the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm during the last glaciation.
Just 30 ppm above the Death Zone for plant life.

There have been numerous glaciations over the last few hundred thousand years, and the fact that we are still here suggests CO2 never dropped into the “Death Zone”. Why would it be likely that the next ice-age would be so much colder than any previous one? The odds would seem to be against it, even before you consider the fact we’ve already injected a lot more CO2 into the system.

In any event, if there is another ice-age in the next few hundred years, I think a reduction in CO2 will be the least of our problems.

sendergreen
Reply to  Bellman
August 26, 2020 10:32 am

Bellman says :
“There have been numerous glaciations over the last few hundred thousand years, and the fact that we are still here suggests CO2 never dropped into the “Death Zone”. ….. consider the fact we’ve already injected a lot more CO2 into the system. ”
———————————————–
How close do we want it to be Bellman ? Around 660K years ago it dropped to around 170ppm. Do you think plants in the tropics did “ok” just 30 ppm from the Death Zone thirty thousand years ago ? Why do you think greenhouse owners often artificially “pump up” the CO2 levels to 800-1200ppm inside ? Because the plants inside grow faster, stronger, and are more nutritious than the ones grown outside in our current atmosphere.

One of the big propaganda scams is the deliberately deceptive mantra “CO2 levels are at the highest they’ve ever been in human history”. Human history is a scant 5000 years. CO2 levels have peaked over geologic history at about 5700 ppm. The real “Jurassic Park” dinosaurs lived in lush forests teeming with life at about 1600 ppm. The 120′ ish ppm rise in the last hundred years is proportionally so much more tiny in those terms. The risk to future life is the starvation of the atmosphere of CO2, not a glut. One thousand CO2ppm isn’t a calamity Bellman … it is an intelligent GOAL to pursue.

CO2@1000by2100

Bellman
Reply to  Loydo
August 26, 2020 2:09 pm

How close do we want it to be Bellman ?

As I said, it doesn’t bother me too much. If we haven’t had an ice-age cold enough to drop CO2 levels to the supposed Death Zone in the last 800,000 years it’s difficult to see it happening in the next 1000 years or so. Especially when you consider how much additional CO2 we’ve put into circulation, and the corresponding warming.

But as I was trying to imply, whether the next glaciation is normal or exceptionally cold, we’ll have far more to worry about than the reduction in CO2. And if civilization does survive the cold, and glaciers, and it does turn out that we are heading for an unprecedented reduction in atmospheric CO2, we’ll have plenty of time to solve the problem before all life becomes extinct.

John Tillman
Reply to  Loydo
August 27, 2020 3:46 pm

Leaf stomata from the Eemian suggest ~330 ppm.

Dunno what Holocene Climatic Optimum ice cores from Antarctica show, but should be a bit lower, since peak Eemian warmth was higher than peak Holocene.

Bellman
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 12:13 pm

The fact is it would be a lot more cost effect and easier to make nature emit 38Gt less than to deal with the Human emissions.

How exactly will you make nature emit that much less? And how do you do that whilst ensuring nature continues to absorb the same amount of CO2 as before? And then how do you ensure that as nature continues to hold ever more carbon, it doesn’t start to emit more?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 4:38 am

“Human CO2 is now the main driver of climate change on top of/in addition to the sun, natural cycles, volcanoes, orbital mechanics etc.”

Explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, despite rapidly increasing CO2 output.

Explain why changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature in the ice-core record, never the other way round.

fred250
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 5:20 am

“Human CO2 is now the main driver of climate change”

More unmitigated RUBBISH from griffool

Not one shred of measured evidence.. just brain-hosed “belief”

fred250
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 5:28 am

“new additional climate impact on top of existing ones from CO2.

What existing ones? Fantasies in un-validated incorrect models ?

“The physics are unanswerable.”

You haven’t got a clue about actual physics, Ed.

There is no real physics that CO2 could cause atmospheric CO2…. just fantasy conjectures.

Fantasy physics does not need answering.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 5:49 am

Human CO2 is now the main driver of climate change

All contemporary climate science starts with this assumption and, based on that assumption, confirms that assumption.

At some point in the future even you will finally come to understand that that is an empty circular argument and that it is not true, even remotely. Till then, enjoy you religious bliss.

beng135
Reply to  griff
August 24, 2020 9:39 am

griff, stop derailing the posts. Stick to the subject — the sun in this case.

DC Wornock
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 24, 2020 1:15 am

You are correct in that at approximately 1 part per 3,000 of the atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas that has no measurable effect on temperature. It is like throwing a bottle of red dye in the ocean and attempting to say how much it colors the ocean red. The amount is not measurable. 500 million years ago there was 12 to 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature was about the same as now.

For billions of years, the earth has been losing CO2 and is now CO2 starved. We need more, not less CO2 and 2 to 5 times as much CO2 would be better because that would increase plant growth.

Regarding temperature, for about 12,000 year we have been in an intergalactic warm period and, when it ends, (soon or perhaps in several thousand years) the earth will return to the millions of years long Ice Age. Whether, we are returning to our Ice Age, a Maunder Minimum, or a brief cooling, I don’t know. Regardless, the sun, not our insignificant human activity, has the primary effect on temperature.

D. Boss
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 24, 2020 5:05 am

The insanity of CO2 as driver of global temps is as stupid as saying only Ferrari and Lamborghini cars on the roads cause all traffic jams! Their proportions against all cars are similar to CO2 vs water vapor.

Water vapor is the primary “greenhouse gas” and it’s today, here in S Florida, 32,252 ppmv. And as a result the outgoing radiative loss at 05:53 to a clear sky was 120 w/m². At best the IPCC says CO2 contributes maybe 2 w/m².

On the coldest (driest) day in winter the outgoing radiative flux is 250 w/m² when water vapor is just under 5,000 ppmv.

I’ve been doing daily measurements of absolute humidity, vs ground and sky temps – and you can clearly see only water vapor dominates the heat lost to space from this simple data collection exercise. (That is both daily dawn ground and sky temps against absolute humidity, and outgoing radiative flux vs absolute humidity are straight lines with Rsquared above 95%) (can’t seem to post images here anymore???)

(put another way, given the ground/grass temperature and absolute humidity, I can predict the vertical air column temperature with a 95+% accuracy – from these data sets you clearly see it’s water vapor in the absolute concentration that dominates the “blanket” effect) (greenhouse effect is a dumb name, as it’s not a greenhouse, a blanket is a better analogy)

bayazet
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2020 9:27 am

Last time I heard we live in brief moment between 2 ice ages. The last ice age ended only 19000 years ago and the little ice age just ended about 90 years ago. The global warming they are talking about is merely a return to the pre-little ice age temperatures. Return to the time when Greenland was green. Also as far as I remember CO2 green house effect platoes after certain concentration and then no matter how much you pump it into the atmosphere it doesn’t get any more reflective.

sendergreen
Reply to  bayazet
August 25, 2020 12:15 pm

The Lake Huron lobe of the glacier melted past the spot where I am sitting about 13,800 years BP. After that I would have been under a cold massive glacial lake for another 2800 years until what is now the Lake Erie ==> Lake Ontario ==> St. Lawrence ==> Atlantic corridor opened.

Steve
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2020 10:05 am

In a perfect world, yes. But the leftwing fascists never admit they are wrong. They will just go on to the next big “Threat”

Catapult
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 25, 2020 12:05 pm

No! Can’t be! AOC and the rest of us just KNOW that cow farts and SUVs cause global warming. No evidence needed! We just KNOW! /s

Earthling2
August 23, 2020 10:23 am

While I hope there is moderate global warming for decades to come, it would be good if we could correlate solar activity to climate on the good Earth with some anomalous cooling that can be convincingly shown to be caused by changes in solar activity. I just hope the temps don’t crash with additional volcanic activity that further depresses temps with something like the Year Without a Summer (1816) after Tambora erupted in 1815 after a fairly intense cooler climate in the LIA, which many think is the direct result of solar activity. Maybe both. When dealing with Murphys Law, it seems everything goes wrong at once, even though it is probably connected in ways we don’t yet understand. We wouldn’t do so well presently if we had a summer like 1816.

This would be the spike through the heart of the global climate emergency from climate change due to global warming. And the alarmists would have a tough time blaming CO2 on rapid cooling that was seen originating in solar activity. I just hope it isn’t overly severe and we have widespread crop failure for a few years, which would be a real catastrophe. This could cause an enormous backlash against the forces of darkness peddling the CAGW nonsense that CO2 is pollution and causing excessive manmade global warming.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Earthling2
August 23, 2020 10:51 am

Ehat sre you telling ?
Science is settled !
/sarc

Catapult
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 25, 2020 12:07 pm

Besides. we don’t need no stinkin’ science. We just KNOW! /sarc

AndyHce
Reply to  Earthling2
August 23, 2020 1:48 pm

I think you under estimate what the warmists would claim and overestimate the general faithful’s ability to see the absurdness in the preachings. Politicians are especially susceptible.

Earthling2
Reply to  AndyHce
August 23, 2020 3:34 pm

Unfortunately for all the people on the good Earth, you are probably right. It isn’t even really about climate anymore anyway, as some like AOC and others have fully admitted. But it would be recorded in the history books that hopefully mankind will learn a lesson from. That is if we can even trust and control who writes the history books. Many countries in the world don’t even have access to truthful history or actual honest current events. Like China, which is almost 20% of the population of the planet.

Reply to  Earthling2
August 24, 2020 2:01 am

OUR THREE MAJOR STATEMENTS MADE IN 2002

In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae wrote the following which are correct to date:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Allan MacRae published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:

3. “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.”

Allan MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013:

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

Loydo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 24, 2020 3:57 am

No. They were wrong in 2002 and now they’re not even wrong. Dude, your worse than ‘the ice’ll be gone next year’ brigade.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 24, 2020 7:26 am

Even some of the most rabid greens now admit that my statements 1 and 2 are correct, and that the global warming & green energy story was a political falsehood used to promote the Marxist anti-capitalist agenda.

1. “CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
See Michael Shellenberger’s 2020 confession “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare”. https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/

2. “THE ULTIMATE AGENDA OF PRO-KYOTO ADVOCATES IS TO ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUELS, BUT THIS WOULD RESULT IN A CATASTROPHIC SHORTFALL IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”
See Michael Moore’s 2020 film “Planet of the Humans”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
s.”

My statement 3 is increasingly probable, unfortunately – humanity and the environment suffer during cooling periods.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 24, 2020 8:39 am

I suggest that extreme weather is more typical of cooling weather and climate, not warming. Bundle up!

EXTREME SUMMER BLIZZARD ENGULFS XINJIANG, CHINA KILLING HUNDREDS OF LIVESTOCK AND DISTURBING TRAFFIC
June 29, 2020
https://strangesounds.org/2020/07/china-blizzard-summer-video.html
Herdsmen in Tekes County, northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region have endured heavy losses after Monday’s blizzard froze to death over 400 livestock animals across the county.
Video: https://youtu.be/dLRGoWYNIPM

ANOMALOUS JUNE SNOW IN THE ROCKIES: SNOWPLOWS DEPLOYED IN UTAH AND WYOMING – A FOOT OF SNOW IN IDAHO AND MONTANA – AND WE ARE ONLY TWO WEEKS AWAY FROM THE SUMMER SOLSTICE!
Jun 9, 2020
strangesounds.org/2020/06/anomalous-snow-june-montana-idaho-utah-video.html

SHEEP ARE BURIED ALIVE IN ARGENTINA
Jul 31, 2020
strangesounds.org/2020/07/patagonia-snow-livestock-buried-alive-argentina-video-pictures.html
Patagonia is suffering one of the worst winters in recent years, with heavy snowfall (up to 1.5 meters of snow) and extreme temperatures around 20 degrees below zero.

EXTREME DERECHO KILLS 3 AND DISRUPTS POWER TO 500,000 PEOPLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY
Jun 4, 2020
strangesounds.org/2020/06/derecho-pennsylvania-new-jersey-video-pictures.html

Loydo
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 25, 2020 1:42 am

Two people and three weather events? Seriously? And that grants you license to act like WUWT’s mad uncle and go all shouty?

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 25, 2020 5:18 am

Check out NIno34 temperatures, again down to Minus 0.6C – winter will be cold.
comment image

See also:comment image

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 25, 2020 7:52 pm

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/

Catapult
Reply to  AndyHce
August 25, 2020 12:08 pm

Eight years of Obama are absolute proof.

Richard (the cynical one)
August 23, 2020 10:25 am

This isn’t science. Where’s the obligatory AGW? Where is the mention of carbon? Where is the blame? Where are the demands for funding?

Ron Long
August 23, 2020 10:31 am

YES.

JimG1
August 23, 2020 10:37 am

Any relationships on record between the noted measures and earth’s surface temperature other than the noted SH/antarctic temps i.e. global surface temps, even as poor as their quality may be?

JimG1
Reply to  JimG1
August 23, 2020 10:55 am

Longer term than shown, of course.

Steven Mosher
August 23, 2020 10:48 am

“Figure 6 is from Oxford academic Karsten Haustein’s website. It is updated daily. It shows that the temperature of the southern hemisphere (the blue line) has plunged 0.6°C in the last couple of weeks and is continuing to plunge. ”

err no, he posted model outputs.

not data

Javier
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2020 11:21 am

That’s not true. Global Forecast System (GFS) and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) are reanalysis products made from the combination of models and real data. So there is plenty of data in them. The data keeps the model attached to reality. The difference is that GFS produces forecasts that are used in weather prediction, and CFSR is an analysis tool to see what has happened in near-real time.

What I don’t understand is what Dr. Haustein graph represents as it is labeled GFS vs CFSR, and these are two different, albeit related, products. What it is clear from the graph is that he is producing a one-week forecast that must come from GFS. Most people consider ECMWF reanalysis product superior to GFS.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 12:52 pm

@Javier
“Reanalysis (CFSR) are reanalysis products made from the combination of models and real data. ”

To be fair, a “reanalysis” is a forecast, not an observation, even if it is based on “real” data (like most weather forecasts are). So Mosh is right, it is a model output, not an observation.

But Haustein is forecasting an anomaly, not absolute temperature (as Archibald seems to claim in his post above). We would have to see the historical baseline absolute temperatures to judge if it is really a current drop in absolute temperature.

It could be that the baseline had an upward 0.6C spike in the past, which is now missing, which would also create a downward “anomaly”.

Javier
Reply to  Johanus
August 23, 2020 1:06 pm

So Mosh is right, it is a model output, not an observation.

No. Mosh is wrong. He did not say anything about observations. He said “not data”, and the output of a reanalysis contains lots of data. Temperature, pressure, wind speed, essentially anything that can be measured.

Reanalysis is not a forecast, reanalysis can produce forecasts and that is their function and the reason why they were developed. But the historical part of the reanalysis output is constrained by observations.

While models can hugely differ from observations, reanalysis cannot. Non-forecasted temperature in reanalysis output gets updated to real temperature every 8 or 12 hours.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 2:05 pm

Mosh said: “he posted model outputs. not data”

Certainly Mosh meant “observed data” because all outputs (including model outputs) are data.

“Reanalysis is not a forecast”

Call it forecast, extrapolation, interpolation, projection, whatever. The reanalysis data that comes out is not an instrument record, but may be based on such.

Actually, I am a fan of Data Assimilation (used to create these kinds of reanalysis reports) and have a copy of Eugenia Kalnay’s book, which I recommend to anyone interested in the development of numerical weather predictions:
“Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability”, Cambridge Press, 2003.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 2:14 pm

Oops, I didn’t use the correct XML so everything is italics. My first line raw input should have been:

Mosh said:<i> “he posted model outputs. not data”</i>

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 5:05 am

It is a RESULT. Wiki says, “in mathematics, the final value of a calculation (e.g. arithmetic operation), function or statistical expression, or the final statement of a theorem that has been proven”.

Results are not DATA. Merriam-Webster says data are; “factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation”.

It is important to use correct terminology with the general public. When you call results of calculations data, the general public consider them to be measured facts, not what you think is true.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 12:51 pm

@Jim Gorman
“Results are not DATA”

Here is the entire list of ‘result’ examples from the Wikipedia article you quoted. (You left out most of them) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result

Some types of result are as follows:
* in general, the outcome of any kind of research, action or phenomenon
* in games (e.g. cricket, lotteries) or wars, the result includes the identity of the victorious party and possibly the effects on the environment
* in mathematics, the final value of a calculation (e.g. arithmetic operation), function or statistical expression, or the final statement of a theorem that has been proven
* in statistics, any information [data!] analyzed, extracted or interpolated from polls, tests or logs
* in computer sciences, the return value of a function, state of a system or list of records matching a query (e.g. web search). The result type is the data type of the data returned by a function.
* in science, the outcome of an experiment (e.g. see null hypothesis)
* in forensics and justice, the proof of guilt or innocence of a suspect after evaluating evidence in a criminal investigation
* in economics and accounting, the profit or loss at the end of a fiscal period.
* in democracy, [outcome?]

If, for the sake of argument, we accept these definitions as authoritative, then meteorology falls under “science” (physics), which uses mathematics and statistics. That means we can call the “result” of reading a thermometer “data”, because it is “information” extracted for conducting a “test” of current weather conditions. So all results that are “information” can be called “data”. Right?

So I think we can restate your assertion, more correctly, as “Results are always DATA”

😐

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 4:35 pm

Johanus –> It says,a result is: “* in science, the outcome of an experiment (e.g. see null hypothesis).”

A temperature measurement is not an experiment! It is a measurement with a hopefully, precise, calibrated instrument. Look at NIST documents to see how. The ‘result’ of an experiment would be if the measured temperature is what was hypothesized.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 6:55 pm

@Jim Gorman
“A temperature measurement is not an experiment! ”

I did not say it was. Read my words.

I said “… we can call the “result” of reading a thermometer “data”, because it is “information” extracted for conducting a “test” of current weather conditions.”

Recall that a “result”, in statistics, is “… any information [“data”] analyzed, extracted or interpolated from polls, tests or logs”

These are words from the references you provided.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 10:48 pm

Javier has never worked with GFS in the real world to actually make a living off it’s accuracy.

it sucks.

yes in “inports” data. then it applies a model. then it outputs a prediction.

Use with caution.

AND to check GFS we do what?

We check the actual data.

Jesus

LdB
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2020 1:41 am

That is one up on what you do … remember when I asked you for a prediction so we judge you.

You wouldn’t give one 🙂

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2020 5:54 am

SM
You spent years trying to educate us that all data is a model.
Now you’ve flipped and are saying that if a model is present then it’s not data?
It’s the right weather for flip-flops.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
August 28, 2020 6:05 am

Is it the right weather for counters (strings of flip-flops). ?

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2020 12:26 pm

But if you listen to climate scientists like Dr Mann, model output IS Data

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bryan A
August 23, 2020 2:22 pm

Semantics! A set of values is properly called data, but what sort of data is the relevant question. Much better to say “no observational data” when complaining about the use of model output data.

It seems in this case that the output data while not raw observational data, are tightly constrained by observations.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 24, 2020 4:44 am

“Human CO2 is now the main driver of climate change on top of/in addition to the sun, natural cycles, volcanoes, orbital mechanics etc.”

Explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, despite rapidly increasing CO2 output.

Explain why changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature in the ice-core record, never the other way round.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Graemethecat
August 24, 2020 5:58 am

You’re asking me? Not sure why, but I’m happy to answer.

CO2 is minor driver of climate change compared to other factors of internal variability. Chaotic natural processes are primarily involved. Ocean currents, clouds, and the sun. There is obvious quasi-cyclicality in the climate at millennium scale and multi-decadal scale. Roughly 1000-year recurring warm periods of generally lower peaks over time, and roughly 65 year smaller scale cycles of hotter and cooler periods modulating the longer-term trends. The 40s to 70s were on the cool side of those cycles.

Most of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is in the ocean subject to Henry’s Law. As water warms, the solubility of CO2 in it is reduced as with carbonation in a warm soda. As it cools, solubility increases. The diffusion processes that tend to equalize partial pressure of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere are not instantaneous, resulting in a lag as temperature changes. Much of the CO2 is in the cold deep where it takes potentially centuries to upwell to the surface.

Believing that CO2 drives temperature is to believe that the crowing rooster drives sunrise.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Graemethecat
August 24, 2020 12:01 pm

Rich Davies, Sincere apologies for the double post. I was replying to one of Loydo’s inane comments.

rbabcock
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2020 7:50 pm

Steven- aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black… hahaha

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  rbabcock
August 24, 2020 4:06 am

Black Pots Matter

Javier
August 23, 2020 10:56 am

When do we start worrying?

Never? What kind of alarmist are you?

the lower plasma temperature indicates that the Sun’s surface is cooling. Surely the Earth’s surface will follow.

Earth’s temperature trend (1976-2016) is opposite to plasma temperature trend. Your data suggests further warming.

Note also the low activity in the late 1960s that set up the 1970s cooling period.

Unsupported hypothesis. Most of your graphs show lower values for the 2010s that for the 1970s, yet we are significantly warmer.

we can expect a spike in the neutron flux about a year from now. In turn that is expected to increase cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo.

According to a hypothesis (Svensmark’s) that so far has not gained enough support from evidence.

What is evident in this graph is the change in regime from the Modern Warm Period that ended in 2006 and the New Cold Period.

Sorry for pointing the obvious, but every year since 2015 has been warmer than 2006. The New Cold Period is just wild fantasy.

the temperature of the southern hemisphere (the blue line) has plunged 0.6°C in the last couple of weeks and is continuing to plunge. Could it be that the new lows for some solar parameters is having an instant response?

That graph lacks perspective. Temperature in the world and the Southern Hemisphere aren’t different to those of the previous three years at this time of the year.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/

When do we start worrying?

Never!!!

PMHinSC
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 11:39 am

Javier: “Never!!!”

Never say never!
With apologies to Shakespeare, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your [science].”

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 12:13 pm

This will be a warm year, unless August to December be chilly. It’s likely to be among the five warmest in the UAH satellite data, knocking out El Nino year of 2010.

The average anomaly for the first seven months of 2020 is 0.51 degrees C, same as the last five months of 2019. If the next five monthly anomalies average 0.40, 2020 will be third warmest, after 2016 and 1998, ahead of 2019 and 2017. Should they average 0.50, it’ll be second. January, February and May were hot.

Yet in the US, many cold records were set in May. The tulips I gave my cousin in OR were not happy campers when it hit 20 F while they were blooming. At least the snow protected the bulbs.

Annual Arithmetic Means, UAH:

2016: 0.53
1998: 0.48
2019: 0.44
2017: 0.40
2010: 0.33

2015: 0.28
2018: 0.23
2002: 0.22
2005: 0.20
2003: 0.19

2014: 0.18
2007: 0.16
2013: 0.14
2001: 0.12
2006: 0.11

Global 2020 to date:

2020 01 +0.56
2020 02 +0.76
2020 03 +0.48
2020 04 +0.38
2020 05 +0.54
2020 06 +0.43
2020 07 +0.44

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 4:17 pm

Here in Kansas we’ve had the two coolest July and August we’ve seen for years. Not a single day with a high of 95dedgF and only a handful of days where it reached 90degF or higher.

So August has already started off chilly with the average maximum temp in the 80’s. This is when we usually see consistent temps in the 90’s and several over 100degF.

Something has been different this July and August. Still waiting for an explanation. Could it be the humidity (i.e. water vapor) we’ve had? Afternoon humidity has consistently been in the 60% to 70% values. We are only seeing humidity in the 40% range over the past six days.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 23, 2020 6:38 pm

Yet the NE US had hotter than normal Ts, plus thundershowers.

We’ll see what Spencer and Christy find for August, but whether the rest of the year be cool or warm, alarmists will tout that 2020 was hot, hot, hot, torrid, steamin’, and we’re all gonna die!

Because July 2020 was 0.4 degree C warmer than July 1980. If July 2060 be another 0.4 degree C warmer yet, and 2100 still another 0.4 degree C balmier, those would be good things, with an even greener planet. But 1.2 degrees C toastier in 120 years probably won’t happen. Unfortunately.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 7:54 pm

Been a cool and wet year here in Alberta until about 4 weeks ago
I garden and have a rain gauge, was averaging 1” per week until end of July, monsoon usually ends in June

Finally getting some tomatoes

But the Taber corn is small and flavorless, no btu’s = no sugar

Cool wet year
If I see anything stating the prairies had a hot summer, instant BS overload

Catcracking
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 12:49 pm

Suddenly a fool no longer believes models
How amusing!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Catcracking
August 23, 2020 7:56 pm

Yes, pretty funny comment from someone who bases their entire world view and religion around models

JD Lunkerman
Reply to  Catcracking
August 23, 2020 9:17 pm

A fool and his models will never be parted.

August 23, 2020 11:08 am

Regarding “As it is energy from the Sun that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto, the lower plasma temperature indicates that the Sun’s surface is cooling. Surely the Earth’s surface will follow”:
Better indications of the sun’s surface temperature are measurements/determinations of the sun’s surface temperature, and TSI minus the component(s) of it that have low correlation with surface temperature. And, the full TSI is a good indicator of the amount of solar energy impinging on Earth. These are impressively steady, and the best argument that variation of TSI understates Earth global temperature variation with solar variation is that Earth global temperature varies more than can be explained by variation of TSI (such as by change of cloud coverage).

Meanwhile, I have been hearing here for over a decade that Earth’s global temperature is about to start decreasing as a result of the ongoing downturn of solar activity. Even v.6 of UAH TLT is not yet showing this, despite the downtrend of solar activity parameters shown here, and the low level (and flattening out, even in comparison to the minimum between solar cycles 23 & 24) of solar activity parameters mentioned in past articles by David Archibald, such as sunspot number and F10.7 solar radio flux.

I am expecting global temperature to pause again for about a decade and be slow to rise for 15-20 years, with this slowdown and pause to start with the next time PDO goes negative and we get a strong La Nina. I see the the positive feedbacks to warming from increase of greenhouse gases being overstated, due to climate models being tuned to hindcast the past, especially a period where multidecadal oscillations favored warming, without consideration for multidecadal oscillations, so some of the rapid warming from the mid 1970s to a few years after 2000 got incorrectly attributed to positive feedbacks instead of multidecadal oscillations, so the positive feedbacks have been getting modeled as being stronger than they actually are, and so climate models are overpredicting manmade warming from increase of greenhouse gases. However, it is looking like manmade increase of greenhouse gases is outweighing solar variation, especially solar variation that is not a cause or contributing factor of a multidecadal weather or weather/oceanic oscillation.

Javier
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 23, 2020 11:40 am

I have been hearing here for over a decade that Earth’s global temperature is about to start decreasing as a result of the ongoing downturn of solar activity.

From ill-informed people. What is happening is that the rate (velocity) of warming has been decreasing since the mid-90s, but as long as it is above zero there will be no substantial cooling other than short periods of a few years.
You can check this by yourself by calculating the 15-year average rate of change. Download HadCRUT data
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
From the second column (first with data) subtract from each value the previous one and you get the monthly rate of change (°C anomaly/month). Calculate the 181-month (15 year) centered moving average, multiply by 12 to get the yearly rate of change (°C anomaly/year). I did some prior smoothing of the data, but what you get is equivalent to this figure:
comment image
There you can see the pause as a 16-year period centered in 2005 with lower than zero rate of warming.

The causes for the decrease in warming velocity are natural as CO2 emissions and levels have continued increasing. There are two main causes. The principal is the 65-year climatic oscillation that is evident in the warming rate data. The secondary is the reduction in solar activity.

I am expecting global temperature to pause again for about a decade and be slow to rise for 15-20 years

That is exactly what one should expect due to the reduction in the warming rate. A second pause becomes a lot more probable, and very little warming should be expected until at least 2040.

No substantial cooling is supported by evidence.

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 12:16 pm

Yet even at an annual anomaly of 0.51 degrees C, the four-year trend from 2016 would still be down.

Javier
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 1:47 pm

Sure, but that is statistically irrelevant.
The Pause (1998-2013) average in UAH is 0.13° anomaly
The Post pause (2014-2020) average in UAH is 0.33° anomaly [0.2°C warming]

For the short cooling trend since 2016 to become interesting the annual temperature should get below that of 2018 (0.23° anomaly). Perhaps in 2021 or 2022, it is impossible for 2020.

For it to become really interesting the annual temperature should get down to 0.13° anomaly. That would be a “back to the Pause” temperature. Perhaps by 2025-30 if the short trend continues.

To consider that substantive cooling might be taking place the annual average temperature should get below –0.1° anomaly that was 2008 UAH temperature, the coldest year in the Pause. I don’t think there is a very good chance of that, but who knows.

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 6:42 pm

There probably will be a negative anomaly, but it would need to be adjusted about 0.14 under the older baseline.

Nelson
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 1:13 pm

I wouldn’t use the adjusted HADCRUT 4 data for any serious analysis of temperature change.

Javier
Reply to  Nelson
August 23, 2020 1:54 pm

What would you use if you want data from at least 1900 for your analysis?

Ian W
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 3:57 pm

You are providing figures with a precision of 1/100th of a degree.
How many temperature sensors were there in the Southern Hemisphere in 1900 and what was the accuracy of their observations.

There are metrologists (study of measurement) that would doubt being able to provide the temperature of an Olympic swimming pool to 1/100th of a degree accuracy. If you add that there were random errors in the sensors in the southern hemisphere that could be over 1 degree and that their distribution was mainly in Australia and some in Africa, the precision of 1/100th degree C is invalid. Can you reliably to within a degree provide the Buenos Aires temperature to within half a degree based on an observation in Perth? Add ‘error bars’ to show the likely errors and they would of course be larger than the anomalies you are quoting.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 4:23 pm

Ian,

Finally! Someone who understands significant digits and measurement accuracy!

Thanks for the post!

Renee
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 9:42 pm

Ian,
“ Add ‘error bars’ to show the likely errors and they would of course be larger than the anomalies you are quoting.”

The error bars are important, but they are noise and standard deviations to the underlying trends.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 10:51 pm

anything but hadcrut.

they have the smallest dataset that is inconsistently adjusted using multiple
different adjustment methodologies that are not documented

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 5:31 am

Renee –> You are either being sarcastic or you are a statistician and not a metrologist. (Not meteorologist)

Error bars are neither noise nor standard deviations of the trend. Although these would be good INDICATORS of the uncertainty in the results.

Please give us the uncertainty budget figures associated with your results.

Reply to  Nelson
August 23, 2020 8:54 pm

Nelson: HadCRUT4’s warming trend matches that of the ERA5 re-analysis by the ECMWF folks. In shorter term, ERA5 smooths ENSO-related spikes by including parts of the world that HadCRUT4 does not cover, that mostly have temperature lagging ENSO spikes more than the rest of the world.

The adjustments used in HadCRUT4 are reasonably close to honest/accurate, unlike those in NASA’s GISS. For that matter, global temperature datasets in general have upward-trending adjustment in their land components and downward-trending adjustments in their sea components, especially if their sea components are not ERSSTv4 or ERSST of a version later than and largely based on v4. Dr. Judith Curry said that the land temperature adjustments that increased the reported warming trend in even BEST (which reports more land warming than CRUTEM4 land component of HadCVRUT4 does) were mostly done properly, due to a change from one thermometer system to another that tends to read lower for daily high temperatures. There is also the matter of “official thermometers” for specific places getting moved farther out-of-town as cities expand and get airports put into place outside them, which I see as reasoning for adjustment of nightly low temperatures in favor of reporting more warming. Furthermore, please note that warming is shown in V.6 of UAH TLT, the global temperature dataset by Drs. John Christy and Roy Spencer, which has majority agreement with HadCRUT4 and greatest difference being from ENSO-related spikes affecting the satellite-measured lower troposphere (and also the middle troposphere) more than the surface.

Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 8:34 pm

Javier: “https://i.imgur.com/7PksH7H.png
There you can see the pause as a 16-year period centered in 2005 with lower than zero rate of warming.”
I looked at this, and saw warming rate (“velocity of warming”) only below zero in a brief period before 1910, and from the late 1940s to the late 1960s, although one of the two curves says negative warming rate into the early 1970s. This item shows positive warming rate with exception of a couple brief dips below zero ever since.
This item also has a graph of CO2 emissions, but not one of its integral. Please note that the effect of of atmospheric concentration of CO2 is logarithmic, and that the roughly sinusoidal part of your smoothed curve of warming rate (large majority above zero, entirely above zero since the late 1960s) is a good approximation of the effect of multidecadal oscillations.

Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 8:38 pm

Javier: “A second pause becomes a lot more probable, and very little warming should be expected until at least 2040.
No substantial cooling is supported by evidence.”

I mostly agree with this part.

Javier
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 23, 2020 11:59 am

solar variation that is not a cause or contributing factor of a multidecadal weather or weather/oceanic oscillation.

I wouldn’t be so quick discarding a solar effect on the multidecadal oscillation. The temporal coincidence of the lows in solar activity with half of the lows in the multidecadal oscillation raises the possibility that the oscillation is entrained by solar activity. That’s how many oscillations arise from the resonance in a chaotic system of a periodic force. After all the multidecadal oscillation must have a cause.

d
August 23, 2020 11:14 am

Maybe it is acidifying, too? We’re probably already worried enough about the uncontrollable universe that we don’t need more.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  d
August 23, 2020 8:00 pm

Are we now acidifying the sun?

CO2 can do anything

If Venus gets in the way will it melt

All sarc all the time

Eben
August 23, 2020 11:32 am

How exactly do you worry about what the Sun does ???

Nick Graves
Reply to  Eben
August 23, 2020 12:11 pm

Well, long ago, people tried negotiating with it. Or Ra, to be precise.

I don’t think it worked out terribly well.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Nick Graves
August 23, 2020 8:03 pm

I think we have plenty of alarmists that could be sacrificed to it?
Offer free climate palooza trips to the Yucatán

Bound to work better than their ideas, at least we have 50% chance of success with human sacrifice

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Eben
August 23, 2020 12:43 pm

Planning accordingly.

ldd
Reply to  Eben
August 24, 2020 6:22 pm

Leave it to a greenie; they’ll find a way to tax the sun’s TSI next.

Ulric Lyons
August 23, 2020 11:42 am

” the lower plasma temperature indicates that the Sun’s surface is cooling. Surely the Earth’s surface will follow.”

Actually that’s why the AMO warmed since 1995, and warmed the Arctic, and reduced low cloud cover despite the increase in cosmic rays.

“Note also the low activity in the late 1960s that set up the 1970s cooling period.”

No the 1970’s cooling was faster-hotter solar wind driving a cold AMO and multi-year La Nina.

Matt G
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 23, 2020 4:25 pm

Yes, the Walker circulation has been generally stronger during high solar activity and weaker during low solar activity. Negative feedback in action and partly hides the sun/climate connection that has confused so many scientists before.

Th Great Pacific shift was likely the AMOC speeding up that changed the cold AMO into the warm AMO phase after.

http://horizon.ucsd.edu/miller/download/climateshift/climate_shift.pdf#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20suggested%20independently%20by%20several%20investigators,atmospheric%20teleconnec-%20tions%20to%20the%20midlatitudes%20%28Graham%2C%201994%29.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
August 23, 2020 6:44 pm

There was a sharp drop in the solar wind strength later in 1976 which relates to AMO warming, but there was lesser AMO cooling again in the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s during stronger solar wind states.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1970/to:1995

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
August 24, 2020 6:41 am

Matt said:
“Negative feedback in action and partly hides the sun/climate connection that has confused so many scientists before.”

Exactly, and it’s a negative feedback with overshoot, amplified by changes in low cloud cover and lower troposphere water vapour. The 1970’s global cooling was not low sunspot numbers but the fastest solar wind of the space age driving colder ocean phases.

Illurion
August 23, 2020 11:56 am

Excellent article.

Indicative that we are in midst of a temporary cooling period.

Funny that a number of posts here state that the article MUST be untrue, as it contradicts the current belief that “every year since 2015 has been warmer than 2006″….

The FACTS are that “every year since 2015 has been warmer than 2006” IS A FALSE STATISTICAL CONSTRUCT CREATED BY THE MANIPULATION OF DATA BY CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WORLWIDE.

The FACTS are that global temperatures have not been getting warmer.

Global Warming is a Global Conspiracy that has been exposed for some time.

Javier
Reply to  Illurion
August 23, 2020 12:45 pm

The FACTS are that “every year since 2015 has been warmer than 2006” IS A FALSE STATISTICAL CONSTRUCT CREATED BY THE MANIPULATION OF DATA BY CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WORLWIDE.

Do you mean Roy Spencer and John Christy? Because that is what they say too.

People saying the world is cooling are absolutely detached from reality. It is cooling short term since February 2016, yet 2020 is on its way to be the second warmest year on record. And the average 2015-2020 is warmer that the average for the Pause period (1998-2013).

The world is not cooling, it is just warming more slowly than in the 1980s-1990s.

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 1:33 pm

As was the question during the “Pause”, how long must cooling or no warming last before “global warming” isn’t anymore?

Earth’s monthly temperature anomaly might not exceed Feb 2016 until another super El Nino in the 2030s, unless of course the satellite books be cooked as crispy as the “surface data”. If the downtrend should last 16-18 years, is it still “short-term”?

Of course, a new 30-year baseline will begin next year, with 1991-2020 replacing 1981-2010. The most recent negative anomaly was -0.10 in 2008. Could start getting more of those in the 2020s and 2030s (when baseline will be 2001-30).

The 1991-2020 baseline anomaly will be under .14 degrees C, which was the figure for 2013. Nine anomalies since 1998 have been lower than that.

Javier
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 2:39 pm

how long must cooling or no warming last before “global warming” isn’t anymore?

That’s an easy one. The 30-year cooling period 1945-1975 did not stop global warming out of the LIA. If we get a 65-year flat or downward temperature trend then global warming is no more. That is a full period of the multidecadal oscillation.

So the warmists have the upper hand for at least the next 61 years. Of course a couple or three decades of no warming would harm their case, but would not prove the planet is no longer warming, and that is exactly what they are saying:
“On short (15-year) to mid-term (30-year) time-scales how the Earth’s surface temperature evolves can be dominated by internal variability as demonstrated by the global-warming pause or ‘hiatus’.
Finally we show that even out to thirty years large parts of the globe (or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability.”

Maher, N., Lehner, F., & Marotzke, J. (2020). Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 054014.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 4:28 pm

*EXACTLY* what do you mean be “global warming”?

Are maximum temperatures going up? Is that what is causing the average to rise?

Are minimum temperatures going up? Is that what is causing the average to rise?

When you use an average you have absolutely no idea what the temperature envelope is doing.

How can you tell what is happening from the average? Do you know something the rest of us don’t? A 6th grader can confirm that you can’t tell a maximum or minimum in a data set from just the average. How can you?

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 5:53 pm

I should have said “man-made global warming”. The Modern Warm Period is a multicentury secular trend like the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian WPs, following the millennia-long Holocene Climate Optimum.

But within the secular warming or cooling (as in the LIA and Dark Ages CPs) trend are counter-trend cycles.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 7:24 pm

I should have said “man-made global warming”.

Then I could not have answered. I do not know how much warming has been caused by us. Enthalpy does not have an origin tag.

John Tillman
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 11:51 am

Javier,

You’re right. No way to know how much warming humans have caused, or even the sign of our net contribution. We also do things which cool the air on at least regional scales.

Windy Wilson
Reply to  Illurion
August 23, 2020 12:59 pm

Thank you Illlurion! Warmer than 2006? And by how much? I had a slide rule in High School that was only good to three digits, depending on my eyesight and practice. In college I got a pocket calculator that could give me results to EIGHT whole decimal points (ten after that one gave up the ghost and I got a cheaper one).

Just because the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – – Enthusiasts can show me an increase in their smoothed average global temperature out at the sixth decimal place of Degrees Celsius, that doesn’t mean we should sit in our overheated buildings in summer and underheated buildings in winter to avoid offending the climate gods.

Not a significant difference. The men who would be our gods remember that in ages past we the unwashed mob would present a virgin to them to appease the climate gods and assure a bountiful harvest so we could not starve while giving the required minimum to the gods.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Windy Wilson
August 23, 2020 4:31 pm

You can calculate an average out to however many digits you want. But if your input data is only good the tenth place then you are only fooling yourself that your calculated average means anything at all!

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 23, 2020 10:49 pm

wrong.

Psst. nobody averages

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2020 3:52 pm

The heck they don’t average! What is the daily temp at a land station if it isn’t an average?

Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 11:58 am

Just wondering if these observations are showing us what preceded Earth’s entrance to either the Little Ice Age (ca 1450-1870) or the Maunder Minimum (ca. 1645-1715). I guess we’ll never know.

Nonetheless, the current data and trends seems to indicate that, more likely than not, the TV series GOT had it right: “winter is coming.”

sendergreen
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 12:05 pm

Or, maybe into “The Big One”. This interglacial warm period has lasted as long or longer than the average of the last three. And, it has been far cooler.

John Tillman
Reply to  sendergreen
August 23, 2020 2:30 pm

Averages don’t mean too much, since what matters is the combo of Milankovitch cycles, which differs.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482

Figure 2 compares the glacials and interglacials since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition.

The Holocene has so far lasted less time and been cooler than the previous Eemian, MIS 5e. The interglacial before that had twin peaks at MIS 7c and 7e, separated by near-glacial coolness. MIS 9e was similar to the Holocene, but MIS 11c (~400 Ka), the Holsteinian, was a super interglacial, hotter and much longer than our present interglacial.

A short-term climate oscillation during the Holsteinian interglacial (MIS 11c): An analogy to the 8.2 ka climatic event?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092181811200094X

The interglacial before that, MIS 13a, was weak, comparable to MIS 7c/e, but with just one peak. MIS 15a/e was however split, with 15a a bit warmer than MISs 13 or 7. MISs 17c and 19c (~780 Ka) were about as warm as 13a, ie not very, but lasted longer.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 3:46 pm

John Tillman posted “. . . since what matters is the combo of Milankovitch cycles . . .”

While I am a big fan of Milankovitch cycles being fundamental to long-term climate change on Earth, this concept is not without some serious failings. In particular, as regards the topic under discussion, Milankovitch cycles (and their associated resonances) cannot account for the significant and rather abrupt change in glacial/interglacial (aka stadial/interstadial) cycles from a well-establish cycle period of 40,000 years to a well-established period of 100,000 years. This shift happened about 1 million years ago.

Changes in Earth’s land mass distribution (plate tectonics) and changes in ocean circulation patterns have been suggested as the root causes for this frequency shift, but I don’t believe any widely-accepted theory for such has been put forth to date.

John Tillman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 5:50 pm

Of course nowadays CO2 is blamed for the transition from 40,000-year to 100,000-year glacial cycles.

But there really is no mystery requiring a “forcing” explanation. The most important 40,000-year tilt cycle is still evident withing glaciations, as colder stadials and hotter interstadials. What happened is that, as the Pleistocene wore on, it simply got colder. Thus some interglacials were stillborn. The apparent ~100,000-year glacial cycle of the Late Pleistocene is in fact the average of two and three 40,000-year cycles, ie 80,000 and 120,000 years.

Some glacials consist of two 40,000-year tilt cycles, with a major interstadial between them, and others of three, with two such interstadials, which in the Early Pleistocence would have been brief interglacials.

At least two post-MPT interglacials themselves are separated by a near glacial episode, ie those of MIS 7 and MIS 15:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482

Loydo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 24, 2020 1:36 am

Despite what cranks like Archibald think “colder” is a long, long, long was away. From the link about interglacials:

“The combination of minimal reduction in northern summer insolation over the next few orbital cycles, owing to low eccentricity, and high atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations implies that the next glacial inception is many tens of millennia in the future.”

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 24, 2020 7:50 am

Loydo posted something about “cranks” and “interglacials” and his opinion that “. . . ‘colder’ is a long, long, long was [ways–GD] away.”

Well only some 570 to 150 years ago (a true blip in time for any Milankovitch cycle period or for ANY historic interglacial interval), Earth experienced a sporadic period of cooling in the midst of the Holocene interglacial that became known as the Little Ice Age (ca 1450-1870).

I’m betting than humanity never saw that cold coming.

Lowell
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 24, 2020 9:17 am

Another factor that can be measured is Carbon 14. During the ice age there was approximately twice he carbon 14 generated as during the recent warm period. Carbon 14 is related to cosmic ray strength. There seems to be a correlation between cosmic rays and the severe cold of the ice age. The recent increase in cosmic ray activity is still below what occurred during the ice age. Even though cosmic ray activity has been increasing every recent solar cycle it still does not seem to counteract the effect of increased CO2.

Some of the Milankovitch cycles are caused by the relative positions of Jupiter and Saturn. Could it be that Jupiter and Saturn are also impacting chaotic processes on the Sun causing solar storms which reduce cosmic ray counts during interglacials?

John Tillman
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 24, 2020 11:54 am

Loydo,

CO2 won’t stay “high” long enough to affect glaciation (still very low by geologic standards).

The Holocene might indeed be a super interglacial, like MIS 11, but eccentricity doesn’t rule. Axial tilt is the most important M cycle.

Javier
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 24, 2020 6:38 pm

implies that the next glacial inception is many tens of millennia in the future.

That is based on so many unproven assumptions as to not being worth discussing.
The second coming of Glacial could happen any millennium now.

I showed in one of my articles how the decision to end an interglacial, the commitment to the next glacial, takes place based on high latitude summer energy several millennia before glacial inception takes place, and the Holocene went past that commitment threshold 1500 years ago.
“Examination of 70°N summer energy (at 250 W/m2 threshold) 6000 years before glacial inception reveals a threshold at 4.96 GJ/m2 when the glacial inception orbital “decision” has already been taken for all previous interglacials. The 4.96 GJ/m2 limit was crossed by the Holocene 1500 years ago, so the orbital decision to end the Holocene has already been taken.”
It is a done deal. Glacial inception is coming in 1000-4000 years and our puny 20th-21st century CO2 production will not make any difference.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  sendergreen
August 23, 2020 3:24 pm

As I have posted previously, for any give cycle from the end of one glacial period to the end of the following glacial period (each averaging about 100,000 years for the last ten such cycles), the duration of cold (“glacial”) versus warm (“interglacial”) conditions on Earth depends entirely on where one sets the “global temperature” of demarcation between the two conditions. For example, setting it at 30 °F results in only relatively short intervals (<20% of cycle period) of interglacial warm periods for the last four cycles . . . but set the demarcation temperature to be around 25 °F and you then find the durations of "glacial" and "interglacial" conditions are approximately equal for each cycle.

When I use the mid-point temperature between maximum hot and minimum cold for each of the last THREE interglacial/glacial cycles to demarcate "warm" versus "cold", I see that a consistent average of about 22% of each cycle period has been spent on the warm side of the midpoint of max/min temperatures for those cycles.

So, 22% of a 100,000 year cycle period is 22,000 years. Earth exited the last glacial period some 12,000-14,000 years ago. Therefore, the statistics argue strongly AGAINST Earth currently (say, at least over the next 1,000 years) entering into a long-term glacial interval.

However, please note that such statistics do not preclude the appearance of a relatively short-term (maybe as long as 1,000 years duration!) cooling interval, such as the Little Ice Age. It just won't be "The Big One".

Editor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 12:34 pm

For a while, Livingston and Penn had some very interesting data showing a long term decline in magnetic fields that maintain sunspots. Some suggested it might have been what happened in the Maunder Minimum. However, things leveled off just before the sunspots decreased with the solar cycle. Some of us think that some sunspots missed getting counted because their contrast was too low, but not enough to negate the leveling.

It remains the most interesting thing I’ve learned about through WUWT.

Javier
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 12:57 pm

Just wondering if these observations are showing us what preceded Earth’s entrance to either the Little Ice Age (ca 1450-1870) or the Maunder Minimum (ca. 1645-1715). I guess we’ll never know.

Joan Feynman and Alexander Ruzmaikin wrote an interesting paper in 2011:
Feynman, J. and Ruzmaikin, A., 2011. The Sun’s strange behavior: Maunder minimum or Gleissberg cycle?. Solar physics, 272(2), p.351.

Their conclusion:
“The gradual onset of the 23/24 minimum favors the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC). The current CGC minimum happened when it was expected i.e. about 100 years after the previous minimum. The striking similarity between the aa index behavior during the minimum of the last century and in this century also favors CGC, as does the vanishing of the Dst index, which results in a constricted auroral oval and a lack of mid-latitude auroras. At present (the end of March 2011) the number of sunspots was still small and the auro- ras were still at high latitudes, which is consistent with either the CGC or the Maunder Minimum. However in order to interpret these observations as indicators of the Maunder Minimum the sunspot cycle must soon stall. For the CGC to be confirmed the decrease in the maximum sunspot magnetic field contrast must soon stop.

In the last 1500 years the CGC was shown to be present more than 80% of the time, from 450 AD to 1450 AD (Feynman and Fougere, 1984) and from the end of the Maunder Minimum to present. It must be explained by solar dynamo theories, which are currently focused mostly on the 11-year cycle and the Maunder Minimum (Beer, Tobias, and Weiss, 1998; Sokoloff, 2004; Usoskin, Sokoloff, and Moss, 2009). Some ideas of how to include the CGC into solar dynamo theory as well have been expressed earlier (Ruzmaikin, 1981) but more work is needed to put the CGC in the context of the solar dynamo.”

So the data indicate we are about half-way into a centennial minimum that should end 2035-2040.

Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 11:59 am

Solar activity and solar wind properties are now very much the same as they were 120 years ago, yet temperatures clearly are not. The simplest explanation is that there simply is no correlation [and thus no causation] above the noise.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 12:46 pm

You surely know what thermal inertia is. 120 years ago the Earth was warming from the coolest period of the Holocene, today it is perhaps at the peak of 400 years of warming.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
August 23, 2020 3:15 pm

But Archibald does not, apparently:
The solar plasma temperature has plunged to a new low for the instrument record. Coincidentally or not, the temperature of the southern hemisphere has also plunged over the last couple of weeks.

tetris
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 2:35 pm

I understand your point.
That said, in Dec, 2019, NASA and NOAA re-confirmed that global temperatures had increased by just under 1 degree C (0.98 and 0.95 respectively) since 1900. That is 120 years ago. So what goes for the sun, largely goes for earthly temperatures as well.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 4:02 pm

Leif,

How were scientists measuring solar wind 120 years ago?

And, short of counting sunspots (and their rates of growth/decline) and perhaps auroral displays, how were scientists determining “solar activity” with any accuracy?

The first permanent solar telescope was made active in 1904 atop Mt. Wilson, California.

These are NOT trolling questions—I have great respect for your scientific work and associated contributions to knowledge about the workings of Sol—but I am curious if we can really make an apples-to-apples comparison between today’s solar data and what was available 120 years ago.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 4:45 pm

How were scientists measuring solar wind 120 years ago?
https://leif.org/research/Keynote-SCOSTEP-2014.pdf

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 6:58 pm

Thank your for the link to your very interesting presentation.

However, in fairness, while you noted on slide 2 “Using variation since 1830s of the Earth’s Magnetic Field as a measuring device” {to infer solar wind variations–GD} you also noted on slide 3 immediately following:
“Three simultaneous features:
1: A Regular Daily Variation [it took ~200 years to figure out the cause]
2: Shorter-term [~3 hour] fluctuations [‘substorms’ recognized in 1960s]
3: Large disturbances [‘geomagnetic storms’ explained in the 1930-1960s].
The complicated, simultaneous effects withstood understanding for a long time.”

So, while those scientists 120 years ago may not have fully comprehended what they were measuring, at least they recorded data that is useful today.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
August 23, 2020 9:00 pm

yes all really old data are useful and valuable.
https://leif.org/research/IAGA-2017-1220-History-ST-Relations.pdf

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 4:22 pm

The point is that the solar wind is normally weaker during centennial solar minima, and normally the AMO is warmer and El Nino conditions increase during centennial solar minima. Because the warmer ocean phases are the response to the negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation conditions which the weaker solar wind causes.

comment image

Matt G
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 5:31 pm

Cloud albedo also plays a large role, so the same solar activity and solar wind properties with different levels of cloud cover will warm the surface differently.

Observations at different regional weather stations indicated past decades being much cloudier than recent decades.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
August 24, 2020 9:14 am

Matt, weaker solar wind states drive warmer ocean phases which reduce low cloud cover. As since the mid 1990’s. This can be seen in the rise in UK annual sunshine hours, which is happening in the colder seasons but not in the summer. Which means that since 1995, winter maximum temperatures have increased more than winter minimum temperatures, and summer minimum temperatures have risen more than summer maximum temperatures, presumably because of increased water vapour.

comment image

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
August 24, 2020 2:09 pm

Agreed, that is what I have found over the years.

It should not be known as Climate Change, but the Solar Flux Change. (Global reflected solar flux in this case)

The state of the AMO was to become very different 120 years ago though. When according to Leif, the same solar activity and solar wind properties last occurred. Therefore the conditions are different and can’t be treated the same. There was more ice at the poles not long after recovering from the Little Ice Age and the AMO become negative after for around 30 years. This period become the coldest globally since the LIA had ended.

The main point being the planet didn’t respond from the solar activity 120 years ago until after the event, so comparing now with then is also a false conclusion until the the planet has finished responding from it.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:1930/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/to:1900

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Matt G
August 24, 2020 6:34 pm

The three cold AMO anomalies around 1903, 1913, and 1924, were when the solar wind strengthened again after being weaker during solar cycles 12 and13. And there would have been relatively weaker solar wind around sunspot cycle maximums in 1907. 1917 and 1928, as there was in 1969 and 1979-80.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 6:02 pm

Depends on your perspective, and funny that you should mention 120 years. I found an extremely high correlation between 109y SN and 30y SST with an 11y lag, totalling 120 years:

comment image

SST is governed by the tropics; the tropics are governed by solar activity.

comment image

comment image

Thus the simplest explanation is solar activity over the last 120 years raised the temperature.

sendergreen
August 23, 2020 11:59 am

The cold kills a magnitude more people than heat. “Magnitutude” may change to the plural form.

And, in my area I’m a bit of an outcast for being Anti-CO2-Warmism since 2005. And, for saying “It’s the SUN, and our next era will be COLD”.

Most people like you even less when you are right.

commieBob
August 23, 2020 12:03 pm

The solar plasma temperature has plunged to a new low for the instrument record.

Does that make a measurable difference in the solar constant (1366 W/m^2)?

Editor
August 23, 2020 12:21 pm

the temperature of the solar wind has hit a new low for the instrument record. As it is energy from the Sun that keeps the Earth from looking like Pluto, the lower plasma temperature indicates that the Sun’s surface is cooling. Surely the Earth’s surface will follow.

How much energy does the Earth get from the solar wind? IIRC, Leif Svaalgard liked to point to its density and reply with “very little”. Ah, a real quote: “Also, the energy in the solar wind is minuscule compared to that of TSI.”

So, the solar wind has cooled down and you say that means the Sun’s surface is cooling. Should I assume by the same amount? Given your graph shows it dropping from 1500kK in 2017 to 30kK today, I’d say our atmosphere should have frozen out by now.

Obviously any relationship has no direct proportion, what is the relationship between the temperature of the solar wind plasma and the surface of the Sun? If you’re relying on thermal mass of the sun to keep the surface warm, then please explain the process in better terms. If you’re relying on magnetic fields, then how do those couple to the surface temperature.

sendergreen
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 23, 2020 12:33 pm

Some people believe that the “Dark Ages” might not have been just culturally dark …

But actually dark in the sense of a dimmer sun.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 23, 2020 5:04 pm

How much energy does the Earth get from the solar wind?
comment image

August 23, 2020 12:23 pm

Don’t you people know anything?! Global cooling is caused by global warming. Everyone believes this because it is real science. Get with the program and join the one true religion. AGW explains everything and accounts for all phenomena, including Qanon and leftist angst.

Jay Dee
August 23, 2020 12:38 pm

I blame it on all the solar energy plants that humans have been building and propose to call it anthropogenic solar depletion. We need to ask the IPCC how they plan to deal with this.

sendergreen
Reply to  Jay Dee
August 23, 2020 12:41 pm

Jay Dee says :

“anthropogenic solar depletion”
———————
So much better than late night TV. : )

n.n
August 23, 2020 12:40 pm

Variable or progressive?

martin
August 23, 2020 12:40 pm

cooling Antarctica while the rest of the SH stays the same will increase the SH jet stream and intensify SH storms

Joel O'Bryan
August 23, 2020 12:44 pm

Saying Figure 1 phenomenon is causing Figure 6 phenomenon is probably a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Javier
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 23, 2020 1:14 pm

Saying that a 50 year trend in solar plasma temperature is the cause of a two-week trend in Southern Hemisphere temperature makes David Archibald the leading contender to the most absurd climate claim of the year. And that is a very contested competition.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 4:17 pm

Saying that a 50 year trend in solar plasma temperature
Except there is no such trend.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 7:29 pm

Except there is no such trend.

The trend is obvious to anybody but you.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 9:12 pm

No steady trend. An increase from 1960s to about 1994, then an equal decrease until the present. Just generally following the similar trends in all indices of solar activity.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 5:04 am

Your eyesight is failing you. Willis second graph of daily averages with a year gaussian smoothing shows the highest value during the mid-1970s, and a decreasing trend since.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 6:17 am

Willis second graph of daily averages with a year gaussian smoothing shows the highest value during the mid-1970s,
Not at all. All the graphs show the highest value in the 1990s.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 8:24 am

Without cherry picking, all the 27-day graphs agree that there was an increase from the quiet 1960s to the active 1990s, then an equal size decrease until the quiet present. Just generally following the similar trends in all indices of solar activity.
Neither you nor Archibald cared to do due diligence. After I did that and told you what the problem was, even you could see it. Willis got there ‘half way’, being well aware that one cannot base a trend on a single data point, showing what a difference just a few days could make. The OMNI data can always be trusted if you know what you are doing. If not, as you and Archibald demonstrate so vividly, you back yourself into nonsense.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 8:38 am

You should know that the highest point doesn’t make a trend. Weren’t you the one criticizing Archibald for that?

Is your eyesight good enough to let you see the trend in a yearly averaged graph?

comment image

The decreasing trend for the entire series is self-evident. You keep saying and insisting on wrong things. You are not reliable in what you say, as it contradicts what the data says.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:27 am

You should know that the highest point doesn’t make a trend
But you clearly do not when you say that:
“shows the highest value during the mid-1970s”

The proton temperature varies wildly, but is correlated with general solar activity having its maximum in the 1990s. Any single day, rotation, or year should not be used to define a trend; you have to take the whole curve into account. Perhaps a 5-year running average my be helpful. A 1-year is not. Your lack of scientific training is glaring.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:31 am

Neither you nor Archibald cared to do due diligence. After I did that and told you what the problem was, even you could see it.

You are wrong as usual. Check the time stamps. I gave the solution to the discrepancy 54 minutes before you. After I gave the solution even you could see it.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 4:04 am

But you clearly do not when you say that:
“shows the highest value during the mid-1970s”
Perhaps a 5-year running average my be helpful. A 1-year is not. Your lack of scientific training is glaring.

What is glaring is your bias and inability to see the obvious.
The year with a highest average value was 1974
https://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/staging/omni2_yearly_TGY8NCfej0.lst
The 5-year period with highest average value was 1972-1976
The 10-year period with highest average value was 1973-1982

So you are wrong on this one and Archibald is right. Plasma temperature was highest in the mid-70s and presents a downward trend since according to data.

My scientific training has no problem. The problem clearly is your closed mindedness. You can’t see what the data says due to your prejudices. A very common malady in climate science, but not uncommon in other disciplines.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 11:09 am

So you are wrong on this one and Archibald is right. Plasma temperature was highest in the mid-70s and presents a downward trend since according to data.
Not so, 1974 was an outlier [as also the standard deviation shows].
You put your lack of scientific training glaring on display.

What is wrong with this is that the solar wind has many properties that are all correlated. The temperature varies the most due to shocks and flares. One has to take the variation of all the components into account [Archibald tries to do this by presenting many graphs] . Overall, activity was low in the mid-1960s and rose until the mid-1990s and has since decreased again to about the level it came from, so there has been no long-term trend in the solar wind. To believe otherwise and to attach any significance to such belief are marks of amateurs with no understanding of the science.
Here is a plot of yearly averages of proton temperatures [dark blue symbols] and their standard deviations:
comment image
Data before 1971 [marked by shading] are less reliable than later data. The standard deviation [red squares] are related to the temperature averages through the relationship sigmaT = 1.4 T with an R^2 as high as 0.7. A few outliers are marked by crosses. If you scale the standard deviation up to T [using 1.4*T] you get the open pink squares so you can see how good the scaling is. The bar in the lower part of the Figure shows that there is no long-term trend, as we actually would expect because other solar indices also don’t show any such trend.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 11:51 am

My scientific training has no problem
It obviously has, to wit your display of your lack of said training. You claim to have some, so show us by providing a link to your best showing of such training, if any.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 12:39 pm

Plasma temperature was highest in the mid-70s and presents a downward trend since according to data.
Proper scientific analysis shows a different picture, especially when the data are seen in proper context, e.g.:
comment image
The temperature (T) data is sometimes distorted by the presence of large coronal holes where the solar wind speed is very high [leading to low-density, hot plasma]. Years with such speed ‘spikes’ were 1974, 1994, and 2003. This in turn results in temperature ‘outliers’ [not representative for the general solar wind]. The outliers are marked by pink blobs on the Figure. The standard deviation [sigma T] of the temperature variations shown in the lowest panel show the that spikes are outliers.
For calculating a proper trend, one should avoid glaring outliers. Every scientist knows this, so learn, if you wish to be regarded as one.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 12:57 pm

Don’t try to move the goalpost. We were discussing about the trend the data presents, not about the interpretation of the data or the reliability of the data.

I guess since you are discussing other things you admit you were wrong about the trend the data presents, that was obvious to everybody but you.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 3:58 pm

We were discussing about the trend the data presents
A trend has be to computed correctly [e.g. taking into account possible outliers and the context of the general variation] otherwise it has no meaning. And you still avoid to document that you know how to apply the scientific method. Your comments make that doubtful, so here is your chance to redeem yourself.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 4:57 pm

I don’t attend requests about my persona. I care absolute zero what you think of me. I am way past the need of approval from anybody. You might as well be asking to see a hidden part of my anatomy, so keep at it as much as you want. You have the same chance.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 6:52 pm

I don’t attend requests about my persona.
This is not about your persona or any parts of your anatomy, but about you demonstrating to the readership that you have applied the scientific method in published work and have the scientific training to lend credence to your utterings and opinions. Your comments display profound lack of such expertise in addition to your character flaws so evident in your dealing with people (accusing them of blundering, lying, misrepresenting, being biased, ridiculous, and worse).

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 24, 2020 10:48 am

I gave the solution to the discrepancy 54 minutes before you.
No, you didn’t as your ‘solution’ was not the real cause of the discrepancy.
You may think so, but that doesn’t make it so.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 25, 2020 4:13 am

My diagnostic was adequate. What I said to Willis:
“didn’t occur to you before saying this that the difference is due to the graph being called on a different day and that affecting the average that constitutes the last point?”
As it became clear later, both had introduced a different end date for the data and Archibald’s graph last point was the average of two values instead of 27.

I certainly didn’t need you to know that the difference in the last point was an irrelevant artifact, although I am sure Willis did since he brought it up as an issue.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 25, 2020 11:16 am

I certainly didn’t need you to know that the difference in the last point was an irrelevant artifact
But you didn’t know that the choice of 31st July was irrelevant, so you calling that a ‘blunder’ just shows your lack of grasp of the issue and shows that your true purpose was to denigrate Willis. But, of course, what else is new?

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 25, 2020 5:00 pm

Willis doesn’t need my help at that. He does it rather well.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 25, 2020 9:36 pm

Willis doesn’t need my help at that. He does it rather well.
Nobody need your help with anything. What Willis does well is o actually look at the data and try to understand what is there. This is in stark contrast to your unsuccessful attempts to throw dirt on people who call you out on your antics. In my long life I have come across many people of your ilk, but you take the cake.

MarkW
August 23, 2020 12:45 pm

We have people who proclaim that the reason why, after 100 years of rising CO2 levels, the earth hasn’t warmed as much as models predict is because the deep ocean has eaten their heat.
They then turn around and proclaim that if the earth’s temperature doesn’t instantly match changes in solar output, this proves that the sun has little to no impact on climate.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2020 1:37 pm

CO2 has probably been rising naturally at least since AD 1850, if not indeed 1690.

Loydo
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 3:23 pm

“rising naturally”

Say what? Naturally as in no human influence?

John Tillman
Reply to  Loydo
August 23, 2020 4:10 pm

No human influence is clearly detectable. Industrialization first darkened the skies, cooling the surface, then, after the 1970s, when air over North America and Europe got cleaned up, warming the surface, should be about a push. Now India and China are sooting up their air.

CO2 effect is negligible, but other local and regional human effects both warm and cool. So we can’t even know the sign of total human effect, but with so many negative feedbacks, it’s sure to verge on the undetectable.

Loydo
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 8:19 pm

You’re moving the goal posts.
“CO2 has probably been rising naturally…” is incorrect.

J Mac
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2020 10:38 pm

Loydo,
There are no ‘goal posts’ in climate change, naturally.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 25, 2020 9:26 am

No, it’s correct.

CO2 has been rising since AD 1690, long before humans started contributing significantly. Before that, it fell naturally from its Medieval peak.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
August 23, 2020 5:33 pm

Do you have ANY empirical evidence that human CO2 has caused any of the slight but highly beneficial warming since the coldest period in10,000 years?

Or will you remain totally EMPTY of such evidence.

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
August 24, 2020 1:44 am

Loydo I did this for Griff above year CO2 from natural sources 440GT/year for Humans 38Gt/year.

What is so special about the human emissions and why do you only want to tackle the human emissions the natural ones are in many cases larger and easier to tackle?

Basic question do you actually want to cut CO2 emissions or not?

Loydo
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 4:03 am

Why are you ignoring natural sinks? Did you realise they are larger than natural sources?

sendergreen
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 9:40 am

LdB says :

Basic question do you actually want to cut CO2 emissions or not?
—————————————-

No, I don’t. Far from it. I think we should aim for a CO2 level between 800, and 1000 ppm.
During the last Ice Age the CO2 level fell to 180 ppm.

That is just 30ppm above the total Death Zone for plants. ALL plants. The entire foundation of the food chain of all life on this world. There will be another glaciation. We need to create a big “buffer zone” now to make sure that CO2 level does not ever approach that deadly low level again.

For life, Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2. There already signs that the earth is “greening” from the increase of the last century. We need to work very hard to control toxin pollution. But “tally ho !” on CO2 production.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 10:03 am

Did you realise they are larger than natural sources?

So then why are *you* ignoring them? Not only are they larger than natural sources they’re large enough to take care of the much smaller human sources. You can’t have it both way loy-doh, either the sinks are larger than natural sources (thus the relatively smaller human sources are not a problem) or they’re not (in which case the relatively smaller human source are a drop in the bucket). pick one and stick with it.

LdB
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 11:23 am

@Sendergreen I get your view but Loydo doesn’t believe that and the question was to her.
As John Endicott notes she can’t have it both ways, her answer is stupid.

Loydo
Reply to  LdB
August 24, 2020 3:38 pm

Natural CO2 sinks and sources were roughly in balance. Humans started emitting CO2. Natural sources haven’t changed much but natural sinks are now having to absorb more because our extra CO2 is nudging the system out of balance. About half of what we emit is absorbed, half stays in the air. If human emissions halted tomorrow our plume of excess CO2 would take thousands of years to fully dissipate and for the system to return to equilibrium. That’s a long, long period of baked-in warming.

Saying human emissions are insignificant is ignorant wishful thinking.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
August 25, 2020 2:28 am

Again Loy-doh, you can’t have it both ways. If they were “in balance” then the sinks can’t absorb more. And if the sinks are absorbing more than there isn’t a problem. It’s one or the other, pick one and stick with it.

John Tillman
Reply to  LdB
August 25, 2020 9:28 am

Natural sinks aren’t fixed. More plant food in the air means more plants. Consider the greening of the Sahel.

Robert W. Turner
August 23, 2020 12:52 pm

La Nina might form at just the right time for a big drop in global temps by April. The global temp already appears to be dropping right along with the SH.

The propagandists are already switching to drought in the west stories and the polar vortex will be a media parroting point again soon. This election is essential for them pushing this global warming economy killing policies through because the game won’t work much longer.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
August 23, 2020 2:56 pm

Better hope for freak September and October blizzards across the upper midwest swing states with record low temperatures leading up to election day, immediately after the Biden/Harris camp is forced to loudly justify their GND plans.

Otherwise it will be reported that the GND is working!! Democracy no longer helpful.

Editor
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 23, 2020 10:24 pm

While there have been some very cold inauguration days, it follows that if you want the coldest day yet, it will take some doing!

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/inauguration/presidential-inauguration-history-when-was-the-coldest-inauguration-day/65-385277831

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 24, 2020 6:21 am

Well, Inauguration Day can be warm for all I care, but the period leading up to Election day needs to be abnormally cold to make the GND debate seem more absurd even to the low-information voters. Job killing socialist nonsense that is supposed to be dealing with a problem that manifestly doesn’t exist.

Matt G
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
August 23, 2020 5:58 pm

During low solar activity I only expect neutral conditions to persist instead of La Nina or at best a weak La Nina to form for a short period. Low solar activity generally favours frequent moderate/strong El Nino’s or infrequent weak La Nina’s.

The ENSO ONI conditions are still neutral with a borderline or weak La Nina predicted by winter.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

Richard M
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
August 24, 2020 6:59 am

The temperature drop has already started just by ending the El Nino conditions in May that had persisted for about 1.5 years. As more cold water upwells in the Pacific we will see some cooling. If a La Nina takes hold that will amplify the amount of upwelling cold water.

It takes time for this water to enter into the overall ocean circulation. It took 2 years for the 2015-16 El Nino to cool back down AFTER the El Nino ended. It will probably take until the next NH summer to see the complete effects of the latest El Nino end.

We are likely to see only a weak La Nina at best this year due to PDO working against it. That could change by 2021-22 which could lead a stronger La Nina. That is when I would expect to see the most cooling. To get any cooler will take a change in the AMO.

Mr.
August 23, 2020 12:56 pm

So, NOAA reckons this is how “average global temperature” is derived –

To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data

Other sources say that the methods used to calculate average temperatures are really “very simple”.

I would say that was a typo – what they meant to write was – very SIMPLISTIC

Now, at the risk of sounding like a contrarian just for the sake of contrarianism, I suggest that the “average global temperature” construct has so many flakey inputs, that the whole result is risible.

I don’t wonder at all that after some 40 years of multi-billion $ annual spending on climate “science”, employing tens of thousands of researchers, the closest ‘official’ prediction of future global average temp rise is an unconvincing construct of 1.5C – 4.5C, or thereabouts.

The “global average temperature” house has very unsound foundations. No wonder the outlook from the front porch is so blurry.

Also, if IPCC et al were listed trading stocks, and their reports were being offered as prospectuses for investor guidance, the corporate regulators would have had their whole boards and management people serving long sentences in jail by now for deceptive & misleading assertions.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Mr.
August 23, 2020 4:45 pm

You aren’t a contrarian.

If I tell you the average temperature is 35degF can you tell me what the maximum temperature in the data set was? What the minimum temperature in the data set was?

If you can’t tell what the maximum and minimum temperatures are then exactly what is the average telling you?

Are the maximums going up? Are the minimums going up? Is it a combination? How do you make realistic decisions if you don’t know that the temperature envelope is doing? Will you need more heating 20 years from now? More cooling?

Walter Sobchak
August 23, 2020 1:17 pm

There is nothing to worry about. It is settled science. The sun has nothing to do with the climate. Only CO2 controls the climate. The sun is irrelevant.

August 23, 2020 1:23 pm
Nelson
August 23, 2020 1:29 pm

I wouldn’t use the adjusted HADCRUT 4 data for any serious analysis of temperature change.

Editor
August 23, 2020 2:02 pm

David Archibald, I guess I’m the only person here who cares enough to try to replicate your data … sorry, I couldn’t. Here’s your Fig. 1.

I went to the OmniWeb site and asked for the same graph, same subject, same averaging, and I got this:

Note that unlike your graph, the troughs never go much below 5E+4, and are not decreasing over the period of record. Not sure why the difference, I encourage people to try it for themselves. Looks like maybe there is no difference, you just put a bogus line underneath your graph …

Finally, if you look at daily averages rather than 27-day averages, you’ll see that many days the temperature goes down to almost zero … surely you don’t think that is somehow representative of the solar temperature?

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 23, 2020 2:20 pm

Here are the daily averages along with a 360 point gaussian average … not seeing any reason to think that this will somehow cool the world.

w.

Johanus
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 23, 2020 4:16 pm

Willis,
The data ranges over 3 orders of magnitude, so the plot will behave better if you plot log10 of data.

Also, at 1 AU, the SW proton temperature is not really a good estimator of solar temperature (i.e. when the temperature of the SW when it left the solar surface). SW expands non-adiabatically as it spirals outward, with significantly less cooling observed than would be expected from an ideal gas expansion. So some other processes are involved in this heating. So you cannot look at a dip in the graph and say “The Sun is cooling!”

Daniel Vech et al., “Nature of Stochastic Ion Heating in the Solar Wind: Testing the Dependence on
Plasma Beta and Turbulence Amplitude”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9887/pdf [2017]

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 23, 2020 2:51 pm

I guess I’m the only person here who cares enough to try to replicate your data … sorry, I couldn’t.

There is only one difference between your graph and Archibald’s, and that is the last point. Since it is a 27-day average, didn’t occur to you before saying this that the difference is due to the graph being called on a different day and that affecting the average that constitutes the last point?

Geez, what a blunder, Willis. Making an issue for one point out of more than 720. The downward trend is unmistakable.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 3:41 pm

Making an issue for one point out of more than 720.
Nonsense, it is Archibald who claims that the last point is a 29-day average. It is not. It is the average of only a couple of days into the 27-days. A typical Javier blunder.

Javier
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
August 23, 2020 6:41 pm

Nonsense, it is Archibald who claims that the last point is a 29-day average.

Where does he claim such thing? Please exact quote.
You are just making things up as usual.

Archibald just got the graph from Omniweb and never noticed that the program returned an incomplete average for the last point. I don’t think 99.99% of the people could have noticed that. Willis on the contrary failed to find such an obvious explanation for why there was a disparity between Archibald’s graph and his.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 9:25 pm

Apart from my obvious typo, all Archibald’s graphs say 27-day averages.
I don’t think 99.99% of the people could have noticed that
It was obvious, so almost everybody [who would care to look] would notice that.
Willis deliberated omitted August not to fall into that trap. I would not call it a ‘failure’ to expose Archibald’s failure to do due diligence

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 4:59 am

OK, so Archibald’s claim turns out to be Omniwebs’ claim since it is something that Omniweb and not Archibald put on the graph.

Once more you show us that what you say is biased and not to be trusted.

It was obvious

It is obvious in hindsight, once the issue has been raised and investigated. I had no idea the last point in OMniweb’s averaged graphs is an artifact. It is illogical. They shouldn’t do that.

Willis deliberated omitted August not to fall into that trap.

Willis fell in one trap after another, all of them self-inflicted. He first mistook rotations for months, and he then cherry picked an ending of his liking without telling anybody so that his last point was his particular artifact (a 17-day average) instead of Omniweb’s.

Willi’s graph from Omniweb also says 27-days average. Do you also believe he is making a wrong claim? Your bias shows.

Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 10:26 am

Javier August 24, 2020 at 4:59 am

OK, so Archibald’s claim turns out to be Omniwebs’ claim since it is something that Omniweb and not Archibald put on the graph.

Once more you show us that what you say is biased and not to be trusted.

Once Archibald went and got the graph WITHOUT doing what I did, looking to see if the final data was a full month’s worth, and he published it, implicitly saying it was true, and he used the partial month as his endpoint for his bogus “trend line” … at that point, it’s absolutely David’s claim.

It was obvious

It is obvious in hindsight, once the issue has been raised and investigated. I had no idea the last point in OMniweb’s averaged graphs is an artifact. It is illogical. They shouldn’t do that.

It may be illogical but it is common, common enough for me to look for it.

Willis deliberated omitted August not to fall into that trap.

Willis fell in one trap after another, all of them self-inflicted. He first mistook rotations for months, and he then cherry picked an ending of his liking without telling anybody so that his last point was his particular artifact (a 17-day average) instead of Omniweb’s.

Huh? That makes no sense. Here is the tail of the OMNIweb data I used:

Listing for omni2_27day data from 20200101 to 20200731
Selected parameters:
 1 # of points in Plasma averag.
 2 SW Plasma Temperature, K

YEAR DOY HR  1        2 
2020   7  0  27   55501.
2020  34  0  27   67195.
2020  61  0  27   58825.
2020  88  0  27   65422.
2020 115  0  27   39312.
2020 142  0  27   44134.
2020 169  0  27   39900.
2020 196  0  27   66177.

The last point I used was day 196 of 2020, which is July 15th. It contains 27 data points … where is this 13-day “artifact”.

Willi’s graph from Omniweb also says 27-days average. Do you also believe he is making a wrong claim? Your bias shows.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, Javier, here’s the bottom line.

First David took a graph off of the web without looking closely at the data. So he got a result I didn’t get … he got a very low point at the end. You swallowed that without even looking at or understanding the underlying data. Me, I didn’t make that mistake, nor did Leif. That seems to drive you nuts, but it is a fact. (David also cherry-picked the starting point, but that’s another issue.)

Next, to try to convince us that solar wind temperature was going through the floor, David used a spurious “trend line” that goes from his (cherry picked) first data point to his (bogus) last data point. Even you don’t engage in that kind of nonsense.

Next, David omitted looking at the actual trajectory of the temperatures, which ROSE from the start of the data to the 1990s and dropped since then. If his claim that the drop in the SW wind temperature would make earth cooler were true (it’s not), then why would the dropping temperature post 1990 affect the Earth but not the rise up to 1990?

Now, it seems that you made the very foolish mistake of EVER believing what David says without actually doing the hard work of going to get the data and actually looking at it. And as a result, you are twisting and wriggling trying to get out from under, not my mistake, not Leif’s mistake, not David’s mistake, but YOUR mistake—you believed without checking, and in particular, you were so immensely foolish as to believe David Archibald without checking …

Unfortunately, rather than just admitting that both you and David made foolish mistakes, it’s driven you into an insane frenzy trying to pin all of the blame for both your and David’s mistakes on Omniweb, Leif, and me.

Not gonna work, bro’ … Leif and I were the ones that got it right and pointed out the problems in David’s claims, and Omniweb is just a data provider—can’t blame them when David drives the data bus off a cliff …

My strong suggestion would be to find another hill to die on. You are defending a piece of very, very poor work, and attempting to blame Leif and I for your and David’s errors. Never gonna happen, people are only going to point and laugh. Find something worth your effort, you are wasting your abilities defending David Archibald.

w.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 5:39 pm

that his last point was his particular artifact (a 17-day average) instead of Omniweb’s.
Willi’s graph from Omniweb also says 27-days average. Do you also believe he is making a wrong claim?

For the last time: the text on the graph is Omniweb’s and the graph shows [per Omniweb] 27-day averagesalso for the last point, not a 17-day average as you think. The one making wrong claims is [as usual] you.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 5:52 pm

You keep getting it all wrong Willis. I didn’t swallow anything. I didn’t believe anything David Archibald said. I left it very clear in my critical comment above. I am not defending him.

The trend in a graph of over 700 points does not depend on the last point, obviously, but you decided to make an issue of it. All that Archibald had done was to post the graph provided by Omniweb. What a crime.

Next, David omitted looking at the actual trajectory of the temperatures, which ROSE from the start of the data to the 1990s and dropped since then.

The linear trend is downward for the entire series. The highest year average is for 1974. The highest decadal average is for the 1973-1982 decade.
comment image
David is correct that plasma temperature has decreased since mid-70s.

There is no problem with Archibald’s data as you wanted us to believe. The last point was produced by Omniweb and is a non issue that doesn’t affect his correct claim of a downward trend. The problem with Archibald lies on his ridiculous claim that the 40-years trend in solar plasma temperature has anything to do with what temperature has done in the Southern Hemisphere for the last two weeks. There is zero evidence for that and I don’t buy it.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 8:59 pm

The linear trend is downward for the entire series. The highest year average is for 1974. The highest decadal average is for the 1973-1982 decade.
David is correct that plasma temperature has decreased since mid-70s.

What is wrong with this is that the solar wind has many properties that are all correlated. The temperature varies the most due to shocks and flares. One has to take the variation of all the components into account [Archibald tries to do this by presenting many graphs] . Overall, activity was low in the mid-1966 and rose until the mid-1990s and has since decreased again to about the level it came from, so there has been no long-term trend in the solar wind. To believe otherwise and to attach any significance to such belief are marks of amateurs with no understanding of the science.
Here is a plot of yearly averages of proton temperatures [dark blue symbols] and their standard deviations:
comment image
Data before 1971 [marked by shading] are less reliable than later data. The standard deviation [red squares] are related to the temperature averages through the relationship sigmaT = 1.4 T with an R^2 as high as 0.7. A few outliers are marked by crosses. If you scale the standard deviation up to T [using 1.4*T] you get the open pink squares so you cn se how good much to trust the scaling. The bar in the lower part of the Figure shows that there is no long-term trend, as we actually would expect because other solar indices also don’t show any such trend.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 11:01 am

No, you didn’t understand the problem. You also said:
so that his last point was his particular artifact (a 17-day average) instead of Omniweb’s.
Not the case.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 25, 2020 3:52 pm

This data point does not contain a 27-day average. It contains only two points in the average. That is what the 2 in the fourth column means. This is the data point that made the difference between Archibald and Willis graphs. So I rightly identified the problem.
No, you did not identify he problem. You did not know about the 2 days or the fourth column. You thought it had to do with ending at the end of July. So, you were sloppy, and later tried to take credit for something you did not identify correctly. And instead used it to beat on Willis [‘blunder’ etc.]

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 3:45 pm

The data:
Selected parameters:
1 # of points in Plasma averag.
2 SW Plasma Temperature, K

YEAR DOY HR 1 2
2020 7 0 27 55501.
2020 34 0 27 67195.
2020 61 0 27 58825.
2020 88 0 27 65422.
2020 115 0 27 39312.
2020 142 0 27 44134.
2020 169 0 27 39900.
2020 196 0 27 66177.
2020 223 0 2 25021.

Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 3:49 pm

Javier, please tell us how one single point justifies the trend line in Figure 1. You can’t, because it is BOGUS. Real trend lines don’t jump from start to finish and hit nothing in between.

Plus, learn to read. What I said was:

“Looks like maybe there is no difference, you just put a bogus line underneath your graph …”

And now you come to tell us there’s no difference, just the last point? Care to know why I left off the last point? Because my graph goes to the end of July, where his falsely presents the first ten days (or less) of August as if it were a full month.

Next, he’s cherry picking … the data starts in 1964 and he’s started his in 1967, without saying one word about that.

Next, he’s all on about how the minimum in the data shows that the world is cooling … so why doesn’t he say anything about what the MAXIMUM of the data shows? It started cooling down from the max around 1990 … where’s the corresponding cooling?

w.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 23, 2020 6:52 pm

Willis, you always ask people to quote your exact words to avoid confusions, except when you want to create the confusion yourself. I quoted the exact words I was discussing. They refer to your inability to replicate Archibald’s graph. That you now bring a host of new issues to the discussion is an admission that I am correct on that point.

Care to know why I left off the last point? Because my graph goes to the end of July, where his falsely presents the first ten days (or less) of August as if it were a full month.

Well, then you made a new mistake. 27 days averages are for solar rotations, not for calendar months.

You are just making your rant against Archibald sloppier and funnier than his article.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 23, 2020 7:15 pm

Next, he’s cherry picking … the data starts in 1964 and he’s started his in 1967, without saying one word about that.

Then you are guilty of cherry picking yourself as you truncated the graph at the end of July and you didn’t say one word about that in your original comment. No wonder you couldn’t reproduce Archibald’s data when you were cherry picking the end point.

This is getting funnier and funnier.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 23, 2020 10:11 pm

This is getting funnier and funnier.
You are not funny, but ridiculous. Willis did not ‘fail’ or show ‘inability’ in replicating Archibald’s graph, but rather exposed the lack of due diligence Archibald showed in not noticing that the last data was not a [full or significant] 27-day average and therefore introduced a false trend. You could gain some credibility by not defending Archibald’s sloppiness, but, no, you join him in infamy instead. Poor behavior, not becoming a gentleman. Shame on you.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 4:44 am

You are the ridiculous one. Willis confronted Archibald’s sloppiness with his bigger sloppiness.

While Archibald just took the graph given to him by Omniweb without knowing that the last point was an artifact introduced by Omniweb, Willis truncated the data cherry picking its ending on the 31st of July, wrongly believing that 27-days averages referred to full calendar months instead of solar rotations. Since Willis choice is day of the year 213, and the rotation goes to day of the year 223, the last point in Willis’ graph is an artifact of only averaging 17 days.

The difference in sloppiness is that in the case of Archibald the artifact was introduced by Omniweb, while in the case of Willis it was introduced by himself. Having the last point wrong would be inconsequential except that Willis decided to make a point attacking Archibald because of it. We have to thank Willis for the laughs his decision has brought.

I am not defending Archibald’s work. I have written one of the strongest critics in the comments. But Willis attack on his credibility for not being able to reproduce his data is entirely unjustified, as several commenters have noticed.

But I see the dynamic duo gets in action even to defend their own sloppiness. Shame on you.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 6:09 am

the last point was an artifact introduced by Omniweb,
Not at all. Omniweb plots the data it has. It is up to the users to check if the data points are representative. Archibald and you didn’t. End of story.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 8:22 am

Archibald and you didn’t. End of story.

Don’t get me involved. I have nothing to do with either Archibald or Willis graphs endpoints. I was the one identifying the cause for the disparity in the first place (August 23, 2020 at 2:51 pm).

The end of the story is that Willis made an unjustified attack on Archibald and in doing so committed multiple errors that he still refuses to acknowledge, while his friend Leif turns a blind eye to his errors and attacks anybody that points to them. Let’s recapitulate, Willis:
–Mistook months for rotations
–Cherry picked July 31st as the final day for his data request
–Obtained a final point that was a 17-days average instead of 27
And with that he went to criticize Archibald’s graph without any clue about the source of the disparity, that took me one minute to spot.

And through that he gets cheered by you and Steven Mosher that calls him the only real skeptic at WUWT. Tamino self-described as “Hansen bulldog,” perhaps you should self-describe as “Willis bulldog.”

This is the most hilarious thread I remember in WUWT, and the more you try to justify Willis the funnier it gets.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:15 am

While Archibald just took the graph given to him by Omniweb without knowing that the last point was an artifact introduced by Omniweb, Willis truncated the data cherry picking its ending on the 31st of July, wrongly believing that 27-days averages referred to full calendar months instead of solar rotations.

You obviously do not know how Omniweb works. Even if you specify an end date of 31st of July, Omniweb gives you a plot [and a listing if you asks] including the last full rotation that includes the end date you have given, so Willis’ plot was perfectly correct.

Here are the data given by Omniweb:

Listing for omni2_27day data from 19631138 to 20200731
Selected parameters:
1 Bartels rotation number
2 # of points in Plasma averag.
3 SW Plasma Temperature, K

YEAR DOY HR 1 2 3
1963 360 0 1785 27 9999999.
1964 22 0 1786 19 9999999.

1965 142 0 1804 21 9999999.
1965 169 0 1805 18 9999999.
1965 196 0 1806 19 100853. <— this is the 1st rotation with data
1965 223 0 1807 22 94362.
1965 250 0 1808 24 72135.

2020 115 0 2547 27 39312.
2020 142 0 2548 27 44134.
2020 169 0 2549 27 39900.
2020 196 0 2550 27 66177. <— this is the last rotation with data ending 20200816
so no ‘blunder’ by Willis, but a BIG one by you.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:41 am

I was the one identifying the cause for the disparity in the first place (August 23, 2020 at 2:51 pm).
No, your assertion was dead wrong. The disparity is not caused by a wrong end date, as Omniweb does not stop at the end date you give it, but goes to the end of the rotation regardless. Anther example of ignorance on your part.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:50 am

I don’t have much use for Ommiweb data, but that doesn’t mean that Willis was correct as you say. His misunderstanding of solar rotations and his cherry picking of a final date remain as errors. His attack on Archibald for something that is due to Omniweb mode of functioning remains unjustified.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 9:56 am

–Cherry picked July 31st as the final day for his data request
–Obtained a final point that was a 17-days average instead of 27

No, Omniweb rounds the plot up to the full 27 days if there is data there, regardless of the final day you give it.
See, you don’t know how this works and don’t seem to care enough to find out as long as you can attack someone.

Leif Svalgaard
Reply to  Javier
August 24, 2020 11:14 am

I don’t have much use for Ommiweb data, but that doesn’t mean that Willis