Willie Soon, astrophysicist and aerospace engineer takes the stage at the 14th International Conference on Climate Change to discuss the role of the sun on climate change.
Recorded at The Heartland Institute’s 14th International Conference on Climate Change on October 16, 2021 at Caesars Palace.
“The north polar field peaked in September 2019, while the south polar field peaked in November 2015.”
The evolution is highly asymmetric in the N-S direction.
http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/
Ban this advertiser!!!!
100 dollars per hour for a job as online whore?
MODS!
Rio,
Assuming what you state is truthful (and that’s more than a BIG stretch), it is obvious to all that your payments must be for your services as a spammer.
You really do need to find another job, assuming you’re not just a computer bot with a pen name.
Solar Dipole from WSO.
After an increase in solar activity in early November, the NAO rose to a positive value after more than a month. However, the solar wind has weakened and the NAO will fall again.
Stratospheric ozone continues to accumulate over the Bering Sea, consistent with the geomagnetic field.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I would like to understand the point you are trying to get across.
During extended periods of weak solar wind (low speed), ozone tends to accumulate near the Arctic Circle in regions of weaker geomagnetic field.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_df.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/4fBHVNx/npst30.webp
Ozone decomposition modifies the polar vortex pattern.
OR
Atmospheric movement alters both ozone and the Polar vortex pattern.
No, because ozone tends to accumulate over the Bering Sea, and then ozone is pushed over North America.
When the solar wind speed increases there is an eastward shift of the ozone wave. This causes the tropopause and the jet stream to ripple.
Excess ozone causes tropopause deflection in this region.
A look at the cold patch in the northeast Pacific Ocean. The animation shows that this circulation is not temporary, but has persisted since the beginning of the polar vortex. The blockage over the Bering Sea is clearly visible and leads to a northeast circulation over Alaska.
It looks like there is a low-pressure system sitting next to a high-pressure system, at the surface, in the area of interest.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-182.15,45.05,264
This is very difficult.
Simply because ‘ren’ mostly himself does not know the (cor)relation between what he shows and what he wants to say.
More difficult than your continuous genuflection to the self-serving political class?
Wow, what a great idea, studying the role of the sun on the climate. Who would ever have thought of that. How about the sun is the primary climate driver and if it ever cools everything on this planet is dead. I have no Idea why I know this but I will bet are millions of us who know and understand B S when we see, hear, or read it.
And then there was the Maunder Minimum, when sunspots largely disappeared from the sun and we had a lengthy cold spell . . .
The lengthy cold spell began at least 150 years before the Maunder Minimum started.
The effect of solar activity on climate is undeniable.
The deepest part of the Maunder minimum centered on the year 1680, 340 years Before Present yet your plot has it at 260 years BP. Wattsupwiththat? Seems like your plot is phony, doesn’t it?
What is phony is your knowledge of paleoclimatology. The present is a moving target. BP usually refers to before 1950, a date established as the present in 14C-dating. For people like you I put the current era (CE) date at the top of the graph.
Well, the did NH temps really take off in 1820 as you claim? Hint: they didn’t. Did nothing happen in the 70 years After Present? Hint : things did happen. Me thinks you screwed up.
Didn’t you notice the reference to a peer-reviewed scientific publication for each curve? That is where the claim is made. It is the second mistake you made in a simple graphic. Hint: Improve your reading comprehension skills before commenting.
All I can say about our good old Sun is that it currently still is in best form.
I recall numerous comments posted on various blogs some years ago, written by ‘specialists’ claiming that the new solar cycle SC25 would be from the very start way weaker than its predecessor SC24.
Here is a comparison of the two, based on the daily solar flux ‘F10.7 cm’:
SC25 very certainly will not reach the level of those which contributed to what is termed the ‘Modern Maximum’.
But to view it as a prelude to some ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ : that is pure fantasy.
Source
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Thus, if ” It’s the Sun, stupid! “, we are not in front of any major global cooling, which however might have quite different causes than the Sun..
So you’re of the same mind as the man plummeting from the 30th floor who was heard to say: “So far, so good” as he passed the 15th? Oddly enough, although SC25 looks to be stronger than 24 it’s predicted to have few sunspots which iirc correlates with low solar output, relatively speaking. So your posting comparisons of solar flux may have nothing to do with the issue at all.
” So your posting comparisons of solar flux may have nothing to do with the issue at all. ”
Wow! I’m impressed.
It’s easy to doubt about something without clearly contradicting it with real data, isn’t it?
And btw: should you think that solar flux would be in contradiction to SSN:
Come out with a bit more than a may and we then might compare.
And that’s what I get for being polite. Solar flux varies quite a lot but doesn’t change the amount of TSI by a great deal, the biggest changes are in the IR component, where the sunspot activity is key – more sunspots lead to greater IR emissions, fewer or no sunspots decrease the IR emissions quite drastically. A strong or weak solar flux on its own won’t have a huge impact on the earth, but if you add in sunspots as well, that gives you a greater variance across the spectrum. So SC25 with a fairly strong flux but minor sunspot activity won’t be very much different from SC24.
Your solar flux graphs contradict each other.
Not surprising since you carefully cherry picked the first graph.
I recall that Dr Svalgaard predicted this. Right again, that’s 3 cycles in a row by his methodology. Kind of makes you want to listen a little closer next time.
” I recall that Dr Svalgaard predicted this. ”
What exactly did Leif Svalgaard predict?
All I can remember is
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.02370
showing pretty good that he clearly doesn’t belong to those I mentioned above, and
that he contradicted Valentina Zharkova.
” Kind of makes you want to listen a little closer next time. ”
A bit condescending, Sir?
He was correct in his prediction of the strength of the last 3 cycles. Specifically now where he predicted that SC 25 would be slightly stronger than SC 24. His method is showing proof that it is correct so far.
The “you” in my post was a general “you” about all of us not one individual.
Fro that Arxiv paper :
None of these numbers are substantially different, so one could perhaps just go with the “Wisdom of Crowds” (Aristotle, 350 BCE, “Politics”, III:xi; Galton, 1907).
And :
All predictions that we consider have the underlying assumption that the sun has not changed its behavior (its “spots” so to speak) on a timescale of a few centuries (the Maunder Minimum may be a possible violation of that assumption) and that there will be no such changes in the near future, in spite of speculative suggestions like in Livingston et al. (2010) and Svalgaard (2013).
Wisdom of the crowds?
The polar precursor method of Schatten et al. 1978 is the best, but it is very limited since it can only predict the next solar cycle, and only since the time the polar magnetic fields reach their maximum value. Right now the method cannot tell us much about SC26 and nothing about following cycles.
The long solar cycles method is not as good as giving the correct maximum value, but it predicts SC26 should have more activity than SC25, and should be followed by an even more active SC27.
Not me. This was my 2016 prediction based on solar cycles. I think the Hoydt minimum is going to be shorter than Velasco Herrera & Soon’s machine learning predicts. The sunspot record is too short to get the effect of the long solar cycles.
I have since improved the solar cycle model, but the essence of the prediction hasn’t changed.
At centennial timescales it is clearly the Sun. The contribution from the Modern Solar Maximum to the Modern Global Warming not only coincides in time, but it is quite important.
Thank you very much, Javier, for this interesting information.
With: ” The contribution from the Modern Solar Maximum to the Modern Global Warming not only coincides in time, but it is quite important. ” I had often problems to see it, especially when comparing e.g. lagged global sea surface temperatures with SSN.
Whichever lag I’ve chosen: I couldn’t get a convincing fit.
Maybe you succeeded in this job?
That job is impossible. If surface temperatures could be related to solar activity it would have been done long ago. This is a 220-yr long problem, since Herschel stated it in 1801.
The effect on the surface is indirect and affected by other climatic processes. The solar effect takes place in the lower stratosphere. The stratosphere-troposphere coupling, the biggest surprise in atmospheric science in decades is in charge of transmitting the effect down to the places where the coupling is stronger, the tropical upwelling zone, where the QBO and the Brewer-Dobson circulation transmit the solar effect over ENSO (La Niña is under strong solar control as I showed), and the NH polar vortex. Kobashi et al. 2015 explain how the Modern Solar Maximum has affected the high-latitudes climate, where low solar activity promotes Warm-Arctic/Cold-Continents regime, the current regime mistaken by many with Arctic amplification, and high solar promotes the opposite.
Already in 1974 Colin Hines provided the theoretical solution to the problem when pointing to planetary-wave transmission according to the Charney-Drazin criterium as the most likely solution. In 1987 Karin Labitzke provided observational confirmation of the control that solar activity has over the Holton-Tan effect that links the equatorial and north polar stratosphere.
If you want to understand how solar activity controls climate you will have to study very complex atmospheric phenomena. It is a voyage of discovery not for everybody. Most people prefer simple answers like our CO2 did it. Climate is not simple.
“Whichever lag I’ve chosen: I couldn’t get a convincing fit.”
The climate, when defined as the 30y average HadSST3, is controlled by the previous 120 years of solar activity, ie 11 solar cycles, including the eleven year lag from the last solar cycle..
Such comparisons I made years ago, including the undetrended AMO. They weren’t convincing enough for me.
FYI, the AMO is not the whole ocean. If you made the exact comparison I made of 109y SN vs 30y SST3 including cross-correlation plot, with r-squared of 0.91 and p<.00001, and an R of 0.95 lagged 11 years, then why didn’t those outstanding statistics not convince you, that’s of course provided you really made the same exact comparison I did, which I doubt very much. Maybe you could show some evidence that you did that so I won’t think you’re bullshitting me.
Why do you reject such high statistical significance?
I wrote ‘ … including the undetrended AMO. ”
Means it was one of many trials, including even HadiSST1 SST, to be quite sure.
” Why do you reject such high statistical significance? ”
You seem to be pretty ‘over and over convinced’ of what you do.
But conversely, may I ask you how often you wrote
” Correlation is not causation ”
when you disagreed with what you read?
Correlation is not always causation. There I said it, did it make any difference to my argument or yours? No.
You didn’t answer why you reject high significance.
Javier, cycles 12 and 13 were the actual centennial solar minimum not cycle 14, by cycle 14 the solar wind strength had picked up again, driving a colder AMO.
Well, that’s clearly not my interpretation. I am alone on this one, but 14C data supports that the centennial (Feynman) and bicentennial (de Vries) cycles are actually shifted a couple of Schwabe cycles, and this fits very well with the sunspot data. Who would have thought it?
The de Vries cycle is losing power as it should, but the Feynman cycle keeps going strong and it is already the main submillennial cycle.
You might want to look at the timing related also to Jupiter-Saturn-Eart-Sun alignments and Jupiter-Saturn-Sun-Earth alignments.
Oddgeir
Centennial solar minima regularly wander around their long term mean interval, primarily because orbital paths are not circular, they are not at fixed intervals.
The Gleissberg Minimum definitely started from SC12, your ‘actual shift’ in this case is an invention. The mechanics of it is that during centennial solar minima, sunspot cycles peak at quadrupole configurations of Earth-Venus-Jupiter with Neptune, and away from centennial minima they peak at peak at quadrupole configurations of Earth-Venus-Jupiter with Uranus. The latter explains the shorter length sunspot cycles between centennial minima. That decides which Schwabe cycles belong to a centennial solar minimum, or not. Centennial minima are a direct product of the synodic cycles of Earth-Venus-Jupiter with Uranus, with their first simple return at around 110 years, and their long cycle of 1726.62 years ordering grand solar minima series at the half cycle every 863.3 years on average. There are shifts over the long cycle, but they involve missing rather than adding solar cycles, as the long term mean for centennial solar minima intervals is 107.9 years.
“we are not in front of any major global cooling”
How would you explain the record temperatures in the Antarctic? Clearly it is not the globe that is warming, parts of it may be, but by no means is all of it.
It doesn’t need explaining. Antarctic temperatures have little to do with the rest of the planet. It is even unclear why Antarctic temperatures follow Milankovitch cycles in synchrony when insolation changes due to precession are opposite.
Who claims that ‘global warming’ automatically means ‘global warming everywhere’ ? Me certainly NOT.
There are very probably as many cooling corners on Earth as are warming ones.
While Antarctic is the coldest continent worldwide, with lots of parts above 2,000 meters altitude, and is surrounded by cold circumpolar ocean currents, the Arctic is no more than a big floating ice mass, surrounded by land masses all around it.
While the area of the European Union is warming, Canada for example is, on average, not at all. Only its Northern Arctic parts are.
Many people refuse to consider the average of all these singularities: that imho is the problem.
“‘Who claims that ‘global warming’ automatically means ‘global warming everywhere’’”
The so-called academics, the media, politicians and assorted talking heads do.
Global: involving the entire world. You can check any dictionary you like.
Global warming should be called global heating, says key scientist
“Global heating” is a more accurate term than “global warming” to describe the changes taking place to the world’s climate, according to a key scientist at the UK Met Office.
Global warming should be called global heating, says key scientist | Climate crisis | The Guardian
There’s that word global…. If only they knew what it meant.
” The so-called academics, the media, politicians and assorted talking heads do. ”
Yeah.
I don’t belong to them, don’t read them, let alone would I listen to them.
But conversely, I don’t belong to those denying warming and permanently discrediting GISS/NOAA/Hadley/RSS etc, don’t read them, let alone would I listen to them.
Please if you would, tell me & others on this site, who actually denies that the Earth’s climate has modestly warmed in the last 150 years or thereabouts. I say it again, I have never met anyone who denies that the Earth’s climate changes, sometimes it warms & sometimes it cools. The earth has two basic geological states, tropical conditions & ice-house conditions, & the Earth is currently in ice-house conditions because it has ice at the poles. Arctic sea-ice hasn’t all disappeared in 2014 as predicted, which was made for Summer sea-ice by the UK’s Wet Office. The true climate change deniers are those who scream & shout & stamp their feet in some child-like tantrum, that the end of the world is nigh, as they have been doing for many, many years, & probably will continue to do so, because there’s money in it!!!
“Studying the Role of the Sun on Climate”
Why would you do that when it is obvious that CO2 levels control the climate?
pp Griff
Of course the sun is a major influence on climate: but currently human CO2 is the major driver of climate change.
Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend – yet global temperatures have risen.
What does that prove? Between 1940-1975 CO2 went up and temperature went down. For the same token you must reject that CO2 is the major driver of climate change.
It never has been in the past so it must be CO2 mixed with pixie-dust liberally sprinkled into the atmosphere!!! 😉
Since we know that of all the factors involved, only CO2 has been increasing, we can invoke cause and effect. So what could possibly be wrong with that statement? Open for discussion.
You assume sufficient knowledge of a very complex issue. Radiative changes by CO2 are very small. The entire global warming fits comfortably in several black holes, like the cloud-albedo effect or the cloud-aerosol indirect effect, just to mention black holes accepted by everybody. The solar effect black hole is right there.
In science assumptions are lethal for theories.
A 100 ppm CO2 increase in the atmosphere also fit into an average ocean temperature increase with 0.0056 degrees C (impossible to measure, has to be calculated).
Easy, oldschool Henry, Dalton.
Oddgeir
The claim that we know all the factors involved is laughable on it’s face.
h/t Donald Rumsfeld – there are things we don’t know that we don’t know….
The only warming events over the last 35 years have been two large El Nino’s. El Nino’s dump heat that has been gathering for centuries in the oceans, into the atmosphere.
“Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend – yet global temperatures have risen.”
So what do you make of the comic ray flux over that period, griff. How could you overlook that so easily?
griff
Warmistas and Coolistas are equally boring.
And you are a highly boring Warmista.
CO2 will become one of the major climate drivers in a more or less near future if we can’t manage to control its increase over the long term.
But to claim CO2 being right now the major driver? That is laughable.
There is one thing worse than a Wamista and a Coolista, that is a Lukewarmista who takes the average temperature of those other two and sounds clever. This is triangulation, not science. Something that a Macronista does.
Griff baby, the Sun is THE major influence on the Earth’s climate, it possesses in excess of 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System & a massive fusion reactor, & incidentally, the ice-cap on Mars was also visibly receding from around the time the concerns were being raised back here on good old Planet Earth!!! When we get the UK Wet Office pronouncing that the Sun affects the Earth’s weather but not the Earth’s climate, I for one (though not alone) wonder why we pay for such an organisation that like the BBC, is well overdue for privatisation!!! Under a Socialist guvment a few years back, the new Wet Office’s head was appointed, & he turned out to be a former head of WWF, who I understand wasn’t even a scientist was credited with turning a wildlife conservation group into a rabid hard-left advocacy group almost single handedly, after his arrival the Wet Office mysteriously morphed into an avid promoter of manmade climate change!!! As I have said before, in the UK such senior appointments from Chief Medical Officer, to Chief Scientist, etc., are guvment appointments & as such are “political”, & do not necessarily represent the best of the pick of the bunch!
Solar cycle 25 is already weaker than 24 when comparing the strength of solar flares and the decrease in UV radiation. Changes in ozone will cause changes in stratospheric circulation that are already affecting the weather.
Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
“When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.
The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter. (When the NAO is positive, winter storms track farther north, making winters in Europe milder.) The model results, shown above, illustrate that the NAO was more negative on average during the Maunder Minimum, and Europe remained unusually cold. These results matched the paleoclimate record.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
I already told you. That graph has the start of the SC25 wrong. It didn’t start in March 2018. I guess you don’t care as long as it confirms your bias. It gives the impression of being much lower than it actually is.
The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).
Figure 1 shows the Mg II data from GOME-2A (since 2007) and GOME-2B (since 2012) from the last two months.
Figure 2 shows the Mg II indices derived from GOME (1996-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), and both GOME-2′ (2007-present) as calculated by us.
By combining data from different satellites a composite Mg II index can be derived that covers more than three solar cycles as shown in Figure 3.
In Figure 4 the solar activity from the three most recent solar cycles (22-24) are directly compared.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
That doesn’t address the problem I have pointed. You must know solar cycle 25 did not start in March 2018.
The 25 cycle graph starts with the lowest UV value followed by the rise.
A weak methodology that is getting them in trouble. They should do a longer smoothing, as it is done with sunspots.
You can also compare the magnetic activity of the 24th and 25th solar cycles here.
Javier do you deny that the high-energy UV is very low compared to previous cycles?
Yes, I am a proud denier.
Looking at a graph of the 10.7 cm Solar Radio Flux, in what year did the 25 cycle begin?
OK Ren,
You made me waste 15 perfectly good minutes.
Where is the f*****g difference?
You should be able to see this by yourself.
Why did you shorten the chart in 2011?
I’m sorry you lost valuable time.
I didn’t shorten anything. They are the same two graphs you posted above. I downloaded them from your post, and overlaid them after changing the color of one of them.
It DEMONSTRATES that there are no significant differences so far between SC24 and SC25.
You are seeing differences that don’t exist. SC24 and SC25 are very similar.
My comment was only about the beginning of the cycle, which is why I lowered the graph, and why you manipulated it, because activity in 2011 increased much more than in 2021.
Compare the increase in solar activity in 2011 and 2021. Can you see the difference?
The decline in ozone is most pronounced in winter at high latitudes.
That isn’t really surprising because ozone has a short half-life. In the absence of sunlight at high latitudes generating new ozone, and/or the polar vortex preventing tropical ozone from reaching the poles, the ozone will break down and the concentration will decline.
Did you not notice that the graphics show long-term ANOMALIES?
What baseline was used to calculate the anomalies?
According to the data table, this is probably an average from 1979 to 2010 or 2020. No exact information is available on the site.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
Ren
The ozone above the NH Polar Cap is lowest during the peak of summer for a very simple reason, atmospheric dynamics.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/ozone/to3capn_2021_toms+omi+omps.pdf
ren
I propose that you read communications emitted by the Belgian SILSO, which probably is the worldwide most renowned Sun Spot evaluation specialist.
https://wwwbis.sidc.be/silso/node/167/#NewSolarActivity
Currently, counting weakly active spots does not reflect the Sun’s magnetic activity.
This whole discussion reminds me of the blind leading the blind:
I wonder who puts a minus next to the Stanford WSO data? Does he consider them questionable?
http://wso.stanford.edu/
I hope that no one will deny the galactic radiation data from Oulu, because I consider it to be the most sensitive indicator of the strength of the solar wind magnetic field reaching Earth.
Some of you may remember the GOCE and GRACE Satellite projects in monitoring the flow of earth’s gravitational variance anomalies. Sorry, I don’t know how to plop the two animations into the body of this post.
No one knows the dynamic driving the earth’s gravitational variance. Some have suggested solar factors but there is no data that I am aware, (variation of focus of subcrustal magnetic vortexs?). As far as the political-scientific debate regarding climate change…. Ambient crust heating is considered an inconsequential constant. Obviously, ambient crustal heating isn’t a constant on the micro level as +gravitational variance means the compression of magma into the mantle and crust…. and this demonstrates the potential for local variable increases and decreases of heat into water and atmosphere. As far as the climate change debate goes, this is not very relevant until you begin to look at sea ice regionally
Unfortunately, all gravitational monitoring satellites are now defunct. The main focus of many of these projects was to gain understanding of the thinning ice sheets. I always wondered if the understanding they gained resulted in this very promising set of climate science tools quick slide into distant memory.
Enter the pic’s URL ‘as is’
and you hopefully will get it.
NO it doesn’t work: the blog definitely doesn’t accept them.
😀
And why you didn’t follow your own advise, Schlaumeier ?? 😀 😀
Maybe just inderting the URL of the GIf Animation
It’s twice the same URL you linked
Thanks for your help. I thought the animation of gravitational anomalies might be helpful considering heat energy from down under is considered a constant. I am not sure to what degree + gravitational anomalies are a proxy of ambient heating through the crust.
There are two animations of gravitational anomalies one for land and the the for sea. I doesn’t have the ability or skills to post the sea animation sorry. but the animation is available in my original post.. just click on it..
Finally worked! This is a animation of NASA’s GRACE satellite gravitational anomaly monitoring over a 5 year ;period 2003-2008..
Did anyone else catch that Willie Soon was asked to write the paper below by China’s premier solar physicist?
How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131?fbclid=IwAR0U5WARVnuGVjj2qeiiBYgGo0lIxXb9NNzUbeqqN-th2Zp1YU8rLOZkrMM
Apparently China hasn’t cancelled Willie Soon. And if the Chinese academy still harbors vestiges of the system of science in the USSR, someone like that would have ties to the highest levels of the CCP government.
Now, contrast that to Gavin Schmidt’s response: “total nonsense and no one should waste any time on it“. Schmidt would be the US equivalent (in terms of stature) of the scientist in China that asked Soon for the paper. Would any US scientist make a similar request from a “pariah” like Soon? And for those who have studied the USSR, Schmidt’s statement sounds a lot like the Lysenkoists statements about the idiocy of Western genetics.
Also, note the “blending” of the disciplines – I have heard Soon say that his current employer (HSCA) has asked him not to relate his astronomical research to climate, and that if he wanted to continue to do so, to do it on his own time. This essentially means the fields of climate & astronomy are severed in the US, yet, the Chinese specifically asked for this interdisciplinary linkage.
And 20,000 downloads for a scientific paper that Schmidt dismissed as nonsense? Hmmm…
Make of this what you will, but I find it very very interesting…
I have a theory for the ordering of the timing of each sunspot cycle, it suggests solar cycle 25 double peaking in 2025 and 2027. And it also predicts a lower sunspot number for solar cycle 26, but with a return to stronger solar winds states, as in cycles 14 and 20, driving a much colder AMO and increased La Nina conditions, via the NAO/AO. Which also means an increase in low cloud cover.
The Sun has absolutely NO IMPACT on the Earth’s temperature! Just ask any climate “scientist” or consult any climate model.
How can a great big ball of fire possibly impact temperature?
(<– Yes, sarcasm)
”How can a great big ball of fire possibly impact temperature?”
There’s just no way! CO2 all the way! The Earth has not ”permanently” changed temperature over the last 80 years at least and probably the last several hundred. That some people believe they have changed it and understand all the processes is the height of navel-gazing arrogance. The whole man-made climate change theory will be looked upon as a brain-fart in years to come. Special shout out to Loydo, Griff et. al.
No change
It is noteworthy that when the heat input to the oceans reaches its maximum in January, the surface temperature of the oceans is at its minimum.
Ocean surface temperature is inversely related to the water cycle. Very high transfer of water to land in December and January is when the ocean surface is coolest.
In July, the ocean and land solar insolation is not much different and the water cycle slows down resulting in the ocean surface temperature reaching its maximum.
Warming oceans indicate that the water cycle is slowing down as the precession cycle takes the solar insolation to the oceans past its peak that occurred about 400 years ago and insolation over land was at its minimum.
Chinas has had large and early snows as winter draws near. Areas in the north are facing a disaster of having their pasture lands covered in a heavy coat of snow. That means that surving animals will have to be sheltered and fed while the rest will probably be slaughtered or they would starve to death. Nature can be cruel at tines. The video shows some fairly deep snow for such an early event. … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khSxvhjqKCI
Highly visible blocking on the north Pacific zonal circulation due to tropopause deflection caused by ozone accumulation over the Bering Sea. This is a very persistent pattern that changes as the solar wind speed increases.
Forecasts indicate that Greenland may experience the lowest recorded temperatures in the first half of November.
Willie sings pretty good too,
Panic works through bright colors.
Where do you see strong sunspots here?
La Niña ripples, but the Peruvian Current remains very cold.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202111.gif
The solar wind has weakened and the NAO index is again negative.
It turns out that the winter season NAO index can be a good indicator of solar activity.
Stratospheric intrusion brings frost to northern Alabama and Georgia.
Tomorrow, an even stronger stratospheric wave will reach the Great Lakes, with stronger frost.