Willie Soon, PhD presents at the 41st Annual Meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, July 8, 2023.
You can download a copy of the slide deck here.
Global Societal Crises of the 17th Century: Perspectives from Research on Sun-Earth Relations
- Sunday, April 28, 2024
The Little Ice Age is unexplainable unless the solar forcing of climate is many times stronger than accounted for in models.
According to “da science” it has now been explained, thusly.
“The scientists with the volcano theory – at University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations – have evidence for volcanic eruptions between 1275 and 1300 AD. They say these volcanoes triggered a chain reaction, affecting sea ice and ocean currents in a way that lowered temperatures for centuries. Their results are in contrast to the work of other scientists who contend that decreased radiation from the sun is what caused the Little Ice Age.”
…
These UC Boulder and NCAR scientists used a computer model…”
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age/
A proto tipping point? (/sarc)
So these scientists the LIA was caused by volcanic eruptions.
Does this mean if it wasn’t for the volcanoes causing the LIA, would the MWP have continued unabated?
Here’s the paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011GL050168
“Does this mean if it wasn’t for the volcanoes causing the LIA, would the MWP have continued unabated”?
I would imagine that is what they would claim. In their theory if there’s no cooling from vulcanism, there’s no LIA.
The previous cool period was the Dark Ages Cooling….and the one before that….and the one before ….over the last 8000 years. More volcanoes?
More [pathetic] excuses, more like.
It’s Volcanoes all the way down.
The volcanoes of the Chaîne des of Puys appeared only 150,000 years ago, According to the geologist on Stage 9 of the Tour de France to Puy de Dôme they stopped erupting about 10k years ago.
That would put them in the frame for the last glaciation. Is the grant money to research this? I’d rather like a year in central France
Then a bigger worry is the chance that we have decarbonized and we then get hit with another millennial volcanic refrigeration century that shuts down our feeble intermittent energy crapshoot and paralyzes backup frosted batteries.
It is possible for volcanoes to have fired the opening salvo, but it is impossible for them to have sustained the LIA, as volcanic activity was very low during most of the LIA, well below the Holocene average.
As it was quite warm during half of the 15th century, how did it get cold again?
Volcanoes have very little effect on climate. As if we did not know what happened after Tambora, Agung, Pinatubo, etc. Warming, warming, and warming.
Here you have the effect of eruptions on temperature according to proxies. The long-term trend is unaffected by them because they are always followed by recovery, as was observed after Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo.
With all due respect, Javier, is there any scientific/mathematical basis to assert that temperature anomalies for the last 2000 years can be resolved to 0.01 C or better, as is implied by the fine structure variations plotted in the blue line on the graph you posted?
Especially since those plotted “temperatures” are not actual measurements, but are values derived from proxies?
Also, positive correlation of “largest eruptions” to decreasing (or even increasing!) proxy-derived temperature anomalies fails the first-level eyeball test, IMHO. I see as much anti-correlation as I see correlation.
The proxy values can be divided without a problem. The connexion between proxy values and temperature values is always problematic.
Your eyeball test cannot be trusted. Paleoclimate response to volcanic eruptions has been well established. Strong tropical or NH eruptions producing a high aerosol stratospheric cloud always produce cooling for a few years.
You don’t even know what solar forcing is, nor how strong it was before or after the LIA.
Not knowing a forcing is not an obstacle to getting an answer to how much it contributed using systems theory.
de Larminat, P., 2016. Earth climate identification vs. anthropic global warming attribution. Annual Reviews in control, 42, pp.114-125.
Those that don’t believe in the important effect of solar activity on climate are selectively blind to the evidence.
de Larminat correctly recognized the need to not reject solar forcing, however de Larminat didn’t identify what the solar forcing was numerically.
I love how this sounds:
“one cannot reject the hypothesis of a zero anthropogenic contribution”
Gotta love it.
I’m sorry, I was wrong, I glossed over those images, as I’ve been splitting my attention this morning with a boring meeting of CO2 haters, the NAS “Climate Crossroads Summit”.
de Larminat did numerically derive a relative TSI contribution.
I agree, if you are referencing to solar forcing as solar energy absorbed by Earth over a given time interval, and NOT referring to relatively slight variations in the solar “constant” (at TOA).
Going further, I assert that any absorbed-energy variations from volcano emissions (gases and particulates) in the atmosphere are insignificant compared to absorbed energy variations caused by varying cloud coverage (i.e., the largest variable in Earth’s albedo) over both short-term and long-term.
Of course, there are no good paleoclimatology proxies to derive changes in Earth’s average percentage cloud cover over any given time period . . . even for cloud coverage changes that are due to atmospheric condensation nuclei injected by, yeah, volcanoes.
The 17th century burnt, hanged and drowned accused witches. In the 21st century, climate realists are just cancelled or shot at. So far.
I love the “discalaimer” on the video..
“All views expressed are strictly my own and should be yours too”
You tell ’em, Willie!
He has used that for many years and it should be carved on his grave stone – not soon I hope.
“Be curious be honest with yourself and don’t lie to yourself and keep on learning.”
Williamz: I haz Climate Krisis.
Please help me.
(Please this time cut the tedious verbage about not being paid by Fossil Interests – you’re in danger of over-protesting your innocence)
My crisis is 2-part in that
Why is that William, how do spotspots and/or CO₂ ‘know’ to do that – what is the mechanism?
Why is your special case limited to just sunspots and CO2 as the cause, why not the tree? I’m confused – did he say somewhere that sunspots and CO2 determine everything, even local conditions?
I’m certain he knows that climate models really need to take into account ground cover and clouds, but currently do a dismal job of it.
These questions must be “tongue-in-cheek” [or whatever the proper idiom should be].
Or P of N failed basic science classes.
If one wants to be snarky, the notion “2°C” is a temperature equal to 35.6°F, not a difference. You should write “two Celsius degrees” as ” 2C° “.
It is good to refrain from being snarky. 😇
Peta’s wording is fine, he used the adjectives warmer and cooler – have never scene anyone write 2C°.
Re: your crisis:
1) Solar energy (sunlight) directly warms both air and ground, with the ground in turn warming the air above it; in the shade under a tree, there is much less direct solar heating than in “open clear-vista space” and hence it is cooler in the shade (assuming no significant wind, that is).
2) At night (“with the sun as far below the horizon at it gets”), the radiation exchange reverses, and the wide open space radiates away energy to the dark sky (“gets cooler”) much more than is possible for the area under the tree because the tree itself is at a much higher effective temperature than is the night sky.
3) On cloudy days/nights, the above radiation-driven heat exchange differences are lessened because (a) diffuse sunlight during the day (result of overhead clouds) delivers less radiation power than does direct sunlight, and (b) clouds during the night are significantly warmer than the effective temperature of a clear, dark sky.
Science and physics can be your best friends.
And, no, I am not being paid by “Fossil (Fuel) Interests” to post this reply to you.
Willis addressed this several times a showed that there is no correlation between volcanoes and temperature for long term.
here is one of many https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/volcanic-disruptions/
Yes, but – silly – all the data in the world doesn’t deal with how climate scientists feel. And it’s feelings, not data, that counts.
“How scientists are coping with ‘ecological grief’ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/12/how-scientists-are-coping-with-environmental-grief
“‘I’m profoundly sad, I feel guilty’: scientists reveal personal fears about the climate crisis“
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/08/im-profoundly-sad-i-feel-guilty-scientists-reveal-personal-fears-about-the-climate-crisis
“Climate scientists are desperate: we’re crying, begging and getting arrested”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/climate-scientists-are-desperate-were-crying-begging-and-getting-arrested
Ad nauseam….
They are insane or complete liars. Even with the IPCC’s dodgy math, 4°C – eventually – with CO2 doubling to 560ppm, by 2068 roughly by current trends – that would be awesome not a crisis!
How can any one trained in any of the sciences freak out about a few degrees over possibly a millennium before the total effect is revealed. It just shows that people are too trusting and credulous.
Is this really scary? Even if one doesn’t notice that the complete range of the graph is only 1.5°C (or 1.5 Celsius degrees lest I incur the wrath of Snark) it’s still not a scary graph, especially the latter years, wiggling around, up and down, with no real increase, in spite of the whole world burning every bit of coal it can get it’s hands on.
Note the down trends from 1998 to 2015 and from 2016 to now. Super Los Niños account for most if not all warming since 1979.
If they don’t like being arrested then stop the stupid stunts or buy more KY.
also look up how the Little Ice Age almost wiped out Scotland: Famine In Scotland: The ‘ill Years’ Of The 1690s. For example: https://www.thenational.scot/news/18626007.famine-forever-changed-scottish-history/
It did even more damage in Finland.
No country in Europe is known to have suffered such a loss. We just can’t imagine it. Talk about climate damage. The LIA beats all records for the past 2000 years.
Dr. Soon’s focus on the historical Maunder Minimum in solar activity (and the connection with the Little Ice Age) reminded me that the Maunder Minimum was briefly mentioned (as I recall) in the 1991 science fiction novel, Fallen Angels, by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. This story presents a kind of “Idiocracy like” scenario, with much of Canada and the northern U.S. wiped off the map by a glacial advance (caused by geoengineering), and the anti global warming fanatics in the United States firmly in charge nevertheless. The heroes of the story are the last obstinately dedicated climate skeptics/sci fi fans, who manage to help out a pair of crashed space settlers.
A search on this brought me to a related technical essay by Jerry Pournelle, apparently written not long before his passing away:
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/paris-accords-maunder-minimum-and-other-matters/
Excellent book on the climate crises of the 17th century
“Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.
Geoffrey Parker
ISBN : 9780300208634
Willie misses the boat on the ocean heat content paper. He compares all the energy generated by human activity to the supposed increase in OHC , but the AGW crowd is looking at the supposed heat generated by the increased greenhouse effect, not energy generated directly by humanity. The way to look at their graph is to rescale it showing the total heat content in the oceans, not the anomaly. Is the supposed change significant? And what observations are the data based on? And of course their graph starts in 1950. What were the oceans doing before that? Does anyone know?