Is the Sun driven by two dynamos, each running on slightly different 11 year cycles?
Many people are talking about a new forecast of a mini-ice age (which seems to be an increasingly popular thing to predict.) This one comes from a paper published last year but presented at the Royal Astronomical Society last week. Shepard, Zharkov and Zharkova may have gotten us a step closer to understanding why the solar cycle varies in length from 8 to 14 years. Since the level of solar activity correlates with both the the length of the current solar cycle and the surface temperatures on Earth one solar cycle later (the notch-delay theory, and see the work of David Archibald), it may make it possible to predict the climate decades in advance. (With the caveat that this new study is still a model, correlation is not causation, etc.)
One of the better descriptions comes from Astronomy Now.
The Sun, like all stars, is a large nuclear fusion reactor that generates powerful magnetic fields, similar to a dynamo. The model developed by Zharkova’s team suggests there are two dynamos at work in the Sun; one close to the surface and one deep within the convection zone. They found this dual dynamo system could explain aspects of the solar cycle with much greater accuracy than before — possibly leading to enhanced predictions of future solar behaviour. “We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs; originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different [for both] and they are offset in time,” says Zharkova. The two magnetic waves either reinforce one another to produce high activity or cancel out to create lull periods.
With the Sun, we struggle for good data. Shepard et al only have three sunspot cycles of magnetic field data to go on but used the longer sunspot records as well.
Figure 4. Modulus summary principal component (solid curve) calculated from Equations (6) and (7) for cycles 21–23 and predicted for cycles 24–26, the modulus summary PC derived from SBMF in cycles 21–23 (dotted curve) and in cycle 24 (dashed curve). | Click to expand.
The debate on this one is certainly not over. The new paper suggest there are two solar dynamos but in 2011 Nicola Scafetta argued that solar dynamics is best modeled with three interference circulation modes. His model reproduces past solar activity for millennia and also predicted a grand minimum by 2030.
Guest post by Dr David Evans
Dr David Evans, 14 July 2015, David Evans’ Notch-Delay Solar Theory and Model Home
The topic is a prediction publicized over the weekend that “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels“. This is quite plausible, because it fits with several other predictions made in 2013 by a number of authors (Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics, Mörner, Tattersall & Solheim, 2013).
Be aware that “solar activity” refers to the number of sunspots, not the total energy output of the Sun — which is very near constant and has varied less than 0.15% over the last 400 years. It’s not as if the Sun is going to be producing 60% less heat: it will produce almost exactly the same heat as it always does, just with far fewer sunspots.
A comparison of three images over four years apart illustrates how the level of solar activity has risen from near minimum to near maximum in the Sun’s 11-years solar cycle. These images are captured using He II 304 emissions showing the solar corona at a temperature of about 60,000 degrees K. Many more sunspots, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections occur during the solar maximum. The increase in activity can be seen in the number of white areas, i.e., indicators of strong magnetic intensity .Source: NASA
However, even this is very significant. Last year we blogged that the number of sunspots accurately predicts the small changes in temperature here on Earth, such as those associated with global warming, but with a delay of one sunspot cycle (which averages 11 years, but is only half the Sun’s full cycle, which averages about 22 years).
There was a largish fall in solar activity in 2004 (in 11 year smoothed TSI), so there will be a significant and sustained fall in global temperature on Earth starting in about 2017 (the current sunspot cycle is a long one, about 13 years, 2004 + 13 = 2017). This will outweigh the warming effect of extra carbon dioxide.
The Earth has been in a warming trend for the past 350 years, since the depth of the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum, in the second half of the 1600’s. This warming trend appears to be driven by solar activity—carbon dioxide didn’t start increasing until 1800 or so, and didn’t really get going until after WWII with post-war industrialization.
So the Shepard paper’s prediction that the Sun is going inactive, and will lead to a cooler Earth such as last seen in the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s (when ice fairs on the Thames River in London were common), is plausible and likely.
Note that the influence of sunspots on terrestrial temperatures is not because the heat of the Sun varies (that variation is pretty insignificant in terms of global warming or cooling). It is because something about the Sun, perhaps its UV output or a magnetic influence on the Earth’s upper atmosphere, affects the cloud cover on Earth, and thus how much sunlight the Earth reflects back out to space. More clouds mean more sunlight is reflected without warming the Earth, so the Earth is cooler. If the Sun is affecting the cloud cover on Earth, it is affecting the Earth’s temperature even though the heat from the Sun stays about constant.
Note also that the delay of one sunspot cycle (averaging 11 years) mentioned above, between the change in solar activity and Earthly temperatures, is because there is a half-cycle delay between sunspots and “force X”. Force X is the name we’ve given to the solar influence on Earth’s cloudiness–the “X” is because we aren’t sure what it is, like “x-rays” were so named because by their discoverer William Röntgen because he didn’t know what they really were. The Sun’s full cycle is around 22 years – the sunspot “cycle” is only half of it, because the number of sunspots goes as the square of the magnetic field strength so the positive and negative phases of the 22-year cycle look the same in terms of sunspots. The sunspots merely signal where force X will be in about 11 year’s time.
This is a bit like a four stroke combustion engine, which has four phases (suck, squeeze, bang, blow). If you know how much fuel and air is sucked in during the “suck” phase then you know how much power will be produced in the “bang” phase, which comes half a cycle (or two phases) later. Similarly with the Sun: the sunspots (or solar activity) tell us how much force X there will be half a full cycle (about 11 years) later.
The finding in the Shepard paper that the Sun has two dynamos is exciting for force X, making it quite plausible that the UV or magnetic effects that constitute force X are following the trends in bulk radiation produced by the dynamos.
The IPCC does not include any solar influence in the climate models except the direct heating by the Sun. But the total radiation from the Sun is almost constant — it is even known as the Solar Constant, because it wasn’t found to vary until observed by satellites starting in 1979. So, along with Bloomberg, NASA, and the IPCC, we say that changes in solar activity will have only a negligible direct effect.
There are some major updates concerning the notch-delay theory, which we will be blogging on soon.
What would be the impact on the climate?
If Shepard and Scafetta are correct about the upcoming dearth of solar activity by the 2030s, by 2040 it will have cooled significantly, by maybe 0.5C to 1.0C, undoing the global warming since 1800 or even 1700. That cooling could start as early as 2017. This cooling would be counteracted by a mild warming due to rising carbon dioxide, but the net effect would be cooling.
The ratio of La Ninas to El Ninos will presumably increase, making for slightly more floods and fewer droughts in eastern Australia.
A Maunder type phase of the sun,
Could put climate-change hype on the run,
When predictions would crumble,
And temperatures tumble,
As a Mini Ice Age had begun.
–Ruairi
REFERENCES
Simon J. Shepherd, Sergei I. Zharkov, and Valentina V. Zharkova (2014) Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23, The Astrophysical Journal, 795 46 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46
h/t Terry D, Colin, Stephan, Tom, Turtle, Joffa and Eric Worrall. Also in comments, Pat, el gordo, aussieute, CCreader, others, thanks!
‘This cooling would be counteracted by a mild warming due to rising carbon dioxide’
The hiatus proves CO2 does not cause warming and negative feedbacks rule.
Where does the Gleissberg Cycle fit into all of this?
5010
I guess those ice core samples showing an 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature rises are wrong then?
The warmists will claim the data was stacked anyway…..
363
Equally a case could be made that the hiatus proves beyond reasonable doubt human induced CO2 has kept temperatures higher than would normally be the case.
After 1945 temperatures fell by 0.3 C, that is the degree of sensitivity.
211
I recall Gavin stating at RC that without human CO2 we would have seen cooling
I remember his figure as 30% cooler, which ‘alarmed’ me
(it was when he was fretting with J Curry over 50/50 human attribution)
I’ve often wondered if the alarmists discovered that the glaciers were advancing they’d stop being alarmed
I, for one, often remind myself ‘be careful what you wish for’
150
The lag is about 800 years in the Vostok data, but only about 100 years in the DomeC data, which has finer samples and more accurate temporal positioning, so I am more inclined to believe the 100 year lag which is also better correlated to biology expanding to occupy newly arable land as ice melts and the ramp down of biomass as the planet cools. The CO2 levels in the ice cores are most likely a proxy for the amount of biomass on the planet.
The ice cores, especially DomeC, shows periodic variability with a cycle of about 3-4 centuries (the Maunder cycle?), although the temperature range is much less than that of the big periodicity associated with variability in the Earth’s orbit and axis.
If history is any guide, we should start to observe another little ice age within a decade or so and start towards another big ice age within about 1K or 2K years. There is even tantalizing evidence that we are already seeing the start of another little ice age with the flat and potentially falling average temperatures we’ve observed since the late 1990’s.
The current interglacial is one of the longest and coolest in the last 500K years which seems to be a consequence of orbital cooling influences spreading out, rather then being all concentrated at once as they were during the last few interglacials whose peak average temperature was as much as several degreed C warmer than today. Note that the ice stayed put, even with a climate as much as 3C warmer, otherwise we wouldn’t have the ice core data to analyze. This is evidence that ice is here to stay and no amount of warming will cause much more of it to melt.
322
Hi Sir,
as you mentioned: Our interglacial seems to be super sized compared with all known predecessors.
But you seem to know something that i desperately search for: Facts causing the climate elevator nevertheless make a full stop at second floor a few decades ahead. What if the Daansgard-Oeschger Pulse had simply delayed “The Boss'” scheduled call for the basement?
If mankind postpones adequate preparations for the Big Shift until the apparent M i c r o Ice Age (with it’s harsh farming conditions) has fully deployed but temperature keeps falling … then no power on earth will prevent huge piles of s*** getting sucked into the fan. As long as we do not (at all) understand, what prevents Earth so far to reiterate the return to her default state – we should evaluate our risk management.
01
Cooling, warming, whatever, science should be curious and acquiring knowledge about the earth and its climate, but should also admit its limits and concentrate on means of adaptation.
280
It should first concentrate on stamping out Lysenkoism.
171
The “Hiatus” is surely confirmatory evidence that CO2 does not cause warming. The longer it goes on the stronger the evidence becomes.
What is the Gleisenberg cycle?
264
Wolfgang Gleissberg who observed 17 solar cycles from the year 290 AD
140
thanks Yonnie
60
‘The “Hiatus” is surely confirmatory evidence that CO2 does not cause warming. The longer it goes on the stronger the evidence becomes.’
I agree, all the AGW models have failed and this should indicate CO2 does not cause warming, but if the plateau in temperatures goes on for another decade I’ll have to reconsider my position.
124
The Gleissberg Cycle [Yousef 2000] is a hypothesised solar cycle supposedly of about 87-89 years (70–100 years), named after Wolfgang Gleissberg. It is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (8-14 years). It’s inferred from various proxies such as cosmogenic isotopes and meteorological coincidences in the geological records [aka climate change]. There is no known solar activity forming the cycle. Theodor Landscheidt did some analysis of solar system orbital and gravitational modulation of the position of the solar system’s centre of mass within the sun as a possible influence or cause of the Gleissberg Cycle.
The Gleissberg cycle would have predicted a warmth peak about 2039 for which the Double Dynamo Hypothesis (DDH) predicts almost the exact opposite.
A Single Dynamo model crashed and burned spectacularly in the predictive stakes for SC24.
It’s like the evidence for elephants having been in the fridge: finding footprints in the butter is very difficult and stronly subject to noise (butter consumption).
A Chinese group published a temperature reconstruction after a tree-ring study across the Tibetan plateau a few years ago (sometime about 2010, I think, but I’m far from sure) and put their results through a Fourier Analysis which predicted a cooling or cold period for the next 69-70 years. The minimum for this would be about 2040 which coincides with that prophesised by the DDH.
It may be a little early for a Maunder Type minumum. Since the long minimum from SC 23 to the start of SC 24, predictions for SC 24 were pretty varied. The coming Solar Minimum could be similar to the Oort Minimum (1040-1080) which immediately preceded the Medieval Maximum. But then again, maybe not. It could be another Maunder, it could be another Dalton. It oould be one all its own. About the only thing we can be sure of about the sun and its cyclicity is that it has cycles.
The researchers presenting the DDH model seem to have been honest. In the announcement I saw, they did say they had fitted it to only the three previous cycles, even if it did perform well. Remember: it’s a model. We can only sit back, toss another log on the fire and wait and see. Interesting times indeed. I’m going to be keeping an eye on SkS to see how they dismiss it. Maybe we should run a sweepstake on that.
310
sophocles,
W.r.t your Chinese study of tree-ring there is this —
“General characteristics of climate changes during the past 2000 years in China”
QS Ge, JY Zheng, ZX Hao, HL Liu – Science China Earth Sciences, 2013 – Springer
And google scholar gives away more than the abstract by saying
but that is probably not the correct document as it is dated 2013 and is behind a paywall, however there is this, this, and this. And of course, Google has a few more if you wish to look.
10
Thanks tom0mason
I’m pretty sure the paper I’m thinking of was not pay-walled. I have a vague recollection of having picked it up through or from the hockeyschtick. I will run a search there as soon as I can.
10
Mini Ice Age is unpossible …. June was the “hottest June on record”:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/june-hottest-on-record-japan-meteorological-agency-20150714-gicf60.html
Yes, we are already shooting for 2015 as the “hottest” year on record. Expect a week-by-week hottest ever as we ramp up to Paris /headdesk
90
According to the BOM, Tasmania was supposed to be the hot spot in Australia this winter.
Using the logic of Socrates, how does that explain the following:
Generally we begin winter with 12 tonnes of firewood in the shed, and by mid September there is about a tonne remaining.
This winter, it would appear that 12 tonnes will be depleted by the third week in August.
Does that mean the BOM “know” what the weather is going to be like a few months in advance?
100
Rod Stuart @ 1.5.1
An oldie but goodie and maybe pertinent as to how the BOM makes its predictions for the coming winters;
——————–
It was October and the Indians on a remote reservation asked their new Chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.
Since he was a Chief in a modern society he had never been taught the old secrets.
When he looked at the sky he couldn’t tell what the winter was going to be like.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.
But being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, “Is the coming winter going to be cold?”
“It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,” the meteorologist at the weather service responded.
So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.
A week later he called the National Weather Service again. “Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?”
“Yes,” the man at National Weather Service again replied, “it’s going to be a very cold winter.”
The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.
Two weeks later the Chief called the National Weather Service again. “Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?”
“Absolutely,” the man replied. “It’s looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever.”
“How can you be so sure?” the Chief asked.
The weatherman replied, “We’re sure it’s going to be cold because the Indians are collecting firewood like crazy!”
200
A perfect example of a positive feedback loop.
Nice one ROM.
60
”The hiatus proves CO2 does not cause warming”
No, but it is a strong indicator that something is very wrong with the models that use CO2 as a primary driver of climate variation.
What does prove CO2 cannot cause warming is empirical experiment.
Empirical experiment proves that –
The correct figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is near 312K not 255K as climastrologists claim. Given current surface average is 288K, this shows that the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling not warming. A non-radiative atmosphere can’t do that as it would have no way to cool itself. Therefore the net effect of radiative gases including CO2 is cooling not warming.
Further the mechanism by which CO2 is supposed to slow the cooling of the surface by “backradiation” only works over 29% of the planets surface. The oceans cover 71% of the planets surface, and empirical experiment shows that incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.
10
How the heck does anybody predict the future global climate when we don’t yet even understand even partially, the drivers that give our Sun its power
We don’t understand even partially in most cases the make up of the Sun, the source of ALL our planet’s light, heat and ultimately the source of the warmth and light that enables sentient life including Homo sapiens to exist on this planet.
We don’t understand the sources of Suns variability or it’s full radiation properties or it’s magnetic fields and the forces that drive them.
We don’t understand at all the production of solar neutrinos or why they alter “colour” on their journey from the Sun to the Earth nor where they go from here and how long and where to.
Nor do understand the production of other multitude of solar origin nuclear particles.
In the end, we even have little more than a very crude understanding of the actual immense nuclear forces and reactions that originate deep within the Sun’s interior that are the true sources and drivers of our Sun’s immense output of energy.
When we finally come to some understanding of some of those forces then we may be able to very roughly predict the trends in the global climate for a few years ahead.
When we can do that we might be able to a couple of decades after that to predict regional climates for a decade or so ahead.
Until then we but guess a lot about so many things on this planet that relate to the energy drivers of our planetary environment.
Sometimes we even guess right and then stand around congratulating ourselves on our understanding.
Until the next time Nature and the Sun play their little games and give us another severe bout of very red faces.
501
Point taken ROM,
It is an example of human hubris to pretend that we can even pretend to understand the nature of things. History has proven us wrong time and again.
None the less:
If David Evans and the solar scientists develop a model of solar activity and its effect on earth,
And if they test it by comparing with the limited data we have of the past,
And if that analysis gives good results,
Then we might look hesitantly at the model predictions for the future.
221
Hey ROM why understand when you can just, well, adjust.
So Dr David Evans, if you find it difficult to fit new sun-spot numbers to your long running sun spot tracking project well there’s a good reason, they’ve all changed.
Eh? Whats all changed? Look here where it says —
Also look here for links on updated data.
Also of note is Dr Leif Svalgaard (WUWT’s resident solar expert) was heavily involved in the changes, so trying to find all the detailed reasons for the changes should be straightforward, eh?
181
I thought Svensmark’s theory on sunspot activity and the forming of cloud nuclei by cosmic particles was plausible: greater sunspot activity, stronger magnetic fields and less cosmic particles: less sunspot activity and less particles deflected and more cloud.
50
No argument about the nucleating clouds formation from cosmic rays. Though it would be nice to see more published observation on the truth of this theory.
¯
The problem is Leif Svalgaard insistence that he knows what is the ‘Solar Constant’.
See here for a cursory glance at some unsolved problems with defining and measuring all the parameters that make the so called ‘Solar Constant'(it’s actually a variable).
40
tom0mason @ # 2.3.1
Thanks for those very interesting links you have provided.
I have followed in the development of the hypothesized physical understanding of the Solar processes but haven’t ever really caught up with the observations side of the Sun’s output as it effects our atmosphere and physical global environment so your links are very enlightening of the solar processes and effects and the now usual charlatanism that passes for some sort of science in an increasing number of popular scientific disciplines.
On the more philosophical front after looking at the “adjustments”to TSI data, the lack of early reliable data or maybe data that is not so reliable today, it is becoming apparent that whenever a science subject becomes a popular theme then all the charlatans that infest any profession where there is money to burn with no accountability entailed at all in any form promptly move in to take full advantage of both the surfeit of free money and the complete lack of any accountability to anybody anywhere.
In climate science we have seen it with whole forests of trees eliminated for the paper to write endless pseudo scientific scholarly [ sarc ] tomes on the numbers of temperature angels that can be homogenised to dance on the CO2 aka “carbon” heated head of the climate pin.
[ The following is NOT applicable to David and Jo as they are doing science publicly and copping their lumps when they get it wrong and that research as I understand is without recourse to public funding for their solar research project ]
Now we are seeing in the increasingly popular discussion subject, the Solar contribution to the claimed but almost unseen for 18 years, climate warming, the ever pestilent pseudo scientific charlatans arriving en-masse a in solar science and already starting to homogenise, select, model and generally without revealing any methods or controls and relying entirely on their own “expert opinion” [ one of the greatest cop outs ever, “Expert opinion” no responsibility or accountability involved and one which is now becoming a major feature of climate science and its associated science disciplines ] to derive the “correct” algorithms, a judgement based entirely on their own “expert opinion” to process and “:homogenise” the data.
Which such data is then presented to the media and the public as a done deal ie; Trust us and send some lots more money for the trough.
It seems that adjusting data to agree with the participating scientific charlatans personal beliefs is becoming the in thing in the popular scientific disciplines. Which of course means that like the eugenics science of the 1920’s and 30’s the whole of that scientific discipline will invariably fall into deep disrepute when the realities of the real world science finally hit the fan.
But by then the science charlatans will have moved on.
“Homogenisation” as I have posted previously and which has now reared its head again but this time in adjusting the solar TSI is being done specifically to suit the modellers rather than to give a correct interpretation of the real data.
Models both climate, temperature analyzing and now solar analysis are still far, far away in processing power to have the ability to take and analyse and model vast amounts of point data that has immense variations between the points of measurement in both time and place..
So homogenising between data points in time and place smooths out the data into a smoothly changing field over the entire data base thus allowing the modellers to incorporate this now smoothed out homogenised data into their models.
Homogenisation loses all those interesting point sources of data that will often point to some previously unrealised characteristic of the data’s source phenomena.
Homogenised data along with all the adjustments is what is then presented to the public as the real deal even though it has been frequently drastically altered and processed to fit the modellers demands with little regard to presenting an accurate truthful picture of the observed data and the real situation to the public.
Modeling , climate . solar, you name it and it will be there in every discipline is in many ways becoming serious curse to the veracity and accuracy of science in every form and discipline.
Modelling is essential to get an understanding of processes as long as it is not used to actually drive the scientific processes, something which from appearances it is now doing in most science disciplines.
Modelling is so easy. You don’t need to leave the comfortable environs of academia . You don’t need to spend vast amounts of time in the miserable field studies to get your data.
You generate data as you need it on the spot.
Literally in a lot of cases if the increases in the levels of corrupt science is to be believed.
You collect your lavish funding if you can generate some scary headlines from your models which is comparatively easy to do if climate modelling is an example .
You are NEVER EVER held accountable as a “modeller and scientist” for either the fate of your funding or for the results or lack of results or for very bad and extremely wrong predictions from your modeling, predictions on which possibly billions of public moneys have been expended and considerable suffering by millions of humanity may have been instigated as a result of your bad and incompetent modelling.
Climate alarmist modelling being the archetypal example and the most devastating, incompetent, arrogant and near criminal in it’s consequences for so many facets of our society and for the millions deprived of personal advancement because of the fears generated by hubris driven and totally unaccountable, ivory towered academic and removed from the real world climate modellers.
And now we are already seeing the distortion of the most basic solar data already under way so as to satisfy the demands of the solar modellers.
Science is sick and becoming sicker in some popular disciplines and ever less relevant to our needs as human beings and as a society and civilisation.
And to think that once not so long ago I was an avid supporter of all science.
Age and increasing cycnicsm has made me a lot more selective of the science I now believe in.
Climate science and now perhaps solar science as trending today is falling off that list of my trusted science disciplines.
90
ROM,
Thanks for the comment and from yours —
“And now we are already seeing the distortion of the most basic solar data already under way so as to satisfy the demands of the solar modellers.”
Jo has covered many aspects of that in the posting about TSI fictionalized data and the strange adjustments …
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
21
Missed that tOm.
Probably because I got distracted elsewhere and I do tend to run in cycles of interest in a subject plus my current “treadle chook feeder” building and marketing project which keeps me occupied and out of the kitchen for a fair bit of each day.
10
2.3.1.1.1
Cool
Our mens’ shed is considering building treadle chook feeders for a project.
I presume we aren’t in the same neck of the woods.
What are people willing to pay for a treadle chook feeder?
We have a few models that we are considering.
We anticipate that the greenies wouldn’t touch one made of treated pine.
We are thinking “formply” as a construction material.
10
Rod Stuart @ # 2.3.1.1.1
Apologies folks; Off topic but a bit of info being passed on
And No I am not on Facebook yet.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wimmera-Poultry-Club/1566612900266169
Front opening door that moves away from the chooks.
My customers tell me that their Chooks take from about 5 minutes for some flocks to a few days before they get use to my feeders.
Top lid opening treadle feeders [ Grandpa feeders ] can take a couple of weeks or more as the lid opening in the chook’s faces frightens some flocks quite badly.
I haven’t had chooks for forty plus years but everybody was complaining about the sparrows pinching most of the chook feed so sparrow traps were tried with very limited success. Then I hit on the chook feeders as per posted facebook pics.
First sale was late Sept 2014.
Have now sold about 60 at the local markets and out the back door.
Got cleaned out of the 20 kgs ones the other day when a guy and his wife walked in and bought the three I still had on hand
A couple of customers have come back for their third and fourth feeder.
A lot of work and only about 8 bucks an hour for my labour but it gives the pension quite a boost and keeps me out of the kitchen.
About 10 hours work in the 10 kgs ones and about 12 hours work in the 20 kg version and that is building them in batches and on the jigs.
Materials and marketing costs about $40 for 10 kg and about $50 each for the 20 kgs.version.
10 kg sells about double the numbers of the 20 kg version
Cost around five grand to get fully under way with stuff ups, wrong tools purchased, setting up, steel rack and etc and the the metal working toys I bought to do the job including a chinese pan brake after using my own self constructed one for the first 20 or so built.
All done in a large one car former garage.
Was told the other day that a feeder bought before xmas had paid for itself in feed savings as the sparrows didn’t get a look in anymore.
And my customers stop off at the markets when passing by and give any lookers an earful on how good they are.
A little embarrassing but it sure helps sales as I’m a lousy salesman.
30
Thanks very much for that ROM.
We have metal working as well as wood working at our shed.
I’ll take that up with the boys on Saturday and we’ll see if we want to go into production.
I might have to ask you some more questions.
10
ROM, thanks for the comment. Only have one suggestion for your consideration.
Change “… near criminal…” to criminal. Taxpayers pay for the data and it is their property which is being damaged or destroyed.
60
It’s not all that bad, ROM. The changes made to the sunspot numbers since Cycle 1 (beginning around 1750) and the guesswork for the cycles preceding that, were discussed in depth along with the reasons why at Leif Svalgaard’s blog. You can browse the overview of the work.
SSN (Sun spot number) was pretty hit and miss until Schwabe’s discovery of the Solar Cycle as recently as 1843. Certainly sunspots had been known since before 1600 and could be found in writings and literature preceding the 13th Century (China). Galileo’s telescope spurred an initial interest but because of the Maunder Grand Minimum, interest died because there were so very few sunspots to look at.
Schwabe and Wolf in the 19th Century together systematised the SSN but their observations were hampered by, of all things, cloud. Our equipment for counting radioactive isotopes isn’t. Carbon 14 taken up in the rings of trees is a reasonably accurate proxy for Solar Activity, as is Beryllium 10 in ice cores. Both these isotopes can be measured easily and accurately now, so hindcasting the previous Solar Activity from the geological record is not auch guesswork any more.
40
The iron core theory?
10
ROM
“In the end, we even have little more than a very crude understanding of the actual immense nuclear forces and reactions that originate deep within the Sun’s interior that are the true sources and drivers of our Sun’s immense output of energy.”
I agree with this sentiment that there are more unknowns than knowns, however, everyone seems to want to start with the idea of the sun being a nuclear fusion reaction.
I believe everything goes wrong from the very first false assumption.
The sun is electrical. The universe is electrical. From this perspective, this starting assumption everything starts to make sense.
Thunderbolts
Phil
30
Phil @ #2.5
I mightn’t subscribe to the Electric Universe hypothesis but it is nevertheless very interesting that what is believed to be the fundamental particles that make up the universe , the Quarks of which the hypothesized Penta-quark , the five quark particle has just been identified in the LHC [ Large Hadron Collider ]
Quarks when it is all seen and done are nothing more than compact energy wave forms without an identifiable as yet and maybe never will be, point mass which can be firmly identified as a real particle.
So maybe we are an electric universe or an energy only universe.
As yet nobody knows if the Quark is the smallest and therefore the most fundamental particle of matter which nothing in this Universe can be smaller than.
Or whether Quarks themselves are made up of even smaller and therefore even more fundamental particles.
The main constituents of matter are of course atoms which consist of almost entirely empty space between the electron orbits and the protons and neutrons of the atom’s core.
Neutrinos originating in the assumed solar fusion furnace in the Sun’s deep interior can pass straight through the Earth at close to the speed of light without losing any energy or speed.
In fact an international neutrino laboratory is to be set up in the local Stawell now closed Gold mine which is ideal for such a laboratory with it’s deep drives and hard rock formations acting as a shield to cosmic rays, space magnetic fields and other nuclear bits and pieces originating from Space that could distort the neutrino data.
Then we have “Gravity” and “Mass”.
“Mass” is the inertia of a body so that if two bodies of “mass” collide in earth’s gravitational field, the results of a similar collision between those two masses in the much weaker Lunar gravitational field would be identical to that of Earth based collision.
Thats “Mass.”
“Weight” is merely the “mass” in Earth’s gravitational field.
Gravity?
Who the hell knows what gravity is even though the recently found by the LDC “Higgs bosun” is claimed to be the carrier and medium of “gravity” and the particle that gives mass it’s gravitational characteristics.
Gravity alone created our Sun and gravity alone through it’s concentration of mass deep inside of the sun drives through the sheer gravitational created density of matter in the sun’s core creates the nuclear and fusion reaction forces inside of the Sun which then gives our planet it’s life sustaining warmth and light.
Gravity drives the universe, every single bit of it in all its mind numbing immensity.
Gravity is a force, so weak that we can’t yet even measure it’s effects as Einstein’s postulated gravitational waves spreading across the Universe.
Yet We see, feel and experience and are in true reality, entirely creations along with the Universe of that same still undecipherable and still not understood universal gravitational force.
70
Like all products and services you have to read the PDS or the disclaimer, even for the BOM.
not a substitute for independent professional advice and you should obtain specific professional advice relevant to your particular circumstances
20
What has always floored me is that all the ‘accepted’ climate scientists (as far as I’ve been able to determine) have rejected any notion that the sun influences our climate in anything but a minor fashion. When you have a bloody great heater in your vicinity, one over which you have no control, it must factor into the equation.
So all that I can surmise about this rejection is that if it were acknowledged as a potentially significant influence, it waters down all the manmade climate change assertions and subsequently raises even more unknowns related to solar wind, cosmic rays, magnetic and ionospheric influences etc. These are things that you can’t even explain to the average populace, let alone simplify into a single meme of ‘carbon pollution’.
461
bemused.
Correct. The TSI from the sun does not vary very much, so it is not a good candidate for the climate change since the start of the industrial era.
It has been factored into the equation. If changes in the sun are the cause of the current global warming, then evidence for large enough changes in the sun have to be shown – so far not much.
226
Harry Twinotter
How is TSI defined and measured? (Hint: it probably ain’t what you think!)
And no TSI has NOT been factored into the equation adequately, as Nicola Scafetta1 neatly shows in his paper
“Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the
CMIP5 GCMs” the climate models do not adequately account for the effects of the sun. Where as his simple and elegant mathematical model does with ease.
Also from Scafetta’s document is —
184
And this is a classic example of why ROMM has his rant above in #2.3.1.1 :=)
50
tom0mason.
I refer you to the IPCC AR5 report. They do indeed calculate the attribution of the solar TSI
18
Harry Twinotter,
Do you even think before you write.
Attribution of TSI is . . .
wait for it . . .
The SUN!
Yes Harry, all that radiation is attributed to the sun.
The point was that it wasn’t factored into the
modelssimulations.He was right, you don’t know. Not only did you not answer the question, you made a fool of yourself tryng to avoid answering.
Abe
42
”I refer you to the IPCC AR5 report. They do indeed calculate the attribution of the solar TSI”
Harry,
that is the big red flag that says climastrologists are complete idiots. They used TSI when trying to calculate the effects of solar variability on climate.
The fact that they didn’t use solar component frequency variability is a huge clue to the monstrous mistake in the very foundation of the AGW hypothesis. Climastrologists assumed that just because the oceans were opaque to LWIR that they could treat them as a near blackbody for their foundation “surface without radiative atmosphere” calculation. They arrived at a figure of 255K which is around 80K too low in the case of the oceans.
The reason is that the oceans are nowhere near a blackbody with regard shorter wavelengths. The oceans are an extreme short wave selective surface. Two factors contribute. First hemispherical SW absorptivity for water is near 0.9 while LWIR emissivity is lower, around 0.67. This alone means that the “surface without radiative atmosphere” figure should have been at least 276K. But it gets worse, so much worse. Water is SW translucent yet IR opaque so the “five rules” apply –
http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg
For liquid water all watts are not equal. The deeper radiation penetrates the greater heating effect it has. Ie: 1000 w/m2 will cause less ocean heating that 1000 w/m2 of UV. Therefore is is scientific nonsense to use TSI instead of solar frequency component variability to calculate the effects of solar variability on the climate of this ocean planet.
Harry, climastrologists claimed the sun alone could only drive the oceans to 255K without back radiation. That figure should have been 335K. The very idea that these clowns could calculate the effects of solar variability on climate is risible.
32
Konrad.
Is that the best you can do – ad hominem arguments?
I do not know where you are cutting and pasting your info from, but it is a mess. As trolling goes, I give it around a C-.
You should go off and write a rebuttal paper, that will keep you busy for a while.
16
Harry,
That is argument based on empirical experiment. And no, I am not “cutting and pasting” from others. I have run these experiments myself. In the case of water being an extreme SW selective surface, I get the same results as researchers at Texas A&M got back in 1965.
Do you dispute the five rules Harry? Do you dare claim that climastrologists used them in calculating “surface without radiative atmosphere?
42
Konrad.
“climastrologists” indeed – an ad hominem.
You are either suffering badly from Dunning-Kruger, or you are making it up. I think the latter.
You better get started on your rebuttal paper.
06
No Harry I’m not making anything up. I do run these experiments and give build and run instructions to others. It so happens that I am better at radiative physics and fluid dynamics than any AGW believer on the planet. I mean seriously, they used Maxwellian two stream approximation instead of field theory for radiative modelling within an IR translucent atmosphere! They measured apparent emissivity of water near zenith while in the hohlraum of the atmosphere and used that figure for effective hemispherical emissivity?! These people are thick as.
As for your ludicrous Dunning-Kruger accusation, just how do you think that’s going to work on someone who’s work has won engineering awards and been exhibited in a technology museum? I get paid to work out what others like you cannot. This has always been the classic mistake of the warmulonian, you can’t understand the physics so you assume everyone else can’t.
And rebuttal paper? No, there will be none of that. It is not enough to destroy the AGW hoax, the pal review system that allowed it to flourish must be destroyed as well. After all, pal review is part of scientific/academic bureaucracy and has nothing to do with the scientific method. I have on multiple sites published the correct answers and supporting empirical experiments. I have chastised those who sought to included my work in traditionally published papers. The point is, to destroy pal review, the correct answer to the CO2 question must have been in the public domain for years before any “reputable” journal ever publishes it. In this I have succeeded.
I note in your response you made no attempt to actually address the scientific points I made. Of course you being an AGW believer and yet completely illiterate in radiative physics or fluid dynamics in no way strengthens my claims. After all, they are backed by empirical experiment and were already rock solid.
61
Harry, you still haven’t answered my questions. All it seems you did was click on the red thumb. This tells me you either have no answers, in which case why do you think you’re qualified to talk about climate science, or you know the answers and fear them. I will pose the questions again.
1) Are you someone who denies the conflict of interest at the IPCC, are you oblivious to it, or are you among those who acknowledge it and more dangerously consider it a necessary means to an end?
Just in case you are oblivious to it, the nature of the COI is that the IPCC charter requires CAGW to justify its goal of redistributing wealth under the guise of climate reparations, yet they somehow became the arbiter of what defines ‘consensus’ climate science by virtue of what they publish in their reports.
2) Do you believe that any agenda driven bureaucracy interested in self preservation can be fair with evidence that undermines their reason to exist?
52
Harry,
The root cause of the Dunning-Kruger effect is when adherents to a specific subjective ideology, skilled or not, are constantly bombarded with propaganda supporting a false belief. The lack of skills comes from not being able to understand the rhetoric behind the propaganda which leads to enthusiastic appeals to authority which comes across as illusionary superiority. But then again, its very common for one side of an antagonistic relationship to attribute the other side with its own shortcomings.
51
Harry,
In case you are unaware, attributing your flaws on others is called Psychological Projection.
51
I suggest you look up the term ad hominem in the original latin context.
Using portmanteau words, like “climastrologists” in a generic sense, is not an ad hominem.
You throw phrases like ad hominem, and “Dunning-Kruger”, around because you apparently think they make you sound authoritative within your social circle. If the intelligence of your friends is on a par with your own, that tactic would probably work.
But words are only useful because they have specific meanings. If you misuse words, as you do, you dilute the meaning, lower the utility for communication, and end up looking like a rather silly attention seeker.
51
Rereke Whakaaro.
I had pretty much given up responding to you as you are getting trollish. And you keep confirming that. But I will back up what I say.
co2isnotevil is a troll, I have seen their comments on other blogs.
Referring to climate scientists as “climastrologists” is liking them to astrologers who practice pseudoscience not science. It is an insult and it is most definitely an ad hominem. If you genuinely think otherwise, nothing anyone is going to say will change your opinion.
“Dunning-Kruger” or illusionary superiority is a well documented effect. Konrad above claiming he has superior knowledge to climate scientists who are experts in their field is a good example of it, so I am sticking to my use of it. Personally I think he is making it up.
06
Harry,
Calling people names just makes you look petty. You also seem to think that the collective bullying targeting skeptics on sites like SS somehow helps your cause. Do you really think that acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum is a good defense of the ‘science’ behind CAGW? Wat it tells me is that its your only defense left.
41
co2isnotevil.
Oh you trolls are a funny bunch. So you are trying to bring Skeptical Science into it now, I love the attempted diversion tactics! You will probably try to bring Al Gore and Pope Francis into it next.
“temper tantrum” – my my what an imagination you have!
I will give you a D+ for the attempt.
05
Harry, (in reference to #3.1.1.2.8)
Thank you for your exemplary example of projection. Very droll, I am sure, but getting a mite tedious.
You are correct, climastrologist is a portmanteau word, that links the concept of terrestrial climate, with dire predictions about the future.
Making dire predictions about the future, without material, objective, independently verifiable evidence, is the role of astrology. Therefore, the word is perfectly valid in English usage. I did not accuse any individual of being a climastrologist, so it was not used “against the man“, so it was not an ad hominem. I did ask you to look up the latin derivation.
Yes, Dunning-Kruger is defined as possessing an illusionary superiority, and you deciding on what is, and what is not, ad hominem, is an example of that, as is you making pronouncements about other contributors and their degree of experience and knowledge.
As Konrad pointed out, your response to him made no attempt to actually address the scientific points he made. Scientific points, I might add, Which are backed by empirical experiment.
Has it not occurred to you that many of the contributors here, possibly including the identity known as “co2isnotevil”, are actually real working scientists, many of whom with PhD’s? They choose to use assumed names for a variety of reasons, one of which is the fact that many employment contracts contain clauses preventing people expressing opinions in public fora, that can be linked back to their employer.
Using assumed names, gets around that restriction, but it does not lessen the validity of what the person says.
Posturing, and name-calling, does nothing to raise your credibility on this site. Think yourself lucky, that Jo does not arbitrarily delete people with counter opinions, in the way that Skeptical Science, and other alarmist sites do.
61
Harry,
I suggest you look up the definition of an ‘Internet troll’. While I admit that the truth often elicits an emotional response from warmists, my intent is only to inform them of truth and not to provoke an emotional response. You, on the other hand, seem to fit the troll definition quite well. Although, you will find that most skeptics don’t have an emotional response to the truth and most consider the name calling common to warmist arguments a childish reaction to a truth no warmist has the courage to accept.
41
Rereke Whakaaro.
If people are claiming they are authorities, then they are required to prove it. Otherwise it is just an “appeal to authority” argument which is against Jo Nova’s forum guidelines.
Konrad actually made claims only – so the burden of evidence is on him to show what he is talking about in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I suggested he do a rebuttal paper.
co2isnotevil tried to ask me a bunch of irrelevant questions (which I ignored), this is what trolls do. Maybe you should have a closer look at his “science”.
So you are trying to bring Skeptical Science into it too. Irrelevant.
04
Oh really, where is that enshrined in stone? Is that some edict from some mythical uber-organisation?
And besides, where is Konrad claiming to be an authority? He (assuming “he” is male), is stating facts as he understand the facts to be. It is up to us to verify them for ourselves.
Here is a mind experiment for you: If you were THE authority on some subject, who would you quote as being an authority. Argument circulaire, mon ami
The regulars on this site have learnt from past experience that Konrad (whoever he or she is) knows their stuff. He has proven to be correct in what he says. We know this because some of us independently research the facts presented. Not to check on Konrad, per se, but to get a deeper understanding for ourselves.
In case you haven’t got that far in your studies yet, going through that process, is actually part of the real Scientific Method. It is the way real science (as distinct to post-normal science) progresses. The Royal Society’s motto: Nullius in verba (Take nobody’s word for it).
Perhaps co2isnotevil was pointing you in the direction of some ideas that you might have found interesting? If you ignored them, how could you know they were irrelevant?
My comment about Skeptical Science was not material. I was merely pointing out that they delete comments that do not align with their world view, rather than debating them, as real scientists would do — in fact, as we are, as it turns out.
40
Harry,
again you accuse me of making things up. Just how desperate is that, accusing me of lying because you don’t want to acknowledge the results of empirical experiment?
Here’s a simple one I use to show why treating the oceans as a near blackbody was such a fist-biting error –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
and here is the actual build –
http://i57.tinypic.com/esrb86.jpg
How to run the experiment –
both blocks have equal ability to absorb LWIR or SW radiation. Both blocks have equal ability to emit LWIR. Both blocks are opaque to LWIR. Conductive/convective cooling for both blocks is equally restricted to isolate radiative effects. The only difference between the blocks is depth of SW absorption.
First illuminate both blocks equally with 1000 w/m2 of LWIR for around 3 hours. Both will rise to an even 80C.
Next allow the blocks to cool to ambient temperature, Now illuminate equally again but use 1000 w/m2 of SW radiation. Block B will again rise to an even 80C, but now block A runs an average of 20C hotter.
This is very basic radiative physics, but it is utterly missing from the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. The experiment as described demonstrates just rule 1 of the five rules I linked above. Use intermittent illumination on the blocks and you will get a demonstration of rule 2.
Our oceans respond to solar illumination like block A, but climastrologists provably treated them closer to block B via their misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The burning shame of their ludicrous “255K surface without radiative atmosphere claim” cannot be erased, it is in too many textbooks, too many papers and too many websites, and it is completely and utterly wrong. For you the war is is lost.
Harry, if you would like to accuse me of lying about any of my other empirical experiments, I would be more than happy to rub your nose in their build & run instructions as well as construction photos. But I would suggest that further accusations of lying are simply demonstrating the scientific illiteracy ,desperation and amorality of the AGW propagandist.
20
Actually TSI (is a measure of the solar radiative power per unit area normal to the rays, incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere) is a very good indicator of temperature. David Stockwell shows why.
80
And that’s before or after the industrial revolution 🙂
TwinOtter is just another glib but uninformed greenie – the Green Blob franchise
95
ianl8888.
Name calling.
34
Harry,
Observe below:
See how the scientific grown-ups debate a point …
20
cohenite
Actually TSI is NOT a measure of the solar radiative power per unit area normal to the rays.
It is just another calculated figure from many data sources that’s been subjected to myriad adjustments, and homogenized.
And http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/ shows why not.
10
Oh, I thought TSI had been accurately measured by satellites since 1978; prior to that sunspots have been used as a proxy. I would be interested in how you think David Evan’s article about TSI differs from David Stockwell’s paper
20
I quote some sections from this blog directly
NASA has unilaterally declared an “official” reduction in the “solar constant” of 5 W/m2 [after looking at the SOURCE satellite data for nine years] because it “is critical in examining the energy budget”.
Total (TSI) and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) upon Earth Total Solar Irradiance upon Earth (TSI) was earlier measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²), but most recently NASA cites TSI as “1361 W/m² as compared to ~1366 W/m² from earlier observations [Kopp et al., 2005]”, based on regular readings from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) satellite, active since 2003, noting that this “discovery is critical in examining the energy budget of the planet Earth and isolating the climate change due to human activities.”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
SORCE/TIM [with a little help from Kopp & Lean] has determined the previously calculated TSI values are “erroneously high” because of “internal instrument scatter”.
[Note I have posted elsewhere on this blog that the scientists tasked with maintaining the satellite data do NOT agree with these adjustments.]
The 4.5 W/m^2 by which the TIM reads lower than prior instruments has been resolved as being largely due to internal instrument scatter in those prior instruments causing erroneously high readings (see Kopp & Lean, GRL, 38, L01706, 2011).
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#historical
Uncorrected scattering and diffraction are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non-TIM instruments.
After declaring the old “official” history of TSI calculations to be “erroneously high readings” the next step is to declare the old “official” TSI composites invalid because they “lack coherent temporal structure”.
In addition to the offsets, published irradiance observations composing the 32-year TSI database lack coherent temporal structure because of inconsistent trends that indicate the presence of uncorrected instrumental drift and are not explained by known sources of solar irradiance variability.
A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance
Greg Kopp and Judith L. Lean
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml
The TSI didn’t fit with modeled outcomes (of the planets energy balance) so they were adjusted before being homogenized and giving the calculated figure.
Note TSI is not a measurement.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
30
That’s interesting. Even with a constant TSI AGW is disprovable; but since TSI is arguably just another assumed quantity which can be altered/adjusted to fit energy budgets AGW is even more of a chimera.
91
Tangled in definitions there. Two is an estimate
02
TSI NOT two. Confounded PT
01
Estimate? Not in the satellite era surely.
20
… but it varies. Scientists work with an average TSI, which immediately implies a maximum and a minimum at any time or over any time.
The part which screws the klimate scientists is the atmosphere’s transformation of energy, first discovered by Sir David Brewster (1836). (see also Brewster’s Angle)
Even the SORCE satellite, which is supposed to provide TSI measurements of definitive accuracy, fell into this little trap. The trap is that when the atmosphere transforms varies wavelengths by absorption of one or more bands and then re-emission of that energy in different bands, the output is not necessarily a direct function of the input but becomes a function of elevation above the horizon (as discovered by Brewster) with losses through reflected polarised radiation increasing as Brewster’s Angle is approached.
The SORCE satellite is not extra-atmospheric, it’s at 645km, about 90,000 kilometers below the ToA (Top of Atmosphere) so it sees some of the TSI it is measuring after atmospheric transformation.
as Tim Cullen wrote in in this essay, in which he explains the problems.
In the meantime, the klimate kiddies are happy in their sandpit. They have declared TSI to be constant and the Sun is not a contributor to Global Warming, so their models ignore it.
20
If Shepard and Scafetta are correct about the upcoming dearth of solar activity by the 2030s, by 2040 it will have cooled significantly, by maybe 0.5C to 1.0C, undoing the global warming since 1800 or even 1700. That cooling could start as early as 2017. This cooling would be counteracted by a mild warming due to rising carbon dioxide, but the net effect would be cooling.
Dr Karl on the morning show Channel 9 today said that the cooling effect on global warming would be “very small maybe about .3C. “How dishonest is that when you say .5 to 1c would undo all the global warming since 1800 or even 1700. ???
142
You might also be interested in the link to Nicola Scafetta document I posted below at #14.1.1, we should have some cooling followed by a little warming see Figures 12, 13, 15, 16 of the linked document.
Do not miss the surprise inclusion towards the end of document relating to statements by Willson and Hoyt regarding the modifications to the ACRIM and Nimbus 7 published records as implemented by Fröhlich.
20
Here we see his wave pattern, which allows him to wander back in time and it seems to fit, but shows little respect for the fact that the MWP and RWP were warmer than now.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/scafetta_fig7.png
20
‘…say .5 to 1c would undo all the global warming since 1800 or even 1700. ???’
We should see visible signs within five years and Dr Karl will look very silly.
30
If the ” average” temperature of the earth is 14C, which is 284K, take off 3K for background cosmic radiation so 281K is “normal” Sun effect then a 0.15% variation in TSI gives a temperature variation of 4.2 K/C, more than enough to explain a 0.8C rise in global temperature last century. OK, that’s all ball-park. Where am I wrong?
272
I forgot. Take off 33K for greenhouse gas effect, you’re still looking at a 3.8C variance, which is still more than adequate to explain temperature variation.
230
Right, Kevin It’s so wondrously disastrous isn’t it?
Plot that on a graph from zero to 500 degrees with a 1 degree per division vertical scale then the Natural Variation is put exactly into perspective. And doesn’t it look so very terribly dangerous?
Mind you, at about the same scale, elephants are popularly thought to be afraid of mice. So why wouldn’t Klimate Scientists be afraid of some Natural Variation?
181
Kevin, you may wish to read this December 2009 document, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change.” by Nicola Scafetta (PDF size 1Mb), complete with some more down to earth figures.
20
Thanks tomo. Colour me simple.
30
Exactly right Kevin,
I am not sure about the 33K addition for the Greenhouse gas effect. I think that will be abandoned eventually.
However the variation in the TSI (0.15%) looks like it can explain all the temperature variation in the temperature record, even without cloud cover and other effects.
173
Date, TSI at Earth distance (1AU).
20031029, 1357.0186
20150206, 1362.2561
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Looks a bit more like 0.39% within a very recent short period and like it is going the wrong way over time for cooling,… during the pause!!! Paint me with question marks.
10
Siliggy,
Be aware that TSI at Earth distance (1AU) is a fiction. Some of the data comes from near earth satellites and therefore are not always at 1Au.
TSI is effectively a bunch of adjusted and homogenized data products from all over the place, and calculated (not measured) to give it’s final value.
See https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/does-anybody-really-know-what-tsi-it-is/ for a quick glance over the process.
00
The Earth has an elliptical orbit around the Sun.
Aphelion: 152,098,232 km
Perihelion: 147,098,290 km
Range: 4,999,942 km
Obviously a TSI satellite must orbit the Sun at a distance of 1 AU.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, no TSI satellite has ever been placed in a 1 AU orbit around the Sun.
31
Also see http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
for more info.
20
Thanks tomomason. You made me look again at the data and understand it better.
That SORCE instrument is in earth orbit.
See here.
I quoted the 1AU data but the link also gives “Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance” in another column.
The lowest and highest readings.
Date, TSI at true earth distance.
20050703,1315.8969 *lowest orbital min.
20150108,1408.4989 *highest orbital max.
So still going the wrong way.
10
From what I am able to understand, that 33 degrees mythical “greenhouse effect” is a furphy whose creation lies in Trenberth’s simplistic and false “energy balance”.
Did the lunar orbiter “Deviner” not put sharp shrift to this notion that an atmosphere affects the transmission of radiant energy to and fro?
That is, an atmosphere without the truly magical substance that we so readily take for granted: water. Or should I say a substance with truly magical PROPERTIES such as the heat of vapourisation and the heat of solidification).
30
Its not 33K, but closer to 17K. The reason is that clouds and surface ice reflect power away and do so as the response to incident solar energy. If not for this reflection, which is also a consequence of GHG’s (specifically water vapor), the albedo would be much less and the surface temperature would be closer to 272K, not 255K. Claiming a 33K rise obfuscates the 16K decrease that comes along with it, but this is actually a consequence of the IPCC’s definition of forcing, which specifically excludes solar power reflected by surface ice and clouds.
11
For the sake of accuracy not sure how you guys figure 0.15% from 281K to be 4.2C, when by my calculations it comes out at 0.42C.
50
I thought it probably wasn’t that simple. Thanks for highlighting a schoolboy error.
40
Gavanhe. Please see 5.2.1 above.
0.42 / 0.15 * 0.39 = 1.09 during the pause. Delay that 11 years and what do you have?
Before panic sets in consider 22.1 below.
00
I checked that’s as well, sing the S-B equation and also got about 0.5C.
I should have checked before sending. 🙁
20
Sun-Climate today:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/weekend-unthreaded-83/#comment-1726399
40
“The Earth scientists tell us that the giant beneath our feet is stirring.
Now we see a force awakening to its own power.
(Y)et in the Anthropocene we must confront the possibility of a “will” beyond our own, that which we can only gesture at with metaphors like “the awakened beast”.
Clive Hamilton, theconversation.
. . .
Colour me sceptic, but compared to Clive Hamilton’s fractured fairytales of “giants” and “awakened beasts”, evidence that cycles of the sun are more probable influences on our planet’s climate/weather just seems a more scientifically plausable line of thinking.
190
Can you just imagine the the convolutions that occur inside the skull of a Clive Hamilton or a Tim Flannery? It must be HELL in there.
80
I wonder if similar dynamos are in operation in the oceans given our hot core and surface heat which then adds to the whole cycle of major temperature changes.
111
Solar magnetic strength records kept by the Wilcox solar observatory at Stanford Uni go back to 1975 and show that the sun’s overall magnetic strength is declining significantly. To the same point in each solar cycle (i.e. to end June of this cycle) the reduction was 83% for solar cycle 22 over cycle 21, which ended in 1986, 82% for cycle 23 over 22 and 74% for current cycle 24 over cycle 23. That is cycle 24’s mean magnetic strength is down 50% to the same month (77th month) of cycle 21. That seems pretty extraordinary and given cycle 25 is predicted to be weaker than cycle 24 it is not surprising that by 2030, which will be near the end of cycle 25 the sun’s magnetic strength will probably be at levels likely to be similar to 1645. (Please note you have to eliminate the sign of the magnetic field when determining its average strength.)
I can understand why Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov, the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory[2][3] of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has been concerned about this for some time. He predicts a new little ice age beginning around now and reaching the deepest cooling around 2060. Perhaps this dual dynamo is one of the causes but like everything in Nature there won’t be a simple cause for the sun’s behavior. It will be a complex interaction of many influences including some influence from the transfers of angular momentum that occurred when there was a relatively close line-up of the gas giants and the sun earlier this century.
220
Kevin,
You seem to have the decimal point in the wrong place. In your method you should multiply by 0.0015 (because 1% of 100 = 0.01 of 1).
Also note the effect is not linear. The first 10% of the heat received from the sun has far more effect on the temperature in deg C than does the last 10%.
40
The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) report you reference ‘Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo’ is remarkably enlightened and honest about what is known and unknown (known unknowns that is).
Then there’s this from Lund University (August 18, 2014), ‘Sun’s activity influences natural climate change, ice age study shows’. With such quotable gems as —
Also hubris-free is this remarkably report from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center back in July 19, 2013. This is when the sun had a large dark area covering the upper hemisphere of our star…
But no one has yet (IMO) adequately explained how and why this happens —
<
[my bold]
So when brought before the UN-IPCC-Papal Inquisition committee for “vehemently suspect of heresy” on AGW being caused by CO2, quotes from Galileo Galilei and his immoral words “Eppur si muove” shall ensue.
132
Then there’s this from science.nasa.gov on March 22, 2012: —
[my emphasis]
110
So the two most vilified ‘pollutants’ Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide saved us? We need a Nitrogen tax.
181
26 billion kWh?!
Now that sounds like a green energy I think we should invest in tapping. Pull all of the ground solar and wind project subsidies and redirect them to lift off a few power plants, post haste!
50
If the thermosphere’s optical density is sufficient that it is affected by incoming solar radiation, why is it assumed that the thermosphere has no effect on outgoing terrestrial radiation?
30
You mean to suggest that the earth, which exists inside the sun’s atmosphere and can be best described as a deformable rotating body in space with a fluid envelope, might experience measurable geophysical changes in response to variations in the sun’s activity? Sarc/
How anyone believes that man-made emissions of CO2 are the primary determinant of global average surface temperatues on this planet is something that I’ve struggled to understand for many years now.
431
Ditto
140
Whenever warmists tell me that the sun has nothing to do with the temperature variations on Earth, I ask them one simple question, what happens if you turn off the sun. That tends to make them think.
142
And Wayne, record temperatures are because of the chemical composition of the atmosphere, as are heatstrokes.
No sun involved, just the mysterious and deadly effects of CO2 IR radiation.
61
Tom that must be why we have had ice ages beginning with 6000ppm of CO2
20
The double ‘cyclone’ could explain the double peak of recent solar maxs.
60
The Scafetta link is a good read, his model can hindcast to the start of the Holocene, but of more immediate interest.
‘Finally, the harmonic model herein proposed reconstructs the prolonged solar minima that occurred during 1900–1920 and 1960–1980 and the secular solar maxima around 1870–1890, 1940–1950 and 1995–2005 and a secular upward trending during the 20th century.’
90
Useful Nicola Scafetta links
1Mb PDF Scafetta document.
and
Scafetta Presentation about the document.
20
Another interesting paper from Nicola Scafetta (5.4Mb PDF) is available here, it investigates the different outcomes between Solar and planetary oscillation model, and UN-IPCC CMIP5 GCMs climate models. This is the pre-publication version so there may be errors or omissions.
30
Full paper is available here;
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_PREDICTION_OF_SOLAR_ACTIVITY_FROM_SOLAR_BACKGROUND_MAGNETIC_FIELD_VARIATIONS_IN_CYCLES_21-23
60
Your link is to —
As good as this paper is, it is NOT the Nicola Scafetta document referred to above by el gordo or Jo.
20
Didn’t say it was. It is a link to the full Shepard, Zharkov & Zharkova paper that the RAS presentation was based on and which Jo’s OP is about.
30
BruceC,
Sorry my error — I saw your comments as a reply to el gordo and not as a new comment.
My error sorry.
30
Guess I fall into the category of “others”.
And yes I have just drunk a couple of reds.
60
” making for slightly more floods and fewer droughts in eastern Australia.” Maybe, but we will wait until we see what happens with regard to the +Indian Ocean Dipole.”
70
This quote from above:
It’s very important & I don’t understand how this operates.
If true, the farmers in Eastern Australia will be very pleased
Have BOM or CSIRO released any info on this?
Have they even discussed this possibility
Future weather predictions are a huge influence in planting & stocking levels
120
The BOM and CSIRO have become politicized, and are now generally staffed by people who are pretty much required to conform to the AGW agenda, so they don’t subscribe to anything that is in the above article, or for that matter pretty much any science that doesn’t fit a pre-determined AGW agenda. It will take a while for this problem to be addressed, as things always move pretty slow within government bureaucracies.
191
Have BOM or CSIRO released any info on this?” even discussed this possibility”
Would you take it seriously if they have.
161
“Note also that the delay of one sunspot cycle (averaging 11 years) mentioned above, between the change in solar activity and Earthly temperatures…”
Earthly temperatures are also affected by decadal-long ocean cycles, the most prominent being the PDO, which averages around 60 years, with a cool and warm phase of around 30 years each. This is superimposed on the 11 year solar lag, and needs to be accounted for in the above.
The curious thing about the PDO is that is wasn’t discovered until the mid 1990s, AFTER the models of the IPCC were originally formulated, and they have never revised them taking into account this PDO (which was responsible for some of the warming between the 1970s and 1990s, and now neatly explains the hiatus).
Currently we are in a cool phase of the PDO, which should continue until around 2035, further enhancing the cooling from less active solar cycles.
(As for what causes the PDO, I’m not sure anyone really knows, but one theory is that the 30/60 year phase is about how long it takes for one long circuit of deep ocean current to both make it between the poles and equator, and/or also for the waters to partly mix between shallow warm/ and deep/cool over large areas. Under this model, the PDO phases might also be stronger/weaker by how strong or weak the sun is/cloud formation is during the previous 30 years-meaning the strong mid 20th century sun/low cloud cover was the direct cause for the strong warm PDO from the 1970s-1990s).
80
All of these cycles would appear to be multiples of 11 or 22 years. Does this ring a bell. If it doesn’t it’s time to for you get back to basics.
110
The solar cycle interruption is obviously underway. The solar cycle is not slowing down, it has been interrupted. We will start to experience spotless days by the end of this year. The sun will be spotless for long periods with the occasional sunspot by next year. There will be no solar cycle 25.
We are going to experience what causes a Heinrich event. This is a big deal. Biblical climate change. It is a fact that there is cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record. It appears the solar cycle has been interrupted which is different than a slowdown in the cycle. There is a physical explanation for everything that has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Abrupt cycle climate change is ignored as there is no cause for what has happened. Not knowing why something has happened in the past, assuming incorrectly that the warming in the last 30 years was due to the rise in atmospheric CO2, and the unending pushing of CAGW which is completely incorrect, blocks even imagining/discussing the implications of a Heinrich event occurring.
It is a fact that there is in the paleo record medium, and super large climate change events that all occur at a periodicity of 1470 years. Imagine a string in time of cyclic climate change events, warming cycles and then in all cases followed by cooling cycles (sometimes abrupt cooling), with very strong cycles at 1470 years and super strong cycles at around 8000 years to 10,000 years. The super strong cycles are capable of initiating and terminating interglacial periods depending on orbital position at the time of the solar cycle restart.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
“Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system (William: Solar magnetic cycle changes cause warming and cooling); oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.”
162
William Astley, the link you included doesn’t work properly. It takes me to the AGU “welcome” page.
30
Would this be the correct paper?
30
Rather than reinvent the Great Wheel of History and its links to Solar cycles of long duration, E.M. Smith on his Chiefio blog regularly delves way back into the earliest writings that mankind has and analyses the historical connections and happening such as famine, disease, good times and extended life cycles and etc with the variations in our long term global climate and that climate’s connection with the very long term Solar cycles.
One such posting and its comments amongst a number by The Chiefio is well worth taking the time to read as it just might give some indication on what the future will invariably hold for our race sometime in the still unknown future as the sun continues its progression through its regular millennium length cycles of varying lengths and intensities.
Egyptian Dark Ages
&
Great Famine of 1315 vs The Sun
For further Chiefio commentary on past history and the links with those centuries long solar cycles just click on his “History” link on the RH side column.
90
ROM the cheifio is a wonderful font of info.
70
So is this a curve fitting exercise or is there some way of observing these two dynamos?
61
I’d guess we’re flying blind here. I don’t think there’s many types of radiation that can pass through the sun to be able to probe it like an x-ray or an MRI scan. Maybe neutrinos or some such, but aside from that it is totally opaque to us.
The sun is the brightest black box. 🙂
20
William Astley,
If you haven’t seen this where Tim Cullen investigates ‘Solar System – Holocene Lawler Events’ on Tallbloke Talkshop site.
He also discusses Bond events, but what I’m most intrigued about is as Voyager 1 spacecraft headed out of our solar system, its data may have revealed a ‘heliosphere orbital period of 1,350 years’.
As Tim says “heliosphere takes 1,350 years to complete one full rotation we can now begin to search for supporting evidence that might indicate the existence of 1,350 year cyclical events and [possibly] a half-period event at 675 years [because I like to keep my polarised electromagnetic options open].”
He puts together much supporting documentation, from various sources — 1901 Astronomical records, research paper identifying Earth’s geomagnetic axial tilt variation, Indian summer monsoon rain variation, etc., all showing a 1,350 year cycle is observed here on earth.
50
tomomason
I wonder if the heliosphere is not a sphere and if it reflects things back at the sun. Sort of like a resonant cavity but tuned by that 1350 year rotation of a nonspherical shape. Like a rock thrown into the middle of a pool sends waves to the edge that are then reflected back to the middle.
This NASA video may show how the waves form from the sun but in 2D. It would be more of a 3D thing. https://youtu.be/zZh7RSAhH_Q
Could what comes back have an effect on us? Svensmark type clouds? It it one of the “Dynamo”s?
20
Siliggy,
Interesting idea, unfortunately I can’t ‘see’ video on this 16 year old PC (not that I wish to see video). But your idea is very interesting, I’ll be pondering on it for a while.
As with most things in nature, they are not what you first expect, I was expecting there to be a simple mathematical model for the spacing and periodicities of the planets within our solar system. Alas there is not. However your idea of a (harmonically?) resonant cavity may work better, and chime (sorry) better with the structure of the heliosphere.
10
Bode’s Law comes pretty close, Tom. And I suspect there’s an underlying optimization there. Minimal conjunctions or somesuch.
20
The planets and their own large magnetic fields would interfere with both the outgoing and reflected waves.
10
Is it possible that scientists will ride a wave of interest in things like Solar activity, cloud cover, even meteorology and study of the troposphere simply because they have been in the news for decades now? We may even get to the point where a science article talks about the weather without mentioning Climate Change and CO2? The big question is how all the alarmists are going to switch to Global Cooling without losing face, or a heartbeat. Carbon will still be the problem though. Combined with solar cooling/cycles which have overwhelmed the heating. Somehow you feel it will mean more windmills.
202
Your probably right. Carbon as a pollutant is the only way to possibly charge indulgences for supposed sins against nature by mankind, which is the underlying premise. Anything else is more or less useless to this new religion.
150
Exactly DIS. The ‘de-car-bon-ize’ meme now shifts to adopt the word ‘pollution’ with a required political engagement to apply the theoretical double benefit – reduce pollution by taxation. After all, the money for eco-marxist global governance has to come from somewhere. There is no further requirement to talk about CAGW or to make reference to the single most duplicitous ‘science’ policy in human history that surpasses even the multi-decadal and hideous scientific and institutionalised travesty of eugenics.
Nevertheless, I very much doubt Maurice Strong, Christiana Figueres et al. and the Paris Snail Fest will miss a heartbeat en route to centralisation and eco-despotic global governance. The climate always was the side show to get the ball rolling.
101
As any pilot is aware, aircraft are far more responsive in frigid air.
We won’t have long to wait until some damned fool starts intoning that the potential of a little ice age is justification for more windmills because they will being to work in the cold air.
20
I believe! The start of cycle 21, at the bottom, about 1976 corresponds nicely with my first skiing trip across the ditch to Coronet Peak in NZ. Snow from the top down to the valley, through Queenstown, and up to the opposite range of The Remarkables! The Remarkables ski resort was only talked about then, now it’s real. The Cycle 21 peak of 1980 corresponds to the water skiing event at Coronet Peak, a very poor ski season. The next few years varied from OK to very good around 1987, another good season, not quite like 1976 though. I didn’t go back to NZ until 2010, almost peaking at the top of cycle 24, not a good season for skiing. Then in 2013 went to Niseko in Japan, unbeleivable! But then Niseko is rated as one of the top ten places for feet of snow in a year. Planning to go back to Niseko next year, which is at the start or bottom of cycle 25. I’m very optimistic on this one. Can’t wait now.
40
You might enjoy Powder King Paul.
Long on the powder, comes up a bit short on the “apres ski”.
00
Thanks Rod, looks sensational. We do like skiing Canada. The wife and I eloped in Lake Louise over Christmas in 1996. It’s one of the most beautiful places in the World.
00
We here in the South Island of NZ are starting to wonder if this hasn’t already begun. The place is freezing and in some places they’ve had double digit negatives during daylight. The roads are a nightmare on frosty mornings with the black ice. In many shady places the frost never melts, not good when farmers grow large hedges on the northern flank of roads. We need affordable electricity now or bylaws be damned, the log burners will roar!.
130
Tonight I talked to my sister in Adelaide, the big problem all over the news is that the Koorong has been invaded by NZ seals eating all the fish. Q.1 is it too cold in NZ for seals. Q.2 is this a NZ plot because we gave you possums..
In NZ you can harvest the possums, for meat and skins, in OZ we are not allowed to touch these invaders. It does not seem fair.
130
Local deep south councils (Southland) trying to ban coal burning in the South Island cite particulate emissions responsible for n deaths per year. Derived epidemiological data is far from an ideal causal proving tool, but as an eco-political tool it does rather well, enabling the precautionary principle to be spouted ad nauseam. Deaths arising from ineffective heat pumps, crippled by excessive cold temperatures, and arising from unsustainable power prices should quickly overturn Council policies. Someone simply needs to consider legal proceedings against local councillors, holding them personally responsible for failing in their duty of care and enabling preventable deaths.
100
But heat pumps are magical! They collect heat at minus 4℃ and release 4 times as much into a room at 20℃. If you believe that, you are probably already a members of the Greens.
The 4 times efficiency factor results from a trial at moving heat from a hot room to a cold room.
So, if your room is 23℃ and outside is 0℃ you can cool your room down very economically. Similarly if your room is 23℃ and outside is 45℃ it will use very little electricity heating your room up.
If you are one of those who want to warm a cold room in winter, or cool a hot room in summer, then your electricity bill will be a lot higher, but don’t expect the Greens to pay it.
10
Ceetee – i hear you.
13 July: Stuff NZ: Rosanna Price: It’s a record-breaking winter so far
Complaints about the cold weather this month are justified, as some parts of the country have reported their lowest temperatures.
More than 30 weather stations around New Zealand have also had daily maximum temperature recordings that are either the lowest ever recorded, or at least in the top four coldest for July…
Niwa forecaster Chris Brandolino said the fact the cold had affected the whole country from north to south was “pretty impressive”.
Data showed the southernmost point on Stewart Island reached just 5.2°C on July 6, the third lowest for July for this location since records began in 1991.
At the opposite end of the country at Cape Reinga the temperature was a comparably mild 10.8°C on Friday, but it was the lowest daily maximum July temperature there since 1971.
?”We are in an El Nino,” said Brandolino. “It elevates the chance of more southerlies.”…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70200528/its-a-recordbreaking-winter-so-far
13 July: Guardian: AAP: Queensland gets first snow in two years as eastern Australia braces for new front
Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Scott Williams said temperatures across Victoria were generally only 1C to 3C below average.
“While we’re a little bit below the average, we’re having a fairly long run of days that are a little bit below average,” he said…
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/13/queensland-gets-first-snow-in-two-years-as-nsw-waits-for-new-cold-front-to-hit
and Steven Goddard has a thread “Northeast US Having Their Third Coldest Year On Record”.
nevermind, by the time the Paris Summit comes around, it will no doubt be a certainty 2015 has been the HOTTEST year in history!
81
It’s a good step forward, but the solar cycle is actually dominated by two cyclical processes at about 20 and 23.6 years. The transmitted flux is then described by the rectification of these processes, producing harmonics at about 10, 10.8, 11.8 and 131 years.
50
A very large fraction of the stars we observe are variable whose output can vary over a wide range of periods and output variability The idea that the same physics responsible for variable stars applies to our Sun is both reasonable and appealing.
60
Arguments from ignorance are never very satisfying.
The Royal Astronomy Society news article mentions the Maunder Minimum and mentions a “Mini Ice Age” but does not make any connection between the two other than timing. If the “mini ice age” is referring to the LIA, then that is puzzling as the LIA started well before 1645. So the “mini ice age” is… I do not know from that article.
Also Prof Valentina Zharkova was not quoted talking about a “mini ice age” or even the LIA.
To say cooling in the last 1,000 years or so was caused by the sun, not by the sun’s TSI but by the sun’s XXX, then it is an admission that one does not really know. Any correlation with sunspots may have just been a coincidence.
Any fan of global climate changes caused by changes in the sun’s activity should see if there are answers to these questions:
1. Does the Maunder Minimum actually coincide with the period of global climate change?
2. Was the global climate change actually global, or was it restricted to one hemisphere or even to one region?
3. If feedbacks are required to amplify any small changes in the sun’s TSI into significant global climate change, what were they?
4. If a small change in the sun did cause the global climate change, what does that say about climate sensitivity to external forcing?
322
Yes, I certainly agree that arguments from ignorance are never very satisfying.
1) Maunder minimums do correspond with a cooler climate and the opposite correspond to warmer climates
2) The climate of the two hemispheres are only loosely coupled and respond independently to solar variability which owing to the precession of perihelion and asymmetry of the hemispheres can differ widely between them.
3) Your presumption of massive positive feedback is the foundation of so much flawed warmist logic that it boggles the mind. It’s justified by a flawed application of control theory which assumes an active amplifier with an external power supply that measures input to determine how much output to deliver from an infinite supply, while the actual climate system consumes input power to produce output power and this COE limitation has never been acknowledged by consensus climate science. It’s far more likely that TSI varies more than you think, but we just don’t have enough accurate TSI history to know. All we have are speculative interpretations of sparse data that infer what this might be, which also describes all of the available support for a high climate sensitivity.
4) The sensitivity to forcing is clearly low since the long term average is 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of input power and the T^4 dependency of emissions on temperature requires that the sensitivity decreases with increasing temperature (it takes more power to sustain the next degree of warmth than it did to sustain any previous degree of warmth), unless you want to deny that the Stefan Boltzmann LAW applies to the surface (emphasis on LAW). You are confused because the IPCC metrics of forcing and sensitivity obfuscate the restrictions of the SB LAW.
194
co2isnotevil.
Except that the LIA is said to have started before the Maunder Minimum, slight technical problem with the LIA/sun hypothesis.
15
And it starting to cool now, at least according to non sparse, non homogenized data, yet we haven’t hit the minimum yet. You see, a Maunder minimum doesn’t happen all at once, but arises from a gradual transition. Why does it start to warm in the summer before we have peak sun, or conversely, why does it cool in the winter before we hit minimum sun?
53
What frequency band are you alluding to Harry?
The sun puts out a lot of frequencies other than infra red and the visible spectrum, all or any of which could have a potential impact on climate.
Also the Earth is within the solar magnetosphere, which could also have an impact, depending upon extrinsic influences.
So when you say, that the LIA is said to have started, what are you implying by that? Did it, or didn’t it? Are you inferring a cause and effect relationship? If so, on what grounds?
42
Rereke Whakaaro.
Citations please.
12
Reference Data for Radio Engineers, Edition 28, 2014.
21
You will need to use the table of contents to find the actual references. But be careful, people have been known to hurt themselves by dropping it on their foot.
31
When did the LIA begin?
It is not difficult to imagine a future discussion, perhaps in 2115 as follows:
Caleb: “So just when did the great 21st century ice event begin?
Jacob: “It is difficult to say. The early humans at the end of the 20th century appeared to be thoroughly confused by blatant propaganda.”
Caleb: “I know they were simple folk capable of believing the guff from any damned fool, but surely they could tell hot from cold?”
Jacob: “Well they should have known from their primitive RSS measurements that it was beginning to cool in 1997. A scandalous and mendicant group called the “warmists” convinced the puerile masses that it was getting warmer, even as more and more and more ice formed on the planet.”
Claleb: “But surely that farce could not have continued indefinitely!”
Jacob: “By 2003 there were many they mistakenly called the ‘deniers’ that maintained that temperatures were in fact not only in stasis, but in decline, but the heavily financed warmist lobby, fed by funds stolen from an oppressed group they called ‘the taxpayers’ pumped out so much propaganda that the gullible fools believed them.
Caleb: “That is incredible! There must have been a few with some brains that realised by, say, 2015 that a period of global cooling had begun?”
Jacob: “There were indeed a few very intelligent people in those days. A Dr. David Evans correctly identified the ‘notch delay theory’ for instance. An author called David Archibald wrote a book called “The Twilight of Abundance” that was like history told in advance, but the masses were caught up in a pseudo religion called ‘AGW’. There was even a very lovely lady they called Joanne Nova who devoted her very lifetime to spreading the Truth.”
Caleb: “The masses must have been as foolish and gullible as the pagan worshipers of the Roman Warm Period. Do warmer temperatures cause homo sapiens to become stupid and crazy?”
Jacob: “It would appear to be the case. There was even one individual in 2020 that insisted it was getting warmer, even though he was up to his neck in snow and ice. His name was a bit strange, so I find it difficult to remember. It sounded something like “Hairy Flyswatter”.
32
Harry Twinotter
“Arguments from ignorance are never very satisfying.”
I agree they certainly are not!
That is why the assumption of CO2 causing global warming, as evoked by the UN, is such a can of activist worms all eating the grant money as they fool the public.
It’s a disgusting distortion of true science built on naught, no observable evidence what so ever.
At least Prof Valentina Zharkova, Nicola Scafetta, Dr David Evans, and others do not run to the mass media, trying to scare people with propaganda and overstressed statistical methods to get everyone in the Western World to change their very economically successful ways.
As far as I am aware these academics do not advocate the public to be excessively taxed because of a transitory hot or cold period, neither do any of them hysterically forecast any global calamity just to further their political cause.
So yes I very much agree, arguments from ignorance are never very satisfying, and neither is so call ‘climate science’ arguments from political advocates.
185
tomomason.
Assuming Professor Valentina Zharkova did say a Maunder Minimum would cause a Mini Ice Age (which she didn’t), don’t you think a prediction of a Mini Ice Age is fear-mongering? Sounds scary to me.
17
Harry Twinotter,
I do not argue for or against Professor Zharkova. I do argue against the travesty of CO2 causing global warming being called science.
Your assumptions about what Professor Zharkova wrote are no concern of mine. It shows that you are arguing from the position of ignorance and as such if you can not be bother to read her paper, I certainly will not concern myself with answering your lazy speculation.
But I will say that if you have major concerns over errors in Professor Valentina Zharkova ideas go ahead and email her with your views, I sure she would be just so interested to hear from such an enlightened person as you. 🙂
82
tomomason.
Bit hard reading a paper that does not exist yet. Once Professor Zharkova publishes it in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, I will see if she comes to any conclusions about a “mini ice age”.
13
Harry you said Bit hard reading a paper that does not exist yet.
Exactly but you still decide project you own prejudice when you say — “don’t you think a prediction of a Mini Ice Age is fear-mongering? Sounds scary to me.”
From this evidence I perceive that you are probably an unscientific closed mind.
31
Hairy DHC-6
You seem to be on the verge of comprehension.
One does not REALLY know whether it is getting warmer or cooler.
That is because one does not REALLY know what the metric is that determines this, or what the value of that metric is.
However, one can rely on proxies. When you need to put on another jumper to go outside it is a good indication that it is cooler.
When the ice in cold places is becoming more prominent, it is a pretty good indication that it is a little cooler.
When there is still snow in Boston in July, one could be forgiven for suspecting it might b e a mite cooler.
When ice breakers are necessary in Lake Superior in April, one might say “Oh don’t the wind blow cold!“.
132
Rod Stuart.
I am not too concerned about a cold-snap. They happen during winter sometimes. It is the weather.
If you want to discuss weather, how about the heat wave in the north-western states of the US? Lots of warm record broken. Globally, the number of all-time warm records is outpacing the number of all-time cold records. That should be worth a headline or two.
16
Harry Twinotter, you said
“Globally, the number of all-time warm records is outpacing the number of all-time cold records.”
And I’m sure you would not have made such a remark without being able to supply a source of verifiable proof for that statement. Can you?
I’ll assume that all-time records are from all locations where temperature records exist (whether still operating or not), and when the start of when temperature records were first noted, say 1700AD, till the present day. 🙂
42
tomomason.
You are already disputing the temperature record without checking the references.
Global All Time Records Summary
Period High Max High Min Low Max Low Min Precipitation Snowfall Snow Depth
Last 7 Days 6 1 0 0 1 0 0
Last 30 Days 77 111 0 1 16 0 0
Last 365 Days 113 198 29 40 165 49 0
Month to Date 47 40 0 0 6 0 0
Year to Date 95 140 25 35 74 42 0
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
13
Sorry Harry you failed again! 🙂
Your reference is just for a short term weather event. Indeed that is recognized in the reference when they say —
You said “Globally, the number of all-time warm records is outpacing the number of all-time cold records.”
So Harry, where is your reference for Global temperature records for say the last 300 years?
As usual Harry fail to grasp the point.
40
Harry Twinotter,
Here’s a headline for you.
Record Breaking High Temperaures In Northwestern United States
UPI – AP – All of the data has finally been analyzed. It is now clear that all of the so-called ‘hottest day evahhh’, ‘hottest month evahhh’, and ‘hottest year evahhh’ pronouncements to date were caused by a new computer process called ‘homogenization’. The process is so revolutionary that climatologists have declared that releasing the methods to the taxpayers whose hard earned money payed for the research, would constitute a threat to national security.
99.99% of all scientism technocrats agree that Global Warming ™ is ‘man-made’ because obviously those computer simulations are man-made, so they won’t argue with that. What they will say, emphatically, and unconditionally, is that we all ‘must’ continue funding their research into how to increase the evidence of Global Warming ™ and Climate Change ™ because, hey the science is settled, so we need every dollar, euro, peso, and ruble we can get our hands on in order to keep our computer generated catastrophe rolling.
In a relted story, Figueres of the UNFCCC has repeated her urgent calls to complete a legally binding ‘climate regime’ in Paris later this year. She reiterated the position of all the most important financial institutions involved that this ‘regime’ must come to fruition this year in order for them to start to profit from all those government mandated renewables projects that will of course require financing, i.e. loans.
“Those loans are set to make us ‘gazillions'”, said one banker who spoke on condition of anonymity. “With a legally mandated agreement”, he/she added, “the profits would be mind bogling. Just think, if governments are obligated to replace fossil fuels with renewables, those governments will force renewables manufactures to request even more financing than evahhh!”
One snafu. Just when the banker thought the microphone was off, he/she was overheard saying that, “Who cares if renewables aren’t economically viable, the taxpayers will foot the bill anyway. That’ll teach all those useless eaters!”
Abe
62
Just-A-Guy (Abe),
I’ve found Harry’s link for all his unattributed assertions here
72
29.3.1
A “cold snap” is a few days to a week in duration.
When it becomes a habit, it is called natural variation.
I am old enough to remember that it was very similar about forty or fifty years ago.
And I have enough sense to realise that it is just one of the ways the Good Lord keeps us on our toes.
What do I intend to do about it? I’ll just put fifteen tonne away next summer. That’s what I’ll do about it.
Furthermore, a series of “cold snaps” might be the precursor to a Heinrich Event, but I’m not too worried about that because even if that were the case, I won’t be around to witness it. I will be around long enough to watch a crowd of idiotic chicken littles run around in circles because some lying so and so is telling them it is the coming ice age. Just as the masses hysterically think a warm day in Spring means the planet is going to burn up.
What do I call
I call that a bunch of lying, scheming dirty crooks fiddling the books and and knowingly scaring the Hell out of people. Figures don’t lie, but liars can sure as Hell figure. “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.”………George Orwell.
And on top of that, I think I understand your problem.
You aren’t the first DHC-6 on floats with a load of baloney that has struggled to get aloft.
32
Ref: 29.3.1
Sorry. Forgot the link.
20
Rod Stuart.
That crash must have sucked. The pilot certainly had balls attempting to take off from such a short runway 🙁 I am glad they were OK.
10
‘Does the Maunder Minimum actually coincide with the period of global climate change?’
Yes and its well documented, no question about it.
‘Was the global climate change actually global, or was it restricted to one hemisphere or even to one region?’
It was of universal significance.
‘If feedbacks are required to amplify any small changes in the sun’s TSI into significant global climate change, what were they?’
The feedbacks are all negative and the mechanisms appear to be associated with oscillations linked to the sun, such as the NAO and AAO.
‘If a small change in the sun did cause the global climate change, what does that say about climate sensitivity to external forcing?’
We have to adapt.
93
Let’s not forget ENSO.
‘…positive and negative anomalies in the global temperature of the lower troposphere, measured by satellites since 1979, are primarily driven by El Niños, La Niñas, and the Southern Oscillation.
‘This is not easy to see as global temperature lags the SOI by 6 to 9 months. Only when severe volcanic eruptions occur, global temperature is modulated by their cooling effect.’
Theodor Landscheidt
52
el gordo.
I have never seen anyone argue that the ENSO generates heat. The evidence is it moves heat around, some of which ends up in the atmosphere. The 1997/98 ENSO did spike the global average temperature, but the spike did not last long (around a year by the looks).
ENSO is not a good explanation for the steady rise of average surface temperatures seen afterwards.
14
Harry Twinotter,
The temperature data disagrees with you. Temperatures are declining not rising.
Abe
31
and
I think you guys are violently agreeing with each other here.
21
el gordo.
“The feedbacks are all negative and the mechanisms appear to be associated with oscillations linked to the sun, such as the NAO and AAO.”
OK what is the feedback mechanism?
16
Harry Twinotter,
And yet you use them when it suits YOUR agenda.
Abe
71
Harry Twinotter,
Red herring. No one here said that she did, especially in the O/P. Why are you trying to distract people from the issues at hand?
Abe
71
Harry Twinotter,
The IPCC, Inc. propaganda article[s] mention the rise in temperatures and mention a similar rise in atmospheric concentrations of co2 but do not make any connection between the two other than timing.
All of their attempts at explaining that connection by attribution to humanity’s production of co2 are nothing more than speculation based on flawed logic, like yours, modifications of empirical data, and failed computer
modelssimulations.Furthermore, that connection no longer exists. A graph of the 15 year monthly running average* of global temperatures shows clearly that the rise in co2 no longer coincides with the rise in temperatures because they are no longer rising.
Abe
*All global average temperature data-sets are reported as monthly means (averages). The graph plots 180 months of consecutive monthly means beginning in the first month of 1979, then jumps forward one month and plots the next 180 months of consecutive monthly means.
This prevents the accusation of ‘cherry-picking’ a starting and/or ending point of the data used for the graph.
50
@Harry Twinotter,
Arguments from ignorance are never very satisfying.
Thank you hairy, I’m immensely indebted and panting over your wondrous wisdom with which tonight my slumbers may tumble recklessly in wild dreaming’s over it!
53
Bob Fernley-Jones.
Ad hominem.
15
Harry Twinotter,
No, it’s not. Your statement didn’t present an argument, so Bob’s reply could not be classified as an ad-hominem.
Furthermore, Bob agrees with the incredibly wonderous and erudite comment you made. So much so, that’s he’s gonna enjoy some really ‘wild’ dreams!
When are you going to come up with some new material? The current crop is getting stale and too easy to refute.
Abe
32
“When I use a word,”
Humpty DumptyHarry Twinotter said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”.“The question is,” said
AliceAbe, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”“The question is,” said
Humpty DumptyHarry Twinotter, “which is to be master – that’s all”.42
Harry, re:#29, you asked:
The period of extremely low solar magnetic activity according to astronomers’ sunspot observations at the time began in 1610. According to the Loehle 2008 reconstruction of world temperature, temperatures being above -0.4 degrees anomaly prior to 1610 and below -0.4 after 1610 for ~100 years are within the 95% confidence interval of that reconstruction.
The power of cosmic ray flux to alter climate on earth is also indisputable as the correlation appears at all time scales, from weather balloons and neutron counters on scales of a decade [Uoskin 2004], in cave stalactites at scales of several millenia [Fig 1, Neff 2001], and in iron meteorites and paleoclimate proxies that span the ice ages over 700 million years [Shaviv 2002].
As correlations between solar magnetic activity and regional temperature have been found on pretty much every timescale tested, it would be utterly bizarre if the Maunder minimum had not caused the LIA.
Okay, a quote from Veizer 2005, regarding natural solar attribution of climate change:
Against this background of (hmm what’s the phrase) “overwhelming evidence” it is easier to question the dating reliability of temperature proxies (such as Loehle’s subset) than to question the solar/climate causal connection.
Red herring. Look at any modern map of regional temperature warming rates and you will see the world today is not all warming equally at the same rate. The past would not be any different. If all areas were required to warm at the same rate at the same time and reach maximum anomaly synchronously before it would qualify as a global climate change, then the Current Warm Period would not qualify as a global warm period. 🙂
Despite being a red herring, as I showed earlier, the dating is nontheless compatible within the 95% bounds.
Small?? The Sun’s TSI changes by 2W/m^2 between a peak and trough in a single cycle, by 0.5W/m^2 between adjacent cycle troughs, by 1+ W/m^2 between distant cycles, and by several W/m^2 in longer term cycles on the order of 172 years or so. Considering a 3.7W/m^2 increment is supposed to be “dangerous”, the sort of TSI drop that is estimated from the Maunder minimum could not credibly be called “small”.
You say “forcing” like you mean TSI, but you’ve been told many times now that solar magnetic activity significantly affects earth’s climate, most likely by some combination of cloud seeding and UV ozone depletion. Just a 1% change in cloud cover will cause a 13W/m^2 insolation difference, about three times greater than a doubling of CO2. It’s really not small, Harry. This solar effect is visible in the climate proxies referenced above regardless of our ability to determine how much of that net result was “primary” and how much was “feedback”. We know the end result of forcing+feedback for the past, because that sum is whatever was measured.
Wishing you continued luck in your search for the facts about natural climate variability.
52
Well done Andrew.
Assuming that Harry has an assignment, that is due in on Monday, you have probably done his grades the world of good.
22
We do what we can, because we must.
21
Andrew McRae.
“The period of extremely low solar magnetic activity according to astronomers’ sunspot observations at the time began in 1610”.
That is an interesting one – got a reference or chart of the activity?
26
Dammit, it was from Wikipedia and now I’ve checked there was no reference given for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#Sunspot_observations
I have added a {citation needed} on that table in the hopes that someone will find out where that data came from.
But good on you for checking, Harry, it’s great you are questioning everything.
In the meantime you will have to settle for the Sunspot graph shown on the same page, which appears to be roughly compatible with the table data. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maunder_Minimum_and_Little_Ice_Age.tif
Tracing the start of that first small solar cycle down to the time scale, that trough is 1/3rd of the way from 1600 to 1650, judging by eye. That puts the Maunder Minimum start at 1617, no later.
You should also note that during the 20th century the TSI at sunspot minimums increased then decreased in a manner that did not exactly match sunspot counts. Perhaps the TSI reduced before magnetic activity did in 1620, and remember not all regions warm/cool at the same rate synchronously.
So still very much in line with all the other published evidence of climate changes caused by solar magnetic activity.
41
Andrew McRae
You may wish to have a look at this. HOW UNPRECEDENTED A SOLAR MINIMUM?
C. T. Russell
10
Thanks for that,
tom0.Magnetic neutral line latitudes… whoah, there’s so much to discover.
I wonder if that kink in the neutral line is like Kelvin–Helmholtz waves in Earthly clouds, or maybe vortex shedding in the plasma. Who knows.
And to think none of this is included in climate models, even though the Solar activity is clearly affecting climate on centennial scales.
10
Andrew,
Too bad Harry doesn’t question the many broken assumptions comprising the foundation of IPCC pseudo science.
Harry,
I have two questions for you. Are you someone who denies the conflict of interest at the IPCC, are you oblivious to it, or are you among those who acknowledge it and more dangerously consider it a necessary means to an end?
Just in case you are oblivious to it, the nature of the COI is that the IPCC charter requires CAGW to justify its charter of redistributing wealth under the guise of climate reparations, yet they somehow became the arbiter of what defines ‘consensus’ climate science by virtue of what they publish in their reports.
The second question is do you believe that any agenda driven bureaucracy interested in self preservation can be fair with evidence that undermines their reason to exist?
32
Andrew McRae,
Thank-you for all the science references in your comment. The linked references certainly make a compelling case for any interested person that has the ability to read and comprehend your comment and all the links provided to the research papers.
There are some here that are so inhibited by their miseducation and misunderstandings that they can not see the evidence you have provided. It is so sad to see that people like this still feel the need to make silly comments.
Still drinking the Kool-Aid Harry?
31
Now approaching the critical days,
Of low sunspot activity phase,
When a sun blocking shroud,
Cools the Earth under cloud,
By reflecting the sun’s warming rays.
171
CNN actually reported this as did others…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/
CNN actually reported on this article this morning, well for an hour at least ……. 😮
Nice graphs and video , Gavin Schmidt must be turning “green” with envy…
110
ScotsmaninUtah,
¯
A little off-topic but you may be interested…
While searching in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) for solar cycle information, or 1350 year cyclic events, and other research papers, items about Utah kept being flagged-up.
Specifically items were about Wasatch fault zone, Utah, Utah.gov’s report document on Paleoseismology of Utah, and a document entitled “A Physically Based Earthquake Recurrence Model for Estimation of Long-Term Earthquake Probabilities”
50
tom0mason
Thank you for the link I will definitely check it out , and yes we do have a fault line here ….. 😮
If you listen to the media (who obviously have spoken to the scientists) one would think that it’s a big thing …
WE are still waiting for the BIG catastrophic event .. 😉
30
If you like earthquakes, visit New Zealand.
We have felt 30 earthquakes in the past week
And this is a quiet week. We use hydrothermal for power generation, which is kind of exciting, … on so many levels.
20
ScotsmaninUtah
I think this is the most important part of this issue. The science/facts are interesting but what more important is the MSM have picked up the issue in a big way. In NZ even the Fairfax papers ran with it and it was on the main TV news. It is certainly a first over here to have anything that goes against the AGW religion to be so prominent in the MSM.
Yes they had AGW scientists who are neck deep in funding trying hard to negate it but they didn’t do a very convincing job(ie. no one I’ve spoken to were sucked in)
141
Ross,
I totally agree… kinda weird that it appeared very early in the morning and then quickly disappeared …. but we take what we can get 😀
I am glad to see that for Australia and NZ at least the MSM has reported on it …
Thanks in part to Jo and contribut0rs here and obviously other skeptics around the globe…
little by little …
30
It is hard to look at the graph of the quality of the fit to solar cycles with two dynamos and the absolute lack of a fit between CO2 and temperature. One of them is presented as conclusive data and the other as hypothesis.
It is almost notable that the phrase ‘the science is in’ has vanished. Surely the people who analyse publications for language would love to do a graph of the incidence of this phrase against time? It would have had a very sharp start and and even sharper stop, which shows how closely the spin of the Global Warming/Windmill/Solar/Carbon tax consortium is being managed.
After the wrong upgrading of two cyclones, the failure to warn about the devastating NSW storms and now the lack explanation for the freezing Antarctic vortex buffeting Australia, the BOM is strangely silent on Global Warming. Maybe they are in hibernation, just waiting for summer and the run down to Paris. After all, no one wants their long planned crisis science trip to Paris under examination by a government trying to stop borrowing of $100Million a day.
112
It’s also possible that what we are seeing are interference patterns arising from gas giant tidal influences acting on the core modulating fusion (which takes a long time to propagate up to the surface) and tidal influences acting on the surface whose effects are immediate.
80
TdeF
I like your comment …
your last paragraph is a great observation and much in line with my thoughts too…
I would like to add that it is disappointing that the Weather systems being seen are not being anticipated or explained by BoM, the MET or the NOAA in a way that makes sense…
The fact that the BoM are now unable to predict or even classify storms correctly is very worrisome 🙁
30
Thanks Sophocles for providing a working link to Rahmstorf’s paper.
“Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
“…to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.”
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf
What is currently happening to the sun has happened before. There are multiple solar parameters that are all currently changing. Current solar observations support the assertion that the solar cycle is not slowing down, it has been interrupted.
If the sun is the cause of past cyclic abrupt climate change, the sun and other stars are significantly different than the standard model.
That assertion is not new.
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
It is a fact that there are piles and piles of astronomical anomalies and paradoxes in peer reviewed papers that are directly connect to how the sun could cause cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo record, that support the assertion that the sun and stars are different than the standard model. The issue is what happens when very large bodies collapse. What forms when very large bodies collapse and how what forms when very large bodies collapses evolves and changes with time, is connected with piles and piles of astronomical paradoxes and anomalies.
Senior astronomer Halton Arp and others noted more than two decades ago in peer reviewed papers, that there are strings of quasars in the observable universe that have a progressively reducing redshift which is anomalous in both position/orientation (string of quasars and a string of compact newly developing galaxies is anomalous) and it is anomalous that there is the same paradoxical pattern in multiple locations in the observable universe (the string of astronomical objects which have a specific progressive change in redshift which indicates the redshift changes with time as the ejected object moves away from its parent galaxy and as the active ‘quasar’ object evolves to produce a new galaxy) is observed in multiple locations in the sky (a multiple paradoxical pattern rules out coincidence which forces there to be a physical explanation for the same paradoxical pattern in multiple locations in the universe).
As Arp noted there needs to be a physical explanation as to why there are super hot ionized (x-ray emitting, why the heck is the massive ionized gas link so hot in addition to why is it pointing towards the parent galaxy) gas links that point in the direction of the quasar’s parent galaxy, why there are hot ionized gas links between newly formed galaxies and their parent galaxy (the paradox is the ejected quasar and the parent galaxy have different redshifts yet are connected by a physical hot gas link which means that there is a non-velocity mechanism (immense free charge unbalance will cause redshift and will change with time as electrical charges move away trying to equalize charge and will provide an explanation as what mechanism heated the gas to cause it to emit x-rays) that is creating redshift in galaxies and in the quasar), what cause the quasar cyclic changes, and so on.
If one looks at the paleo record in detail – for example how fast planetary temperature has changed in the past, the magnitude of past climate changes, how long the climate has changed for, the fact that there are burn marks on the surface of the planet on multiple continents that correlate in time with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event, the fact there is a geomagnetic excursion and the largest change in C14 in the Holocene period occurred during the YD ‘event’, the fact that there are other burn marks on the surface of the earth that correlate with another earlier abrupt climate change event, the fact that the earlier burn marks show evidence of restrike (the burn marks are oval in shape, each of the ovals’ axis all align in the same direction, some of the ovals partially over lap, there are close to a million of the ovals, the million ovals’ alignment can be explained and the overlap of the ovals can be physically explained as the earth moves during the electrical strike from ionosphere to the earth’s surface and the earth’s magnetic field interacts with the magnetic field generated by the current movement from ionosphere down to surface of the planet. Others have found that there are other geomagnetic excursions that correlate with past abrupt climate change events (the paradox is what is causing the geomagnetic excursion that correlate with abrupt climate change), there is only one explanation physical explanation. Core based changes to the earth are not cyclically and core based changes are physically incapable of causing the observed geomagnetic field changes.
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
“Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.”
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
“Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic
field and climate? Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël,Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey”
91
William Astley,
HUH!?
This research (or something similar), and an attempt to rebut it was my first exposure to the problems with peer-review. Basically, Arp uses one statistical method of analysis, and his detractors use another. Reading the artiles, it’s clear that’s Arps method is the right one but his detractors paper was published anyway!
I hope I can dig up the old rticles and links.
Abe
50
Great post Jo 😀
Parts of the waveform in Fig 4 looks very similar to a fundamental frequency with 3rd and/or 5th harmonics and an underlying progressive phase shift (“offset in time”).
The pattern of destructive and constructive interference (affecting the amplitude) can be readily seen…
It would be interesting to see the Fast Fourier for Fig 4!
60
Straight FFT is pretty useless for such stochastic data. But, a PSD analysis, such as I linked to above shows three readily discernible peaks and a long term one not as easily observable over what was a relatively short span of data. These peaks derive from the rectification of a two mode system.
20
Ionizing radiation in the solar wind (mainly energised electrons and protons) can lead to the dissociation of molecules into charged species and salts into ions. Add to this the solar magnetic field cycle with its sine wave type rise and fall in field strength followed by pole reversal.
These external influences can change the quantity of charged species in our atmosphere and the balance between attractive and repulsive electrostatic forces between these charged species.
The attractive process can lead to charge neutralisation and the creation of larger particles. I believe that such processes can lead to the precursors to the macromolecular particles that are large enough to initiate cloud seeding.
This could be the link between solar processes and cloud albedo.
70
“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest’s recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.”
This summer the weather?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/nasa-daily-fraud-reminder/#comment-529988
111
The cloud cover point is certainly interesting. Each 0.35% change in received output from the sun corresponds to 1’C. The climate has certainly been cooling over the last couple of years. 2 unusually cold winters in north America, likewise unusually cold in Australia, and a strange cool summer here in England.
120
“Scientists say”… “computer modelling” ….
Ring any alarm bells? Count me sceptical for the moment – this presses all the wrong buttons to get too interested just yet.
But what I can see is giant (metaphorical) flipping of the poles to “the climate is cooling – our children are going to die We need more grants” and the climate change fiasco will just roll on as before. These people are shameless with the science – remember that it was supposed to be cooling back in the seventies before the first major flip.
70
And Stephen Schneider appeared in a television documentary series, “The Coming Ice Age”, wearing very trendy 1970’s gear – flowery loose shirt, and tight pants with 22 inch flares.
Not at all like his later besuited persona, when reliant on Global Warming largesse from the Government.
80
The satellite data bases tell us we’ve had no warming for 18+ years and McKitrick et al tell us we’ve had no SS warming for over a quarter of a century. Yet Labor and the Greens want to damage us and our economy with a new co2 tax.
Zero change to the weather or temp or climate, but they still believe in this madness?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_maddened_by_the_warming_hoax_plans_another_useless_carbon_tax/#commentsmore
80
I could certainly do with a bit more solar activity in Brisbane right now. I’m waiting (but not hoping) for frost fairs on the Brisbane River.
40
It has been chilly all over the country, excluding the very top end. If the rest of winter continues on this course then it might be considered a regional cooling tipping point.
50
el gordo,
I also read that Sa Pa, the favorite resort town in northern Vietnam, became suddenly cold on Monday morning , with the temperature falling to 12.6 C (54.7 F) at 7 a.m., right in the middle of summer.
Also some part of Indonesia is struggling to feed to locals after days of snow (or maybe hail — depends on translation) and cold air (frost?). Admittedly this is in a mountain area but still the locals appear to think it’s not usual.
While back in Europe, on Friday morning (July 10) parts of Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, England, Austria and the Czech Republic saw surface frost – even down to the lower elevations.
Hey, but that is just weather and can’t interfere with 2015 being the 2nd or 3rd warmest on record.
100
The NAO has gone negative in the middle of summer, which might explain what is happening in that part of the world.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html
70
Brisbane should become more habitable than Melbourne.
‘The arctic blast that blanketed Australia is set to continue with Melbourne on target for its coldest week in 19 years.
‘The temperature in Melbourne’s CBD topped 9.8 degrees on Tuesday, while Wednesday was predicted to be the same by only reaching 10-11 degrees at the most.
‘Only three times in the past 20 years has the temperature in Melbourne failed to exceed 11 degrees in two days, according to Weatherzone meteorologist Rob Sharpe.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3161539/Parts-Australia-shiver-COLDEST-week-19-years-arctic-blast-freezes-country.html#ixzz3fvQVZvrI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
50
‘The ratio of La Ninas to El Ninos will presumably increase, making for slightly more floods and fewer droughts in eastern Australia.’
This is true and illustrates a strong link between ENSO and solar activity.
90
The Sun – no ones knows how it works but scientists can’t help themselves,they have to come up with reasons to justify their existence instead of just saying “we dunno” they get imaginative instead.
BTW it appears that “climate scientists” are coming out against a mini-iceage,I suppose they have to considering most of them have set their livelihoods and reputations to CAGW(though anyone who keeps on pushing CAGW will be very flexible with any theory if it means grants or prestige) .
80
How refreshing would it be to investigate a new way of looking at the SUN and Universe???
One where you don’t need to make up imaginary dynamo’s.
Thunderbolts
40
Thunderbolts
20
NOT SO FOR AUSTRALIA, “but this is the first study to show this trend applies at a global scale” – OH WELL:
15 July: ABC: Anna Salleh: Climate increasing global fire danger
Climate change is lengthening fire danger seasons around the world, although the picture is not so clear for Australia, according to a new study.
On first glance the findings suggest the continent that is so famous for bushfires bucks the global trend, but the researchers warn this may not be the case.
They say the anomaly in the study’s findings is due to Australia’s highly variable climate…
In a study published today in Nature Communications, Bowman and colleagues used global data to develop a fire danger index that could be used to detect trends in fire weather seasons throughout the globe from 1979 to 2013…
“Previous research had found that some regions of the world, such as the US, are increasing their fire weather season length, but this is the first study to show this trend applies at a global scale…
Bowman and colleagues are now investigating further the influence of climate variability on fire in Australia.
Meanwhile, Bowman warns against complacency in Australia.
***He says colleagues in the US who can see lengthening fire seasons there are “dumbfounded” the trend can’t be seen in Australia.
“The reason Australia doesn’t fit the pattern well is because of its high climate variability which makes detecting very strong signals or trends difficult,” says Bowman.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/07/15/4273580.htm
14 July: Nature: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013
W. Matt Jolly, Mark A. Cochrane, Patrick H. Freeborn, Zachary A. Holden, Timothy J. Brown, Grant J. Williamson, David M. J. S. Bowman
Abstract: Climate strongly influences global wildfire activity, and recent wildfire surges may signal fire weather-induced pyrogeographic shifts. Here we use three daily global climate data sets and three fire danger indices to develop a simple annual metric of fire weather season length, and map spatio-temporal trends from 1979 to 2013. We show that fire weather seasons have lengthened across 29.6 million km2 (25.3%) of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in an 18.7% increase in global mean fire weather season length…etc
***Fire weather season length and long fire weather season affected area increased significantly across all continents except Australia (Table 1). …
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150714/ncomms8537/full/ncomms8537.html
10
joy oh joy – a wind “EXPERT” from the Wind Energy Association? no guest to dispute his claims either. that always works well!
15 July: ABC AM: Michael Edwards: Wind power: European renewable energy EXPERT warns Australia risks missing out on cheaper and cleaner
electricity
A European EXPERT on renewable energy says…
Oliver Joy, from the European Wind Energy Association — the peak body guiding wind power projects across Europe — said a huge shift towards renewable energies were underway in the continent with wind power leading the charge…
Mr Joy said an energy transition in Germany saw the country moving away from nuclear power and onto wind energy and more renewables…
According to the European Wind Energy Association, wind power is a cheaper way to produce electricity than fossil fuels.
Mr Joy said it also had long-term savings for taxpayers.
“Cheaper than nuclear and gas and almost on a par with coal — that’s purely based on generating electricity,” he said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/euro-wind-power/6620936
a version of this non-CAGW story was on RN Breakfast today, complete with hints of CAGW:
15 July: ABC: Loretta Florance: Magpies, kookaburras and willie wagtails among common Australian birds ‘starting to disappear’, report suggests
Editor of Australian Birdlife Sean Dooley said the decline of common birds in parts of Australia was a surprise to researchers.
He said while predators including cats, habitat loss and even CHANGES IN CLIMATE might be to blame, more research was needed before certain species became endangered…
Mr Dooley said it was unclear what was causing the decline in bird numbers…
“It could be habitat loss, it could be CHANGE IN CLIMATE; we don’t actually know at this stage…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-15/australian-magpies-kookaburras-willie-wagtails-in-decline-report/6620580
20
pat quotes this:
Yeah! But not very much electricity.
It’s easy for those wind power detractors (like me too I suppose) to cherry pick days when wind power generates very little power, and believe me, there are a lot of them, and I’m tempted to ask if wind is so good, what are the plans for days like this when the wind doesn’t blow.
So then, let’s do the reverse and pick a day when wind power really does have not just a good day, but a truly outstanding day, say like yesterday, Tuesday 14th July.
At one stage, ALL the wind plants in Australia were operating at a Capacity factor of 72%, (for ten minutes at around 3PM) and it was so good all day that across the whole day, they averaged 60%, double the yearly average of a 30% Capacity Factor.
So, then, let’s again do a comparison, from Midnight through the day and back to Midnight, a full 24 hours.
Wind delivered its power at an average 2000MW for the whole 24 hours, 48GWH in total, a truly monster day for wind power.
Bayswater, all by itself, just this ONE power plant, had all four units in operation. It delivered the same power by 10 Past 6PM.
So then, to effectively replace coal fired power here in Australia with wind power, we would need the current total Australian wind power fleet ….. multiplied by between eleven and fifteen, and then hope that the wind blows like crazy all the time.
Even when wind power is outstanding, it’s still just a niche supplier.
I don’t need to cherry pick bad days for wind, because even on truly outstanding days like this, I can still show it’s next to useless.
Tony.
110
Tony great post 😀
Tony, Have there been any periods in Australia’s history where the wind has not blown consistently for long periods of time (wind drought) ?
10
It appears we are going to have a front row seat to see how the restart of the solar cycle causes a Heinrich event. Abrupt climate change is cyclic and occurs for a reason, has a physical cause. The majority of the warming in the last 30 years was caused by solar cycle changes as opposed the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Although sun spots have almost disappeared from the surface of the sun, the wind bursts from coronal holes which removes ions from high latitude regions of the earth and equatorial regions by a process called electroscavening are inhibiting the other solar mechanisms that would cause cooling due to an increase in low level clouds and reduction in cirrus clouds.
The solar coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or moving to high latitude regions of the sun where they no longer effect the earth’s climate. What will be observed first is abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger cooling due to the abrupt slowdown in the solar cycle. Wind speeds have started to increase in the Atlantic ocean and there is large section of cooling in the Pacific ocean that is spreading from the east. The warm blob is due to a transient mechanism. There is now record Antarctic sea for every month of the year. There is now the start of cooling in the Arctic.
The last Heinrich event has the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event that occurred 11,900 years ago. At which time the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. The Younger Dryas cold period lasted for 1200 years.
This is a link the Firestone paper.
An astronomical object impact will not cause the planet to abruptly cool for 1200 years and will not burn the surface of the planet at multiple locations at different latitudes, leaving no craters. The burn marks were caused by the sun when the solar cycle restarts and is the reason why there geomagnetic excursion at abrupt climate change events.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full
“Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions
and the Younger Dryas cooling”
The black mat material is found in multiple locations in Europe and multiple locations throughout the North American continent at significantly different latitudes and longitudes. As others have noted very special conditions are required for an impact to burn the earth without leaving a crater. The distribution of the black mat regions on the planet are such that it would require extraterrestrial bodies from different orbits, different source bodies. Astrophysicists do not support that possibility. The researchers are specialists looking for an explanation for the mass extinction that coincides with whatever caused the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling.
Figure 7 is picture of some of the earlier Carolina Bays burn marks. As noted the largest burn mark is 8 km long.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2007/09/20/0706977104.DC1
“Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. The Bays have been contrast-enhanced and selectively darkened for greater clarity. The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long. Previous researchers have proposed that the Bays are impact-related features.”
This is some of the evidence that a magnetic excursion correlate with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X
“The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion
Abstract
The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion in a broad sense ranges from 13,750 to 12,350 years BP and ends with the Gothenburg Magnetic Flip at 12,400−12,350 years BP (= the Fjärås Stadial in southern Scandinavia) with an equatorial VGP position in the central Pacific. The Gothenburg Magnetic Flip is recorded in five closely dated and mutually correlated cores in Sweden. In all five cores, the inclination is completely reversed in the layer representing the Fjärås Stadial dated at 12,400−12,350 years BP. The cores were taken 160 km apart and represent both marine and lacustrine environments. The Gothenburg Magnetic Flip represents the shortest excursion and the most rapid polar change known at present. It is also hitherto the far best-dated paleomagnetic event. The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion and Flip are proposed as a standard magnetostatigraphic unit.”
40
Come on you guys really believe this rubbish!! last week the greens and the lost sheepole were screaming the worlds doomed its warming help! help! kill the coal industry people stop having babies their leaving carbon footprints etc buy a dog instead hahaha!!
The real reason the we are getting cold ice days is because ITS WINTER!!! and if the worlds really cooling then its because of [Snip. Off topic. Anyone interested in this conspiracy theory can search the web. It is not something that Jo is likely to spend time on.] ED
13
So PJ, why has Britain reported it’s 2nd (fairly widespread this time) frost this summer?
Oh, sorry no, the hottest day eva was this month (at Heathrow Airport) this month so we’re back on track.
30
‘Come on you guys really believe this …’
Yes and I’m happy to take questions from the floor.
40
Climate change can take place very quickly. If someone changes observed in the Arctic from 2013, it sees how quickly ice can multiply from year to year. As the AMO is in decline this year, it will be very visible.
During solar minimum impact on the circulation of the poles will have a Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/Swarm
40
Climate change can take place very quickly. If someone changes observed in the Arctic from 2013, it sees how quickly ice can multiply from year to year. As the AMO is in decline this year, it will be very visible.
During solar minimum impact on the circulation of the poles will have a Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/The_Living_Planet_Programme/Earth_Explorers/Swarm
40
13 July: UK Daily Mail: Victoria: Woollaston: Solar Impulse 2 grounded in Hawaii: ‘Irreversible’ battery damage sustained during Pacific flight may mean the plane will miss the window for its Atlantic leg
The Solar Impulse 2 suffered ‘irreversible’ damage to its batteries during its five-day flight from Japan to Hawaii
Parts now need to be repaired and replaced, which could take ‘several weeks to work through’
It is the trip’s latest delay and it may also cause the plane to miss its weather window to cross the Atlantic
This could mean the round-the-world mission would be grounded in New York until at least Spring next year
The problem arose when too much insulation caused the plane’s battery temperature to spike on the first day of the Pacific flight last month, and there was no way to cool it after Solar Impulse was off the ground, the aircraft’s team said…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3159160/Solar-Impulse-2-grounded-Hawaii-Irreversible-battery-damage-sustained-Pacific-flight-mean-plane-miss-window-Atlantic-leg.html
20
“could” be longer…but author says they “could” be shorter:
14 July: Time: Justin Worland: How Climate Change Could Make Your Flights Longer
Longer flights would burn more fuel and contribute more to climate change, a study suggests
Flights over the Pacific Ocean have gotten longer due to climate change-related changes in wind patterns, a shift that could be mirrored in other regions across the globe, according to new research.
Air travel currently accounts for more than 3% of the carbon emissions driving human-caused climate change, and the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, suggests a feedback loop where longer flight times lead to greater carbon emissions and vice versa…
***“I’m not saying that climate change is going to cause the global flights to be longer, they might even be shorter,” Karnauskas (study author Kristopher Karnauskas, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts) says….
http://time.com/3957203/climate-change-flight-time/
10
Have you seen this film Mrs Nova ?
By Michael J. Murphy, Co-Producer of “WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING
[Snip. Off topic. Anyone interested in this conspiracy theory can search the web. It is not something that Jo is likely to spend time on.] ED
24
Solar activity does not decompose evenly on the solar disc. Thus, the solar dynamo was somehow modified by another magnetic fields.
https://i1.wp.com/www.sidc.be/images/wnosuf.png
https://i2.wp.com/www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
Valentina Zharkova is a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. She has a BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.
EE Valentina Zharkova Staffprofile 255I am a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. I have BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management.
I graduated from the National University of Kyiv, Ukraine in 1975 with a BSc/M.Sc. first class with distinction degree in Applied Mathematics and Physics (joint honours). In 19I75-1978 worked as Junior researcher at Physics and Applied Maths Department, then moved to the Solar Division of the Main Astronomical Observatory, Kyiv, Ukraine for my Ph.D. studies in Applied Mathematics/Solar Theory. After successfully defending my thesis in non-LTE radiative transfer entitled “Hydrogen emission in quiescent solar prominences with filamentary structure”, I worked at Space Science Laboratory, Physics Department, National University of Kyiv as junior researcher, lecturer/researcher senior lecturer/senior researcher (1978-1994). In 1992 I joined the Astronomy Group of Glasgow University as the Senior Royal Society visitor, then a Research Fellow (1993-1999). In 2000 I became a Lecturer at the University of Bradford, in 2002 I was appointed to a Reader and in 2005 to a Professor in Applied Mathematics. From September 2013 I joined the Northumbria University as a Professor in Mathematics.
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/
20
happily, they appear to be harming the CAUSE!
14 July: Belfast Telegraph: Heathrow protest: Belfast-bound flights cancelled as climate change activists chain themselves together on runway
The members of activist group Plane Stupid cut a hole in a fence at around 3.30am and lay down on the tarmac.
The demonstration caused delays for passengers around the world and 22 flights out of the airport were cancelled…
Ms Rogers said: “It’s affecting an awful lot of people’s lives.
“I’m not one bit impressed.
“They should be shot with rubber bullets.”
Ms Lalor said: “They’ve disrupted so many people.
“They shouldn’t be allowed.
“Get the fire engine out and hose them down.”…
Ella Gilbert, one of the activists on the runway, said: “Building more runways goes against everything we’re being told by scientists and experts on climate change.
“We want to say sorry to anyone whose day we’ve ruined, and we’re not saying that everybody who wants to fly is a bad person.
“No ifs, no buts, no third runway.” She added that the protest showed that “we mean it”.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/heathrow-protest-belfastbound-flights-cancelled-as-climate-change-activists-chain-themselves-together-on-runway-31374427.html
30
Rubber bullets and tear gas should be used on these eco terrorists !!
40
“heartfelt” Christiana aiming for a “climate-neutral world”!
13 July: Business Green: James Murray: UN climate change chief: ‘We are counting on the business community’
The UN’s climate change chief, Christiana Figueres, has today issued a heartfelt plea for businesses to support the push for a global climate change agreement, arguing they are crucial to the success of any deal reached in Paris later this year…
“Governments, through decisive and bold action – such as the recent announcement by the leaders of the G7 countries to phase out the use of fossil fuels by the end of this century – are signalling that investment in green technology is a sure bet as the world transitions to a low-emission economy,” she said…
“Ultimately, one of the most compelling ways that businesses can build the will for a climate agreement is by signing up to initiatives that are truly transformational in terms of putting us on a trajectory towards steeply declining emissions such that in the second half of the century everyone can live and breathe in a climate-neutral world,” she writes. “This can mean setting a target for 100 per cent renewable energy use, committing to include climate change information in financial reports, or calling for a price on carbon – as six major European oil and gas companies did last month.”…
The UN’s latest intervention came on the same day a major new study from Grantham Institute argued that economics is no longer a barrier to tackling climate change. It claimed almost all measures to curb global temperature rise to under two degrees will bring a net economic benefit to individual countries.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2417384/un-climate-change-chief-we-are-counting-on-the-business-community
the full Christiana:
13 July: Business Green: Climate change: Getting down to business
Businesses and governments have broken the ‘catch 22’ of who should act first on climate change, says UN climate chief
By Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC
But perhaps most spectacularly of all – Solar Impulse – the only airplane able to fly day and night exclusively on solar power, is currently crossing the Pacific and demonstrating that human ingenuity can make the impossible possible…
The science is well known: current patterns of human activity, often in the name of economic progress, are causing dangerous changes to our climate. It is time to truly decouple growth from pollution, and poverty from environmental degradation…
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/2416783/climate-change-getting-down-to-business
10
Christiana Figueres == COMMUNIST !!!!
100
Angry,
I believe you may have underestimated Christiana Figueres.
She’s not just a communist,
she’s part of the COMMUNIST ELITE!
50
pdf :46 pages: July 2015: LSE: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment: Nationally self-interested climate change mitigation: a unified conceptual framework
by Fergus Green
(Fergus Green: Policy Analyst and Research Advisor to Professor Stern, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science. I am grateful to Alessandro Tavoni and Dimitri Zenghelis for their most helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks also to Joe Mazor and Elizabeth Morrow, who also provided helpful comments. I also benefited from comments from participants at a presentation of some of the material from this paper at the LSE public event on International Cooperation and Climate Change on 23 June 2015. Finally, I am indebted to Nick Stern, with whom I have had the great privilege of working over the last 18 months, and who has done more than anyone to build the insights on which this paper draws. Any errors or omissions are my own. This work was carried out with financial support from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council via the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment.)
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/F_Green_Nationally_Self_Interested_Climate_Change_Mitigation.pdf
7 July: FindMBA: Imperial to Launch an MSc in Climate Change, Management & Finance
A new MSc program from Imperial College Business School is intended to help students develop the skills needed to tackle the business challenges caused by climate change.
With these skills, grads from Imperial’s new MSc in Climate Change, Management & Finance will be set to go onto careers in carbon finance, risk management, sustainability consulting, the energy industry, as well as other, related fields.
Indeed, although there are threats associated with climate change, it is also opening up a whole range of career possibilities…
The new MSc was developed through a partnership with the Grantham Institute, a climate-change research center launched by the London School of Economics (LSE) in 2008…
Students will also “develop an in-depth appreciation of the science, policies and technologies linked to climate change, including the scientific basis of including the scientific basis underpinning international agreements on carbon reduction targets,” according to the program’s webpage.
The London-based MSc in Climate Change, Management & Finance will take one year to complete; the inaugural intake will be in 2016…
http://find-mba.com/news/2015/07/imperial-to-launch-an-msc-in-climate-change-management-finance
10
pat,
Another straw on the back of the CAGW ® camel that proves once again that it’s all about money and especially finance i.e. intrest bearing loans. It was never about the weather or the science.
If it was, then new courses would be springing up on how to adapt, survive, and most of all, maintain the current historically unprecedented progress of humanity which has been entirely possible thanks to cheap fossil fuel based energy.
When will the back of that sickly old camel finally break so that it can be put out of it’s misery?
Abe
30
I would be interested to know what the precise periods are for the dual-dynamos for the two eleven year cycles. REASON:
Venus-Earth-Jupiter Tidal Torquing model shows that the gravitational force of Jupiter acting upon the periodic tidal
bulges in the Sun’s convective layer that are formed by the alignments of Venus and the Earth (every 1.5987 years)
moves through a quarter of an orbit (i.e. 90 degrees in heliocentric longitude) once every 11.07 years
References:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-vej-tidal-torquing-model-naturally.html
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html
The 11.07 year repetition period in the application of Jupiter’s torque to the outer layers of the Sun is slightly out of
phase with the Venus-Earth alignment cycle, such that:
7 Venus-Earth alignments = 11.19 years
producing a beat period of:
(11.19 x 11.07) / (11.19 – 11.07) = 1032.3 years
60
Ian, thanks for the links.
20
Reference: http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-maunder.html
It also important to point out that:
If the first minimum for SC 25 occurs between 2019.24 and 2022.94 (i.e. ~ 2021 +/- 2 years) it will
indicate a re-synchronization of solar minimums to a mean period of 11.07 +/- 0.05 years over a 410
year period.
This is mighty close to period of time it takes the gravitational force of Jupiter, acting upon the
periodic tidal bulges in the Sun’s convective layer (that are formed by the alignments of Venus and
the Earth once every 1.5987 years), to moves through a quarter of an orbit (i.e. 90 degrees in
heliocentric longitude), which is once every 11.07 years.
40
The Earth is now wholly in the grip of a Five Year orbital Solar induced Dry Period – made up of concurrent One and Two Year ‘Dry Cycles’ and exacerbated by the Lunar Metonic Cycle (2016.) The current Colder and Drier tendency means Less cloud cover(precipitation,) Less snow – and More sea-ice. The X factor, as described by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather'(1990) appears to dissipate, or break up moisture and cloud – it is not (apparently,) primarily a pointer to temperature change.
Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990)
” Relationship with the Sun
G. M. Brown (Ref. No. 5) brings out points relevant to my ratios principle which, in the following quotes from his extremely interesting paper (with elaborations thereon,) I hope to sharpen the focus on the relationships between the Sun and the planets on the one hand and Earth-bound factors on the other.
It might narrow the field of speculation on the cause(s) of variations in solar activity on the one hand and Earth’s magnetic field intensity on the other, as well as expressing my growing sense of the significance of the ‘beat’ between the various chains of cycles, as they coincide in time, as the all-important markers of events, which are matters of our greatest concern, such as droughts in the short term and cooler/warmer periods in our climate/weather in the longer term.
The following quotes from the relevant sections of this paper are not incompatible with my climate/weather cycles, as I point out in my comments which follow.
1: “…..Wood has re-opened consideration of the possibility that solar activity may be controlled by the tidal influence of the planets.”
For an insight into the compatibility of the above quotation with my ratio principle, see page 10.
2: “…..(a) If this relationship proves valid, it implies that the Sun ‘breathes’ with an 11 year period, such that the size of a solar activity maximum is determined at the very beginning of a cycle, perhaps the very end of the preceding cycle, from the ‘depth’ of the solar minimum.
“This quantity is essentially unmeasurable by the conventional sunspot number and may be insensitive of detection by other indices of solar activity, which decrease at this time.
“…..(b) For example, there is a marked tendency for some maxima in AQD (Abnormally Quiet Days in the hub of the Earth’s magnetic field intensity) count to be double-humped, with peak separations of about two years.
“Double maxima are a feature of the solar cycle (although not always evident in sunspot numbers) and have been interpreted as the result of the superposition of two processes having different physical properties.
“…..(c) There are obvious difficulties in accounting for a time constant as long as 5-6 years from the solar side, but it is now evident that the solar cycle is a much more complicated periodicity than that indicated by the variation of any one index of activity.
Differ in Phase
“The cycles in solar wind intensity and velocity, coronal green line intensity and coronal shape, and sunspot number, all differ in phase from one another, with a maximum difference of at least three years.
“….. (d) The interplanetary field near the Earth is largely controlled by the solar polar field and in keeping with the above result, the phase of the annual variation of the interplanetary field changes about 2.7 years after sunspot maximum.
“….. (e) From the terrestrial magnetic side it is difficult to speculate on possible mechanisms while the essential cause of the AQD phenomenon remains obscure.
“….. (f) It seems that there is a long term secular trend in AQD occurrence, evidenced by the almost continual increase in the size of the minimum count of each cycle over the period covered.”
Comment:
The fact that Brown has found an 11 year period in the solar magnetic phenomena, with an intensity curve which is anti-cyclic to that of the sunspot number, seems to argue that whatever force is responsible for the sunspots, might also be responsible for the solar magnetic phenomena.
In my letter to Dr Nelson (page 9) I called attention to the significance of the latitude of the Sun which is rotating at the 27d rate. This just happens to be the zone of the Sun in which the enigmatic sunspots are to be found.
That the AQD minima is a half-cycle ahead of the sunspot cycle, seems to indicate that the latter phenomenon is a delayed (surface) manifestation of something which is happening deeper within the Sun and which takes five years to migrate to the surface, where it appears as the well known, but little understood sunspots.
Unknown Entity
(a) It appears to me that the unknown entity, which ends up as a visible sunspot, is carried from its place of origin by a convection cell. Granting this and that, there would also be the possibility of a cell being retarded, unduly, in its journey out to the surface of the Sun, by competition with other convection cells, or other factors. The erratic nature of the controversial ’11 year’ sunspot ‘cycle’ could thus be explained.
(b) The inference drawn from this quotation is that there are, indeed, two (or more) processes going on in the Sun, which conjointly, appear to be responsible for solar magnetic phenomena and sunspots as well.
There is also a strong indication that the “double-humps” that he talks about in both the AQD and the sunspot cycles, are likely to turn out to represent harmonic ‘beats’ between different cycle trains. I have a strong feeling that the further we proceed with this study, the more synonymous the ‘beat’ will become with the climate/weather cycle.
Time Lag
(c) I’ve already offered my view of the 5-6 year time lag between AQD and sunspot numbers (see (a) above.) The phase differences in the various cyclic phenomena mentioned in this quotation, offer ‘pay-dirt’ to those prospecting for cycles and that, if the ‘beat’ remains constant, there ought to be a rich reward awaiting the investigator of the various cyclic components of the solar phenomena.”
40
Watch this documentary “The Cloud Mystery” about Henrik Svensmark’s work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
30
That was terrific Mervyn.
I have known about Svensmark’s work for years, but seeing it like this is very compelling.
Thanks I’ll pass it on.
10
Al Gore admitting they are spraying the skies with chemicals..
https://youtu.be/QQuXESAK9P4
[Snip. Off topic. Anyone interested in this conspiracy theory can search the web. It is not something that Jo is likely to spend time on. Consider this your only warning: Stop posting off-topic garbage. The attempt to have us take up your conspiracy is seen for exactly what it is. If you persist you’ll be moderated.] ED
04
pj jackson,
He didn’t admit to any such thing. He said it’s been proposed.
But that’s not even the issue here. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that they are spraying the atmosphere. By willfully misleading people, like you’ve done here, you create the opposite effect of what you intended. People aren’t all that dumb. When they see people like you acting dishonestly, they just turn off and figure the whole issue is just BS.
BTW, thank’s for wasting my time.
Abe
30
‘I saw this referred to on media – Sydney has its coldest winter in decades – Checking the facts for Sydney Observatory Hill which averaged 7.2°C 1st to 15th July 2015 – I find the next coldest 1st to 15th July was 6.2 in 1971 a 44 year record which is amazing in the face of the ever increasing largest urban heat island (UHI) in Australia.’
Warwick Hughes
10
el gordu,
Amazing indeed! If this record has already been set at the peak of the ~60 temperature cycle compared to coming up from the earlier trough of that same cycle, what’s it gonna be like at the trough of the upcoming cycle?
Time to invest in coal!
Abe
10
Finally we see a return of the cool spell between 1945 and 1975.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/70170194/Aucklands-coldest-morning-recorded-in-64-years
10
WaPo goes into battle with a full blown rebuttal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/
20
C/Net backs them up.
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-earth-isnt-headed-for-a-mini-ice-age-anytime-soon/
10
North East US third coldest year on record.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScreenHunter_9924-Jul.-12-18.26.gif
10
ABSTRACT Principle component analysis (PCA) of the solar background magnetic
field (SBMF) measured from Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) magnetograms
revealed the following principal components (PCs) in latitudes: two main
symmetric components, which are the same for all cycles 21-23, and three
pairs of asymmetric components, which are unique for each cycle. These
SBMF variations are assumed to be those of poloidal magnetic field
travelling slightly off-phase from pole to pole while crossing the
equator. They are assumed to be caused by a joint action of dipole and
quadruple magnetic sources in the Sun. In the current
paper, we make the first attempt to interpret these latitudinal
variations in the surface magnetic field with Parker’s two-layer dynamo
model. The latitudinal distributions of such waves are simulated for
cycles 21-23 by the modified Parker’s dynamo model taking into account
both α and ω effects operating simultaneously in the two
(upper and lower) layers of the solar convective zone (SCZ) and having
opposite directions of meridional circulation. The simulations are
carried out for both dipole and quadruple magnetic sources with the
dynamo parameters specifically selected to provide the curves fitting
closely the PCs derived from SBMF variations in cycles 21-23. The
simulations are optimised for matching the positions of maximums in
latitude, the number of equator crossings and the phase difference
between the two dynamo waves operating in the two layers. The dominant
pair of PCs present in each cycle is found to be fully asymmetric with
respect to the magnetic poles and produced by a magnetic dipole. This
pair is found to account for the two main dynamo waves operating between
the two magnetic poles. There are also three further pairs of waves
unique to each cycle and associated with multiple magnetic sources in
the Sun. For the odd cycle 21 the simulated poloidal field fits the
observed PCs, only if they are produced by magnetic sources with a
quadruple symmetry in both layers, while for the even cycle 22 the fit
to the observed PCs is achieved only in the case of quadruple magnetic
sources in the upper layer and dipole sources in the inner layer. For
the other odd cycle 23 the fit to observation is obtained for the
quadruple magnetic sources in the inner layer and the dipole sources in
the upper layer. The magnitudes of dynamo numbers D defining the
conditions (depth and latitude) of a magnetic flux formation and the
numbers N of zeros (equator crossings by the waves) are found to
increase and the meridional circulation speed to decrease with a cycle
number increase (D = -700, N = 3 for cycle 21 and D = -104, N
= 9 for cycle 23). The phase delays between the waves in each unique
pairs are also found to increase with the cycle number from ~9° in
cycle 21 to ~13° in cycle 23.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260728946_Probing_latitudinal_variations_of_the_solar_magnetic_field_in_cycles_21-23_by_Parker's_Two-Layer_Dynamo_Model_with_meridional_circulation
20
Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge the financial sup-port from the Russian Fundamental Research Foundation under the grants 12-02-31128, 12-02-00170, 12-02-00884, 10-02-00960, 14-02-00284 and the support by the Royal Society Joint International grant, UK, during which the research was initiated. The authors wish to thank the staff of the Wilcox Solar Observatory for sup-plying their data for a free use by researchers. Also the authors wish to expressed their deepest appreciation to the referees for very constructive and useful comments, from which paper strongly benefited.
10
Current chart Vukcevic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
10
The northern polar field changed polarity first in June 2012, then weakened and was near neutral in March 2014. The southern polar field reversed in July 2013. During the previous similar polarity reversal in 1989-1991 the northern polar field reversed 14 months prior to the southern polar field reversal.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg
10
The current solar activity.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/goes-xray-flux.gif?time=1437046691000
10
‘Heavy snowfalls over the central ranges all the way up to New England are causing traffic chaos on NSW roads, with the Hume Motorway closed in both directions as wild weather heads towards Sydney.
‘The storms, associated with a cold front that has spawned an east coast low, have prompted the Bureau of Meteorology to reissue a severe weather warning on Friday morning for damaging winds and surf.
“A trough linked to the deepening low off the Illawarra coast is expected to trigger damaging winds this morning for central parts of NSW coast,” the bureau said.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-weather-snow-closes-hume-motorway-as-storms-move-towards-city-20150716-gie9ig.html#ixzz3g5mn7Xer
10
Friday Funny
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/claim-low-solar-activity-will-melt-greenlands-ice-faster/
20
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
00
Sub Tropical Ridge (STR) too far south for this time of year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf
10
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular
00
I showed that the peak latitude anomaly of the summer (DJF) subtropical
high pressure ridge over Eastern Australia (LSA) between 1860 and 2010
were correlated with long term changes in the lunar tidal force.
Wilson, I.R.G., Lunar Tides and the Long-Term Variation
of the Peak Latitude Anomaly of the Summer Sub-Tropical
High Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 49-60
http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOASCJ-6-49
It would be interesting to see if the latitude of the winter
sub tropical ridge was also further south than normal some time
between roughly:
1975 – 1979.5
1995 – 1997.5
[The lower bounds are for a 20.3 year tidal period while the upper
bounds are for an 18.0 year tidal period].
40
Good work Ian, lunar tidal force appears to be a major player. I’ll take a closer look.
20
Kevin Long has predicted a sharp drop in temperatures within two years and believes the ‘lunar orbit is the dominant reason why global average temperatures rapidly rise for about 5 years before a gradual decline sets in during the following 13 years.
‘These repeating trends confuse most people who are involved in the climate change debate.’
00
The temperature distribution in the zone of the ozone and the strength of the polar vortex depends solely on solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_sh_f00.gif
When solar activity increases the pressure falls on the pole and vortex accelerates.
This closes the cold air within the polar vortex.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/june_2014_magnetic_field/14582208-1-eng-GB/June_2014_magnetic_field_node_full_image_2.jpg
10
Yeah, it makes sense.
We can safely say ozone depletion has nothing to do with humans.
00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgLPN-wTGdM
00
Amazing to see it in action.
00
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-221.68,-69.39,319
10
See more at heights of 17 km in the lower stratosphere.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-221.68,-69.39,319
10
SAM is very positive.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
According to BoM when the AAO is positive the westerlies contract towards Antarctica, but I don’t think this is happening.
10
Watch the waves in the stratosphere. Probably occur when the galactic radiation rises (GCR) and solar wind weakens. They disrupt the polar vortex.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JAS_SH_2015.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_SH_2014.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
10
El Gordo
Here you have a block at an altitude of 5 km in the troposphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/real_time_index_nrm.shtml
10
Thanks for all that ren.
00
Dr. Abdussamatov said:
“The most reasonable way to fight against the coming Little Ice Age is a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production in order to adapt mankind to forthcoming period of deep cooling which will last approximately until the beginning of the 22nd century. Early understanding of reality of the forthcoming global cooling and physical mechanisms responsible for it directly determines a choice of adequate and reliable measures which will allow the mankind, in particular, population of countries situated far from the equator, to adapt to the future global cooling.”
Icecap
10
The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University.
http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/
11
Harry: Thou dost besmirch the reputation of Viking Air (of Twin Otter fame)
10
Lief Svalgaard and his colleagues have well documented how and why they proposed certain adjustments to the sunspot record.
The detective work took years, but anyone can read and understand the reasons with about one day’s work. A little familiarity with sunspot activity would help.
But Dr Svalgaard has explained everything well enough for readers who have not studied math or science in school.
And maybe someone who has owned or used telescopes would find it easier. However Dr Svalgaard explained clearly the issue of the resolving power of different telescopes used to observe sunspots.
A statistical background would help too but even there, Dr Svalgaard has explained how different definitions of sunspots and sunspot groups affected the unadjusted time series.
But most of all what would help understand how and why the adjusted data series is better than the old series, is familiarity with Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective, Sherlock Holmes.
For Sherlock Holmes fans, here’s where to learn how and why the adjusted series is a huge step forward: http://www.leif.org/
01