Spotless Sun June 29th, 2016 | Spaceweather.com | SDO/HMI
The Sun is spotless again. I hasn’t been this inactive for a hundred years. This week there are a spate of news stories about a little ice age coming — even from the uber warmista Potsdam Institute.
Looks like a spot of bother for the people feeding off the carbon reduction gravy train? Not so. I predict they will mutate the argument, and with a completely straight face — the effect of carbon dioxide will turn out to be “more complicated”, scientists will rediscover that the molecule emits infra red too — and now rather than just simple warming, it will be responsible for “transforming regional patterns”, “shifting layers” and “wandering jet streams”. It will turn out the sun controls the climate but CO2 amplifies the solar effects. It’s bad, bad, bad — still causing storms, floods, rain on the weekends, rotting reefs and reckless fish.
Predicting discoveries is easy — just ask what establishment scientists would need to discover to keep their fame, status and salary package.
The Quiet Sun: “Winter is Coming”
A meteorologist at Vencore Weather, Paul Dorian, has stated that the sun has gone completely blank for the second time this month. He explained that this is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching. This would mean an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.
The lack of sunspot activity has spread fears that it will prompt the arrival of a very cold period on Earth like that of the Maunder Minimum, which started in 1645 and continued till about 1715. This period is known as the Little Ice Age.
“At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir,” Dorian said in a Vencore Weather statement.
The current solar cycle is much lower than the one before it. Solar Cycles 23 (blue), 24 (red), 5 (grey).
This fits with predictions by Dr David Evans with the Notch Delay theory and with the double dynamo work of Shepard, Zharkov and Zharkova.
Evans found that the flickering changes in total solar light (TSI) lead temperatures on Earth with a delay of a half solar cycle (roughly 11 years). He found a major error in the current climate models which completely ignore a whole class of feedbacks. A model with the correct architecture shows the role of CO2 is a mere tenth of that predicted and when the notch and delay effect is included a solar driven climate model predicts cooling in the near future, most likely from 2017. The solar mechanism probably works through cloud cover due to some combination of solar wind, magnetic effects or spectral cycles (changing UV). Changes in direct sunlight are not responsible themselves, just a leading indicator.
Shepard, Zharkov and Zharkova posit that the sun operates as two separate dynamos on slightly different cycles, and predict that we are headed in the 2030’s for a point where the two dynamos are operating out of synch, effectively cancelling each other out.
“We can conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the solar activity in cycles 24–26 will be systematically decreasing because of the increasing phase shift between the two magnetic waves of the poloidal field leading to their full separation into opposite hemispheres in cycles 25 and 26. This separation is expected to result in the lack of their subsequent interaction in any of the hemispheres, possibly leading to a lack of noticeable sunspot activity on the solar surface lasting for a decade or two, similar to those recorded in the medieval period.”
UPDATE: And if you did think the world was more likely to cool rather than warm, you might want to know about Cool Futures: the plan to set up the Worlds first hedge fund that aims to pop the climate-bubble.
Potsdam Institute –“scientists are speaking of a little ice age.”
Pierre Gosslin at NoTricksZone puts this turnaround in perspective:
The daily Berliner Kurier here writes today that solar physicists at the ultra-warmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) are warning that Europe may be facing “a mini ice age” due to a possible protracted solar minimum.
For an institute that over the past 20 years has steadfastly insisted that man has been almost the sole factor in climate change over the past century and that the sun no longer plays a role, this is quite remarkable.
REFERENCES
Evans, David (2015) The Notch Delay Solar Theory, ScienceSpeak.
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 Marvin, Rereke, Chris Dawson (CoolFutures)
If the present indications or predictions are accurate what will Australian politicians be talking about in the lead up to the 2019 federal election, as the cooling continues, as Summer days on average become several degrees C cooler than we have been experiencing?
How will they excuse the enormous waste of money on wind turbines and solar systems, and fossil fuel powered power stations being abandoned, decommissioned?
And the money, note needed to be borrowed with an annual interest liability, remitted to the UN, UN IPCC and other foreign organisations instead of being used to protect Australians from real climate change, a new cooling cycle?
No wonder they are reluctant to talk about climate change politics in the present election campaign.
161
I doubt that imprecise predictions by AGW advocates are the reason the Aus politicians are not talking about climate change in this campaign. There are a number of important issues they have gone quiet on.
The reason (in my view)?
So that they have maximum “agility” after the election. That is, 180 mind changes, ugly policy changes, doubling the RET, dodging gotchas and generally making mayhem with minimum accountability.
My view of representative democracy is that in exchange for our vote, candidates detail hard, costed, accountable policies on major issues *before* an election. Without that quid pro quo, we’re just sitting ducks. And so it goes, on and on …
221
Im in Potsdam ATM and I can tell you that no-one here is talking about a mini-iceage, or not at least anyone I’ve spoken to or heard from.
15
The biggest concern to most people will be the ability to pay for heating. Oh, wait, I think the UK is already experiencing that problem.
I would like a register to be established that lists every person that wants to close down all fossil fuel power stations, supports inefficient ‘renewables’ etc, so that they will be required to subsidise all those who want cost effective power (coal, gas, nuclear etc) and based on income (not after tax income). I don’t care if they are on the dole, an Australia Council grant, anything (including corporate), their lifestyle choices will be used to supplement those who are now increasingly disadvantaged by energy poverty.
I wonder how many names would appear in such a register?
111
It is already happening.
I received an email from my provider (AGL) today advising me that electricity rate and daily supply charges are increasing by 10% on 1st July.
51
Wonderful, I just changed to AGL as my previous supplier (Lumo) wasn’t prepared to negotiate their rates. But did I get numerous phone calls from them after I’d formally changed providers, insisting that whoever I’d spoken to had made a mistake. I suspect Lumo’s prices would be going up as well.
One day it’ll be cheaper buying a diesel generator off eBay and connecting that to your home, than pandering to the so-called cost efficient, renewable, energy sources.
70
Maybe, just maybe, if the temps grow a little cooler, the warmists will say, ‘Just look how our change to sustainable energy has cooled the temps’. Of course. this will go hand-in-hand with lower ‘homogenised’ CO2 levels.
81
Ian Goerge says.
It’s a certainty.
As for ‘homogenised’ lower CO2 levels, that might take a little longer, because CO2 levels follow temperature. There may be some `puzzled’ klimatologists for some months, though.
41
Then we have to wonder, what was the ultimate aim of the UN elitists?
¯
To get western nations to horde their fuel stocks, go all out for fossil replacements, get western economies to slow down and consume less for the future?
But do it without frightening the western population too much, distract them with all this CO2 and sustainability cr@p-waffle. Finance China to ensure that there is a reasonably good manufacturing base when the freeze comes. While we are there, why not sow the seeds of conflict in the geographical areas most likely to survive a big freeze, thus ensuring that necessary supply lines can be easily commandeered later.
Could not this their ultimate ‘plausible deniability’? That way they could say they have to destroyed western capitalism in order to save the west’s future. The reason for their ‘New World Order’?
I know, I know, it’s a deep and dark scenario, but is it *that* unlikely?
Anyone wish to write the book and sell the film rights? Go ahead…
11
“Then we have to wonder, what was the ultimate aim of the UN elitists?”
Tom,
Please do not attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The stupid are Br-peons Euro-peons, Oz-peons, and Us-peons! Your elitists are the sharks, un-aware of the larger shark just behind! Some-peons can hide until the sharks consume themselves! May you live in interesting times!
11
We live in interesting times. Two competing theories, one based on atmosphere composition which assumes that solar variation is negligent and the other that says external solar effects drive warm and cold cycles. One predicts consistent warming, the other a transition to a colder climate that has not been seen in centuries. Experiments on a planetary solar system scale taking place before our eyes and we may be on the cusp mother nature revelations. My prediction … the people who predict catastrophe will continue to predict catastrophe which ever way it goes and government bureaucrats will insist more taxes, fees and regulations will be needed to solve the crisis.
221
“So Tom Gjelten, host of a recent NPR discussion of the Journal ad controversy, is completely satisfied when Matt Nisbet, a professor of communications studies at Northeastern University, explains, “On the fundamentals of climate science, there is absolutely no debates. The overwhelming majority of scientists . . . strongly agree that climate change is happening, that it’s human-caused and that it’s an urgent problem.”” [In the WSJ today]
Good thing I wasn’t listening to NPR. Would likely have wrecked the car while laughing.
CO2 battles sunspots for control of Earth’s climate. Or maybe CO2 causes sunspots to go away.
El Niño -warm – fades, and La Niña -cool – comes.
Note that this will happen just in time to mess with the changes for 2017 expected with the Notch Delay theory.
I hope to live long enough to see all this get figured out.
81
Quick! Tell the journalists running the news items on your evening television news so that they can run another breathless news scare story with yummy graphics! What a relief! Now that Brexit is a few days old the journos need something new to scare the punters. After all, ambulance chasing gets rather boring after a while.
90
The only metric that can stop the monster in its tracks is the CO2 levels and as we know Temp drives CO2 with an 800 odd year lag it wont matter how cold it gets in the next 20-30 years CO2 will still slowly crawl upward.
It will be BAU for the wannabe climate scientists and their eco tard followers because after all changes in the sun has nothing to do with changing the climate……sigh
regards
153
There will be all manner of squirming, no doubt, but I suspect that a couple of decades of cooling may well put a mark on the trajectory of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Exactly how much will be interesting to note as it will allude to the anthropogenic component in over supply.
51
Crakar,
It is established science, that CO2 drives temperature.
So obviously, because the sun and temperature are empirically linked, it is reasonable to hypothesise that when the concentration of CO2 gets over a certain level, it will cause a temporary lessening in the number of sunspots.
I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. It is well-established science, after all.
131
Rereke Whakaaro June 30, 2016 at 6:28 pm
“Crakar, It is established science, that CO2 drives temperature. So obviously, because the sun and temperature are empirically linked, it is reasonable to hypothesize that when the concentration of CO2 gets over a certain level, it will cause a temporary lessening in the number of sunspots. I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. It is well-established science, after all.”
Not only that!… science, is well documented in the old testament! Way back near the end of the first day of the 6 day workweek, When atmosphere was almost all O2 with a bit of N2, the low bidders Generous Dynamics and Aerojet General inadvertently caused first and only really good Volcanic eruption. Methane (cow farts) nearly equal to 1/2 the numeric O2 molecules pranced outward! One flick of the Bick does this!! 🙂 1CH4 + 2O2 yields 1CO2 + 2H2O. It rained concentrated Carbonic acid for 40 days and 40 nights. Almost all of that carbonic acid turned the surface calcium into calcium carbonate, now at the bottom of ocean.
That’s when the young local God fired the low bidder and hired Lockheed and JPL/Caltech to try to finish constructing this Earth! Earthlings cannot figure out how the damn thing works because the JPL guys must keep tweeking on it, to get it correct!
One would think they would finally say “Close enough for government work!” then take day 7 off and get really dronk on Lorentz transforms! 🙂
All the best! -will-
23
I suppose I should have put /sarc, on the end,
80
First post in aw gee 6 months? and i get a red thumb nice to see the gene pool is still at a depth the toddlers can wade in
92
Cracka,
Your post was fine in my view. The occasional red thumb is due to accidental right thumb scrolling on smart phones. I don’t think it was me this time, but I have had the odd slip up in the past. Point being: don’t pay much heed to the odd red thumb.
83
Right, said the Red Queen, off with his thumbs!
70
“Right, said the Red Queen, off with his thumbs!”
Just wait until your real Queen says: old angelic “off with his ‘ead'”
You do not want to be identified with that particular ‘his’. 🙂
00
Welcome back Jatz. 🙂
70
Cold enough for ya in Ballarat yonnie lol
Cheers mate
60
We have no sun here, someone fed it Valium. 🙁
Strange how the local Fauxfacts rag here bangs on about hottest day, month, year evahh but says nothing about the colder winters with consecutive weeks under 10°C.
111
One of our recent winters here in Canada was consistently under -15C for some weeks.
31
I keep being reminded of what the China delegation told the Copenhagen Conference, that during 3,600 years of civilisation and records in China there were three periods that were warmer than the present day (warming cycle we now know ended during 1998), each warmer period brought greater prosperity to China as crop yields increased and more benefits to the people.
191
I’m predicting that warmunists will claim that the lower solar activity is masking the effects of CO2 (after previously claiming that solar variations have little effect on climate), and when the Sun is more active, CAGW will be “back with a vengeance”.
That is, if they haven’t already
101
Agree David N
This is just going to be used as a ready made excuse when their predictions of a terrible, horrible, miserable, hot world and all of the silly claims of death and mayhem they’ve made that will be the consequences of it don’t come to pass.
On another note it seems to this layman that there is a great deal of disagreement even among skeptics about how much effect the solar cycle really has on our climate. It seems some are constantly pointing out that the sunspot count and solar cycles have little to do with the amount of solar radiance our planet receives. Certainly solar minimums do show a weakening of the solar magnetosphere and thus more cosmic rays reach out planet. But other than that point there seems to be a great deal of disagreement. BTW even though our solar disk has been blank for a few days there are a fair number of spots on the far side.
71
Perhaps the difference of opinions lie in viewing the sun as a light bulb with a dimmer switch rather than a fusion reactor with variable output?
50
Hi Dave,
If it does get colder then expect a gold medal performance in linguistic gymnastics by the warmbots
80
Dave N @ # 8
Start pedalling harder to try and try and catch up with those warmnustas, Dave N.
From the NoTricksZone post.
PIK aka “Potsdam Institute” run by the arrogant and self promoting and rabidly pro warmist and “Denier” bashing Shellenhuber is notorious for its constant distortion of any climate science and creation of spurious facts surrounding the science or what passes in warmusta and media circles as supposedly the “science” of the supposed Global Warming / Climate Change.
As the Greens and water melon enviro outfits like Greenpeace, the WWF and etc have hung their hats high indeed on being able to use the global warming / climate change meme to infiltrate and further their hard left dictatorial trending power and influence in the highest global political organisations that the nations of the Earth are supposed to kowtow to on bended knee, political developments such as Brexit and now the formerly very hard line pro warmist Potsdam Institute plus a rapidly increasing number of papers that are calling into question the entire underlying basis of the supposed CO2 created catastrophic climate change [ if you can find anybody who can accurately define such catastrophic climate change ] is rapidly eating into the heart and soul of the hard left communistic power grabbing Green’s attempts to seize and hold as much political power as they can via the claimed Climate Change catastrophe meme.
Remembering that when Communist Russia , the USSR collapsed in 1991 the hard line communistic western left was left with no where to go so they infiltrated the then already trending left environmental movement and have turned the environmental movement into vehicle that they have used to attempt to assume power over the nations of the Earth.
You only have to look at who are the leading lights in the greens and Greenpeace today and etc to see the truth of this claim which arose via Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and a persona non grata in Greenpeace today who have been trying to write him out of their history.
Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, stated it well.
“Following the collapse of world communism . . . many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas.
To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political activists using green language to cloak agendas having more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology.
I remember visiting (one of our offices) and being surprised at how many were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.”
161
Well done ROM.
I’m Impressed: Highest FF I’ve seen for quite a while. 🙂
152 words as one sentence punctuated with 2 commas, 1 / and 1 pair of brackets [ ] before the full stop.
You must have scared away the Red Thumber by thoroughly confusing him/her. 🙂
You’re right (and so is Moore), about the realignment of the anti-establishmentarians or the (mad) Extreme Left, I was handed a tract by a communist party member at a climate lecture by a visiting American professor emeritus at a local university a couple of years ago.
The Prof’s lecture started off as scarily as possible: “there is no Pause, Warming was still roaring away … the Clathrate Trigger had been pulled … two degrees rise in warming will cause a human mass extinction.” Apparently, and according to him, “Mankind has never been exposed to a two degree rise.” Yeah, I know, there’s 10 – 15 degrees change every 24 hours and similar again on top of that every six months depending on where one lives, but nobody queried that little omission. Then there was the 15 degrees rise which brought in the Holocene punctuated by the Younger Dryas.
I would assume from that statement that he’s never heard of the Eemian interstadial from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago.. According to this graph it was about 3 degrees warmer than our present 0.7 degrees of present warming in the Northern Hemisphere above the pre-1850 average, whatever that was. More cynically, he might have been hoping his audience hadn’t. The Minoan Warming might have topped that, too.
While everyone (else) was reacting with suitable fear and horror, the Party Member had taken a handful of papers from his suitcase and was scurrying round handing them out to anyone he could. The tract claimed an `alliance’ between the Intractable Far Left (Communists) and the AGW protagonists (Klimatologists or Propagandists) was “necessary to save the people, the country and the world.”
When I earnestly asked if this included the rest of the Solar System because Mars, Uranus and Neptune had all shown they were suffering from their own Global Warming, I was firmly assured they needed rescuing too.
I wish I had kept that tract.
PS: FF = Fog Factor 🙂
21
“PIK aka “Potsdam Institute” run by the arrogant and self promoting and rabidly pro warmist and “Denier” bashing Shellenhuber”
Schellnhuber is the German name given to a group of idiots, meaning “Go away as fast as possible or I must shoot your young ass!” 🙂
[By young ass, I assume you mean a young donkey? -Fly]
21
You no doubt have seen upon which they ride! 🙂
BTW shooting makes the ass increase exit velocity by only a wee bit! 🙂
00
Thanks again for your great work Jo (and David). BTW, did you see this very interesting post recently on WUWT regarding a new theory of Ice Ages?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/28/new-paper-modulation-of-ice-ages-via-precession-and-dust-albedo-feedbacks/
I read it (as a layman) and thought that it made eminent sense, especially after looking up a graph of the rate of CO2 uptake in seawater vs water temperature – the rate of uptake increases significantly as water temperature falls, indicating a (mild) positive feedback effect which would be consistent with the author’s hypothesis that glaciations end through the effect of dust albedo at the Arctic caused by deforestation which in turn is caused by low CO2 levels.
I would be most interested in any comments by you & Davis on this!
91
From the Notrick’s story there’s a link called Space Weather Live that looks pretty sciencey for all you wonderful eggheads.
51
The effect of solar radiation on the upper atmosphere feed down to the lower layer (eventually).
This paper outlines how well a models fit to the observation on ‘Mesospheric temperature trends at mid-latitudes in summer’
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049528/full
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other papers point to the release of atomic oxygen through ionization varies with solar events, and this impacts on the production of ozone in the upper atmosphere.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JA021405/full
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These papers, and a few other papers, point to the stratosphere/mesosphere/thermosphere being changed in temperature, chemical make-up, and total volume by the action of the solar radiations and solar winds. How all of this couples together and impacts further down has yet to be fully proved by reliable observations/measurements. What is very evident is that the stratosphere/thermosphere has cooled and shrunk since about 1997/1998 (is this still continuing, and what timescale is involved?) and appears to be coupled to the effects of solar output that impacts our planet.
Also it is known that as the sun’s output declines the effects of cosmic ray becomes more effective in causing very high clouds. Though this Wikipedia entry is so rubbish they even have the appalling “In any case, 97% of climate scientists” figure in it but no mention of the CERN experiments,as reported here and many other places.
Maybe the real scientists a CERN were not canvassed for their opinions?
As our sun’s output dwindles it will become increasingly evident that so called AGW effect is nothing compared to what nature in all its might can do. All those in the wool trade may see this a coming bonus…
61
How did Evans get to be a PhD and not have learned that energy is the time-integral of power? In this case, TSI is power (or a proxy for power) and temperature divided by effective thermal capacitance is energy. The temperature continues to increase as long as the ‘power’ is positive. It’s not mysterious, it’s math.
Average Global Temperature (AGT) is extremely sensitive to low altitude clouds. A decrease in low altitude clouds means an increase in average cloud altitude, decrease in average cloud temperature, decrease in energy radiated from cloud to space and increase in earth temperature. An increase in average cloud altitude of only about 186 meters would account for the entire temperature increase of 0.74 K. Fewer clouds also means lower albedo, more energy absorbed, higher AGT so the two factors are additive.
TSI changes with sunspots but so does the solar magnetic field. The solar magnetic field modulates galactic cosmic rays which, according to Henrik Svensmark, effect clouds.
37
Define Average Global Temperature (AGT) in your over simplified hypothesis of an alien planet.
51
OVER simplified is an opinion. AGT is as reported by the 5 reporting agencies. Whether it is actual temperature or anomaly is obvious from context. Simplified calculation of sensitivity of AGT to clouds is at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com
32
Sorry for the delay, D Pangburn.
I’m rather interested in what you think is meant by AGT.
How does this AGT relate to the many atmospheric layers and how they interrelate. How does the AGT relate to temperature inversions that happens at altitude over time?
How do you understand AGT relates to the different variable wind speeds, the varying chemical composition (ozone and oxygen release, etc), and interactions that happen at differing altitudes over time.
Oh, and how does the over-simplistic AGT account for all the energy that is converted from thermal energy in these layers and observed processes, or maybe this theory implies that they do not require any energy?
Your ideas on clouds is beautifully incomplete — does it stand comparison with observation that happen over any specified time period? I think not.
The idea of AGT is wonderful as a first step but appears to fail in many ways when compared to this planet’s many observed processes that happen in time. As Dr. Evens has shown there appears to be a delay of about 11 years, or so, between the sun’s changes and their many climate effects seen later on this planet.
In relating AGT ideas to Dr. Evan Notch Delay theory is, I feel, very mistaken, as far as I see it AGT hypothesis only considers averaged temperature (whatever that means) and does not consider the time element for these change — for these changes can not happen immediately, can they? If they take a finite time, how long is it and why?
And there is the shortfall in AGT theory — accounting for temperature changes over time. Dr. Evans by comparison seeks to show how the sun changes this planet over time and in a quasi-cyclic way (albeit with an inbuilt delay).
51
No worries on the delay. I am in Arizona, USA so we are probably in quite different time zones.
As I said, AGT is as reported by the 5 agencies. The increase in it (until about 2002) is what got many erroneously concerned about Global Warming. AGT is supposed to represent the average surface temperature of the planet. The different agencies have different ways of arriving at what they report as AGT. It doesn’t matter much as long as what they do is rational and they are consistent in the way they do it. The significance is in the change with time of the numbers they report.
Trying to account for all possible factors such as the ones you mentioned has resulted in “epic fail” as shown at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means. The ’emergent structures analysis’ approach as described at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com has done a good job (97% match to measurements) of calculating AGT since before 1900. It predicts an AGT downtrend until at least 2020. Is it not obvious that time is very much a part of my assessment?
02
And while you are thinking about replying to tomomason …
Define what you mean by “low altitude clouds”.
And for the record, the ability of cosmic rays to seed clouds has been empirically demonstrated in a cloud chamber – no new science there.
81
OVER simplified is an opinion. AGT is as reported by the 5 reporting agencies. Whether it is actual temperature or anomaly is obvious from context. The simplified calculation of sensitivity of AGT to clouds is at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com
24
Yes I agree, over-simplified is my opinion. And it is as worthy as your logical fallacy in your plea to the higher authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (“as reported by the 5 reporting agencies”).
But then again I feel that the idea of averaging the quasi-stable states and quasi-cyclic swings within a noisy chaotic system amusing. And I will enjoy the day such over-simplistic ideas are overturned by events, as they most assuredly will be.
61
I make no plea to higher authority. In fact, I question the practice of changing already reported values as has been done recently by the agencies which report AGT using surface and/or near surface measurements although the end results (temperature trend is down, CO2 has no significant effect) don’t change much irrespective of the data sets used as long as the METHOD is complied with.
14
As I’ve indicated many times before, it is to pay attention to the small things, the minutia, that will give us better indicators and understanding as to where our climate is heading.
Dr. Evans, Erl Happ, and a few others show that intense research into different aspects and specific areas of nature can reveal better, more timely indicators of the direction our climate may well be heading.
AGT to me looks more like a very broad brush with low sensitivity. It is good at confirming what has happened (eventually) but poor at seeing what is about to happen. AGT does not, IMO, offer much, it is a lagging indicator and no amount of mathematical wizardry can change that.
As far as I see it Dr. Evans approach is more sensitive as it takes into account the ~11 year delay he has identified; this delay appears inherent in the way our climate reacts to changes in solar output. Through his method he derives a better approximation of the present conditions and a realistic idea for a possible future.
This appears to be in direct conflict to your quoted ‘globalclimatedrivers’ site that says —
That is not to say that this quote is wrong I’m just pointing out Dr. Evan has shown a different time constant. Maybe it’s control is a different, more responsive variable. Maybe not. How and why it is ~11 years is not known yet however interpretation of observations appear to confirm this delay.
Erl Happ’s ideas may be even more sensitive as they rely on current information with interpretation (including historic considerations), of the atmospheric changes in ozone, pressure gradients, and air movement over the globe. The major drawback here is whether to agree with Erl’s methodology and interpretation of the data. He and his explanation is however very compelling.
As climate, its measurement, and its analysis is in flux I feel it is foolhardy to disparage one theory over another. At the current state of play no theory explains all that happens with our climate. From what I can see they all have some degree of merit.
Only two things are certain —
1. A few hundredth of a percent variation in the atmospherically rare gas CO2 is irrelevant to the climate.
2. As the science is in its infancy no-one knows it all, or for sure; there is yet a very long way to go.
Be aware that anyone who says they know how and why the climate changes is a hubristic fo0l, and deserves all the ridicule and scorn that is poured on them.
¯
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shall humans, like the mammoths before them, stand resolute and immobile while all around the climate changes, locking them in its grip for a millennia?
61
Svensmark defines ‘low altitude’ as up to 3 km. The CLOUD experiment is the most recent of 3 references (14, 15, 16) in http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com. This link shows a 97% match between calculated and measured AGT since before 1900 without the need to include significant influence from CO2. The Svensmark paper helped ‘connect the dots’ between the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies and AGT anomalies.
23
It is your reference to Average Global Temperature (AGT), without need to reference anything else….
is the intentional colossal SCAM!
Any measured local temperature function, has vast wealth of planetary history! Any attempt to aggregate/average/harmonize such measurement flushes all of that valuable information! The sharks must and do circle! 🙂
63
Dan Pangburn June 30, 2016 at 5:58 pm
After replying to tomOmason and Rereke Whakaaro… please explain how some spatio-temporal average temperature have any scientific meaning whatsoever! Introducing such a concept can only be deliberate intent to scam!
DP:”How did Evans get to be a PhD and not have learned that energy is the time-integral of power?”
WOW! David Evans likely can also express power as the first derivative of energy with respect to time also, but only when such expression has some meaning, not just stale Pangburn alphabet soup! 🙁
DP:”In this case, TSI is power (or a proxy for power) and temperature divided by effective thermal capacitance is energy.”
Gee! Insolation evaporating water does just what to its temperature? By ‘effective thermal capacitance are you referring the the scientific term “specific heat” of some quantity of some mass? What mass and how much of it? What is the mass of the atmosphere? What is its temperature? Why?
DP:”The temperature continues to increase as long as the ‘power’ is positive. It’s not mysterious, it’s math.”
Can you define “positive power”? Seems the Pangburn would not recognize “math” if the math crawled up and bit him! 🙁
74
Will – Apparently you have never explored the thermodynamics of transient heat transfer analysis. Most of us Mechanical Engineers understand that stuff quite well.
13
Dan Pangburn July 1, 2016 at 3:57 am
“Will– Apparently you have never explored the thermodynamics of transient heat transfer analysis. Most of us Mechanical Engineers understand that stuff quite well.”
Gee no, I’ve never done/explored anything like that! Since you have such vast understanding:
1) Would you now please explain how some spatio-temporal average temperature have any scientific meaning whatsoever?
2) Insolation evaporating water does just what to its temperature?
3) By ‘effective thermal capacitance are you referring the the scientific term “specific heat” of some quantity of some mass?
3a) What mass and how much of it?
3b) What is the mass of the atmosphere?
3c) What is its temperature?
3d) Why?
4) Can you define “positive power”?
Since you claim extensive knowledge of clouds!
5a) What is the total mass of atmospheric H2O in all of its phases?
5b) How much of each (in atmosphere only) is solid, liquid, gas, and each of the two colloids?
5c) At what rate in Watts from continuous insolation in the morning, converting from water colloid to gas is Earth’s atmosphere storing latent heat of evaporation?
5d) At how much lower temperature is all of that latent heat of evaporation converted back to cloud sensible heat then to be dispatched only to space via EMR thermal flux from the cloud vast 3d structure?
6) Are these questions to hard for “most of us Mechanical Engineers” who understand that stuff quite well?
Dr. David Evans, with his multiple degrees, clearly has you and the 97% motley lot of Climate Clowns way way outclassed! Dr. Evans long ago, truly learned how to think! 🙂
93
Schwartz determined the effective thermal capacitance (he calls it “effective planetary heat capacity”) here: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
The time-integral of positive power is energy increase. The time-integral of negative power would be energy decrease.
Do you really not know how to calculate the mass of the atmosphere?
Your questions demonstrate that you are hopelessly mired in minutia; some of which might be relevant wrt local weather but are of no use in assessing/predicting the AGT trajectory.
My main interest is in demonstrating that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. That I have done and in the process I identified the two factors (besides the insignificant effect of CO2) which explain the AGT trajectory trend (97% match to measurements since before 1900).
12
From joanne’s lead in:
The”SWINISH MULTITUDE!”feeding at the government trough. With the AlGoresta sharks circling about!
Dan Pangburn July 1, 2016 at 10:14 am
“Schwartz determined the effective thermal capacitance (he calls it “effective planetary heat capacity”) here:” http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
“Your Schwartz is but one of the swinish!
(“The heat capacity of the global ocean,obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature GMST, is 14 ± 6 Wyr/(m²K).”)
Is this some sort of joke flux in Watt years per Kelvin area!
With this introductory premise, can there be any doubt as to the intent of deliberate scam:
“Do you really not know how to calculate the mass of the atmosphere?”
I do not; nor does anyone else! Meteorology claims approximately 5 x 10^18 kg, I claim less that 2 x 10^18 kg! What is your ‘out of the toilet’ claim? Actual atmospheric mass ,and where it is, remains important, as this sets the momentum force of the constantly moving atmosphere.
“Your questions demonstrate that you are hopelessly mired in minutia; some of which might be relevant wrt local weather but are of no use in assessing/predicting the AGT trajectory.”
Here you again you intentionally promote some fool concept now ‘AGT trajectory’! Such concept can have no meaning except to ‘the swinish’ in their deliberate intent to scam”
“My main interest is in demonstrating that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. That I have done and in the process I identified the two factors (besides the insignificant effect of CO2) which explain the AGT trajectory trend (97% match to measurements since before 1900).”
Your intent is clearly to promote the very same scam that has been bleeding the Br-peons, Euro-peons, Oz-peons, and US-peons for the last 30 years! This bleeding will not stop untill All-peons understand that temperature itself means nothing, causes nothing. Temperature is but an easy to do, crude measurement, of something yet unknown!
33
Dan Pangburn
Apparently you enjoy estimating by the most over-simplistic methods. This is evident in your faulty ideas of both people and climate.
52
😉
40
Dan, you are 25 posts behind in this series. Start here The Notch Delay Solar Theory.
We look forward to your critique after that.
Thanks Will.
71
Your link here does not work, but no matter, this one does: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html. Recognition of the thermodynamics of transient heat transfer, and/or that the time-integral of power is energy (or that the first derivative of energy is power) explains the perceived ‘delay’ without the need for a new theory. The ‘Notch delay solar theory’ is bogus.
18
Dan Pangburn July 1, 2016 at 4:29 am
“Recognition of the thermodynamics of transient heat transfer, and/or that the time-integral of power is energy (or that the first derivative of energy is power) explains the perceived ‘delay’ without the need for a new theory.”
Thermodynamics by itself is incapable of explaing the complex fluid dynamics of this Earth’s surface, ocean, atmospheric combined process! The stored power in the Earth’s momentum locations (if ever mapped) may give some hint!
Ian Wilson @#18 gives his excellent report of how all solar system bodies have demonstrated gravitational and inertial interaction with all other bodies, far beond mere 4space location. Such also demonstrates that our Sun, actively moderates these interactions in means other than gravitation, and inertia!
“The ‘Notch delay solar theory’ is bogus.”
Thank you so much for your learned opinion!
Now go have your mommy change your diapers
63
Jo – Sorry I missed your earlier articles on Dr. Evan’s work. Think of this: Take a symmetrical curve (e.g. SSN or TSI) that goes with time from zero to maximum and back to zero. The maximum of this curve is at its midpoint in time but the maximum of its time-integral is at the second zero. Its not a ‘delay’ it is just the way math of the physical world works.
06
Gee! The first derivative/integral of a sine function with respect to its operand, is a cosine function. How wonderful, now we all know everything! Perhaps someday you will discover the symmetry between a linear function and its complex conjugate. Barkeep another round of Lorentz transforms please!
83
You are picking a fight here, think again. In the politest possible way, David is so far ahead you can’t see the dust. :- )
Look, it’s hard for you. We live miles from anywhere and you’ve never seen him speak. David’s PhD was in calculus and fourier transforms at Stanford (and under Ron Bracewell). His Silicon valley EEng experience means he can apply real maths of feedback circuits, the maths that works on mobile phones, which climate modelers don’t understand (don’t even know exists). I swear he thinks and dreams in integrals. You have not read his work and you come to lecture us on sine curves?
He has already analyzed whether the buildup of extra energy sustained over time explains the rises and falls in temperature. That’s the low pass filter he expected to find, and found, back in 2014. But there aren’t enough joules, the numbers don’t add up, and the timing doesn’t fit. Plus there is a lot of corroborative empirical work showing the delay is real. If you read this blog you’d know this. And he found the notch filter, dominant and active and running at the not-so-coincidental 11 year average mark. The lag that that implies, plus the observations, means it is a true delay,(see the Step Response Fig 2) not just a slow build up — we’ve gone through this on the blog so many times. Just as we’ve known and written about Svensmark for years (surely, seriously, did you think you are telling us something new?)
Two years ago I suggested the cosmic ray theory might be the cause of the notching effect at the peak of the TSI (in the same months as the polar solar magnetic fields are collapsing inwards as they flip). See Fig 1. It makes so much sense. But we havent’ been able to find data to confirm that. It’d be great if you can find the spike in cloud cover as the TSI peaks. Be my guest. We’ve looked.
As we said in the post TSI is *only* a leading indicator. In other posts we’ve discussed how the mechanism for Force N and Force D may be a magnetic effect, or the solar wind, or spectral changes, or something else — probably acting on albedo.
91
Jo – I have no interest in a fight but am willing, to a point, too provide information and respond to rational challenges. My findings are freely available at the stated links. My method provides a 97% match to measured AGT since before 1900.
The method can be applied at any year, calibrated using data up to that year to project to any year in the future. The trend projection from 1990 to 2020 is within 0.08 K of the trend projection using data through 2015 (Fig 16 vs Fig 13 at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com).
If you had spent some time with my stuff you might have noticed many similarities between Dr. Evans’ and my approach. We both did ‘top down’ instead of ‘bottom up’ analyses and both concluded CO2 has no significant effect on climate, fewer sunspots portends planet cooling, more sunspots portends planet warming and the on-going temperature trend is down. We also both conclude that the direct change to TSI is not adequate and that its effect is amplified by clouds.
With statements like “…not just the usual type of “delay” where some effect takes 11 years to be big enough to notice…” it appears that Dr. Evans understands the engineering physics but then he does things like Fig 1 at http://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/new-science-22-solar-tsi-leads-earths-temperature-with-an-11-year-delay/ where he plots a power metric (TSI) on the same graph as an energy metric (temperature) and says they“…have mainly trended together”. That is like plotting your speedometer reading on the same graph as your odometer reading. The comparison is nonsense.
I have been unable to locate anything where Dr. Evans compares a calculated to measured indicator of climate change such as AGT.
The magnitude of change in cloud cover (with TSI or sunspot numbers) to account for AGT change since before 1900 is very small although Svensmark and others claim to see it. I made a crude estimate at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com
Incidentally, my first public mention of Svensmark was in 2010, here http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2010/corroborationofnaturalclimatechange.pdf
12
Jo, Do you get the impression that Dan is wriggling, and does not want to look at David’s work?
Perhaps he is afraid that he wont understand it? It does need a little more than fifth form maths.
Or perhaps he is worried that he will be accused of heresy, and excommunicated from the Church of Gaia?
We live in perilous times.
71
“Jo, Do you get the impression that Dan is wriggling, and does not want to look at David’s work?”
Dan’s brainwashing is in the US Mechanical engineering! He simply can not let go of the idea that every temperature, nomater how twisted, must have important meaning. Theromometric, thermodynamic, and radiometric temperatures are sometimes aligned as to value for some limited scope/scale. These three plus several others simply have no relationship to each other across broad endeavor! They remain only a indicator of something undefinable. An aggregate of temperature can never have any physical meaning.
23
Anyone just see the guy on “The Project” basically doing a Bill Nye impersonation (complete with bow tie)? He played down any talk of reduced solar activity by the unwashed masses and confirmed that global warming is a bigger threat than ever because science.
70
The Centennial Gleissberg has a decade lag.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715004901
51
This is roughly how the cycle works.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0516.gif
51
Thanks El Gordo!
31
Thanks el gordo.
I’m dubious. It would require a warning force of unknown means (i.e. not just direct heating by TSI) that gradually builds up heat on Earth but which is suddenly noticeable only one decade after it started. Wouldn’t it just warm the surface gradually for a decade?
Oceans can do tricky things, but the simpler explanation is that the actual warming starts a decade later.
41
‘Wouldn’t it just warm the surface gradually for a decade?’
There is much we don’t know, in this puzzle ENSO remains an enigma.
21
Talking of solar cycles, they found a 210 year signal in the Central Asian mountain region and its linked to the sun.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018207005214
51
But can the sun control Brexzit??
IMO brexit will be another Greece,
30
But Germany is trying (desperately!) to stave off the day of Greece’s bankruptcy by ‘other methods’. Basically the Germans are trying to engineer a method whereby the next generation of Europeans will have to meet this difficulty…
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/10/germany-appears-to-cave-on-greek-debt/
[Tom, I can’t tell why this was was stuck in moderation. There’s no problem with it other than being off topic. But it’s a fair reply to Mike so it’s approved. Let this be the end of such discussion in a thread about sun spots. Thanks.] AZ
30
Thanks AZ, and yes I agree it is off topic…
20
Let’s hope it cools things fast enough to save all the poor penguins. Rescued from the brink of being too cold and too far from the ocean, now the little guys are in deep guano again.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/167699/20160630/say-hello-to-the-adelie-penguin-before-climate-change-decimates-populations.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/adelie-penguins-antarctica-climate-change-population-decline-refugia/
and the study that all the above and more have pretended to read: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep28785
Of course, as the sun is going off for a rest and we are heading into a period of coolness, perhaps the little beasties will putter on in innocence, not aware of the near-miss with the doom being predicted.
Time for the chicken-intestine-reading models to receive a quick recalibration so they may negate the next not-warming trend.
41
El Gordo,
The rule-of-thumb rule that I established in:
Wilson, I.R.G., Carter, B.D., and Waite, I.A., 2008,
Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the
Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?,
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia,
2008, 25, 85 – 93.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS06018.htm
indicates that the current lull in solar activity (caused by the
88.5 year Gleissberg cycle will end in the late 2030’s – i.e.
roughly towards the mid to latter part of cycle 26.
Solar activity should revert back to near normal levels after then.
In the above article Jo and David said:
“Changes in direct sunlight are not responsible themselves [for climate changes], [but are] just a leading indicator.”
I believe that:
What the changes in direct sunlight are a leading indicator of, is the Earth’s climate response to short term (13.66 day)
LOD (length-of-day) changes in the Earth’s rotation rate cause by cycles in the lunar tides.
The LOD changes cause by the varying lunar tidal stresses show longer term cycles at roughly:
88.5 years – Gleissberg cycle
104 years
148 years
208 years – de Vries cycle
356 years
504 years
708 years
975 years – Eddy cycle
2300 years – Hallstadt cycle
These are also the periodic cycles that are seen in the C14 and Be10 proxy records
of the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field – a strong indicator of the level of solar
activity on the Sun.
The reason why both these these cycles (i.e. the solar dynamo(s) and the Earth’s LOD variations
caused by the lunar tides) are synchronised is that they are both driven by the same underlying
process – related to the planetary gravitational and tidal effects upon the Sun and the Earth-Moon system.
Please read:
Wilson, I.R.G.: The Venus–Earth–Jupiter spin–orbit coupling
model, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 147-158
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/147/2013/prp-1-147-2013.pdf
72
Ian, thanks for dropping by. I will do my best to get into the LOD work. Sorry I have not kept up!
40
Thanks Ian, I like your work, but where does the 60 year cycle fit in?
40
Just in case Ian cannot get back, I’m thinking the 60 year cycle is a stadium wave.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/anthropogenic-co2-warming-challenged-by-60-year-cycle/
50
A group of organizations (or, at least, their leaders/spokespersons) have added their names to a letter sent to those members of the US Congress who aren’t yet on board with CAGW – and alerted the usual suspects in the MSM and not-so-MSM.
Given the impending lack of solar activity and the good possibility of some rather cooler temperatures (leading to a Global Cooling, heh) headed our way in the not-so-distant future, I can see much hilarity arising from this in coming times. Would be even more hilarity if real, verifiable, member names and signatures were included.
Aside from gathering a few more groups to append to the list, there doesn’t seem to be much change in the message they delivered in 2009.
It would be nice if the silliness perpetrated by such as these folks were to be
harrasinvestigated as deeply and publicly as the supposed “deniers of climate change” are being.http://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-06/aaft-tts062716.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/28/top-science-groups-tell-climate-change-doubters-in-congress-to-knock-it-off/
41
Today’s reader survey: If you think it’s getting colder, press 1. If you think it’s getting warmer press 2. If you don’t care press 3.
Your answers will be collected and used to hound you incessantly by those who disagree with you. The results will never be published because, frankly no one in the getting warmer camp cares what you think. And on the other side they already know what you think. But do participate. We really need the input to settle this crisis once and for all.
51
Interest in the sun-climate topic is dawning, again.
Judith Curry has a post
“Are we headed for a new solar minimum?”
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/27/are-we-headed-for-a-new-solar-minimum/
31
And a comment at https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/27/are-we-headed-for-a-new-solar-minimum/#comment-792921 says it all —
51
If this is not the Sun, then what?
https://cires.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/fig_for_Karin-2.png?itok=pcl20d4E
A) THE OBSERVED WINTER TEMPERATURE TREND SINCE 1990-91, “WARM ARCTIC, COLD CONTINENTS,” CONSISTS OF COLD WINTER TEMPERATURES OVER CENTRAL/EAST ASIA AND CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA (OUTLINED IN GREEN), ENCIRCLING A STRONG ARCTIC WARMING. B AND C) A MAJORITY OF MODEL RUNS COVERING THE SAME TIME PERIOD SHOW A “WARM ARCTIC, WARM CONTINENTS” PATTERN.
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/new-study-arctic-sea-ice-loss-likely-not-factor-recent-northern-hemisphere-cold-winters
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/
30
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.6.30.2016.gif
30
Thanks ren I’ll grab this quote, it gives me an idea of what is happening in the SH.
‘The researchers find that the recent cooling trend over mid-latitude continents can be explained instead by naturally occurring climate patterns. “For example, the winter cooling trends over Eurasia are accompanied by a strengthening of the Siberian High, which brings more cold air from the Arctic into central and eastern Asia,” Perlwitz said.
‘A similar regional circulation causes North American cold temperatures. “These well-known circulation patterns are the major drivers of the wintertime temperature variability in northern mid-latitudes and recent Arctic sea ice loss does not substantially affect them.”
30
“The chilling weather phenomenon that hit much of the U.S. in January is explained by scientist Eric Fetzer using data from NASA’s AIRS instrument. To see a data only version, watch at: http://youtu.be/PCtDB0zOcO4
This movie of temperature observations from NASA’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft depicts the first major North American weather event of 2014: cold air moving out of the Arctic and south to cover much of the continent. The temperatures shown are at a pressure of 850 hectopascals (hPa, formerly knows as millibars; sea level pressure is normally around 1000 hPa). Pressures of 850 hPa correspond to an altitude of about 3,000 feet (1 kilometer) above sea level. The temperatures in the movie range from about minus 18 degrees Fahrenheit (245 Kelvin or minus 28 degrees Celsius) to warmer than 66 degrees Fahrenheit (290 Kelvin or about 17 degrees Celsius). The very coldest temperatures in purples and blues are minus 18 to 17 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 28 to about minus 8 degrees Celsius).
The most obvious feature of the movie is the tongue of cold air moving out of Canada and southward to cover much of the eastern United States during early January 2014. This event was covered extensively in the media, and introduced the term ‘polar vortex’ to a broader audience.
This global perspective illustrates some features not noted in all the recent media attention. Perhaps most obvious: this is not a global phenomenon. The eastern half of the United States includes only about one percent of the total surface area of the planet (about two million of 197 million square miles). One advantage of satellite observations, as from AIRS, is coverage of the entire planet. A truly global perspective is required when studying variations in climate, and this event must be compared against a number of other phenomena occurring around the planet. Note that Alaska and northern Eurasia were warm during this period of unusual cold over the eastern United States.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KEkSfgHJNk
30
‘The Planetary Spin-Orbit Coupling Model is based upon the idea that the gravitational force of Jupiter acts upon the Venus-Earth tidal bulge that periodically forms in the convective layer of the Sun.
‘The cumulative effects of Jupiter’s gravitational force (acting on the tidally induced asymmetry) produces a tidal torquing that systematically slows and then speeds up the rotation rate of a thin shell of the Sun’s convective zone.
‘The model proposes that it is the sechanges in rotation rate that modulate the level of activity of the sunspot cycle and possibly produce the torsional oscillation that are observed in the Sun’s convective layer.’
Ian Wilson
31
I’ll add this for fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toJcQZW9Q6M
30
When the cooling comes most of the Civilised world, which happens to be in colder climates (e.g. US, Canada, Europe) except for Australia and a few other places will need vast amounts of cheap energy from fossil fuels and nuclear.
However, by the time the big chill is well established, such production will be mainly shut down and “Green” power won’t be able to provide the power at any affordable cost.
Therefore large numbers of people will die due to the unavailability of energy plus diminished agricultural output.
The big chill has been on the cards since at least the 1970’s so there is no excuse not to have planned for it.
It’s too late now.
22
Methinks you are taking it too seriously, its only a Gleissberg.
Few will die because of global cooling, unless war intervenes, leaving the free market to operate naturally.
21
‘…by the time the big chill is well established…’
Not so fast.
‘Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend…which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.’
Dr Norman Page
——–
Going on Ian Wilson’s figure for a mid range Gleissberg, 2003 is 104 years since the start of the previous one.
20
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2016.png
https://i2.wp.com/oi65.tinypic.com/2hs6rma.jpg
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2016.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2016.png
10
“I predict … scientists will rediscover that the molecule emits infra red too —”
Those who’ve been using CO2 lasers for the past half century must find Jo’s alternative scientific history as puzzling as David Evan’s rocket science resume’.
[Jo was using wry humour. Everybody else seemed to get the joke, apart from you.] Fly
01
Russell July 2, 2016 at 1:19 pm
jo: (“I predict … scientists will rediscover that the molecule emits infra red too —”)
“Those who’ve been using CO2 lasers for the past half century must find Jo’s alternative scientific history as puzzling as David Evan’s rocket science resume’.”
If you had ever learned about, or used a CO2 laser, you would understand that such EMR is not thermal and does not occur at wavelengths where gas CO2 absorbs/emits thermally! 🙁
22
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.
This is an area which I intend to give more attention to, as relevant data comes to hand.
(d) Though there is no doubt in my mind that this quotation holds plenty of relevant potential regarding the climate/weather cycles, my knowledge is insufficient to elaborate.
(e) With regard to this quotation, I quote from a letter I wrote to Dr Harrington on August 9, 1976:
“….. this, aggravated by man-made pollution and his contributions towards the progressive desiccation of the landscape, presages (at best) grim adversity and decimation of human numbers in the immediate future.
Earthquakes and Volcanoes
“The records I’ve been studying indicate that, as well as Earth’s magnetic phenomena, the incidence of major earthquakes and volcanoes are intimately connected to the sunspot minima” “….. from the above considerations it seems imminent that there must follow,” “….. a great shaking of the Earth; when mountains will become valleys, when the sea will rise up and engulf the land…”
“Another point which I’ve considered with great interest, is the latitude of 50 degrees north; by reason of the fact that this latitude comes directly under the influence of the Polar Night Jet Stream.
“This spatial relationship (to me) is of the utmost significance. Too, if it so happens that the jet stream intensifies cyclically with the sunspot minima, it would be reasonable to suppose that it would have a direct bearing on the behavior of Earth’s magnetic phenomena.
“Thus an idea comes to mind for a mechanical model of Earth’s magnetic intensity variations in time; when coupled with the sunspot cycle minima, it goes thus: Sunspot minima produces jet stream maxima, which (in accordance with my ‘still’ model (Appendix 4) in turn acts like a brake (via transfer and conservation of angular momentum ) which slows the Earth’s rotation.
“Now the above idea, when coupled with the “self-exciting dynamo” theory, for the cause of Earth’s magnetism, appears to hold a drop of water.
Reduce Power Output
“As I see it, the slowing down of the Earth’s rotation would have the same effect as driving a dynamo at ever slower revs: namely to reduce the power output, in this case the value of Earth’s magnetic intensity.”
“…..An extension of the above idea, might be for the ever-growing intensity of the jet streams to slow the rotation of the Earth to a critical point, whereby the Earth’s inner core attains the same speed of rotation as the crust and mantle, (catches up so to speak.) This would have the effect of switching off the ‘dynamo’ temporarily and so, setting the stage for the observed magnetic reversal.
“The thought comes up, that the actual reversal may be brought about if we allow the possibility of the inner core overtaking and finally exceeding the speed of rotation of the remainder of the globe, (see Appendix 4.)”
(f) According to this quotation, there is strong evidence of a long term secular trend in AQD occurrence. If this is so, then by implication, it can be accepted as good supporting evidence for there being a like-wise long term secular change in sunspot activity; and therefore, solar energy output……….”
21
CONCLUSIONSIn the current study, to predict the solar activity, we explorethe PCs derived from the SBMF measured with the WSO incycles 21–23 by using the most advanced Eureqa approach developed on Hamiltonian principles (Schmidt & Lipson 2009).We show that the classic proxy for solar activity, averaged sunspot numbers, is strongly modulated by variations in the SBMF PCs, allowing us to use the SBMF PCs as new proxies for the overall solar activity. Further more, by using the Eureqa technique based on a symbolic regression, we managed to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing the fundamental processes of magnetic wave generation in the Sun’s background magneticfield. These invariants are used to extract the key parameters of the PCs of SBMF waves, which, in turn, are used to predict the overall level of solar activity for solar cycles 24–26. We can conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the solar activity in cycles 24–26 will be systematically decreasing because of the increasing phase shift between the two magnetic waves of the poloidal field leading to their full separation into opposite hemispheres in cycles 25 and 26. This separation is expected to result in the lack of their subsequent interaction in any of the hemispheres, possibly leading to a lackof noticeable sunspot activity on the solar surface lasting for a decade or two, similar to those recorded in the medieval period. Using the modulus summary curves derived from the principal components of SBMF, we predict a noticeable decrease of the average sunspot numbers in cycle 25 to ≈80% of that in cycle 24 and a decrease in cycle 26 to ≈40% which are linked to a reduction of the amplitudes and an increase of the phase between the PCs of SBMF separating these waves into the opposite hemispheres.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258681236_Principal_component_analysis_of_background_and_sunspot_magnetic_field_variations_during_solar_cycles_21-23
21
Well the sun becomes spotless during every solar minimum (every 11 years give or take), and I did not notice any Little Ice Age occurring then. The last time was 2009, so I am sure I would have remembered it.
Also the fact that this solar cycle is weaker than the last one (peak around 2000) but global mean temperatures have continued to increase should be noted.
http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
43
The last El Niño is a big waste of energy oceans. The atmosphere does not accumulate heat.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection.jpg
21
Yes, the atmosphere does not accumulate much heat, it will lose heat in days.
Global Warming is mostly about the oceans. The rising surface temperature can almost be considered a side-effect.
32
The global warming of last century has come to an end. As we await the Gleissberg you might wonder what a gas giant has to do with earthly weather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CT_txWEo5I&feature=youtu.be
23
el gordo.
“The global warming of last century has come to an end.”
Except that the global mean temperature continues to rise on decadal timescales, and even on annual timescales now.
It is the elephant in the room of the coming Little Ice Age hypothesis.
22
The hiatus?
22
I agree, the literature is unequivocal. Global temperature is currently increasing at the rate of 0.067 degrees per decade.
But I am the sort of optimistic person who likes to think big. Do you know what I mean?
So I am prepared to state, based on the above evidence, that the planet will warm at the rate of two thirds of one degree per century, unless, of course, there is an appreciable change in the length of the current solar cycle.
The eleven year sunspot cycle is well known to anybody who has worked with long-range radio communications, especially in the High Frequency Radio bands (3 to 30 MHz).
But, you know, it is not really an eleven year cycle. Eleven years is more the average. Some cycles can last for a long time. I think forty five years is the longest, though I may be wrong. Some are also much less than eleven years. That is what makes it fun – you never know what you are going to get.
But one thing that the long cycles do seem to have in common, is that they are preceded by a totally spot free sun, as we have at present. I wouldn’t place any bets on the climate getting any warmer in the short to medium term, if I were you.
32
The 208 year de Vries cycle is of particular interest, assuming its that time again, we should be able to witness the signal of solar variability without the noise of Tambora.
22
“The rising surface temperature can almost be considered a side-effect.”
As can most of the rise in atmospheric CO2
There is NO mechanism for atmospheric CO2 to cause ocean warming.
The oceans warming comes from some other source.
38
“There is NO mechanism for atmospheric CO2 to cause ocean warming.”
Indeed Correct!
57
UV. ?
16
UV. ?
UV CO2, UV CO, UV C; Wait what?
UV + O2 + H2O yields O3 + (H2 saying “up mommy”)! Still no heat delivered to the ocean. Ocean heating because of MV changes as the Earth tries to follow the Sun in its epicycles about the solar barycenter? Now you have something the bookies can make a buck from, one way or the other! 🙂
46
Hi Will, talking about incident solar origin UV.
What was the stuff that made it better to walk barefooted on the concrete kerb (light grey ) rather than on the black tar?
12
Sorry, forgot to address the “friction ” item but I don’t know much about that.
20
What was the stuff that made it better to walk barefooted on the concrete kerb (light grey ) rather than on the black tar?
Sandals!
30
Will
When heading to the beach in the middle of summer it was inconvenient to wear shoes and I quickly learned of the different heat absorbing properties of different coloured surfaces.
10
KinkyKeith July 6, 2016 at 10:24 pm
“Will When heading to the beach in the middle of summer it was inconvenient to wear shoes and I quickly learned of the different heat absorbing properties of different coloured surfaces.”
Good for you! The more reflective, the more reflective! Your curb is reflective but also porous with low direct surface area, but high surface area for convective heat transfer away! Your tar road being black could radiate somewhat, but has low convective surface area. The worst is that the hot tar would stick to your feet. Ouch! Running like hell to the water is fine, but is not scientific.
The ‘sandals’ thing was because most dweebs want a solution not an answer!
20
Will Janoschka.
““There is NO mechanism for atmospheric CO2 to cause ocean warming.”
Ummm no. Surely you have heard of the greenhouse effect by now? The one that warms the earth by around 33C. It is well documented but I can hunt down a good reference if you like.
72
You have just shown you have ZERO idea about how anything works.
Well done 🙂
38
The green-house, or more correctly the gravito-thermal effect is an atmospheric effect.
The atmosphere does not warm the oceans, it does not have the capacity or the mechanism to do so.
48
Based on the gravito-thrmal effect its possible to predict the atmospheric and surface temperatures on all the rocky planets in our system.
28
Andy
Trying to explain to Twotter the basics of his ” green house” effect is nigh on impossible.
Solar origin UV bypasses the atmospheric gases to embed itself in the rock, water or soil or plant matter. The energy carried into these various materials is then converted to heat which is re_emitted as degraded energy to The waiting gases near the surface.
These gases expand become less dense and convection occurs.
NO energy can be returned to the surface from dese gases.
Please excuse the Willful spelling.
All harriette does is invoke a mechanism that he doesn’t understand.
What A Twotter
27
Poor Harry is still stuck with a kindergarten style understand of how atmosphere warming works. Seems to think it has a glass top or something, like an actual greenhouse.
Probably learnt it off a John Cook “Climate 101” propaganda non-science CD or some other junk source
Not his fault, he is just incapable of progressing past that level.
27
understanding……
21
Harry Twinotter July 6, 2016 at 2:37
Will Janoschka.
(““There is NO mechanism for atmospheric CO2 to cause ocean warming.”)
Hi illiterate dual bevertails
There exists in this Earth’s atmosphere a thermal lapse rate, created and maintained by Earth’s gravitational compression of earth’s atmosphere. There exists a higher numerical temperature at higher atmospheric pressure. This exists and has been ever since this Earth has had mass, and atmosphere.
There exists absolutely no greenhouse effect nor any temperature effect from your fantasy of “greenhouse gases”, none whatsoever!
27
KinkyKeith.
“degraded energy”
Really? Degraded? Energy is energy.
52
Will Janoschka.
You are trying to say a compressed gas generates it’s own heat, forever. And this warms the earth by 33C? You are off in total la la land.
I think what you are trying to get at is rising air encounters less air pressure, expands, does work as it expands and thus drops in temperature.
52
Look at the temperature of 2000 (La Niña) and solar activity.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2006/normalise
21
Vuk is leading the charge.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-dBz.png
26