text:
The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming
Cosmic rays Solar
As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming. According to data from NASA's Spaceweather, so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots. Here is the view today from the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite:
Solar Dynamics Observatory HMI Continuum image more at WUWT's solar reference page: https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Today at Cape Canaveral, SpaceX launched a new sensor to the International Space Station named TSIS-1. Its mission: to measure the dimming of the sun's irradiance. It will replace the aging SORCE spacecraft. NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum, NASA satellites are tracking a decline in total solar irradiance (TSI).
Across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, the sun's output has dropped nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum of 2012-2014. This plot shows the TSI since 1978 as observed from nine previous satellites:
In the top plot, we drew the daily average of measured points in red (so there are a lot of points, 14187 to be precise). On the left is a red vertical bar showing a 0.3% change in TSI. The black curve is the average of TSI over each year. The dashed horizontal line shows the minimum value of year-averaged TSI data. The vertical black bar shows the 0.09% variation we see in that average. The bottom plot shows the annual sunspot number from the SIDC in Belgium in blue. Source: NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission Blog.
What do we learn from these plots? First, TSI does change! That's why we stopped calling it the solar constant. Second, as the sunspot number increases, so does TSI. But the converse is also true. As the sunspot number decreases so does TSI. We have watched this happen for four sunspot cycles. This waxing and waning of TSI with sunspot number is understood as a combination of dark sunspots reducing TSI below the dashed line and long-lived magnetic features increasing TSI. SORCE has even observed flares in TSI.
Third, the horizontal dashed line is not an average, it is drawn at the lowest value in the year-averaged TSI data (that happened in 2009). When there are no sunspots the Sun's brightness should be that of the hot, glowing object we always imagined it to be. We would expect TSI to be the same at every solar minimum. There is much discussion over whether the value of TSI at solar minimum is getting smaller with time, but it is not getting larger.
These data show us that the Sun is not getting brighter with time. The brightness does follow the sunspot cycle, but the level of solar activity has been decreasing the last 35 years. The value at minimum may be decreasing as well, although that is far more difficult to prove. Perhaps the upcoming solar minimum in 2020 will help answer that question.
The rise and fall of the sun's luminosity is a natural part of the solar cycle. A change of 0.1% may not sound like much, but the sun deposits a lot of energy on the Earth, approximately 1,361 watts per square meter. Summed over the globe, a 0.1% variation in this quantity exceeds all of our planet's other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined. A 2013 report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," spells out some of the ways the cyclic change in TSI can affect the chemistry of Earth's upper atmosphere and possibly alter regional weather patterns, especially in the Pacific.
NASA's current flagship satellite for measuring TSI, the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), is now more than six years beyond its prime-mission lifetime. TSIS-1 will take over for SORCE, extending the record of TSI measurements with unprecedented precision. It's five-year mission will overlap a deep Solar Minimum expected in 2019-2020. TSIS-1 will therefore be able to observe the continued decline in the sun's luminosity followed by a rebound as the next solar cycle picks up steam. Installing and checking out TSIS-1 will take some time; the first science data are expected in Feb. 2018.
In other news, as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases, influx of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR's) increase as has been observed by balloon measurements over California:
Why are cosmic rays intensifying? The main reason is the sun. Solar storm clouds such as coronal mass ejections (CMEs) sweep aside cosmic rays when they pass by Earth. During Solar Maximum, CMEs are abundant and cosmic rays are held at bay. Now, however, the solar cycle is swinging toward Solar Minimum, allowing cosmic rays to return. Another reason could be the weakening of Earth's magnetic field, which helps protect us from deep-space radiation.
The radiation sensors onboard our helium balloons detect X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. These energies span the range of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.
The data points in the graph above correspond to the peak of the Reneger-Pfotzer maximum, which lies about 67,000 feet above central California. When cosmic rays crash into Earth's atmosphere, they produce a spray of secondary particles that is most intense at the entrance to the stratosphere. Physicists Eric Reneger and Georg Pfotzer discovered the maximum using balloons in the 1930s and it is what we are measuring today.
NASA's spaceweather.com website follows the progress of the sun on a regular basis. Our WUWT Solar Reference Page also has data updated daily.
Brown and Caldeira: A closer look shows global warming will not be greater than we thought
The Polar-Bear-Gate Saga: How a picture is worth a thousand lies – Paul Nicklen and Michael Mann vs Susan Crockford
Earthling2
It's going to get colder for the next 30 years. And ironically, that will hurt us a lot more as we wind up sporadic renewables, and wind down coal and try and limit or make so expensive other fossil fuels that we will be in double jeopardy. The coming revolution's all over the planet will make the French Revolution look a like a congenial 'tea party'. Buckle up…cause things generally never end well after such a good run. Especially after having been lied to and cheated by charlatans of science.
Reply to Earthling2
Any day soon it will start, right?
Reply to andyd
Earthling2 is correct. You should read Absent Superpower. Because nobody wants the US in their business any longer the Bretton Woods Accord is coming to an end. That means that in the near future the US military will not be guaranteeing free and safe trade across the oceans any longer. Because the US is now a net exporter of oil due to shale they will not be protecting those foreign oil tankers and cargo ships any longer. The US will not be fighting battles in Iraq to get oil for Europe. Once the supply chain is disrupted by theft, piracy, etc. you will see energy prices spike way up over most of the world. The US and Canada will be in good shape to handle the cold winters. Europe, Asia, not so much. They are in for some hard times because they have not invested in shale and natural gas technology at the same time as investing in green tech. They are 10 years behind the US.
It has already started unfortunately. If you are a student of history, this is the one constant that repeatedly happens over and over throughout time that civilizations collapse from unforeseen drastic climate change that come like a thief in the night. It will be no different now. The dark ages in Europe starting circa 536-540 AD after the previous Roman warming when there was a natural cooling cycle taking hold combined with massive back to back major volcanic eruptions, are just what happens when these thing inevitably happen.
And they always happen sooner or later. We are at that stage now, precariously, when many peoples and cultures are just shopping at 'Safeway', and have lost all connection to a hunter/gatherer existence. And that wouldn't matter much because that many people will not hunt or gather, or return to a farm somewhere.
We have had it exceedingly good the last 150 years, obviously, which led to an increase of a population from 1 billion to 7.5 billion people, which was totally accelerated by the massive use of fossil fuels, but also a very stable short term optimum climate conducive to growth of the human civilization. Any deviation from the optimal climate that allowed us to increase exponentially as we have, to the cooling ledger of the accounting, spells a catastrophic loss for humanity. Just study history and see what always happens. And I am not even religious.
Ron Long
andyd, we won't know it started until the summer that was like winter. It sure looks like we are descending, in the context of a fairly long sunspot/climate record, into a minimum. Dalton? Maunder? No, I hope they call it an ALGORE!
HotScot
I'll bet you wish you hadn't said that.
E2, that's just common sense. If the world gets warmer (at the same rate it has since the LIA) it will be easier for humanity to survive on more of the planet and grow stuff to maintain sustenance. Imagine a navigable arctic sea passage and the savings in CO2 emissions by using circumpolar routes. Of course, no one who values common sense assumes that the global temperature will just keep going up, especially if you have had a brush with paleoclimatology and realize that the global temp (per proxies) has been gradually falling for millennia. That said, I don't think (as an unwashed commoner) that the present warming trend will continue indefinitely, but will last a few human generations, just a millisecond out of "sacred Gaia's" much troubled lifespan.
To andyd, will the warming models be right any day soon?
@ Ron Long "No, I hope they call it an ALGORE!"
Sorry. See – – –
Online Petition: The next significant solar minimum should be called "The Eddy Minimum"
WUWT June 13, 2009
scraft1
What are we arguing about here?
Those saying a cooling period is starting should be a little more specific.
The warming will last "for a few more generations".
They've been saying it will get colder on this blog since 2006. They'll still be saying it in 2026.
tom0mason(@tom0mason)
The UN-IPCC Paris Accord date is 2020, a good start date for the beginning.
Charles Gerard Nelson
It's already started.
Global temperature rise these days is solely accounted for by 'warming in the Arctic'…which of course is 'cooling'.
It will take a while for the Warmists to be erased from science…but that's coming too!
"Pop Piasa December 15, 2017 at 5:26 pm: To andyd, will the warming models be right any day soon?"
Good one. But serious for andyd here are some predictions by one of the cyclical folks who think that CO2 does not control the climate. Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley.
David Dilley Predictions:
1) Phase 1 2014+ = similar to 1950-70
Phase 2 2019-20 = rapid cooling (1880s like)
Cold = 2022-2040 = Coldest phase
2) Ocean levels will not increase after 2018
3) More volcanoes & earthquakes 2020-2030
4) Historic volcanic erruption 2024-2028
5) Starts warming again in 2140
6) 2116 our inter-glacial ends (see you in 90,000 years)
So he was wrong on Phase 1 (Interrupted by a large el-nino in 2016) and we'll see about phase 2 and onwards. He may have been a bit late on prediction number 2 as the ocean level rise stopped last year.
….To andyd …. . There will in fact be a noticeable downturn in global temperatures starting in the early 2020s, and it will last until at least the late 2030a and probably beyond. The last time this occurred was during the lifetime of Bach. A contemporary of Bach, Handel (composer of "Messiah") almost surely saw the icebergs floating in the Thames River at that time. So please explain this: If nature's forces can do this, is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that nature's forces consist of many cycles, one of which might explain global warming. No one denies that the earth, for now, is warming. The question is the cause.
It occurs to me that the nursery rhyme I penned a couple of years ago is getting more and more support by new findings.
Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
As record winds blow
Unprecedented snow,
Oh, where is our globe a' warming?
That depends on the sun
And the ways oceans run,
Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
Now, for quite long,
Climate models are wrong.
So, what caused the pause in the warming?
Yes, look to the sun,
The ways oceans run,
And the clouds, in complexity forming.
CO2 is "too small"
To stop temperature's fall
When the sun, clouds and oceans together,
Begin to cause cold
In cycles so old…
No one alive can remember!
So if I do some harm
By just keeping warm,
You'll have to kindly forgive me!
I find my solution
Is carbon pollution;
Lest Gaia too quickly outlives me!
It's already begun. Step outside of your box and research global cooling. Try "new mini ice age" or "coming global cold", and dig deeper from there. Or not, because it's coming whether you believe it, or understand it or not.
liveoak53
USexpat
Pop,
Sea transport costs per mile are minimal. The biggest expense is loading/unloading. How far the ship sails doesn't matter.
Chris Norman
It actually started in mid 2015 when record low temps were recorded in AU, NZ and South America. I recommend iceagenow for a realty check.
Vendicar Decarian
Solar output down.. Earth's temperature up.
roycerson
Look around. It's happening. I live in middle America and can't go for a bicycle ride in regular clothing with reasonable certainty I won't be assaulted by a crooked cop. 'We' have soldiers in over 140 countries. That's not what a state of peace looks like. Unless you define it the way Herodotus describes peace with Romans. Republicans want to have me put in a cage for playing poker with my buddies. Democrats want to put me in a cage for refusing to buy 200 dollar shoes for drug dealers. %99.99 of people in the world advocate doing violence to their neighbor for such small reasons. The only reason you think it's safe to leave the house is you're not paying attention. It's not about IF they come for you. It's when.
"It has already started unfortunately." – Earthling2
Really? The Earth is cooling? Not by any measurements made in the last 40 years. The last three years have seen the Earth's surface warmer than at any time in recorded history. Warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years.
Solar output down, Earth's temperature up.
What's up with that?
"If the world gets warmer (at the same rate it has since the LIA) it will be easier for humanity to survive on more of the planet " – Gruber
So when Bangladesh is gone, and the coasts are gone from all of the continents, and the barren rock of the soil free Canadian, Greenland and Russian North are uncovered, and the deserts have expanded and extended to cover much of South America and the Central U.S. you think that you are going to live there and grow food.
On wha fantasy planet were you mal-educated?
Solar output down, Earth's temperature higher than ever?
[???? .mod]
maxtcat (@maxtcat)
Bread foretold this in the closing lines of IF . . .
If the world should stop revolving
Spinning slowly down to die
I'd spend the end with you
And when the world was through
Then one by one the stars would all go out
Then you and I would simply fly away
http://www.metrolyrics.com/if-lyrics-bread.html
Abel Garcia
Someone tell algore it going to get cold
Herodotus? Romans?
I think not. In his day (c. 484–c. 425 BC), the little Roman republic was still fighting its neighbors in Latium.
Its The Accidental Superpower
pyeatte
andyd: When your climate computer models stop putting out junk, give us a call. Until then, continue with your Soma Holiday.
PRDJ
@pyeatte "Until then, continue with your Soma Holiday."
Nice Huxley reference there.
Andrew Cooke
Ooh look, a couple of new trolls….or maybe they are old trolls with new 'names'. How precious.
ResourceGuy
Yes Andy but with AMO cycle decline doing the heavy lifting (or dragging).
techgm
I recall reading a study that concluded that the French Revolution, about which many histories cite period sources describing bread riots as a precursor, was triggered by the a period of prolonged cold weather in northern Europe in the mid-late 1700s (corresponding to the Little Ice Age). France was hit particularly hard because France continued to rely on wheat as its primary grain food, whereas many other countries had switched to potatoes (which, as tubers, were less susceptible to cold and freezing soil than wheat, which is a grass). The French were starving, and they blamed the royals and aristocrats.
Reply to techgm
Yes, the Prussian King already knew what he was doing when he let the potato grow in his empire with all his might. While the French still lived out their Les affairs. However, the potato was not everywhere during the small ice age, the yellow of the egg. If wetness was added to the cold, potato blight arose. As in Ireland. That's why there are so many Irish people in the US today. But that was the only positive thing about the famine at that time.
The French Revolution indeed was ultimately triggered by cold, wet weather that lead to crop failures. However, it was also caused by the arrogance of their government and their poor response to the effects of climatic problems. We played our part since one of France's government's problems was loaning the colonies a lot of money leaving little to respond to economic and social problems at home, in France.
"However, it was also caused by the arrogance of their government and their poor response to the effects of climatic problems."
Lobbox!
No one recognised 'climate' in those days. It was crappy weather. We get it today.
"In 1788, a year of severe drought, the crops had been poor. In addition to this, on the eve of the harvest, a terrible hail-storm burst over the region around Paris, from Normandy to Champagne, devastating sixty leagues of the most fertile territory, and causing damage to the amount of one hundred millions of francs. Winter came on, the severest that had been seen since 1709. At the close of December the Seine was frozen over from Paris to Havre, while the thermometer stood at 180 below zero. A third of the olive-trees died in Provence, and the rest suffered to such an extent that they were considered incapable of bearing fruit for two years to come. The same disaster befell Languedoc. In Vivarais, and in the Cevennes, whole forests of chestnuts had perished, along with all the grain and grass crops on the uplands. On the plain the Rhone remained in a state of overflow for two months. After the spring of 1789 the famine spread everywhere, and it increased from month to month like a rising flood. In vain did the Government order the farmers, proprietors, and corn-dealers to keep the markets supplied. In vain did it double the bounty on imports, resort to all sorts of expedients, involve itself in debt, and expend over forty millions of francs to furnish France with wheat."
The French Revolution – Volume 1
Hippolyte Taine
Definitely unwitting victims of climatic misfortune. Surely they must have been emitting something that would explain it all…
noaaprogrammer
Lokki: "… the thermometer stood at 180 below zero."
What scale were they using?
Jeanparisot
If the Alarmists knew about that temperature record, they would start their trends there. We would be trending to a Venetian summer.
F. Leghorn(@squiggy9000)
At 180 below zero there would be CO2 frost in places and all the plants would be dead. I'm assuming you meant 18 below.
The zero in 180 should be the degree symbol.
The winter of 1740 had also been bad.
That grain, hence bread, shortage precipitated the Revolution was long recognized ("Let them eat cake!"). That bad WX was the ultimate source of the famine was also known at the time.
Inability to borrow to buy grain from abroad owed not just to financing the American war against traditional French enemy Britain, but to the tax farming system.
philohippous
Part of the cause of the French revolution was the unwillingess of most of the French to eat anything but bread and wheat. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, other root vegetables were simply to low to be eaten. The Irish famine was partly due to dependence on a single variety of potato- the Lumper- which was the best yielding potato with good nutritional balance. But it was also the most susceptible to a fungal like infection that nearly destroyed the total crop.
Lets hope there are enough organic farms around to stave off starvation if something hits the corn, soybeans, and wheat.
iowaan
The French government controlled the price of bread, but not the price of wheat or cake. The crop failure raised the cost of the little available wheat to the point bakers would lose money selling bread, so they made cake, which the poor could not afford.
DC Cowboy(@dccowboy)
iowan,
The 'cake' to which Marie Antoinette refers is not what we think of as 'cake' (a sugary confection that is a luxury). In that period of Europe – 'cake' referred to the overcooked, often burnt, edges of loaves of bread that were on the sides of the containers that bakers used to bake bread. It was usually scrapped off and discarded before bread was put in the baker's shops. As such it was considered useless and was used to feed hogs. By suggesting that the Parisian populace eat 'cake', Marie was equating them to farm animals, thus the anger her statement engendered.
BCBill
Philohippous-. In the Irish potato famine the primarily English gentry continued to export oats from Ireland in sufficient quantity to alleviate the famine if they had been eaten by the locals. Using the usual economic nonsense they contended that interfering with the free hand of the marketplace would be worse than letting millions starve. The potato famine was largely social and the English pulled the same stunt in India not so many decades later.
For reference on food exports from Ireland during the famine http://ighm.org/exports-in-famine
Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…
No temperature on Earth has ever been that low. The atmosphere would liquify and fall like rain.
-18'C on the other hand is pretty warm, corresponding to 0'F.
Currently the Sun's output is slightly down and falling. Global temperatures at all time highs and increasing.
interesting reason Frederick the Great of Prussia pushed for the switch to potato production instead of wheat, as was traditional. He intended to expand his holdings through conquest, but he also knew that would invite counterattacks and counter invasions, especially from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was standard practice of the day for invading armies to burn down all the standing grain in the fields, to make the next winter hard, but Frederick reasoned that no soldiers would bother to take the time or effort to dig up thousands of acres of potatoes. He was right.
Ron Reich
Regarding The French Revolution: In Iceland, they attribute European crop failures during that period to one of their bigger volcanic eruptions. It certainly didn't help.
Can I assume you are loading up on coal stocks and playing in the futures market?
Walter Dnes(@walterdnes)
Do we have any cartoonists here? Here's an idea. Scene:
* Living room with Christmas tree
* Banner on Christmas Tree… "Merry Christmas 2030"
* Little boy looking earnestly at an old man, and asking
* Grandpa, is it really true that they gave coal in stockings to naughty kids, instead of to good kids, when you were a boy?
I hereby place this idea in the public domain.
Tsk Tsk
Mosher: We got the sign right, therefore the models are confirmed!
Scienz!
"We do not know or understand what drives the climate." – Verney
Certainly you don't, but scientists know far more than you have the intellectual capacity to comprehend.
That is why people laugh at you.
Solar output slightly down and falling. Earth's temperature at an all time high and rising.
Richard Greene
Natural gas seems to be priced low on 12/15/17
I'm looking at UNG at $5.22
near a 52-week low of $5.14
AndyG55
@VD.
You seem to be ignorant of the huge energy storage capacity of the oceans.
Where do you think the 2015/16 El Nino temperature spike came from ?
A LOT of energy released from the ocean, wasn't it.
When you release energy from something, what happens. 😉
Try to engage your brain, for the first time ever.
andrewd
For 10 years I have been hearing these comments here. You don't know any more than the warming alarmists.
richard verney
Reply to andrewd
Absolutely. We do not know or understand what drives the climate.
That said, we know that warmth is good and cold is bad.
What we do know is that the world is as cold as it's been now, only three times in it's history before descending into an ice age.
I truly hope that, as unlikely as it's reported, CO2 does cause global warming, because you sure cant irrigate anywhere on the planet with ice.
If CO2 causes warming, I want to know how much we have to add to get to the Holocene Optimum.
Steven Mosher(@stevemosher)
ya when the sun goes down it gets warmer. when it comes up the temperature goes down.
Increasing watts never leads to increasing temperature.
we dont understand the ALL THE DETAILS therefore we understand nothing.
The wright brothers never understood turbulence in all its details and therefore we cannot fly.
The temperature of the earth is a function of the watts that reach us from the sun.
to a first order thats all you need to understand. That changes with latitude and the temperature
changes with elevation. To a first order that explains everything..
Now, as we dig a little deeper we find out the second order… GHGs and climate change
will we inderstand the third and forth order and everylast detail? Nope. Does that change the first
and second order? Nope. The planet warms because of increasing GHGs. That explains as much as you need to know> geoengineering the planet by adding GHGs is NOT risk free
Steven Mosher on December 16, 2017 at 1:18 am
Instead of sounding like an angry girly-man trollbot why not put some actual science in your posting? Sorry but nothing you said is proven at all.
Nope. The planet warms because of increasing GHGs
I guess you don't know the difference between a theory and a fact. But no matter as that statement is neither.
Samuel C Cogar
squiggy9000 – December 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
" Instead of sounding like an angry girly-man trollbot why not put some actual science in your posting? Sorry but nothing you said is proven at all. "
Squiggy9K, …… read my writing, …. Steven Mosher must surely love his job ….. because the pay and entitlements are no doubt super great …… and he don't want to be "pushed out" of his job onto the streets, …….. which would surely happen iffen he ever decided to "talk contrary" about the Politically Correct agitprop-based garbage presently being touted as Science by the, per se, "educational elites".
A man without a country is akin to …… a "rentseeker" without a place at the government trough.
Mr Mosher, you claim that GHGs are the cause of warming, which of the GHGs would that be?
Surely not H2O because as Mr Eshenbach has shown in his Thunderstorm Threads and his last one 2 days ago that it cools the Surface.
Would you care to explain which GHG it is and what the Mechanism is for it to do so?
Stephen,
I object to your assertion that we understand the 1st & 2nd order effects. I do not believe we do
Dale Hoover
Doubters might like to scroll-&-view the Adapt 2030 YouTube videos; also read Robert Felix's book, "Not by Fire But by Ice;" & "Ice Age Now:"
https://www.iceagenow.info/
gymnosperm(@gymnosperm)
will we inderstand the third and forth order and everylast detail? Nope."
Nosofast, Mosh. When you REALLY understand the second order, you may move on to the third. Ain't just watts, it's what happens to them.
Pamela Gray(@pamelasuemakin)
Oh yeh. It will overwhelm ANY solar heat absorbed by the oceans and then coughed up via the well known water cycle. The Earth is a VERY stable planet with NO variability whereas the Sun is HIGHLY variable. Okee dokee! That thar is GOOD Science!
Lordy.
Reply to Pamela Gray
Well, I suppose that the established idea that down welling IR can't penetrate more than a millimeter of water wouldn't have anything to do with your assertion?
Fen Tiger
True indeed. I highly recommend A Cultural History of Climate by Wolfgang Behringer if you really fancy having sleepless nights over the prospect of cooling. His book on the witch craze (which itself had strong climate links) is also good.
Hal Slusher
Unfortunately, since it appears science is sold to the highest bidder (I mean who has more money than the government) Shame the only fix is taking away more money from the people and giving it to a government that hands it out to their buddies. Exactly what did we get from billions Obama handed out? They were gauranteed government protection from bankruptcy. The SOB's promptly pillfored the money they borrowed and produced nothing but bankruptcy.
Fear monger much?
Johan Johnson
This must be the reason the left changed the name from Global Warming, to Climate Change. They must have known this was coming.
You mean they have SUVs and a rising CO2 level on the sun? God help us!
Michael Kell
Moving away from coal to solar when solar energy reaching the earth is decreasing is kind of like leaning into a left hook. Not what you should be doing. How is that consensus thing going?
What ? you're the master intelligence that we need to listen to and believe ? That's it, just make up some line of bull and we should all take it as gospel. Geeeez….you probably still have your pajamas on but haven't left grandmas basement yet.
Ernie Zippreplat
Earthing2 is correct we are just entering the period of the once every 200 year Sun hibernation. Colder weather will be the result.
Mike Jefferson
What's interesting is that the total number of sunspots and radiance has been decreasing with each successive 11 year cycle. There is suggestion that we are entering another Maunder like Minimum and how that will impact the climate is quite uncertain? All we need is a minima combined with a Krakatoa like eruption and say hello to an ice age…
Steve Andrews
GASEOUS AL GORE, DOOMSDAY CULT CHAIRMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE
"If an age is imbued with an error, some always derive advantage from the error, while the rest have to suffer from it."
— Max Stirner
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Women and orphans hardest hit!
The planet has been "cooling" for at least the past 18 years, or so — the recent cook-the-books massage job by NOAA notwithstanding. And the so-called "experts" have never "once" demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for "any" global warming — it's all been projections based on computer models subject to bad historical data, divergent / incompatible or inconsistent instrumentation, exaggeration and the-sky-is-falling alarmism, and manipulation-for-profit — for taxpayer-paid government grants, carbon-credits schemes, and studies required by environmentalist wacko government regulations. Climate change occurs — this is "old news" — and human action has never been proven the cause of climate change.
The anthropogenic ["man-made"] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers, "a part of a cause bigger than themselves" — who project an arrogant condescension onto ignorant, unbrainwashed dissidents.
Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore — that lying sack of nevermind and doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse — who sold his failed global-warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera — a propaganda arm of some murderous oil dictatorship, somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.
Now, didn't Al Gore buy a 6,500 square-foot, $9 million, very-high carbon-footprint mansion in Montecito — "only" 480 feet above sea level where it is sure to be inundated by the HUGELY TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt celebrated in scare-em-silly fictional environmentalist quack movies — if his bullfeathers theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality? And this is in addition to his 10,000 square-foot mansion in Tennessee, another huge carbon footprint! And hasn't OhBummer already bought the ocean-front Magnum-PI property in Hawaii? His bloody "rising seas" ought to swamp and drown him — else he is a lying hypocrite.
I have no problem with people becoming fabulously rich in the capitalist system, but the stink of hypocrisy of Gaseous Al Gore — that lying fascist skunk — is annoying. He must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his hoax, his fraudulent religion — man-made global warming.
So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.
They turn scientific method on its head, demanding that skeptics prove "that there is not" any man-made global warming, but no one is obliged to prove any such thing — for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon "is not" made of green cheese.
It tells me something useful about opposing the former OhBummer dictatorship when my reference to the moon and the green cheese was hijacked for an OhBummer speech. Possibly his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent, that lobotomized serial plagiarist who served as OhBummer's principal criminal accessory.
The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let's just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.
Replace asterisks with periods, below. ~:<)
http://dailycaller*com/2016/10/24/top-university-stole-millions-from-taxpayers-by-faking-global-warming-research/
http://www*tpnn*com/2014/03/17/weather-channel-founder-explains-the-history-of-the-global-warming-hoax/
http://www*climatedepot*com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/
http://dailycaller*com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
http://www*investors*com/politics/commentary/warming-alarmists-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/
http://realclimatescience*com/2016/10/more-on-the-noaa-texas-temperature-fraud/
http://www*zerohedge*com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
http://dilbert*com/strip/2017-05-14
LT (@seivk)
Cooling bodes well for violin enthusiasts. The wood produced by the tightening of tree rings in the northern Balkans, caused by the cooling beginning in 17th century Europe, brought us the Stradivarius.
Reply to LT (@seivk)
An old guy at a senior citizen home,
was playing a beat up violin.
I asked how old it was,
and he claimed it was a Stradivarius,
" What makes you think that's a Stradivarius?, I asked.
He said: " If it's not, I'm out $75 ! "
I was hoping you'd appreciate that joke,
since you knew how to spell Stradivarius.
No one I know thinks its funny.
Solar output down, global Temperatures up.
Macknus
Reply to Vendicar Decarian
Warm is good. Cold is bad. Far more people die of the cold than of the heat. Pray for warmth. (Snip personal comment
Mod)
There is a minimum 10 year+ time delay to the effects on oceanic heating/cooling from previous solar cycles. That is, if you believe our slightly variable star called Sol actually causes any variability to the weather here on the good Earth. Some prominent folks here don't, although some others do. If each recent solar cycle is getting weaker, as it seems it has been since at least the beginning of the millennium and maybe even lower in 2020 now as it appears it may be headed, then we are now on the other side of the Gleissberg cycle that leads to a 40+ year cooling cycle. Others predict 2030 as being even a lower sunspot count and a weaker less active sun than this current one and what many suspect will lead to a general cooling over the coming decades. Solar cycle 24 is currently on pace to be the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 22 that peaked around 1990.
This explains why the last 40+ years was what caused all the global warming madness, because of an energetic Sun through the 1970's and 1980's peaking in 1990. It takes a minimum of 10 years for the effect of the solar cycle to be felt so 1998 burped out a lot of heat, as did 2015/16. With each successive solar cycle getting weaker, and 2020 and 2031 expected to be even lower solar minimums than 2009, then that is the hypothesis of why a general cooling trend is in the works, and also explains the Pause as we turn over to a cooler phase in climate. It is soon going on 10 years since the 2009 low and a beginning cooling trend is expected as a result of that. This La Nina is perhaps the evidence of that, and its intensity will be some indication if the hypothesis is correct. We should also be able then to actually test the sensitivity of CO2, since if it does get really much cooler for the next 30-40 years, then there should be some evidence that we have slightly added to planetary warming the last 150 years. Hopefully, adding CO2 to our atmosphere will be the insurance policy of an agriculture collapse not happening because of too much cooling. This is just my opinion which I have learnt reading all about it here at the school of WUWT.
invermerecommunityradio
Get ready for the cyclical Grand Solar Minimum. Maunder, Wolf, Dalton, etc. etc. Massive Global crop losses and starvation. We should have been building greenhouses and cold hardy crops not boosting carbon taxes to give to the elite!
Reply to invermerecommunityradio
I have a question for you:
Do you believe the schooling gave you enough education, correct education, absolute truthful education or do you think there is higher authority that drives the climate, rotation of earth, distance from the sun, angle of tilt and so on. Do you think the earth just happen to float around the sun or we are connected by some gravity waves. Do you think the planet communicate with the sun 24/7 or do you think everything is disconnected and happens at random intervals.
Something to think about and always question the alternative fed news in our minds.
Exactly: Read the book, "DARK WINTER", by John L. Casey. Our sun has a 206 year old sun cycle, comes around every 206 years, and caused the solar hibernation of 1815, its coming back around.
John Aspray
Reply to Charles Bukowski
A good place to start. Casey had a serious stroke a while back, not heard of him since. I've been detailing stuff on this through a FB page called 'The Deagel Forum'. Deagel.com predicts the US population will reduce by 83% by 2025, the UK by 78% and so on. I plotted the predictions on a map and the higher percentages mirrored the ice cover during the last ice age.
DavidC
Pure speculation by you and "andyd" to proclaim your socio/economic/cultural views on others–anyone with any sense can see that. Hey guys, Bill Nye is calling he's got something for you.
Will this happen even if we all drive electric cars and trade carbon credits?
"It's going to get colder for the next 30 years." – Denialist
Really? Denialists have been making that claim for the last 30 years, but the Earth just keeps getting warmer and warmer.
Solar output down and getting smaller, Earth's temperature the highest it has ever been and is getting warmer.
Vendicar:
Earth has been getting warmer for 4.5 billion years
and CO2 levels have been moving down,
and are not that far from their lowest levels ever.
When you write:
"Earth's temperature the highest it has ever been and is getting warmer.",
that sentence makes you sound ignorant,
and people here laugh at you.
I just wanted you to know, for your own benefit.
You are violating one of my 10 Life Rules of Thumb:
"(3) Don't talk with a full mouth, or empty head."
m e emberson
My favourite Latin phrase. Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses.
Get a grip Nostradamus. You don't see the future. Stop pretending you know.
SARNAC
It's called the 11-Year solar cycle. There is nothing new
Prof Watson
burn more coal
Steve L Reid
Global Warming according to democrats causes everything!!
manmade globalwarmingbeliever
Thank goodness our "scientists" have reached a "consensus" that global warming is man made… man can just turn the thermostat up. Never mind the sun which has nothing to to with heating the earth.
But when does the cold come?
Solar expert Fritz Vahrenholt (GER) made in his book "The cold sun" the following prediction (= Prognose):
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc2001.jpg
lsvalgaard
Reply to devil
That already looks wrong.
Steven Rowlandson
It seems to me that the french revolution was during the little ice age. The powers that be have put themselves at risk. Very foolish of them.
Chad Irby
That's odd.
A number of years ago, I was talking to a "senior climate scientist" (yes, he was introduced that way) who informed me, angrily, that "insolation is a constant" when I mentioned insolation variance as a possible contributing factor to global warming…
Reply to Chad Irby
Anything that varies from ~1358 to ~1363 is as good as constant, varying only by about 0.2%. Well, it's close enough for astrophysics, anyway.
R. Shearer
Reply to jorgekafkazar
G is invariant and measured to at least 7 significant figures and Planck's constant to 11 significant figures.
RockyRoad
That much variance on the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin) is significant.
A 0.2% variance of zero degrees Celsius is admittedly still zero (a useless number, obviously) but of 273.15 degrees (its equivalence in Kelvin), the variance is 0.545 degrees C. In Fahrenheit, it would be 0.919 degrees.
Except it is not just the TSI that varies it is the Radiation itself as well, more or less UV, by as much as 10% so I am told.
Henryp
Reply to A C Osborn
"TSI that varies it is the Radiation itself as well, more or less UV, by as much as 10% so I am told." – Osborn
The I in TSI stands for Irradiance, which is Radiation.
Can't you even figure that out?
He was right. In their models, solar radiance is constant. Take that, denier!!
Reply to Joel
It would be interesting to see how their models would behave if half a degree Celsius were put in to account for variance in insolation.
I bet it would have a significant impact in the long run.
menicholas
I think all we know is that it has been measured as close to constant in total irradiance since we have been able to measure it, which as far as I know does not include any periods where there were zero spots for a few cycles in a row.
But, do we not also know that the spectrum is altered as well?
Who has the numbers on that?
All photons were not created equal.
Most of the far UV is absorbed in the upper atmosphere, and so whatever amount UV is increased by will then be unavailable to warm the surface, no?
Reply to menicholas
Did I just read what you said, "All photons were not created equal."
Were you saying that on the Energy Flow thread, when others were saying a photon is a photon and doesn't know where it came from or is going to?
Or that they are absorbed and MUST increase both Energy and Temperature of a warmer object.
Which is not true.
No, what I meant was, different photons have different energies, as I then elaborated on the point I was making: Some photons make it to the surface, and some are filtered out by the ozone layer.
So, if a higher proportion of the TSI is from UV during times of low solar activity, and these photons are not making it to the surface, then the small decrease in TSI is not the whole story.
Is that clear enough?
And when it comes to the physics of radiation, I know very well that I am not a physicist, and so I very much doubt I did more than ask questions and offer opinions…I would never attempt to profess to people who physicists, as many on that thread were.
But, I did notice that there were people who claimed credentials as physicists on both sides of that question, and some seemed to be sitting on the fence.
As to whether or not photons get absorbed, that would seem to be clearly a matter of the material composition of whatever they are impinging on. All atoms are not created equal either.
Waiting to see if you want to misinterpret that statement.
GoatGuy
And if I understand it… "more cosmic rays ≡ more ion channels thru upper atmosphere" which in turn is thought (like the old 1940s "bubble chamber" atom-smashing detectors) to produce more and thicker clouds in super-saturated air.
Which in turn reflects more sunlight back toward space. Which, besides lowered INsolation, further cools the planet.
Marlo Lewis
Reply to GoatGuy
That's the theory. So what happens if, in spite of TSI-related "dimming" and increased cosmic ray production of cloud nuclei, the Earth keeps getting warmer? That's not a problem for lukewarmers (like yours truly), but it would be a problem for those who dismiss anthropogenic global warming as a hoax. Just a heads up folks!
cephus0
Reply to Marlo Lewis
As far as I'm aware few here will have a problem with that. I certainly won't and it will represent an interesting phenomenon to investigate. Sceptics aren't in general wedded to some quasi-religious dogma and will change their worldview in accordance with the data.
The only problem with the whole agw gig is lack of empirical support. I could add that the fundamental agw hypothesis is barking nuts too but ultimately that's an interesting irrelevancy. The only thing that maters is the data.
Robert B
I've seen enough to think that even if the balls are falling off brass monkeys in Florida, it will still be the warmest year eva.!
No it would not be a problem. Solar activity is still relatively high, therefor we would not necessarily expect to see a lack of warming. (what you have presented us with is a straw man)…
Marlo despite 30 or so years of crying wolf, where is the proof? Show me one dire prediction that has come true? Where are those 50 million climate refuges, oh right building resorts and airports on the supposedly flooded land, bleached coral or whatever.
McLovin'
Sure. If not for that little problem of no measurable increase in temps since the 1998 El Niño. Also a problem (for AGW) theorists…but don't tell them that. You'll get called names.
@Robert B
We see this year as about average here in IL. Dry right now, but giving us lake construction and waterway valley logging opportunities. We are thankful for any temperatures which are conducive to outdoor activity where I live.
BTW… The rural folk of the midwest want the growing season extended, if it's true that we can somehow control the weather.
Something to remember about FL and IL… (+ countless other locales)
It's not the temperature,
it's the humidity.
The Earth doesn't keep getting warmer….. Surface Temperature Data Bases keep getting adjusted. There is no warming.
In Australia we had official digital thermometers that had officially sanctioned "filters" that removed any temperature below -10 degrees Celsius in areas where low temperatures are common…. With "Science" like that, you can safely say that All warming is a suspect finding….. and then there is the Hockey Stick debacle and the ClimateGate Emails….. etc, ad nauseam.
There is no "Climate Science", just Climate Scamming for government funding and political agendas.
I work outside in Florida. In the morning in Summer it is very humid but not extremely hot yet.
Trust me, it is both, temp and humidity.
No bout adoubt it.
What "warming", do you mean the Adjusted Temperature Data warming or the Satellite measuring the Energy escaping to space warming?
I suggest you spend a few hours going through all the Broken Cold, Snow and Early onset of winter Records that are and have been broken over the last couple of years.
Take a look at IceAgeNow, that is real life data, not made up temperature data that shows 0.01 degree C movements.
Also look at how many animals have died of cold and crops ruined in the last 2 years, the animals run in the thousands and the ruined crops are all over the world.
You won't see it in the press or on TV as it does not fit the Agenda, all they will show you is the Biggest Strongest Hurricanes and Wild Fires, which are in fact Not the biggest or most powerful only the most hyped.
Actually I very much hope that happens. I hate cold. Unfortunately I doubt it is going to go my way.
The failure of one theory, or many theories, does nothing to validate any other theory. That you may be able to show that life on earth did not originate from snowmen, unicorns, or fairy dust does nothing to increase the probability of the theory that earth was populated by little green men from Mars.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.
Walter Sobchak
Goat Guy: Bubble Chambers. Actually, it was an earlier device called, curiously enough, a cloud chamber.
I built one for an 8th grade science fair in 1960. I got the plans from a wonderful feature in the old Scientific American* called the Amateur Scientist.
I needed a coffee can, tin snips, a piece of black velvet, some clear plastic, a piece of glass, sponges, glue, rubbing alcohol, and a block of dry ice.
I shined the light from a slide projector though it. I was able to see the tracks of cosmic rays, I also had a needle with a little piece of DU on it, that also produced tracks. I was able to take pictures of the tracks with a first generation Polaroid Land camera. I won a prize.
The rest of my life has been a rainy winter afternoon stuck in the Newark Airport.
*The current rag of that name is a sad parody of what it was in 50s and 60s.
Reply to Walter Sobchak
Walter said-
Are any so-called 'scientific journals' above the need to increase revenue through sensationalism of "learned speculation" nowadays? Please refresh me.
Sandy In Limousin
We Scots of my generation are very proud of our contribution to scientific (and other progress) This extract from Wikipedia is what I learnt at secondary school in the early 1960s.
Charles Thomson Rees Wilson (1869–1959), a Scottish physicist, is credited with inventing the cloud chamber. Inspired by sightings of the Brocken spectre while working on the summit of Ben Nevis in 1894, he began to develop expansion chambers for studying cloud formation and optical phenomena in moist air. Very rapidly he discovered that ions could act as centers for water droplet formation in such chambers. He pursued the application of this discovery and perfected the first cloud chamber in 1911.
andrewmharding(@andrewmharding)
I remember the same experiment in my A'Level Physics, seeding of clouds from cosmic rays was easily seen, it became quite dramatic when a stronger source of alpha or beta radiation was placed next to it, of course gamma rays had no effect.
WB Wilson
Walter, I too constructed a Wilson cloud chamber for the science fair. Mine was an inverted fishbowl with dry ice and a chunk of uranium ore. Nice alpha particle tracks. Hey, CO2 and uranium, what's not to like? I still remember that glow of victory.
Gabriel Powers (@oldGabePowers)
Nice story. I bet you used to like going to Radio Shack back in the day too right? I did. We never had nay science fairs in my backwater area but I would have loved to enter things like that if they had.
Wow! It's a good thing that the SUN has nothing to do with Global Warming and/or Cooling (as I have been taught by climate scientists … top scientists … really … top … people. Top. People. Therefore who cares what the SUN is doing ? Everyone should just focus on their own SINS that are "killing our planet". The science is settled. You are a SINNER!!!!
Reply to Kenji
97% consensus. The science is settled. Just send them more money.
Indeed… the SUN is a DENIER! (Now, will this statement get through moderation?)
/sarc (just to improve my moderation luck).
Kathryn Mason Hermansen
As bizarre as your comment sounds, what's even more bizarre is that it's true! "he idea of something being "scientifically proven" was practically an oxymoron and that the very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt. A good scientist is never 'certain'. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability." — Carlo Rovelli, Physicist, University of Aix-Marseille
Ted Midd
It would be interesting to know how different wavelengths have been affected. It is my understanding that while total solar radiation changes by less than 1% UV can change by several 100%.
Reply to Ted Midd
If sun has been without sunspots for 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun, then UV and x-rays coming from sunspots are down by 73%.
If sunspot numbers are down 100% since the solar maximum, then UV and xrays coming from sunspots are down by 100%
NotInColorado
The sun is shown to be a (weakly) variable star. There are strongly variable stars of about the same temperature range as the Sun, but much more luminous (the types called RR Lyrae and Cepheids, among which the Sun will never be included), but with caveats we might make some comparisons. I studied these stars in the ultraviolet for my PhD and found that they vary much more strongly in the UV than in the visible. For example, RR Lyr changes brightness by < 1 magnitude (a factor of 2.5 change, < 250%) in green or blue light (~400 nm wavelength), but over 2 magnitudes (600%) in mid-UV (~200 nm). The variation of the sun in the UV at 200nm is about 1% over a solar cycle, but the Sun at that wavelength is only about 1% as luminous as in yellow light. Of course, the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere, so any variation will be most strongly felt there.
Reply to NotInColorado
"Of course, the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere…"
Completely absorbed? Are you saying we don't need to wear sunscreen to block UV rays because there are none that can reach us?
NotInColorado says:
"the UV from the sun is completely absorbed by the upper atmosphere, so any variation will be most strongly felt there."
This is getting old… You are incorrect. UV is absorbed by snow and ice in those wave lengths on earth, life itself uses UV to produce various nutrients such as vitamins, human pigmentation is a result of a biological reaction to the exposure of UV.
When UV strikes earth, higher energies such as UV produce frequencies such as infrared radiation, this IR escapes to space,
UV produces more infrared radiation when it makes contact with the surface of earth, than there is in TSI recordings.
Earth likes to absorb infrared radiation, why do you think our planet is a gorgeous blue/white ball from space?
TSI measurements are not UV measurements, UV entering the planet has more energy than TSI, its wavelength is changed and converted when it strikes earths surface.
If satellites are looking towards earth and measure a rise of infrared radiation, this could be caused by an increase of UV reaching earth. couldn't it?
Reply to Sparks
UV entering the planet has more energy than TSI
UV is a tiny portion of TSI. The 'T' stands for 'Total'.
UV produces most of the IR leaving the planet, everything is a 'tiny portion' according to you. UV and x-rays are not recorded as TSI
If you add UV and x-rays to Total Solar Irradiance of coherent light, it would be a lot more than a few Watts per meter squared.
Don't dare try to suggest that UV and x-rays are a component of the "TSI" energy budget…
TSI means the TOTAL solar irradiance of which UV and x-rays are but minor portions.
Minor portions as in; not used in the energy budget of coherent light.
Obviously UV can't fall by several 100%. Just getting in before someone picks up on that.
It will after the Eschatological Cargo Cult of the CAGW sprays the entire world with SP-5000 to prevent global warming from CO2.
yarpos
Reply to ShrNfr
So thats what those chemtrails are!!
It is a different kind of math often used in business so that you can average ups and downs. A 100 percent decline represents 1/2 200 percent 1/3 etc. If you don't do this – when you calculate ups and downs you overweight the averages. Example if you buy a stock for 100 dollars and it goes to 300 the next year and back to 100 the following – that would be a 200 percent increase followed by a 67 percent decrease. If you average it it looks like your investment gained 33 percent but you can see you really gained nothing. So if you call that 67 percent decrease -200 percent and average you get the proper gain of zero. To convert you take the loss. Subtract from 1 then invert it (1/x) subtract 1 and multiply by 100. So say your stock went from 100 to 10 – a 90 percent loss 1- .9 = .1 invert gets you (10 – 1) x100 = 900% loss.
Reply to marque2
Or you could just look at the chart.
Curious. We were told that the 2009 minimum was "as low as it gets," and that the Maunder Minimum was likely not lower than that. It seems that hypothesis might not last one solar cycle.
Next we will be told that the 2020 minimum is "as low as it gets," and that the Maunder Minimum was likely not lower than that.
And the solar low minimum in 2030-32 will be lower than the 2020 minimum, as if the Sun is doing the limbo with every progressive cycle. It probably takes several minimum solar cycles to build or lose any thermal inertia in ocean heating or cooling over these longer timescales.
Just as the 1998-2016 El Ninos' were burping out excessive heating from more energetic solar cycle decades earlier, the thermal inertia will now become longer term net cooling which will not readily materialize until decades later, so it is probable that some significant cooling is baked into the long term ocean temps well past these lower solar minimums, which in turn ultimately govern the atmospheric temps. This should tell us a lot about the sensitivity to CO2, as well as more about how solar cycles ultimately heat or cool ocean temps. At the end of the day, I think Sol has a lot to do with earthly climate change in the short term, just as Milankovitch cycles have a lot to with long term insolation changes to different parts of Earth's surface causing the start and endings of ice ages.
Not sure why you want to identify yourself as someone who "knows" things that have not happened yet.
Does not seem to be anything scientific about that, any more than when warmistas do it based on a disproven hypothesis.
Well, if each recent solar cycle is getting weaker, as it seems it has been since at least 2009 as Javier points out above, and maybe even lower in 2020 as it appears it may be headed, then we are now on the other side of the Gleissberg cycle that leads to a 40+ year cooling cycle. Others predict 2030 as being even a lower sunspot count and a weaker less active sun than this current one and what many suspect will lead to a general cooling over the coming decades. Solar cycle 24 is currently on pace to be the weakest sunspot cycle with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continues a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 22 that peaked around 1990.
Sure, I will hang my hat with those folks, because to me it explains why the last 40+ years was what caused all the global warming madness, because of an energetic Sun through the 1970's and 1980's peaking in 1990. It takes a minimum of 10 years for the effect of the solar cycle to be felt so with 2020 and 2031 expected to be even lower solar minimums than 2009, then that is the hypothesis of why a general cooling trend is in the works. It is soon going on 10 years since the 2009 low and a beginning cooling trend is expected as a result of that. What is wrong with identifying that, or identifying with it? This is a science forum I am commenting on and predicting things successfully is the way we test hypothesis. I am not offering to read fortunes…as you insinuate.
And WUWT is there first, proposing a name for the next minimum:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/online-petition-the-next-solar-minimum-should-be-called-the-eddy-minimum/
Reply to Neil Jordan
We should name it after Michael Mann. The "Manninmum". Drinkt three beers quickly and say that ten times.
Thoughts of Mann shall not pollute/degrade my drinking time
Or the MiniManninum.
Tim Groves
What a piece of work is a Mann!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!
In form and moving how express and admirable!
In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Mann delights not me.
KilroyJC
It might sound like this: (replace the DOT with. .)
https://youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ
We could name it after all of them, and just call it the Minimum of the Warmista Pogrom.
J Martin
I don't know if wuwt or Leif are yet of the opinion that there is going to be a grand minimum. We should have a better idea in 15 plus years. Or if it will be deep enough to cause any cooling. The next decade or more looks like an exciting time for solar scientists. With any luck it'll also bring a much needed dose of realism to alarmists.
As for giving it a name I would be happy to compromise and name it after both Eddy & he who's name should not be mentioned on wuwt, otherwise ones comment is greeted by the message that the comment could not be posted.
Ironic that the name of a climate sceptic cannot be mentioned on a climate sceptic website, yet the likes of Mann etc can be mentioned no problem.
Reply to J Martin
Leif are yet of the opinion that there is going to be a grand minimum
Not this time.
Reply to lsvalgaard
I agree with Leif.
No grand minimum coming up.
We just bottomed out on the Gleissberg. in 2014.
Do we have an official prediction for the next cycle then?
if 2014 was the bottom of the GB cycle as far as the solar polar magnetic field strengths is concerned
it follows that the future 43 years must be the mirror image of the past 43 years.
Just put the mirror at 2014 in that graph and you will figure it out.
Katphiche
"The rise and fall of the sun's luminosity is a natural part of the solar cycle. A change of 0.1% may not sound like much, but the sun deposits a lot of energy on the Earth, approximately 1,361 watts per square meter."
Seems like a 0.1% might be smaller than our ability to accurately measure it. 0.1% is 1.361 watts. What is the time frame for watts/sq m? A second, minute, hour, day, month, year? If it's a second, it's a bigger deal than if it's a year. The TSI is measured by satellites, do the number and density of cloud cover affect the total energy that hits the ground?
There's accuracy and then there's precision.
Reply to Katphiche
1 degree centigrade is less than 0.3% change in temperature. Most of the public/science seems to have a framing problem.
ShrNfr December 15, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Apologies.
Here in south London we have temperatures of between – 17 and + 35 Centigrade – extremes over a number of years.
So – Fifty (ish) degrees change in temperature.
I degree C = about 2% [Yeah, the actual is, indeed, a little bit less]
Your 0.3% for one degree C is related to Absolute zero.
A nice attempt at deflection.
But not helpful.
Happy Christmas.
I thought we were discussing Solar radiation, not London weather.
Mark T
A Watt is Joules/second. Time is already factored in.
Reply to Mark T
Around here the uninitiated talk about 'watts' when they mean thousands of kilowatthours that a house consumes a year. What is so brainfarty? Energy consumed in a year could be measured in gigajoules, but instead we talk about units power, W = J/s, multiply that with 3600s to get a new unit of energy Whr = 3,600J, and then get back to unit of power by telling how much energy we use in a unit of time, year yielding kWh/a. We could get the same result by telling how many joules the house consumes in a second, that being the average wattage needed. But we need kWhs, because the pricing works in kWh.
I said on this site sometime around 2009-2010 that solar cycle 24 will reach its solar minimum by the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018, I wonder if Leif remembers? 😀
Solar cycle 24 will also have a slightly longer solar minimum than solar cycle 23.
Solar cycle 25 is going to be fun, due to the time period involved with this solar minimum, I expect something very interesting to occur. (any guesses as to what?)
brians356
Cycle 24 doesn't look like reaching minimum in the next two months, more like two years. The SpaceWeather article says 2019-2020. So …
Reply to brians356
The SpaceWeather article is referring to 2019-2020 as the midway point or centre of the next solar cycle minimum, which they are wrong about and are off by a year, I was precise to within a few months and my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum. In fact, I got every aspect of this solar cycle correct.
I said on this site sometime around 2009-2010 that solar cycle 24 will reach its solar minimum by the end of 2017 to the beginning of 2018
Which it just has not. There is still some way to go.Some years before minimum the polar fields stabilize. The North polar fields have not yet [or just barely] done so, so minimum is still about 2 years ahead. The following Figure is from a short note about prediction of SC25, which Anthony has not seen fit to post, so here is it
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-and-Prediction-of-Solar-Cycle-25.pdf
and the Figure:
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar-Fields-HMI-WSO-for-SC25.png
"There is still some way to go.Some years before minimum the polar fields stabilize. The North polar fields have not yet [or just barely] done so…"
You must have missed where I said,
"I was precise to within a few months and my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum."
Your point reference is during the solar minimum, the reference point for my forecast was for when solar cycle 24 reached the beginning of the next solar minimum" or as you said above "just barely".
And as solar cycle 24 will also have a slightly longer solar minimum than solar cycle 23 the solar minimum will be 2020-2021 and not 2019-2020,
And there are still some months left for my forecast.
There is no such thing as the "beginning" of the next solar minimum", so you cannot be 'precise to within a few months'.
Then you should inform NASA, they define it as the point where "the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum"
And I define the 'beginning' of a solar minimum as being self evident. A point in time when the sun is entering a continuing period of very low to having zero visible sunspot numbers.
I have mentioned the polar fields are a year short for that reference point defined as 'solar minimum' that has not occurred yet.
(Put down that copy of the 'prince' it doesn't work with science, a fact or truth and honesty) 😀
No, they don't. They are not so dumb as the entertain such a silly notion. The normal definition is the time of the lowest value of the smoothed sunspot number. A slightly better one would be the time where the number of old-cycle sunspots equals the number of new-cycle spots. E.g. as seen here
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
(reminds me that I should update that plot)
One could look to TSI to see if we are near the minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003.png
and we are clearly not yet.
Rats!. Wp shows an old version. Here is the good one:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003x.png
cerescokid
Thanks for the graphs. The issue will be fascinating to follow the next few years.
Okay, I did some checking, "NASA SDO reports that as the sunspot cycle plunges toward its 11-year minimum" is a direct quote in the article above from http://www.spaceweather.com
"No, they don't. They are not so dumb as the entertain such a silly notion."
I did some more checking 😀
"New Solar Cycle Prediction | Science Mission Directorate
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction
29 May 2009 – An international panel of experts has issued a new prediction for the solar cycle which takes into account the surprisingly deep solar minimum of 2008-2009. Read today's … In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists."
There has been more plunging going on (in reference to sunspots) since the last time my sink blocked up.
That would be great, it will show that the sun is entering into the solar minimum between late 2017 and early 2018,
That would be great, it will show that the sun is entering into the solar minimum between late 2017 and early 2018
Nonsense, the sun doesn't plunge, it ponderously wanes. The minimum is an instant in time. You cannot 'enter' it. You can speak about a low-activity period that last several years. The Sun has not yet 'entered' any such period; give it another year or two. When the North polar fields become stable the cycle will begin to flatten out. The plot of TSI I showed is a good illustration of the fact that we have some way to go before the sun has 'dimmend' to the level of 2008-2009.
Leif,
The first rule of a solar polar field is; The solar polar field is undetectable. (movie reference)
Here is the context, all magnetic fields in the universe are undetectable, until they interact with a physical medium, for example; a straight forward bar magnet, there is no way of viewing its magnetic field until a sheet of paper and a sprinkle of iron filings is used, or maybe some more advanced variation of this basic experiment,
The professional observations that are made of the suns polar magnetic field are based on this very basic principle,
The analogy; if the bar magnet is in motion under the sheet of paper, the iron filings will align to the field of the bar magnets polarity,
Therefore in practice, your observations are not of the suns polar field, your observations are of the interactions between the solar polar field and its surface (the iron filings).
It is acceptable science, very stable.
There is this nagging issue, What is moving the bar magnet under the sheet of paper?
Obviously you would never say that; the bar magnet spontaneously (for reasons) produces a toroidal magnetic field in motion which causes a polarity (for more reasons) aligning/misaligning the iron filings on the surface of the sheet of paper.
Questions worth studying; Why is there an observational signal here in the image below, in that exact scale and in that exact optimum time-frame as the sun? why is this signal behaving like Iron filings? (Like I said before, put the copy of that awful book down :D).
Absolutely and positively wrong.
This is how we measure the polar fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
Solar polarity does not produce absorption lines.
Don't say "absolutely and positively wrong" and throw a wickylank at someone, even if it is just me lol
Magnetic fields are unobservable until [it] interacts with another medium.
There is nothing wrong with that your observations are not of the suns polar field, your observations are of the interactions between the solar polar field and the suns surface,
Don't let on that you are observing the movement of the suns polarity, you are not!
I have no bias, and I don't have to defend myself against observational reality for obvious reasons.
There are tools to measure the timing and movement of the suns polarity, use them all and analyse the data, spend less time aggressively defending your current position and evolve it.
it does split absorption lines into several components…
What is wrong is what you made of it.
In a sense it is trivially true that the only way we can determine or measure anything is when it interacts with a material object, so your 'insight' is void of specific meaning. What you make of it is something else.
To be more specific, the suns polarity does not split absorption lines into several components.
Absorption lines are observed in coherent light, the spectrum bands reveal composition,
The motion of the suns polarity is not a measure of the make up of the suns spectrum of light.
The suns polarity is instant, photons are not, in context, the suns polarity is not being observed, interactions are. There is nothing trivial being discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect :
"The Zeeman effect named after the Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman, is the effect of splitting a spectral line into several components in the presence of a static magnetic field. "
I understand the Zeeman effect, very interesting actually, the suns polarity is not a static magnetic field, the suns polarity produces all observable magnetic fields on the surface of the sun, the suns polarity moves, it directly faces and moves past all the planets during solar maximum,
I'll send you an e-mail, obviously you don't like discussing speculation in public.
the suns polarity is not a static magnetic field
Clearly you do not know what the sun's 'polarity' is. Usually what is meant by that is the magnetic field threading the polar regions [which is static on the time scale of formation of absorption lines].
If you mean something else than everybody else you must explain what you mean.
Katphiche,
Its a lot less then 1.361W/m^2/s, because our planet is more like ball, therefore effective radiation which is entering the earth is 1.361W/m^2/s / 4 (clear because the sun dont shine all over every time) and then atmosphere is blocking arround 30-50% of the rest of radiation.
On Ground, its should be more to 150-200W/m^2/s, means if TSI change 1W/m^2/s, on Ground it would result in to a change to 0.12-0.15W/m^2/s
It's probably not a progressive process, but there is no way to predict it. So, it is reasonable to assume that the sun will recover its character when the time is right, which will hopefully coincide with what is right for us.
jlurtz(@jlurtz)
New measuring device. Since it can't be the Sun, if it gets colder, we were, are, and are going to be measuring it wrong. Wrong calibration, wrong corrections for orbital height, cosmic rays seeping into the equipment. When software failed, years ago, it was always cosmic rays. Who knew that they were right? but only during Solar minimums.
I need grant monies; there is going to be a lot of research needed…
"TSI does change! That's why we stopped calling it the solar constant."
Very few so-called physical constants are actually constant. Most notably in my line of work is the dielectric 'constant' which is really a function of frequency and temperature and varies strongly with both.
Reply to cephus0
Good point. Even the speed of light doesn't seem to be constant over time. And that has some rather interesting implications (unrelated to the current topic).
Salvatore del Prete
All I can say is the climate test is on. Very low solar colder ,versus increasing CO2 warmer. My bet is with solar.
Low solar equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo.
It is going to be very interesting going forward from here.
27% of this solar cycle has been spotless. A contextless factoid. It would have been nice to know how many days or what percent of the last 3 solar cycles had been spotless.
Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
Maybe this will help with context. 23 days later you can add 12 more days to the SC#24 total:
?dl=0
Reply to Bob Weber
Good graph.
Thanks for the graph. My take home from that is that there isn't much correlation between total numbers if spotless days and temperatures. Except that cool periods seem to have flat tops in the blue spotless graph. The 70s and 2008/9 when we had 8″ of snow here in Southern England when we normally only get half a centimeter.
I am looking forward to the arrival of this solar minimum to see if we get more snow again.
Link is disabled.
Ric Werme
The top of the post says "so far in 2017, 96 days (27%) of the days observing the sun have been without sunspots."
So that's 27% of this year, not solar cycle.
spaceweather.com has data for this cycle:
2017 total:  96 days (27%)
2016 total:  32 days (9%)
2015 total:    0 days (0%)
2014 total:    1 day (<1%)
2011 total:    2 days (<1%)
2010 total:   51 days (14%)
Updated 15 Dec 2017
Perhaps you can find data for the previous solar cycles and report back.
Reply to Ric Werme
There are tons of sites that seem dedicated to spotless days and the study thereof.
Here is one picked at random:
http://sidc.be/silso/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/spotlessJJ/SC25_SCvsNumber.png
http://sidc.be/silso/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/spotlessJJ/SC25_year.png
http://sidc.be/silso/spotless
And more on spaceweather.com too:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spotlessdays.htm
The interesting thing is how a small solar variation is apparently associated with a much larger change in GCR levels.
Reply to Tom Halla
Solar wind changes a lot more than 0.1%, and the solar magnetic effects on the Earth's magnetic field responsible for letting the GCR in depend on the solar wind.
Bon voyage TSIS! I can't wait for its first day of data. Nicely written article here.
The November v2 SSN average of 5.7 was the 3rd earliest & lowest value for all solar cycles #1-24, compared to 4 and 0, in cycles #11 & #2, after 103 and 105 months respectively, compared to this cycle now at 108 months. TSI is finally dropping again after bumping upward for a few months.
2006 is a good solar analog year for 2017, when in Oct that year F10 and SORCE were at similar levels for the first time in cycle #23 as very recently in this cycle #24, with F10.7cm flux under 70 sfu and SORCE TSI under 1360.7 W/m^2 for nearly a week. The solar minimum for SC#23 bottomed out 28 months after this, and I expect SC#24 will be similar, in line with the SWPC solar cycle progression forecast.
These links are not working.
Getting a message that number of shares has been exceeded some limit.
"Error (429)
This link is temporarily disabled. The person who shared it hit their daily limit of traffic or downloads. Learn about traffic limits. "
as the magnetic activity of the sun decreases,
There it is again. It seems like a common error to confuse issues?.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2ef6xvo.jpg
clearly, you can see that higher solar activity is associated with lower solar magnetic field strengths?
so, note that since 2015 the solar magnetic filed strengths have been rising again,
[with corresponding decrease in SSN]
[with corresponding increase in stratospheric radiation]
That should change your story….
Reply to henryp
The plot is of Polar magnetic fields. The peak of a cycle is close to when the polar field flips.
From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/the-sun-is-about-to-have-a-flipping-magnetic-field-reversal/#comment-1381842 :
Leif Svalgaard
Doug Proctor says:
When the reversal happens, is there a period in which there is – for all practical purposes – NO magnetic field?
At a pole reversal the magnetic field goes away at that pole. There is plenty of magnetic field elsewhere on the Sun to make up for the disappearing polar fields. When the field at a pole disappears it is soon followed by a build up of field with the opposite polarity drifting up from lower latitudes.
BTW, Leif's description of the second graph. Note that the plot is not of a field strength, but the difference of the strength of two fields.:
It shows the polar fields measured at two observatories [Mt. Wilson (blue) and Wilcox (red), scaled to match when they overlap]. To eliminate an annual variation and any zero-level errors, I plot the difference between the North polar field and the South polar field. I also plot a 'ghost' of the field with its sign reversed [shown in lighter colors]. That allows you to compare the trend more easily.
What a coincidence. Prospects for the Cult of Calamitous Climate are dimming as well.
There are suggestions, rather than direct evidence, that the sun's cycles influence our climate. It seems to be a cumulative effect in that a series of quiet cycles cause cooling rather than a single very inactive cycle. There is no correlation between sunspot number and climate, but over many cycles there seems to be a reasonable matching of patterns, especially between clusters of quiet cycles and periods of climate cooling.
Solar interactions with the earth include TSI, within that, some UV variability and microwave flux. Then there are changes in magnetic field amplitude and the reversal of the field polarity each cycle. Another output is the solar wind with its high speed electrons, protons and alpha particles All of these are cyclical and the solar wind, in particular, modifies the cosmic rays reaching the earth and influences the neutron count. This last bit is the basis of Svensmark's proposal for the solar effect on cloud seeding.
I believe that the solar cycles affect our climate but proof is lacking. But then, it may just be that we don't understand the mechanism. It would seem that the most likely mechanism would involve cloud cover modulation. The most likely causes would be UV, solar wind, cosmic ray or cosmic dust influences on our atmosphere via physical or chemical processes.
Reply to Schrodinger's Cat
~courtesy of javier
Here's your direct evidence…
Canman
Does this mean we're going to have to build James Hansen's single chlorofluorocarbon plant that will prevent another ice age?
rbabcock
Being a little challenged, I can only visualize things in Hiroshima's. How many Hiroshima's are represented by .1%?
Reply to rbabcock
1saveenergy
No sparks,
the science was settled, it's 97% of a tipping point so much worse than you thought I thought
I'm sorry, but a change in TSI of a tenth of one measly percent from peak to trough … like the song says, "That don't impress me much!"
Per the CERES data, at the top of the atmosphere, that works out to about six/tenths of a watt per square metre (0.6 W/m2) highest to lowest. Compare that to say the difference in TOA TSI between January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun. That difference is 22 W/m2 …
So yes, insolation does vary, but it's what I call "A difference that doesn't make any difference".
The suns output has dropped [to] nearly 0.1% compared to the Solar Maximum, you're forgetting about the 7-8 years of that sustained increase to 2.2% of W/m2 from 1360W/m2 to 1362W/m2 that's an almost 88% increase in the output of the suns energy using that scale, over that period of time, from trough to peak.
denniswingo
….January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun…That difference is 22 W/m2 …
Much higher than that…1326 w/m2 on July 7th and 1388 w/m2 on January 7th…
Jim Masterson
Reply to denniswingo
Higher yet still: 1316.0721 W/m^2 on 07/10/2017 and 1407.4395 W/m^2 on 01/01/2017.
(See http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/)
I'm sorry too that you aren't able to understand that TSI has it's greatest effect under the ocean surface.
"Compare that to say the difference in TOA TSI between January and June, when the sun is nearest and furthest from the sun. That difference is 22 W/m2 …"
The maximum annual variations of observed vs adjusted to 1AU F10.7cm flux are within +/-3.3% since 1947.
The maximum annual variation between the observed vs 1AU F10.7cm flux values was never more than 10.7 sfu, most of the time within half that or less.
A maximum variation of 0-11 sfu from any level of F10.7cm always correlates to less than a 0.15 W/m^2 change in TSI from 1AU. This seasonal TSI variation is "A difference that makes very little difference".
Imagine a 10 sfu band going across from any level of F10.7cm; the corresponding change in TSI will be about 0.15 W/m^2.
Today's 20hr observed solar flux was 71.7 sfu, adjusted to 1AU was 69.5 sfu. What is the difference in TSI between the two? What is the difference in 'adjusted to 1 AU' TSI for adjusted F10.7cm at 69.5 sfu versus the 'observed 1AU' TSI for observed F10.7cm at 71.7 sfu?
There's a difference, "but it's what I call "A difference that doesn't make any difference"."
The relationship between TSI and F10.7 [or equivalently the sunspot number] is not linear. In particular a large sunspot causes high F10.7 but low TSI [thus in anti-phase], while for lower solar activity F10.7 and TSI are in phase so you have to be very cautious about the relationship. On the other hand, F10.7 matches precisely the total magnetic flux over the solar disk, see e.g. http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1510
The difference is percent-wise the same, as both fluxes depend on the square of the distance to the Sun.
But but but fairies and unicorns dancing on the head of a pin have wayyyyy more energy than a fricken huge vat of water!
WE, yup. Let common sense prevail.
Assuming that the effect of a variable Sun on climate has to come from a 0.1% change in TSI is ignoring all the rest of things that change with the solar cycle that change by a lot more.
Total ozone changes by 3%. That alone is a factor of 30 over the TSI change. Stratospheric temperature changes by 1.5°C at the pole. Not bad for a 0.1% change in TSI. Geopotential Height at 30 hPa can change by 100 meters.
Solar wind, UV, magnetic field, energetic particles, cosmic rays. All of them change by a lot more than 0.1%.
We don't know everything about how the Sun affects the climate, so let's assume only TSI counts and since it changes only by 0.1% let's discard it as a factor. Sounds to me like very superficial thinking and a sure way of never finding out. Let's assume also that the climate is linear, and discard all possible non-linear effects. Gee, we are getting closer to an answer. Will it be the right answer?
TSI is where the energy is. All the rest are many orders of magnitude lower in energy. Your argument is akin to trying to gauge Bill Gates' wealth by counting the coins in his pockets.
You are also assuming that the energy to change climate has to be contributed just by the Sun. The Sun does the push and the climate system contributes most of the energy. Examples:
– A few energetic particles with little energy create plenty of NOₓ and HOₓ reactive species in the mesosphere. Depending on the presence or not of a well formed polar vortex, these species are transported down and effectively destroy O₃. How much energy do you need for that?
– Depending on the state of the Quasi Biennial Oscillation a solar minimum makes the difference that changes the Stratosphere into deflecting planetary waves that warm and weaken the polar vortex, altering the state of the Arctic Oscillation. The energy is contributed by the planetary waves, not the Sun, but without a solar minimum those planetary waves continue to the Upper Stratosphere and above.
Again simple thinking and wrong assumptions to say that something big can't be moved while all is needed is the right lever.
Your simplistic thinking assumes that those effects are important for the climate. There is no good evidence for that.. [Claims are not evidence]
No, I don't assume such thing. That is not for me to say but for the people doing that research.
The mechanisms you say don't exist are being worked out by the next generation of scientists.
The evidence for the relationship is the correspondence between the cosmogenic isotope record and climate records. This includes the correspondence between solar activity as measured by sunspots and climate, as every solar minimum detected, Maunder, Dalton, Gleissberg, and now the Landscheidt/Eddy? minimum coincides with periods of no warming or outright cooling.
The issue is very clear. Solar hypothesis predicts lack of warming, or even cooling, for the period 2006-2035 due to the coincidence of the present extended minimum. The main competing theory predicts continued warming due to constantly increasing CO₂ levels.
Let's see what the evidence supports, because so far the only warming we have seen has been from an El Niño that is now waning.
Solar hypothesis predicts lack of warming, or even cooling, for the period 2006-2035 due to the coincidence of the present extended minimum.
It also predicts lots of warming when solar activity is high. The mid-late 18th century was very cold, yet solar activity was as high or even higher than for the recent half-century. So, a very clear failure.
The mid-late 18th century was very cold … So, a very clear failure.
The mid-late 18th century was a period of warming after the very cold early 18th century and before the very cold early 19th century.
This is very basic but you seem to have troubles with it. Periods of higher than average solar activity are periods of warming and periods of lower than average solar activity are periods of cooling. The temperature you end up having depends on the temperature you started with.
All just excuses for a failed viewpoint.
They are not excuses but statements of facts. Why would the late 18th century be as warm as the late 20th century, if the early 18th century was much colder than the early 20th century? It is your viewpoint the one on thin ice.
By that [invalid] argument the next half-century should be very warm because the previous one was. Clearly, thus is raving nonsense.
But a valid argument. If the next half century had low solar activity it would not get as cold as previous low solar half centuries because we are starting from a warmer state.
The planet has a very big inertia to change its temperature due to its high content of water.
A very big pot with a fire below that can be cranked up or down. The final temperature depends as much on the time with the fire up as on the initial temperature. If you compare two periods with high fire and they have different temperatures you shouldn't be surprised. Changing the temperature is a very long process.
The backfire effect strikes again https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Your opinion only.
Your reply proves my point.
Well, I don't think I suffer from backfire effect because I don't arrive to my point of view from conviction or belief, but from careful analysis of the evidence.
It is very simple. As I have said, if between now and 2035 the world warms as much as it did between 1980-1995, then the evidence will be against the solar variability effect on climate.
I don't arrive to my point of view from conviction or belief, but from careful analysis of the evidence.
Careful now, you are moving into D-K territory…
That the Earth already warmed the past half-century in spite of declining solar activity is evidence against dominant influence of solar activity on climate. Perhaps you believe also that the cooling 1940-1980 is the reason for the warming thereafter [one of your earlier arguments that the future temperature depends on the past].
That the Earth already warmed the past half-century in spite of declining solar activity is evidence against dominant influence of solar activity on climate.
Only if you assume a linear relationship between solar activity and temperatures, which doesn't appear to be the case. And only if you assume that other factors are not influencing temperatures in that period, which also is probably not the case.
So the argument is based on assumptions that are probably not true.
Only if you assume a linear relationship between solar activity and temperatures, which doesn't appear to be the case
All changes are linear when small.
Not necessarily. You may not start to see a change until activity has decreased below a certain level for a certain time. You are setting rules that might not apply and then deciding on those rules. That's a form of fallacy. You cannot impose a priori conditions on the way solar variability affects climate.
Not necessarily. You may not start to see a change
'may' is a weasel-word. Unless you can quantify your excuse it caries no weight.
I don't get into semantic discussions in a language that is not my first one. Everything that needs to be said is in scientific journals.
Your generation of scientists didn't have the tools and knowledge to work out the solar variability-climate relationship. A new generation is taking care of that. If this extended minimum also coincides with lack of warming they will find a more receptive community. Don't feel bad about it. It was impossible for you to solve this problem. But you shouldn't become an obstacle with your stubbornness to accept the evidence.
Your generation of scientists didn't have the tools and knowledge to work out the solar variability-climate relationship.
This is total nonsense. It takes decades to acquire such knowledge. The tools are there for everybody to use.
A new generation is taking care of that
They certainly do their work in darkness. Who might they be?
If this extended minimum also coincides with lack of warming they will find a more receptive community.
More likely they will concoct some suitable excuse like in the past.
'receptive community' smacks of politics and bias-driven consensus 'science'.
Progress is to found in disagreements and non-conformity, not in pal-science.
It was impossible for you to solve this problem
certainly not, The evidence points clearly to a solution in the negative, in spite of hundreds of years of spurious claims.
periods of lower than average solar activity are periods of cooling
Solar activity has been decreasing the past many decades, yet temperatures have been rising…
Solar activity only entered below long term average after SC23 around 2006. So far we've only had 12 years of below average solar activity. Most studies find a 10 year lag on the effect of solar variability on climate, so we are just starting to feel the effects of reduced solar activity now.
"TSI is where the energy is. All the rest are many orders of magnitude lower in energy."
UV and X-rays are many orders of magnitude higher energies than the spectrum of sunlight measured and off the w/m2 scale.
Sunspots produce x-rays and UV too.
Toneb
"Higher energies" is not the same as intensity
They cannot deliver energy worth a jot to the climate system (W/M^2), as in their entirety they barely have any.
There is science that links to Stratospheric O3 chemistry to Stratospheric circulation and hence via down-welling to Tropospheric circulation but that is only akin to stirring the cup of tea with a spoon.
"…..but without a solar minimum those planetary waves continue to the Upper Stratosphere and above."
No they wouldn't.
There are many factors that contribute to the production of large scale planetary waves and low solar is just one of them.
It's a complicated mix of things comming together and, again, it is not added energy in the sense of altering the Earth's energy balance.
Effects are felt on the surface in the form of weather changes, with a -ve AO allowing Arctic plunges to more southern latitudes in favoured areas (E US and W Europe).
It is the stirring of a cup of tea.
Not overheating cooling but movement of dipoles.
Reply to Toneb
Planetary waves take energy and momentum from one place and deposit it in another. Their effect can alter the speed at which the planet loses energy, as when more heat reaches the poles the planet loses energy faster. So yes, it can alter the energy balance.
There are over 100 solar drives climate changes papers to dispute ,Dr. Svalgaard:
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
"Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth's climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there's an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors. If the IPCC had truly examined past temperature developments and compared them to solar data, they'd have seen there is something remarkable there.
Yet in the IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 takes only a cursory look at solar activity and its possible impacts on climate in IPCC AR5 before simply dismissing the sun altogether. The Earth's sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal.
What follows is a list of papers I found in just a few hours that the IPCC should have taken a much closer look at instead of just dismissing. The list of course is not complete."
http://notrickszone.com/100-papers-sun-drives-climate/#sthash.CNegcSwo.dpbs
It has been known since the 1970's that the Sun drives the climate.
In the 1970's it was known that we were heading into an ice age…
Looked at a random one of your 100 papers [#35]. It's title was
"The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24".
Which has clearly not been the case [big FAIL]. Perhaps it is not so strange that the paper was ignored by the IPCC…
He he, you could do better than this……
DR, Svalgaard,
The Abstract make it clear for a small region (NORWAY,NORTH ATLANTIC), which you completely missed. Try reading the Abstract next time:
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal."
The IPCC ignored the fact that Water Vapor is a proven NEGATIVE feedback, not a positive one the IPCC and poor scientists keeps hanging onto.
They have made a number of short term temperature prediction/projections that have suffered epic fails, you shouldn't take the commonly erroneous IPCC claims and statements seriously as they lack credibility.
" So yes, it can alter the energy balance."
In what way precisely?
And stratospheric waves with a (part) causal factor of UV/O3 chemistry is a tiny, tiny percentage of NH circulation dynamics.
In the SH I think zero as the geography there effectively precludes it. Not to mention the much more intense PV.
A prolonged solar minimum causes persistent winter AO- and NAO- conditions that cause the Arctic to be warmer during the winter, while Eurasia and North America become colder. A similar situation has been taking place these last years when alarmists complain that Greenland is much warmer during the winter (but colder in the summer).
An excess of heat in the Arctic during the winter, when the sea is thermally isolated under more than a meter of ice, means most of the extra heat is radiated to space as IR. This means during a solar minimum less energy is entering the Earth due to the TSI reduction, and more energy is leaving the Earth in the Arctic. The balance of energy is affected more than solely by the reduction in TSI.
Alarmists don't understand it, but a warmer winter Arctic means a more efficiently cooling Earth.
No it does not cause "persistent" winter -AO/-NAO conditions.
It is one casual factor only.
Look up the science …..
https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/84231-stratosphere-temperature-
watch-20152016/
UV/O3 chemistry influence on Winter polar stratospheric flow is but one of a number of that impact via planetary wave disturbance.
IOW it takes more than that to give -AO dominated winter. In fact they are very much in the minority, and the extreme event that a SSW is, is usually needed to do so.
FI: at the "height" of the LIA the coldest winter in the CET record – 1683/84 (-1.17) was fallowed 2 years later by one that is ranked 8th warmest – 1685\6 (6.33)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean_sort.txt
Aside from that, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it is just a stirring around of energy, and not a change of balance (no, it does not cool).
Toneb,
The intensity of UV from the sun is much greater than the entire visible spectrum of light, even if you include infrared radiation. UV produces infrared radiation when it reaches a surface, Higher energies breakdown into lower states, you have your spectrum upside down if you think infrared radiation is the most intense part of the solar spectrum.
I see that you disagree with our host.
Perhaps it has something to do with the length of time that is affected by the change, unlike the annual swing?
Don K
As the sun gets successively more blank with each day, due to lack of sunspots, it is also dimming.
Dimming, eh? Anyone want to explain to me why it is impossible for our sun to be a long term variable star? It's long seemed more plausible to me that glaciations are caused by variations in solar output than by GHGs and/or Milenkovitch cycles. It seems most improbable to me that sea level ice at the latitude of New York City (40N) could possibly persist through a Summer.even with a one degree lessening of axial tilt and any plausible decrease in average temperature.
To paraphrase Everett Dirksen– 0.1% and 0.1% there, pretty soon, you're talking real cooling.