Leif says they don’t have anything to do with each other.
More likely there has been a sudden reduction in CO2, because Gavin says that CO2 controls the earth’s temperature.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
It’s not the sunspot numbers per se but the length of the cycle that’s important.
If anything, Ts are relatively high because we are in the up cycle. After late 2014-2015 we’ll really see some cold when we enter the down side of cycle 24.
Dr. Svalgaard is a good solar scientist.Who does have a good handle on the science.
But,he does have a tendency to rule out other causes too quickly and easily.He is too sure about what he believes.
It is obvious that THIS solar cycle is definitely unusual.He missed it and so did many other solar scientists.
WAG on the part of self proclaimed “Experts” that overlook the obvious in the historical records that is to correlated to be a coincidence. Correlation is not Causation but may be a symptom of a common cause. When we see this and we also see this means the two are related in some way. If historically the earth experiences cooler periods when the sun is in a quiet mode we should be looking for a common cause for the separate events. It sure is not CO2! ENSO and the ocean atmosphere weather patterns are symptoms of a common cause. Whether it is a “Pendulum” response of a force being applied and the system trying to regain balance or random events that are driven by outside influences is not really important because there is nothing to be done at this time other than to be aware of possible results of weather extremes and prepare for possible futures!
Earth’s average temperatures and solar activity follow closely each other but there is an important influence of Earth’s internal dynamics, especially in relation with the oceans temperatures: el nino, la nina, PDO, etc. But, more than that these two phenomena seem to be related as well.
It is like a great “organism”, isn’t it?
Probably electromagnetic fields and forces play a much more important role in the Earth-Sun system that nowadays science wants to admit.
You’re kidding, right? 3 years of low solar activity and 3 years of strong winters in the northern hemisphere. Just a coincidence?
Check out the article
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/2360-the-temperature-of-2010.html
The title should be: “13 years without GW”.
Temperatures used to grow ~ 0.3 per decade between 1980-1998 (very intense cycles 22 and 23), but since then they have just stopped.
Check this graph
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmaurer/scatterometry/global_temperatures.gif
and compare with the numbers of the previous article.
IMO the main driver is solar activity, with an important contribution of oceans temperature, which modulate the effect of the Sun.
But, what you said about “sudden reduction in CO2” sounds interesting too!:-)
err … (very intense cycles 21 and 22) …
I notice over at WUWT that many commentors give great deference to Leif Svalgard on all issues solar. I have no doubt that he’s an accomplished solar scholar.
However, I also think he’s far too dismissive of the solar-GCR-cloud connection (Svensmark et al) hypothesis and the possibility that other (non-TSI) aspects of the solar output might be important in regulating Earth’s climate.
Fercryinoutloud, no one rational will dispute that all Earth climate begins with the Sun. There is no other more important source of heat (energy) to our oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere.
So, if the Sun is the major source of energy, then perhaps minor variations in all forms of solar output (EM radiation, magnetic fields, particulate radiation, etc and effects on Galactic Cosmic Radiation) just might be major climate drivers. We know less about the Sun’s systems than we know about Earth’s climate systems – – which is to say we know just about diddle-squat about either. Both are chaotic, non-linear, turbulent systems that defy computational modeling.
Time to show some humility in the face of vast human ignorance of major forces in the solar system. We don’t understand variations in the sunspot cycle, but we can certainly recognize patterns in the past that correlate with global climate.
My money is with “20-30 years of cooling”, and it ain’t likely to be pretty for 8+Bn folks on the planet. One day soon, I will cast off my snow shovel and depart Colorado for warmer retirement lands.
Y’all come along.
Leif and Mosher are quick to be off the cuff about the sun’s relation to climate. They will say since there has been no clear mechanism defined yet that that means there is no relation. They fail to see that they could become part of the body of people who discover what the mechanism is. Leif could even get the mechanism named after himself if he was to find it. It could be he and Mosher are waiting for someone else to discover and define it then have whoever that is tell them what it is. That makes things easier, I suppose. But where’s the glory is having something handed to you before you’ll think it’s real? Not much adventure in that. Good thing Feynman wasn’t that way.
The idea of calling the curiosity over the relationship between the sun and climate numerology and astrology is small minded.
I have not heard much lately about the conditions on the other planets in the solar system. Strangely quiet, are the solar scientists about the solar system!
The Galactic Gatekeeper always seems to post replies that either:
1) Support his settled solar science perspective.
or
2) Dismiss the concept that the Sun could change weather and climate patterns.
This modus operandi is widely employed by the Team across the internet in their real climate sites, postings and comments… this connection is somewhat confirmed when the Galactic Gatekeeper defers to Gavin regarding climate and CO2… However, I do respect the Galactic Gatekeeper for the tolerance, patience, politeness and knowledge he displays when arguing his case… unfortunately, this cannot be said about the other members of the Team.
Jim Cole says “So, if the Sun is the major source of energy, then perhaps minor variations in all forms of solar output (EM radiation, magnetic fields, particulate radiation, etc and effects on Galactic Cosmic Radiation) just might be major climate drivers.”
Say what???? IF the SUN is a major source of energy…. HUH?????? You’ve got to be f’ing kidding, I hope.. IF the SUN is a major driver….ROTFLMAO….
If the sun is a major driver……good lord, I think I need a drink
I am one of those who have questioned Leif’s uncomprimising stance on WUWT.
I think that he has a “closed mind” and suffers with Not Invented Here syndrom.
As has been shown recently the Solar Scientists and NASA have a great deal of data and knowledge but are still continually surprised by what the Sun actually does or doesn’t do.
He is totally dismissive of anything new that does not fit his preconceived ideas.
I’m going with some kind of magnetic interaction that we don’t understand yet….. and Svensmark. The intensity/length of cycle are indicative of something else that is the cause. Look at the AP index:
http://cbdakota.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/apindex.png
It’s probably nothing…
If the sun affected the Earth’s temperature it would be hotter in the day time than at night…………………
(thanks to Kate)