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
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- 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
OT: RED ALERT
Sunspots possibly (probably not) going to ZERO in a few days alert. Spots at 26 (a sharp drop) now, but all our bunched to rotate out of sight and into oblivion shortly. See picture of the situation at link: http://www.spaceweather.com
Makes you wonder if solar activity could affect the climate. For decades the consensus ‘scientist’ said no. Maybe they are reevaluating their beliefs.
A nice graphic –
http://www.thegwpf.org/graphical-comparison-solar-cycles-21-22-23-24/
There have been past interesting correlations between sun spot number and warming/cooling trends, but at this stage it’s just a correlation. There is no good evidence that decadal temperature changes correlate well to conventional measures of irradiance.
Hopefully with the stereo satellites looking at the sun and so much interest generated by this and other observation a real break-through can happen.
I found this interesting from Leif Svalgaard on WUWT recently:
“Climate is driven by a combination of many processes. Some drivers [in decreasing order of significance] are; (0) non-linear combinations of the following: (1) the Sun [its output has increased 30% over the history of the Earth, and will eventually fry us], (2) plate tectonics [enabling ice sheets to form if land is near the poles, or creating vast deserts in the interior of equatorial mega-continents], (3) Jupiter [through its influence on the orbit of the Earth – Milankovitch cycles], (4) greenhouse gases [massive volcanic emissions, e.g. the Deccan Traps], (5) biosphere [changing albedo of the surface], (6) ocean circulation, (7) solar activity [causing a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation], and last [and probably least] (8) human activity [land use and CO2 emissions].
Where are we headed? (1) we’ll fry in several hundred millions years, (3) glaciation in 50,000 years, (6) don’t know, (7) decrease of perhaps 0.1 degrees, (8) probably negligible, but it would be beneficial if I’m wrong on this [warm is better than cold]. The biggest unknown is (0) how all these changes will interact non-linearly”
I expect sunspots figure into (7).
The interesting thing about ocean circulation is that it’s unlikely to be operating on time scales the human mind easily comprehends. These non-linear processes could have produced a change that ocean circulation only manifests 50 or 100 years after the initial triggers. Someone puts a microscope on changes of a few degrees here or there, in the Arctic or somewhere else, then think they can explain those changes by looking at processes operating over briefer time scales.
For Heaven’s sake. The cold periods are a 179 year cycle at the Saturn-Sun-Jupiter Neptune Uranus conjunction.
2003 1824 1645.
The little ice ages develop over the next 30-50 years. The 1690s were the result of the conjunction of the 1645 event and the 30 year ENSO cooling.
2003 the Sun, 2007, ENSO cooling so we are in for -1.5 to -2 K.
There is no and can be no CO2-AGW to counter it.
Sounds completely bonkers to me.
I think we have entered the second half of SC24, the magnetic field showed signs of reversing on the 14th, although the amplitude of SC24 is very weak with low sunspots appearing, the timing of the magnetic cycle is still there and this is the first time in our life time that we have been able to study this in the suns magnetic field during a solar cycle with such weak amplitude. Also note that sunspots have been known to increase during the later half of the cycle, the spots may be smaller and there may be less of them but they will be where the weaker magnetic activity is.
Currently it is unlikely spots will be counted as zero as you can see here, small groups are still forming.
http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/solar-reference-page/
The Laymen’s Sunspot count has it spotless today.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/20130224.jpg
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
The current specks don’t meet the threshold for being counted as spots.
The Laymen’s sunspot count is a different scale of counting sunspots. Whether these small sunspots are counted or not only effects the amplitude of a solar cycle, the underlining timing of the cycle is there. Sunspots are a kind of proxy for solar activity, Magnetic activity etc..Weaker groups with smaller spots are good evidence of a very weak cycle, and a weak cycle equates to low Activity. I agree, the small spots that make up a small sunspot group may seem like counting faculae. After the fact, the different measurements between solar cycle’s are made and their differences are understood. Be careful suggesting that these cycles can be used for forecasting future amplitude successive cycles, understand the timing and scale of solar cycles before you dive into the amplitude of them.
Well, I just checked, and a new sunspot group appeared out of nowhere. Looks like we aren’t going to zero this time. Oh well. Maybe next time.
There is observed, (correlation) evidence of far more influence then that. Total TSI is just one metric, but the atmospheric response to changes in different solar spectrum, as well as cosmic rays, is certainly far more complex. Leif likes to rule out the unproven, largely due, IMV, to the fact that there are many many (often poorly understood) influences on climate, most of which are cyclical over various time periods, which never interact at the same time with the same intensity, sometimes working together to reinforce a particular influence, sometimes working to negate. Because Leif can find times where the statistical correlation to TSI does not produce the same result, he tends to rule it out, agaim, IMV , far to early.
Concerning the post, when was the last time such a large area NW of Greenland was so cold, and why is this occuring? A follow up, what do we know of the ocean T below the ice in these areas?
No body with an open mind rules anything out. But your mind can’t be so open that your brain falls out.
Warmists exercise the same sort of argument: Well you can’t categorically disprove CO2 therefore it must be CO2. Most of us would prefer positive evidence of an effect, rather than be left with being unable to 100% disprove that X might cause Y.
Will says, “The interesting thing about ocean circulation is that it’s unlikely to be operating on time scales the human mind easily comprehends…”
Indeed, IMV, the dimension of time adds far more complexity to climate issues and is at the heart of understanding climate. At its most basic only two things can effect the energy content of any system in a radiative balance. Either a change in the input, or a change in the “residence time” of some aspect of those energies within the system. (David’s Law) smiles.
Every year the earth provides a prime example of how important “residence time” is to the earth’s ocean. land atmospheric system. Have you looked at the bi-annual cycles in all that we are measuring to see if the earth’s seasonal energy pulse can reveal some of this missing energy mystery? Sunlight, falling on the Earth when it’s about 3,000,000 miles closer to the sun in January, is about 7% more intense than in July. Because the Northern Hemisphere has more land which heats easier then water most people state that the Earth’s average temperature is about 4 degrees F higher in July than January, when in fact they should be stating that the ATMOSPHERE is 4 degrees higher in July. In January this extra SW energy is being pumped into the oceans where the “residence time” within the Earth’s ocean land and atmosphere is the longest. There are also other factors, such as the Northern hemispheres winter increase in albedo exceeds the southern hemisphere’s winter albedo due to the far larger northern hemisphere land mass. So at perihelion we have a permanent loss to space of ? W/2m SWR due to increased albedo and a loss of SWR to the atmosphere as at perihelion the SWR is falling on far more ocean, where it is absorbed into the oceans for far longer then if that SWR fell on land. Do these balance (unlikely) or is the earth gaining or losing energy during perihelion???
Will, I do not think one’s brain is falling out when they conceed that their is decent correlation of climate to solar activity or certain time scales. As to causeation there is certainly rational support for cloud cover affects, as well as numerous atmospheric energy flow affects, as well as potential jet stream location and cloud cover affects. To rule out solar affects based purely on TSI and imperfect correlation in such a complex subject is, IMV , hubris and unwarranted. This is especially true when the historic record is measured by different means and accuracy, thus the complexity as well as the means of observation, both increase the error bars.
As one example I have asked Leif to give the residence time of each Wm2 of each spectrum (The entire gambit, from extreme UV, to LWIR) of solar energy entering the ocean. Their has been no answer, yet the residence time of each photon is different, and fundementally important.
You’re just speculating. Which is fine. But it’s only speculation.
I am not speculating that the residence time of each photon of energy that strikes the surface of earth is different. I am asserting that it is important, and we do not know the answers. Concerning the other affects, well there are many peer reviewed papers on the subject, and yes, they all admit they do not know; (Often a sign of an honest scientist) but the speculation is supported by observation.
I don’t know if you’ve looked too deeply into climate science as a research field, but a peer reviewed paper on deeply uncertain subjects such as these don’t count for much. It’s not uncommon for two peer reviewed papers to make more or less opposite claims. What does that tell you about the maturity of this field?
Warming > Cooling when it comes to human society. It’s a shame warmth (real or perceived) is so feared and despised.
So we agree, which is why I say CAGW alarmist are full of hubris, and thus my criticsm of Leif (not as an alarmist) in particular on this subject, was likewise an indictment aginst undue assurance of knowledge, postive or negative, when I have found (within the peer reviewed literature) rational arguments supported by imperfect but positive correlation involving a very complex, indeed fromally chaotic subject matter.
Leif wants evidence before he believes something. You seem to want to believe because it would be closed minded to do otherwise. I can’t see any difference between you and the typical Alarmist because you want to put the belief before the evidence.
I sort of agree with both of you. The question is, what does it take for Leif to ‘believe.’ Do we actually need to be sinking into the next LIA, corresponding with current changes in the sun, before he is convinced? Especially with the way this solar cycle is going, and what is predicted for the following cycle.
I think he’s want to see something more than correlations over massaged data. That’s how people got hysterical about CO2.
FYI just for consideration… one of many papers noting the cosmic ray correlation on large time scales….
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/shaviv-veizer-03.pdf
Will Nitschke says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:10 am
Leif wants evidence before he believes something. You seem to want to believe because it would be closed minded to do otherwise. I can’t see any difference between you and the typical Alarmist because you want to put the belief before the evidence.
=========================================
Will, this comment is full lacking, an assertion without evidence. Their is clear correlation evidence, and reasoned scientific discusion as to causeation, I have made it clear, over and over in the above comments, that the science does not warrant a conclusion either way. May complaint is that Leif has made a conclusion. I never stated more then that.
A correlation suggests something. It’s not sufficient to prove a cause and effect relationship however. As interesting as Shaviv’s work is, there is no obvious correlation between cosmic ray flux and temperature trends over the last 100 years.
Opacity is key (visible wavelengths – X) and indeed the oceans are slow heat movers…
There is far more then Shaviv’s work.