“None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something,” Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century | Space.com
Record ice gain, Record cold summer in the Arctic. Record snowfall. Global cooling.
Perhaps Leif can finally make the connection?
Leif refuses to acknowledge a connection between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum, so I’m going to say “no”.
I agree. Leif says all that is weather.
If the sun turned off, CO2 would keep us all hellishly hot is his view.
I see where he is coming from but then I dropped a tab of acid this morning and everything the warmists say became clear to me.
” If the sun turned off, CO2 would keep us all hellishly hot is his view. ”
That’s not his view or anyone else’s as far I know. The sun provides the earth with a roughly constant (over the year) source of energy. CO2 intercepts LWIR energy which is emitted from the earth’s surface. More CO2 will, therefore, according to the theory, intercept more energy than previously which means there is a reduction in energy leaving the system. So we have ….
…. the same incoming energy (from the sun) but less energy leaving the ‘Top of the Atmosphere’, i.e. there is an imbalance (incoming greater than outgoing) so the earth will warm.
I’m taking my red pen and crossing out the following text in your essay.
“The same incoming energy”
I’m also writing -10 in the margin with my red pen, you lose 10 points for stupidity. Meet me after class and tell me what you know about the Maunder Minimum
I would not be so generous with this student because, as noted elsewhere, deceptive science threatens the very survival of us all:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/1925-southern-sunspots-cause-cold-northern-sunspots-cause-heat/#comment-300148
Kiehl & Trenberth disagree and the IPCC does likewise !
Their theory is that 83 % of the radiation leaving the Earth is down to GHGs – 199 W/sqm from GHGs and 40 through the atmospheric window – the 40 is assumed constant.
Their theory is that 99 + % of the atmosphere doesn’t emit IR because it doesn’t absorb it – something I find challenging – the no IR emission I mean.
If the vast majority of IR loss from Earth – “cooling” – is indeed “performed” by a tiny concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere it is challenging to say the least that more of these “heat shedders” will NOT result in GREATER heat loss rather than less !
Especially so when apparently the ONLY mechanism available for 99 +% of the atmosphere is the slight chance for a random collision with a tiny concentration of GHGs who in turn radiate the energy to space.
It is absurd in the extreme to deny 99+% of the atmosphere becomes heated so these non IR emitters have to lose the energy somehow.
I may be dumb but the theory just doesn’t add up to me – There has never been any demonstrated example where increasing the coolant power results in increased heat – NEVER.
Your conclusion would be correct *IF* your assumptions were, but they’re not.
OLWR has been increasing due to decreased cloud cover both during strong or low solar cycles in the last 60 years,
”… we measure OLWR, and a large increase is noted. The IPCC predicts an 0.9W/m^2 reduction in total OLWR per doubling CO2. However, we’ve see a dramatic increase…”
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=640323
“… OLWR has increased markedly over time as surface temperatures warmed. There was a slight dampening in the CO2 spectrum but it was tiny and argues for a lack of thermalization ….. [The] reason for this is a decrease in cloud cover, O^3, and H2O (the decline in H2O above 850mb has outweighed any increase in backfired LWR via increasing CO2 by a factor of 57)…. Even over the last decade the OLR increase continues, though slower…”
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=643421
In fact, the prediction based on the analysis of this unbalance, of OLWR and the heat content of oceans (mainly), is that by 2017 all the positive budget of heat from the XX century strong solar cycles will be exhausted and the cooling will greatly accelerated because of that.
Leif will address the precise measurements shown below in three figures, . . .
a.) Neutron repulsion energizes neutrons in cores of atoms and stars
b.) The Sun made our elements and birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago
c.) Iron is the most abundant element in the Earth and the Sun
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/
If he is a solar scientist.
Even his grammar is retarded. None of us have?
Drudge is *leading* with this story, linking to the same Space.com report:
http://s12.postimg.org/arkmdwb3h/image.jpg
Drudge seems to be finally coming around. Probably the cold weather.
Cairo snow: Egyptian capital sees snowfall for the first time in 112 YEARS. See picture a camel hanging in the snow… thinking, this is funny sand… but it’s cool!!
Hey, I wish Drudge would play this Minnesotans for Global Warming produced 3 1/2 minute video of an outstanding and pivotal excerpt from the Great Global Warming Swindle that exposes Al Gore’s (and the ipcc’s) bs on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg
If the people would see that video en masse, Nik, it would change a lot of opinions. In fact, I saw the entire 1 hour GGWarming Swindle show in 2007, and that led to the change of my opinion, as I had been a “reluctant warmist.” YET, hugely, it is only the short 3 minute segment that I link to that was instrumental in changing my view (after much of my own googling and research to make sure I wasn’t being hornswoggled). So, anybody that has access to Drudge, tell him, work that video into a link somehow.
The Cairo snow is amazing.
In 2004 we went on a Med cruise in February. One day we were in the northern Med. and freezing – two days later we were in Cairo at 30 C – mid winter.
And now it snows in November ? And global warming continues unabated ?
Wait, you mean December, right? Got to love this, the LA Times covers Cairo and other mideast storms here: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story
The LA Times supposedly banned skeptics. But it seems over 80% the comments are from skeptics! And they think that this snow in Cairo is like a turning point on this issue.
One comment from a Steve Dekker:
There hasn’t been any RSS global warming trend since October 1996 and falling temp trends since January 2001, despite 1/3rd of all CO2 emissions since 1750 made over the last 17 years..
73 out of 73 CMIP5 climate models are now all above actual observed temps for a 100.00% failure rate. The models are wrong because the assumptions upon which they are based are wrong.
CAGW is the biggest most expensive hoax made in human history. I can’t believe there are still naive sycophants that still belieeeeve this tripe.
Then, sarcastic lol, kapt_kan replies: Oh yeah, Steve?! You’re a DENIER, man! I bet you probably don’t even believe in the Easter Bunny, too, do you?!
In some sense, kapt_kon is mocking the LA Times apparently failed policy of blocking “deniers.”
This Leif guy seems like a clod from every comment I read of his. No, no one has yet firmly connected the physical relation between solar activity and weather; but the correlation is tight enough that it practically screams “dig here!”
Other than being a jerk on the web, a kind of logical pedant, (constantly committing a variant of argumentum ad ignorantiam as far as I can see…) I don’t know what his claim to fame in science, climate or otherwise actually is. Does anyone?
Just another guy you’d never know about were it not for fashionably pseudo-science. Climate and otherwise.
” This Leif guy seems like a clod from every comment”.
This “Leif guy” is probably the world’s leading solar physicist over the past 40 years.
Furthermore, Leif Svalgaard does not support the extreme CAGW argument.
Yes, you are saying the same thing!
I agree with your respect for Leif’s work, but even the “minimum” or “minor” CAGW is wrong.
It’s “settled science”, to use an expression that their defenders like…
*therefore*, Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun (with modulations, by ocean oscillations, volcanic eruptions, etc.).
Considering solar scientists track record w/ sun spot number predictions, I expect they’ll come around 2 or 3 years after the massive cooling and say their models were correct all along. They are a hop skip and a jump away from being climate scientists.
Here is the link to the 1977 debate:
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
Please feel free to join in.
If Leif really wants to learn something, he will publicly respond to three figures of precise experimental measurements that yield clear and unequivocal evidence:
_ 1. Neutron repulsion is the source of energy source in cores of heavy atoms and stars
_ 2. The Sun made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives
_ 3. Iron-56 is the most abundant and most stable atom in the Earth and the Sun
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Questions and comments are encouraged from everyone.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
The sun cannot have birthed the planets because they have too much angular momentum to have come from the sun. Sun and planets are all the same age. Hydrogen is the most abundant atom in the earth and sun, not iron. As for neutron repulsion, I’m not familiar with this drug but it seems to make you incoherent so I’d advise you to lay off the stuff.
Morgan,
Please address three figures of precise experimental data in Chapter 2 of my autobiography that refute your statement.
Better yet, join forces with those who debated this issue with us in Science in January 1977:
“Strange xenon, extinct super heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle.”
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
Morgan,
Or you may want to join forces with those who claimed all the mass fractionated forms of solar neon were isotopically distinct forms of primordial neon, Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, etc., ad infinitum!
“The neon alphabet game”, Proceedings of the
Eleventh Lunar Planet Sci. Conf. 15, 879-899 (1980);
http://tinyurl.com/2944m9 or http://tinyurl.com/36zvrt
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
COLD ‘NUFF FER YA?
60 above zero- Arizonans turn on the heat.
People in Wyoming plant gardens.
50 above zero- Californians shiver uncontrollably.
People in Casper sunbathe.
40 above zero- Italian and English cars won’t start.
People in Wyoming drive with the windows down.
32 above zero- Distilled water freezes.
The water in Jackson Hole gets thicker.
20 above zero- Floridians “sport” thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats, heavy coats.
People in Wyoming throw on a flannel shirt.
15 above zero- New York landlords finally turn on the heat.
People in Wyoming have the last cookout before it gets cold.
Zero- Texans turn blue-er than “bluebonnets” and pass out.
People in Wyoming close the windows.
10 below zero- Utahns head to St. George.
People in Wyoming get out their winter coats.
25 below zero- Airports in Oklahoma close; Hollywood disintegrates.
The girl scouts in Wyoming are selling cookies door to door.
40 below zero- Washington, DC runs out of hot air.
People in Wyoming let the dogs sleep inside.
100 below zero- Scientists near the North Pole abandon their research and evacuate.
Wyoming drivers get upset because they can’t start their mini-vans.
460 below zero- ALL atomic motion stops (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale).
People in Wyoming start saying, “Cold ’nuff fer ya?”
500 below zero- Hell freezes over.
Wyoming public schools will open two hours late.
Great humor! You from Wyoming?
I’m stealing this and changing Wyoming to Adirondacks. Good for some deep laughs.
I agree with Leif that correlation doesn’t prove causation, however it doesn’t disprove it, either. Perhaps he’d like to posit possible reasons why.
To keep the sun out the CO2 = Anthropogenic Global Warming equation NASA has it’s gate watchers in place.
Morgan Wright says:
December 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
“I’m also writing -10 in the margin with my red pen, you lose 10 points for stupidity. Meet me after class and tell me what you know about the Maunder Minimum”
The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) was a period when few sunspots were observed on the surface of the sun. However, before any conclusions about the relationship between TSI output, sunspot number and earth’s climate is made, the following should be taken into consideration.
1. At each solar minimum sunspot numbers are very low (usually zero for a period) yet the measured TSI variance between sunspot maximum and sunspot minimum is less than 0.1%. Why would TSI be any lower during the maunder minimum than it is during regular solar minima?
2. Solar activity may be related to changes in weather patterns which may explain colder/wetter/warmer/whatever conditions in certain regions but this doesn’t mean that the earth’s energy balance has appreciably altered. While I’m not a fan of theirs, Mann, Schmidt and Shindell published a paper more than a decade ago which discussed regional weather patterns during the maunder.
3. It’s not clear that lower temperatures uniquely relate to the maunder (or dalton) minimum. Temperatures in Europe were already depressed before 1645 and began to rise before 1715. The same goes for the Dalton. The CET record does not show an appreciable decline during the Dalton minimum. There was a decline BEFORE – but that was during a period of high solar activity (high SSN). In fact, the CET trend for the period 1800-1900 is as flat as can be reasonably expected.
“2. Solar activity may be related to changes in weather patterns which may explain colder/wetter/warmer/whatever conditions in certain regions but this doesn’t mean that the earth’s energy balance has appreciably altered.
While I’m not a fan of theirs, Mann, Schmidt and Shindell published a paper more than a decade ago which discussed regional weather patterns during the maunder.”
Before discussing the Maunder minimum, which I believe we have no conditions to fully understand now (as this debate about Leif’s “beliefs” indicate), please notice that the Earth’s energy/thermal balance *has been altered* recently, due indirectly to solar forcing (cloudiness, O^3, etc.).
We can only be sure when the predictions one way or another are confirmed, but those that are basing their analysis on this *unbalance* are expecting a strong cooling to begin in 2017.
First we have the Bond cycles,
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=613029
which are solar forced, because similar oscillations are present even during glacial periods, and then, in the same analysis the cooling of 2013 *was predicted*, although it took the AGW crowd by surprise (because the warmists really don’t know what they’re talking about)
“Posted 28 November 2012 – 07:19 PM
… When the surge in mobile polar high production commences in mid-late December. You’ll get blasted with cold and snow during mid-late DEC while the AAM plunges. Global temps will decline at -0.5C/decade initially, then accelerate from 2017 into the 2020s… ”
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=613202
” Global temps will decline at -0.5C/decade initially, then accelerate from 2017 into the 2020s… ”
Do you or “weatherphil” feel lucky. I’m prepared to bet a £1000 (or more if you’d like to negotiate) that global temperatures will not decline by 0.5 deg (+/- 0.1 deg) between 2015 and 2025. Two Russians have already taken a $10,000 bet with James Annan that the 2012-2017 period will be cooler than the 1998-2003 period. Annan looks to be favourite at the moment.
A word of warning to all the solarphiles. Historical (outdated) solar activity reconstructions supports the WARMISTS. In Detection and Attribution Studies, the IPCC use an increase in solar activity to explain the early 20th century warming. Without the claimed increase in solar output the warming up to the 1940s cannot be explained.
Yes, after IPCC for years dismissed solar climate impacts, AR5 comes out and asserts that a weaker sun could partly explain the lack of warming this century.
I cannot answer for Phil, but I know he’s confident about his predictions and I agree with him. Why don’t you go to “westernusawx.info” and ask him?
You’ll be welcome there. It’d be nice to have an in depth discussion about solar radiations at the moment when the solar max of this cycle has just been crossed.
I believe if the L&P effect proves real as originally proposed, with ssn count going to zero after 2015, we’ll be at LIA levels at the beginning of the 2020’s.
I really think that all of our knowledge about the Sun is *very superficial* and all our models about climate are *profoundly biased*, due to lack of systematic observations prior to the space age.
We’ll only start to understand better the connection between solar radiations and climate when we have a complete, detailed observation of an entire grand minimum, which is where all present models fail.
Hopefully we’ll have this opportunity in the coming years.
Let’s see. Earth heated by sun to about 300 K and you say solar changes are 0.1% . I have no idea whether that’s true or not but we’ll use your argument against you just for fun. With me so far? 300 K times 0.1% is 0.3 C. I say that 0.3 C is catastrophic. Why not? Piltdown Mann and Waving Hanson say it is.
You are talented in debate.
Oh dear. You don’t appear to have a Scooby regarding the relationship between energy and temperature.
Morgan
Energy is proportional to the 4th power of the Temperature. At a temperature of ~288K (mean temp of the earth) a 0.1% change in energy will result in a temperature change of around 0.07 degrees C.
I’m assuming that you agree with the theory that solar insolation of 239.7 W/sqm plus 239.7 W/sqm from greenhouse gases can combine to an arithmetic total of 479.4 W/sqm and heat a surface to about 30 degrees C as calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation even though 239.7 W/sqm corresponds to a temperature of minus 18 C.
This is what Universities teach as science and I don’t believe it.
You simply cannot combine two discrete radiation fluxes of whatever value and have the resulting temperature response as claimed in these lectures – IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
I tried it out.
I used spotlights to heat a thermometer to 30 C – approximately double the W/sqm claimed as solar insolation.
Each heated the thermometer to 30 C.
I then turned both on and observed the temperature over more than 2 hours.
At 30 C the thermometer EMITS 478.86 W/sqm – settled science – the Stefan-Boltzmann eqn. It must be absorbing at least this.
2 x 478.86 W/sqm = 957.72 W/sqm.
957.72 W/sqm is equivalent to a temperature of 350.36 K or 87.36 degrees C.
If you seriously believe you can take two spotlights each of which heats a thermometer to 30 C and get a temperature of 87 C by using 2 you can believe in the magic of climate science and the greenhouse effect.
Real science says the “net” flux is what you calculate NOT the simple sum of gross flux.
On the day I did this ambient temperature was about 18 C – a flux equivalent to about 407 W/sqm.
Thus the net is 407 + (479 – 407) x 2 = 551 W/sqm for an equivalent temperature of about 313.8 K or about 40 C.
Try it yourself – it doesn’t matter what air temperature is as long as it is less than the temperature you heat the thermometer to with each spotlight.
This is completely different to what climate science teaches – look it up yourself.
Climate science says the temperature should be 87 C – 2 x 479 W/sqm = 958 W/sqm.
A real experiment shows a real result that is totally different.
I have had people claim this experiment can’t be right because I performed it in the air.
I thought the greenhouse effect WAS an effect of air ?
I have also had people say I ignore conduction/convection so I must be wrong !
Well unless I miss my guess the laws of radiative physics were derived in an atmosphere – the Earth.
And unless I am mistaken the Stefan-Boltzmann eqn. says that at a recorded temperature an object EMITS a calculated radiative flux.
The only question to be answered is this –
If the thermometer reads 18 C and emits 407 W/sqm at 18 C and I then heat it to 30 C where it emits 479 W/sqm how do you account for the extra 72 W/sqm ?
I say the spotlight provides 479 W/sqm to the thermometer and the 72 is the net difference as physics books teach.
Climate science says the spotlight supplies 72 to add to the 407 of the air.
This is arrant nonsense as 72 W/sqm is equivalent to 189 K or about minus 84 C.
Prove them wrong for yourself – it cost me $20 for 2 spotlights and less than $10 for a cheap thermometer.
It’s late at night a I’m reading this and I’ve had a couple of beers but a couple of things do occur to me.
1. Your post has nothing to do with the point I made in my response to Morgan Wright.
2. You have made incorrect assumptions about AGW theory.
3. Your thermometer experiment doesn’t really address the main issues. In your experiment the thermometer is free to emit energy by convection, conduction and radiation so, once the thermometer reaches a certain temperature an equilibrium will be reached whereby the thermometer emits the same energy as it receives.
If, in your experiment, you placed the thermometer in a completely enclosed metal container which still allowed the spotlight(s) to heat the thermometer then the metal container would heat up (and begin to radiate energy) and the thermometer would heat up even more. This, in a nutshell, is the basis of the greenhouse effect, i.e. it slows down the earth’s ability to cool.
John,
As I recall, the ideal gas equation, PV = nRT, is based on the fact that kinetic energy is kT.
You can check the derivation in any good physics or physical chemistry textbook.
If my memory is correct, your response to Morgan was wrong.
Oliver K. Manuel
I admire Leif for acknowledging the possibility of a Maunder-type minimum starting with the present solar cycle and his openness to explain it through the L&P effect. He’s following the data and essentially “discovering” how the L&P could materialize.
He’s ahead of his peers in this regard, just because he’s is not afraid of the possibility that we could be headed to a new Maunder minimum.
On the other hand, he follows his peers on the fear of a new LIA and prefers to hide it behind the assumption of a complete disconnect between solar radiations and climate.
Despite the fact that the F10.7 flux is similar, the E10.7 is very different
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/euv_set.png
http://www.spacewx.com/e107_current.html
and the aa-index is different too.
I don’t understand how he cannot see these and other connections between solar radiations and climate. Many researchers have been predicting the present cooling *for years* based on the expected decline of solar radiations,
/1/ Using SIM, e.g. the excellent research of Geoff Sharp,
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
/2/ The climatic evidence of the Wolf-Gleissberg cycle (60 years),
http://www.virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
with precise predictions about cycle C23 and the present one 13 years ago, at a time when NASA had no clue about C24 and changed their predictions every 6 months.
/3/ The connection with the variation of the minimum of the TSI and solar radius, of Abdussamatov’s work,
http://www.sendspace.com/file/dqsjvg
(originally http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/KPhCB23_3_97.pdf)
/4/ The recent direct numeric evidence obtained by Dan Pangburn from the integrated sss count with time
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html
/5/ The analysis of atmospheric ang. mom. and composition, enhancing solar forcing despite the nearly constant value of the TSI,
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?s=57e8fef7f4da49bc3112f741c9d9b1d7&showtopic=33725&page=1
and
”Radiative greenhouse flaws aside, the biggest mistake made [by AGW models] is trying to linearly correlate solar activity with global temperature over time…as if the two should somehow vary in lockstep. To an extent they will (on an inter-decadal scale given the 11yr TSI cycle) but the concept of thermal inertia does not allow the relationship to work like that on longer timescales, regardless of the nature of the radiative forcing…it must take over a century for the system to equilibriate to a change in any radiative forcing.
…….
As the data makes obvious, the climate system is very sensitive to electrodynamic forcings/responses, and very insensitive to internal electromagnetic resonances. The Sun forces the system electrodynamically…all climate changes witnessed since 1850 can be attributed to the Sun-Earth electrodynamic interaction… ”
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=643414
Here is a nice graph of E10.7 flux from Geoff’s site, comparing SC23 and SC24,
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/euv_set.png
Watching the youtube of Dr. S at the convention, I couldn’t help but being reminded of the SNL Jeopardy skits featuring the bearded stand-in for Sean Connery.
Earth to John Finn:
James Annan already lost his ass on a bet. He no longer makes simple bets on how much it will warm, but now how much it will cool. ROFL
I take it you don’t understand a gambler’s mind. Annan tries to get people to make fools bets.
Also, though James Annan is your hero, you are aware he’s giving up on the high sensitivity mumbo jumbo right?
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/01/staggering-admission-by-james-annan-high-climate-sensitivity-increasingly-untenable/
Annan is certainly not my hero. You appear to have trouble understanding true scepticism. I am sceptical about extreme CAGW but I am also sceptical about the extent of the sun’s role in ‘global warming’.
The bets Annan has made are fair bets. The one he’s made with the Russians is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
I do know that Annan has moderated his estimate for climate sensitivity which is good to see. I think he’s still slightly on the high side. However, I doubt very much Annan thinks it will cool. Roy Spencer certainly doesn’t. Jack Barrett doesn’t. I doubt if Richard Lindzen thinks significant cooling is likely and the same goes for most other responsible sceptics.