Heartland Institute Now Distributing ‘The Neglected Sun’ …Scientists Say IPCC “Grossly Incorrect”

Neglected Sun HeartlandA reader recently left a comment saying he had been having difficulty getting a copy of “The Neglected Sun“, the best-selling non-alarmist climate science book showing how man-made climate change is nowhere near as serious as the IPCC wants us to believe it is.

Order here now.

Good news! The Die kalte Sonne site here reports that The Neglected Sun, the English version, which sold out a few months ago, will once again be printed and available from the Chicago-based powerhouse think-tank The Heartland Institute, who have purchased the rights to the book.

It is now available at Amazon here, or at the Heartland Institute online shop for US$ 19.99. The Kindle version is available at Amazon for US$ 11.11. Shipping begins July 1, 2015.

The book was also translated in Polish and has been available since October 2014.

IPCC’s “grossly incorrect radiative forcing values”

According to authors Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, the book is up-to-date, cites hundreds of peer-reviewed literature and explains in easy terms why the CO2 climate sensitivity has been totally overblown and how the sun and oceans are the primary climate drivers.

They commented in an e-mail:

Detailed comparison with the palaeoclimatological development demonstrates that the climate change observed over the past 100 years is nothing new, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. Natural climate variability is much more important than previously thought and solar activity changes and ocean cycles are some of the key drivers. It turns out that the IPCC has made major mistakes in the attribution of the 20th century warming which leads to grossly incorrect radiative forcing values in the IPCC reports.”

The two authors also point to the latest UK Met Office report which shows we may be heading into a new cold phase due to low solar activity.

NASA data are “suspicious”

The two prominent German skeptics are also distrustful of NASA GISS temperature data, claiming the temperature “corrections” are “suspicious” because “they always result in amplification of the warming trend, never the opposite. Artificial cooling of the past and artificial warming of the present-day.”

What to expect from Paris

On what we can expect from Paris later this year, the two co-authors write that there will be some sort of treaty “but likely without a lot of substance and with lots of vagueness and loopholes.”

Also pick up a copy of Climate Change: The Facts:

Facts

=============================

German Scientists: Solar Cycle 24 On Track To Be 3rd All-Time Weakest …And McCarthy Paper Points To Tame CO2 Climate Sensitivity

The Sun in May 2015, and Atlantic Waves

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

Our primary “fusion reactor” remains in a weak phase in its current solar cycle, number 24 since systematic observations began in the year 1749. In May sunspot activity was below normal. The observed sunspot number (SSN) was 58.8. The mean of all previous cycles for the current 78th month into the cycle is SSN=79. Thus May saw 75% of the usual activity.

Figure 1: The current cycle 24 (started in December 2008) is shown in red and is compared to the mean cycle (blue) and to cycle no. 5 (black).

A pronounced lull

Figure 1 shows that current solar cycle 24 has never exceeded the mean (blue) at any time since it began. In the 78 months since the it began, SC 24 has always been below normal. This has never been observed for any previous cycle.  The low solar activity since December 2008 is unique when it comes to its consistency when compared to the other cycles since observations began!

Even when activity reached a maximum in October 2011 in the sun’s northern hemisphere, and in February 2014 for the southern hemisphere, it remained just below the mean value. Together with the delayed start of the cycle we now have a record 10 years of quiet solar activity.

Figure 2: The accumulated sunspot anomaly of all cycle up to the 78th solar cycle month.

Figure 2 depicts a comparison of all the cycles with respect to solar activity. So far the current cycle is in 4th place in terms of low activity. But 3rd place is very reachable because SC 7 saw high sunspot values in its last third of the cycle, and so the chances are good that the total activity of SC 24 will be quieter than the last cycles of the Dalton Minimum.

Atlantic waves…

…are really high when it’s stormy. In early May off the coast of Portugal one of the co-authors of this article came to realize this in a 14-meter long sail boat. But the Atlantic also created other types of waves in the past month. A team of scientists led by Gerard D. McCarthy of the University of Southampton went on the search for internal North Atlantic variability, see www.nature.com/nature/journal.html. They determined that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) not only has ups and downs in sea surface temperature (SST) in the extratropic Atlantic region, but that these temperature variations lead to changes in sea level (SSH) along the east coast of the USA. The pattern appears as follows:

Figure 3: The “circulation series” shown in blue. In the paper the SSH variation is determined by comparing the sea level south of and north of Cape Hatteras. The AMO is black. Source: Figure 3 of the cited McCarthy publication.

The relatively long time series of tide measurements at the East Coast is thus a proxy for the ocean heat content (OHC) of the North Atlantic. Its direct measurement since the 1950 entails large uncertainty. But beginning in 2004 it has been much more precise thanks to the submerged ARGO measurement buoys and the RAPID network.

What implications does this study have? First of all, the existence of natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations is confirmed, and not only as a variation in sea surface temperature (SST) as it was previously defined. It is now sure that the AMO is a large-scale North Atlantic water mass circulation pattern. It is an independent internal natural variability of our climate system, and not just one involving global temperature.

Already in January 2013 we pointed to falling North Atlantic ocean heat content (OHC) since 2007. What follows is the data plot:

 Figure 4: The ocean heat content (OHC) of the extratropical North Atlantic since 1979. Source: Climate4you.

In the paper and its accompanying press release it is explained that the current decline in the OHC means it is announcing that the probability of the North Atlantic cooling more than 10 years is very high. The AMO’s impact on temperatures in the northern hemisphere was major in the past, as the following plot shows:

Figure 5: The AMO (green) compared to temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere (red).

If the AMO exists as an internal variability, as the McCarthy paper tells us, then that could imply that 0.5°C warming seen in the northern hemisphere since 1975 was due to the AMO and that the remaining 0.5°C of warming was due to impacts from greenhouse gases and other factors, such as varying solar activity.

For estimating climate sensitivity from greenhouse gases, this has far-reaching implications: Up to now we were not able to completely exclude the impact of aerosols on the cooling of temperatures between 1945-1975, but now it is appearing as increasingly improbable. Indeed it is becoming more evident that the cooling was due to the weakening AMO during that time period (see Figure 3).

If indeed aerosols have a lesser cooling effect than previously assumed, then the climate sensitivity with respect to greenhouse gases must be less.  Since 1975 for the northern hemisphere it was not 0.26 °C / decade increase, but rather only 0.13. This is close to being identical to the southern hemisphere. We’ve often discussed this 50:50 order here …and once again we are confirmed.

Analysis: Coinciding Maxima Of Three Natural Cycles Ends…Cooling Ahead As They Turn Negative!

Additional Thoughts On Natural Cycles 
By Ed Caryl

In Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear, we showed plots of simulated temperature generated in Excel using the sum of three cycles and a random number generator.

Some commenters realized that if you averaged many runs, like the professional climate “scientists” do, the result would be the underlying cycles. Some realized that doing the averaging step is unnecessary, as the underlying cycles are simply three columns in the Excel file. Here is that plot.

Sum of Natural Cycles

Figure 1 is the sum of the three natural cycles, the 62, 204, and 1040-year cycles. The green rectangle outlines the historical temperature record, from 1850 to 2015. The blue rectangles highlight cold periods, the red rectangles the warm periods. The numbers are the beginning and end years for each period. Yellow highlights the future. 

Note that in figure 1, the cycles in the green rectangle follow the known temperature record. See figure 2, below. The rest of the plot, before the known period, reflects what we know generally about the Medieval Warm  Period and the Little Ice Age. I leave it to the reader to interpret the future.

Natural cycles and HADCRUT4

Figure 2 plots the natural cycles from figure 1 and the HADCRUT4 global anomaly index. The vertical offset is due to the HADCRUT4 baseline choice.

The three natural cycles are not, of course, as fixed in frequency or amplitude as in these Excel plots. As we go back in time, the climate that actually occurred will drift from these calculations. But we know that the Roman warm period occurred about a thousand years before the Medieval warm period, and that it happened with about a 200 year cycle imposed on it.

There are several papers that discuss 1470 ±500 year cycles. Those that occurred during the last ice age are labeled Dansgaard-Oeschger events. In the Holocene, they are called Bond events. The Bond events tend to happen at 1000 year intervals, thus the ±500 year error margin. Solar scientists refer to a thousand year plus Hallstaat Cycle that looks like the thousand-year cycle used here. Bond events and the Hallstaat Cycle appear to be the same thing.

During the last ice age there were also deeper periods of cold known as Heinrich events. These occur at approximately 10,000 year intervals. During the last ice age, these events tended not to be sine-wave in shape, but punctuated cold intervals. Bond events in the Holocene such as the 5.4 and 8.2 kilo-year events also appear as abrupt cooling followed by equally abrupt warming. Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events from Bond et al. data here. The last column “stacked” data was used for this plot. It is a combination of several proxies. The resolution is 70 years between points, so only the longer cycles are resolved. Both scales have been reversed to match figure 1.

Bond Events

Figure 3 is a plot of Bond events in the Holocene. The outlined area is the time covered by figure 1 up to the present. Down is cold, up is warm. The 70-year resolution captures only the longest of the warm and cold periods in the last one thousand years, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Wolf, Spörer and Maunder cold periods.

Carbon 14

Figure 4 is a plot of carbon-14 production at the top of the atmosphere. This plot is also from Bond et al. from the same source as above. The cold and warm periods are highlighted as in figure 1.

The 200 year cycles appear solar-based. The resolution in figure 4 is 10 years. Cold periods happen when 14C production is declining, warm periods when it is increasing. As 14C is produced by cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere, there is a delay before it appears as captured carbon in living things.

If past temperatures are related to known solar and ocean cycles with increasing precision in the modern era, then future temperatures will also be related. The present warming is simply a Bond warming event just like more than a dozen similar and even more dramatic warming events in the last 10,000 years. The recent warming is simply climate following natural cycles. We are now at the peak of the sum of three cycles, each cycle also at a peak, a grand maximum. What follows will be cooling as all those cycles go negative.

Solar Cycle 24 Continues To Be Quietest In Almost 200 Years…Sun’s Polar Fields Weakest Since 1900

Although over the last 2 years the current solar cycle saw some activity, it recently has quieted down considerably and it continues on the path to being one of the quietest since observations began over 350 years ago. -PG
===============================

The Sun In March 2015

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
Translated, edited by P Gosselin

Last month our sun gave a really sluggish impression. The sunspot number (SSN) was only 38.4: only 46% of what is normal at this time into a cycle for all the cycles observed since 1750.

Fig. 1: The current solar cycle 24 compared to the mean of all previous cycles (blue) and to solar cycle no. 1, 1755-1766, (black).

Comparing the individual cycles to each other further confirms that the current cycle is a quiet one compared to those we saw in the second half of the last century:

Fig. 2: Comparison of all the solar cycles. The figures represent the summed SSN deviation from the mean for first 76 months into the cycle, for all cycles. The current cycle so far is the 4th most inactive since observations began in 1750.

The current cycle is the quietest since solar cycle no. 7, which occurred around 1830. When it comes to the question of why, the polar magnetic fields of the sun are decisive. We reported on this in detail (see “The sun in Jaunary 2014 and news about the polar solar field“). Its been a few months since the last data recording and today we are 2 years past the suspected smoothed maximum. The polar fields went through the zero-point already in March 2013, as can be seen from the data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO). There it can be seen that especially the north polar field is still barely established.

How does that compare historically?

Recording of data for the polar fields first began in the early 1970s, which means the time period is still too short to allow real comparisons to be made. But in a paper from 2012 the authors led by Andrés Muñoz-Jaramillo used the observations of solar flares made since 1900 as a proxy for the sun’s polar fields. The lead author of the paper kindly agreed to share the data with the authors of this article and so it is possible to compare the current relationships with the long-term series:

Fig. 3: The relative strength of polar solar fields since 1900.

Here it is clear to see that in the second year past the cycle peak, the polar fields have never been so weak. Consider that the strength of the sun’s polar fields during the solar sunspot minimum is a decisive indicator for the activity of the next solar cycle. A very recent paper by Robert Cameron and Manfred Schüssler confirms this.

We only need to be patient a little longer and to pay further attention to the ongoing development of the sun’s polar fields in order to attempt a forecast. The preliminary indications do point to a low level of activity and thus perhaps an even weaker solar cycle 25 beginning around 2022.

 

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: “Solar Activity Responsible For About Half Of 20th Century Global Warming”

Israeli scientist Nir Shaviv recently posted at his site an article on the effects of cosmic radiation on climate. At the end he summarizes:

The results have two particularly interesting implications. First, they bring yet another link between the galactic environment and the terrestrial climate. Although there is no direct evidence that cosmic rays are the actual link on the 32-million-year time scale, as far as we know, they are the only link that can explain these observations. This in turn strengthens the idea that cosmic ray variations through solar activity affect the climate. In this picture, solar activity increase is responsible for about half of the twentieth-century global warming through a reduction of the cosmic ray flux, leaving less to be explained by anthropogenic activity. Also, in this picture, climate sensitivity is on the low side (perhaps 1 to 1.5°C increase per CO2 doubling, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C range advocated by the IPCC), implying that the future is not as dire as often prophesied.

The second interesting implication is the actual value of the 32-million-year oscillation. The relatively short period indicates that there is more mass in the galactic plane than accounted for in stars and interstellar gas, leaving the remainder as dark matter. However, this amount of dark matter is more than would be expected if it were distributed sparsely in a puffed-up halo as is generally expected. In other words, this excess mass requires at least some of the dark matter to condense into the disk. If correct, it will close a circle that started in the 1960s when Edward Hill and Jan Oort suggested, based on kinematic evidence, that there is more matter at the plane than observed. This inconsistency and indirect evidence for dark matter was also advocated by John Bahcall, who for many years was a Faculty member here at the IAS.”

Read the entire post here.

 

Solar Cycle Weakening…And: German Analysis Shows Climate Models Do Overestimate CO2 Forcing

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

In February the sun was very quiet in activity. The observed sunspot number (SSN) was only 44.8, which is only 53% of the mean value for this month into the solar cycles – calculated from the previous systematic observations of the earlier cycles.

Figure 1: Solar activity of the current Cycle No. 24 in red, the mean value for all previously observed cycles is shown in blue, and the up to now similar Cycle No. 1 in black.

It has now been 75 months since cycle No. 24 began in December, 2008. Overall this cycle has been only 53% of the mean value in activity. About 22 years ago (in November 1992) Solar Cycle No. 22 was also in its 75th month, and back then solar activity was 139% of normal value. The current drop in solar activity is certainly quite impressive. This is clear when one compares all the previous cycles:

Figure 2: Comparison of all solar cycles. The plotted values are the differences of the accumulated monthly values from mean (blue in Figure 1).

The solar polar magnetic fields have become somewhat more pronounced compared to the month earlier (see our Figure 2 “Die Sonne im Januar 2015 und atlantische Prognosen“) and thus the sunspot maximum for the current cycle is definitely history. It’s highly probable that over the next years we will see a slow tapering off in sunspot activity. Weak cycles such as the current one often follow. Thus the next minimum, which is defined by the appearance of the first sunspots in the new cycle 25, may first occur after the year 2020. The magnetic field of its sunspots will then be opposite of what we are currently observing in cycle 24.

The radiative forcing of CMIP5 models cannot be validated?

A recent paper by Marotzke/ Forster (M/F) is in strong discussion here at climateaudit.org with more than 800 comments. Nicolas Lewis pointed out the question: Is the method of M/F for evaluating the trends infected by circularity?

There is not only a discussion about the methods, but also about the main conclusion: “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”

Is the natural variability really suppressing our efforts to separate the better models of the CMIP5 ensemble from not so good ones?

Here I present a method to find an approach.

Step 1

I investigated the ability of the 42 “series” runs of “Willis model sheet” (Thanks to Willis Eschenbach for the work to bring 42 anonymous CMIP5 models in “series”!) to replicate the least square linear trends from 1900 to 2014 (annual global data, 2014 is the constant end-date of these running trends). I calculated for each year from 1900 to 1995 the differences between the HadCRUT4 (observed) trends ending in 2014 and the trends of every “series” also ending in 2014. The sum of the squared residuals for 1900 to 1995 the differences between the HadCRUT4 (observed) trends ending in 2014 and the trends of every “series” also ending in 2014.

The sum of the squared residuals for 1900 to 1995 for every “series”:


Figure 3: The sum of the squared residuals for the running trends with constant end in 2014 from 1900,1901 and so on up to 1995 for every “Series” in “Willis sheet”. On the x-axis: the series 1…42.

Step 2

We describe the same procedure described in Step 1, but this time with the trends up to 2004, only 10 years before the end of the trend series:

Figure 4: The sum of the squared residuals for the running trends with constant end in 2014 from 1900, 1901 and so on up to 1995 for every “series” in the “Willis sheet”. On the x-axis: the series 1…42. The ordinate scale is the same as in Figure 3.

Here one sees that the errors for the trends until 2004 on average are much smaller (Figure 4) than they are for the trends up to 2014 (Figure 3). That is no wonder as the parameters of most models for the time period up to 2005 were “set“. Thus the depiction of the trends of the models up to 2014 are also well in agreement with observations:

Figure 5: The trends of the model mean (Mod. Mean, red) in °C/ year since 1900, 1901 etc. up to 1985 with the constant end-year 2004 compared to observations (black).

Obviously the setting of the model parameters no longer “hold” as the errors up to the year 2014 rise rapidly.

Step 3

We calculate the quotients of the errors for the 2014 trends divided by the errors for the 2004 trends (See Figure 4) for every single series and make a 2-dimensional check:

Figure 6: The single series as plotted points. The coordinates are determined by the trend error der until 2014 (X axis) and the ratio of the error up to 2014/2004 (Y axis). The red rectangle marks the “boundaries”, the “good“ series are inside, the “bad“ are outside.

The borders are represented by the standard deviations of both series.

The y-axis in Figure 6 above is the quotient of failures in trend estimations to 2014 (see Figure 5) divided by the trend estimations to 2004 (see Figure 4) with a standard deviation of 3.08; the x-axis is the accuracy of the series in trend estimation for the running trends with the constant end year 2014 (see Figure 5) with a standard deviation of 0.0038. The big differences of many series (up to a factor of 11) between the trend errors compared of 2004 and the trend errors to 2014 is impressive, isn’t it? The stability of the series with great differences seems to be in question, that’s why they are “bad”.

Step 4

Now comes the most interesting part: From the 42 runs of different series, I selected the “good” ones which are within the borders of the red rectangle in Figure 4 and calculated their average. The same procedure was done with all the “bad” ones.

Figure 7: The selected “good” series (see step 1-3), the series mean of all 42 series, the “bad” ones and the observations for rolling trends with constant end-year 2014 in K per annum.

The “good” (blue) series produce a remarkably better approach to the observations than the model mean (red) and the “bad”( green) show the worst performance.

Up to this point we didn’t know what model was behind what “series” in the “Willis sheet”. Thanks to the help from Willis Eschenbach and Nic Lewis we just learned the assignment and the properties of the models behind the “series”, also their corresponding sensitivity with respect to forcing by GHG. The mean value of the transient climate response (TCR), which is the expression for the calculated greenhouse gas effect, is approximately 1.6 for the “good“ models, the model mean (all models) is 1.8 and the “bad” model mean is 1.96.

As one observes is Figure 7, the selection of the “good” models “improves” the convergence towards the observations. For this a TCR of approximately 1.3 is assumed, compare to our blog post “Wie empfindlich ist unser Klima gegenüber der Erwärmung durch Treibhausgase? (How sensitive is our climate with respect to warming from greenhouse gases)“.

Conclusion

The mean of the models overestimates the radiative forcings in the global temperature to 2014. The objectively better models have a lower mean of TCR. The “bad” models have a higher mean of TCR. Many models are perhaps “over tuned” for the trends to 2005. The result is a dramatic loss in forecasting quality beyond the tuning period. Are Marotzke and Forster wrong? Will we ever hear them admit it? There are reasons for doubt.

Fluctuating Atlantic … German Experts Say “Things Could Become Very Bitter For The IPCC Forecast Models”!

The latest post by Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt looks at solar cycle 24 in January, and the climate impacts of the North Atlantic. The two authors write that the IPCC models may be in for a bitter surprise.
==================================

The sun in January 2015 and Atlantic prognoses

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Solar report January 2015

Last month the sun reached a sunspot number of 67.0 and thus was once again below normal in activity: It reached 85% of what is normal for the particular cycle month.

Fig. 1: The mean activity of the sun since systematic observations have been conducted is shown in blue and the current cycle (24th cycle, red), along with the relatively similar Cycle No. 1 of 260 years ago.

The red curve shows that the sunspot maximum is now over. Up to now that was not so easy to identify because instead of the usual pronounced maximum (compared to the mean curve in Fig. 1), there have been two peaks with a pronounced dip between them.

Observation of the sun’s polar magnetic fields brings certainty rather than guesses. We reported on this in detail before the end of the year. In short the polar fields have a zero polarity during the solar sunspot maximum. The difference of north polar field and south polar field is zero, yet it can occur often when the fields do not reverse at the same time. During the current cycle the fluctuation about the zero line was quite intense:

Figure 2: The difference between the polar fields of the sun, source: leif.org.

The zero value was first approached in fall 2012, in early summer 2013, and again at the beginning of 2014. The maximum dragged on for some 15 months. But now the trend appears to be clearly away from zero and the maximum to be behind us for good. The month with the highest activity was month no. 63 of the cycle, February 2014, with a SSN= 102.8.

We are seeing an unusually weak cycle with a delayed start and delayed maximum. Another thing is noteworthy: The polar fields are building up only very slowly, especially the solar north pole is dipping as before close to zero. Could that be an indication of an even weaker cycle to follow? It is still too early to determine this, but we will know in a few years. What follows is a comparison of all the cycles:

Fig. 3: The summed deviations from the mean value (blue in Fig. 1) for all cycles for all months up to the current one. The right bar in Fig. 3 is growing deeper into negative territory. This indicates a strongly reduced solar activity since approx. 2006.

North Atlantic harboring a bitter surprise?

As some readers may recall, we reported earlier here on the North Atlantic and we suspected that a relatively significant reduction in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could be in the pipeline. Since then there have been additional mesurements of this near surface warm current, which impacts the Atlantic part of the Northern Hemisphere and to some extent other large regions of the Northern hemisphere. Our earlier prognoses are now confirmed:

Fig. 4: The AMOC strength between 2004 and spring 2014. Source: climate-lab-book.ac.uk.

It is the decisive element that controls the AMO, and probably the approximately 65-year temperature oscillation. Earlier it had been positive, the transition from negative to a positive phase precisely coincides with the time frame that most climate models were parameterized: between 1975 and 2004.

Fig.5: The AMO since 1870, Source: climatedataguide.ucar.edu. The signal is determined by measuring surface temperatures of the entire North Atlantic and the deviation from the linear long-term trend. The AMO thus expresses an internal variability.

The additional added heat from the variable oscillation may have led to the models having calculated an excessive forcing from greenhouse gases, just as the AMO will also not be accounted for in the newest CMIP5 models when it comes to the global and northern hemisphere temperatures.

Getting back to the AMOC, if it weakens, it will lead to a falling heat content in the North Atlantic at depths from 0 to 700 meters and so less heat getting conveyed towards the North Pole. This is precisely what has been observed since 2007:


Fig. 6: The heat content of the upper 700 meters in the region of impact of the AMOC, Chart source: Climate Explorer.

It is highly likely that the focus of the AMOC-effect can be found in the sub-polar gyre, which is a relatively small area of the sea in the North Atlantic located off the southern tip of Greenland: 45°N…60°N; 50°W…20W°. Here we are seeing truly dramatic events:

Fig. 7:  The heat content of water between 300 meters depth and 125 m of the sub-polar circulation. The depth limit was chosen in order to exclude falsifications from the effects of atmospheric processes. (Image source: Argo Marine Atlas)

Beginning in the spring of 2014 (after the end of the available direct measurement in Fig. 4) we see the occurrence of a steep drop. Also the forecast of the British Met Office for the next years is now taking this development into account and foresees with some certainty for the next ten years global temperatures at the lower end of the models’ ranges. It is also stated very carefully that a temperature stall could occur over the next 10 years, which for the models would be a real large-scale catastrophe. Just as we wrote back in January, 2014:

The AMO] is not accounted for in the IPCC models and would limit the trend rise in global temperatures since the beginning of the impact of greenhouse gases to about 1°K/ century.  How much longer will we have to wait before the IPCC finally accepts the multidecadal oscillations, as it already has here and is shown in other works?”

The North Atlantic is indeed a special region and could contribute much to understanding our climate. Also a greater impact by the sun than what has been considered up to now would be possible. A new paper by authors in China and Scandinavia examined high resolution proxy summer temperature data from northern Iceland and came to the result that the fluctuations there over the last 3500 years correspond to solar activity, and do so significantly over long time frames (centuries and millennia).

Fig. 8: The coincidence between North Atlantic summer temperatures and solar activity in the gray range over the last 3500 years (top), with the correlation (middle) and significance (bottom – the lower the p -value, the greater the certainty) of the relationship . Source: Figure 5 of the above-mentioned paper.

When one looks very closely at Fig. 8, one sees a time delay in temperature with respect to solar activity characteristic numbers. And when one now looks at Figure 3 of post and notice the especially high activity until the end of the 1980s and the rather dramatic drop afterwards, what do you think the solar drive will do to the Atlantic temperatures?

Things could become very bitter for the IPCC forecast models! With much excitement we look forward to how the climate unfolds.

 

The Sun And Ocean Cycles Drive Global Temperature…Natural Factors Bringing Cooling For Next 30 Years

It has been clear for a long time to those who simply observe climate that temperatures are driven by, in the long term, orbital and Earth tilt cycles, the Milanković cycles, in the medium term by solar cycles with ocean cycles. like the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), and in the short term, by ocean and atmosphere cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

A few researchers have used this information to project the future. An example can be found on the sidebar of this blog. A problem with these projections is that factors such as volcanoes cannot be predicted. Due to the chaotic nature of most ocean cycles, these also cannot be used to predict the future. Only the AMO is regular enough to extend into the future, and then only for one or two cycles.

The sun is our source of energy, and it also has cycles. The 11-year sunspot number cycles (SSN) are regular but seem not to affect climate in any cyclic way. Only the integrated energy over whole cycles seems to push temperatures, and this affect seems to be delayed by about one whole sunspot cycle. Here is a history of the last 150 years and a simple projection to 2050.

Global Climate Model

 

Figure 1 is a chart of the main influences on global temperature over the last 150 years. The red trace is based on the SSN processed with an 11-year trailing average. The purple AMO trace has been smoothed with a 9-year centered average. These were then combined with the annual average central Pacific El Niño 3.4 to produce the orange trace. The orange trace is a model of global temperature before volcanic cooling. The vertical green lines are named volcanic eruptions, the height of the lines is the volcanic eruption index (VE) using the right side scale. The blue trace is the global annual temperature average as published by GHCN.

For over a hundred years, the orange model follows the GHCN temperature closely except where perturbed by volcanic activity. Volcanoes can warm the atmosphere if they are primarily ash eruptions, or cool the atmosphere if they loft large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The Askja eruption and caldera collapse in Iceland in 1875 produced primarily ash. That eruption plus a Grand El Niño the following year produced a warm year in 1876. The VE6 eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 and Tarawara three years later, produced five years of cool climate.

Santa Maria and Novarupta were two more VE6 eruptions, that along with a cool sun and a negative AMO sent temperatures plunging in the early 20th century. From 1918 until 1975, temperatures followed the ocean cycles and the sun very closely. Smoke and soot from WWII, along with a strong El Niño in 1942, may have caused the warming from 1939 to 1945. In contrast, a strong La Niña in 1975 that lasted for two years produced a pronounced cooling. This was the “ice age scare” of the late 1970’s.

After 1978 a serious divergence began between this model based on sun and ocean cycles and the GHCN measurements, leading to the current 0.6°C difference. For UAH satellite measurements this difference is less, from 0.3°C to 0.45°C, depending on the level set for the 1979 record beginning relative to GHCN.

To account for this difference, the reader is urged to note the changes over the years to the global temperature records as found by the following reporters:

– Steven Goddard: Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS and about a thousand other posts on the same subject.
– Paul Homewood: Posts Tagged Temperature Adjustments, and Another GISS miss: warming in the Arctic – the adjustments are key
– Ira Glickstein: The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale)
– Willis Eschenbach: The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero.
– MS at The Hockey Stick: Paper finds more smoking guns of temperature data tampering in Northern Australia.
– Ed Caryl: A Light In Siberia. This was also posted here. And Is GISS Also Cheating In The Arctic?
– Jennifer Marohasy: Corrupting Australia’s Temperature Record, along with here, here, and others.
– Michael and Ronan Connolly: Global Warming Solved

These adjustments can account for the whole difference between the model and the GHCN temperature record. It is not necessary to invoke any CO2 warming. If it is there, it is very slight, on the order of 0.1°C.

The model indicates that it has been cooling since 2010, and that the cooling will continue as solar output declines and the AMO goes negative. Yes, the years from 1998 to 2010 were warmer than the 20th Century average because the globe was at the peak of all the natural cycles. But it is all downhill from here.

Cooling next 30 years

Solar activity is going into a decline as well. We don’t yet know if this decline will be to a Dalton Minimum-like level or a Maunder Minimum level. The model projection into the future does not contain ENSO or volcanic data as that data cannot be predicted. But it will get cooler for the next thirty years. The AMO will turn positive some time in mid-century, and solar output may not decline as much as indicated, so another full-blown ice age is not beginning, but a Little Ice Age may be starting. See here for further projections into the future based on the deVries 230-year cycle and the 1000-year Suess cycle.

 

German Analysis: “Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product” – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!

Climate cycles and their extrapolation into the future

By Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

As the reconstruction of the climate’s development in the past by proxy data shows, there’s a series of temperature cycles that appear to be unknown, or ignored by many climate scientists. Among these are the larger climate cycles of 150 million to 180 million years (see Part 1 and Part 2), but also the shorter and for us the more important following cycles:

1000 years (900-1100)    Suess cycle with +/-  0.65°C
230 years (230-250)        deVries cycle with +/-  0.30°C
65  years (60-65)              Ocean cycles with +/- 0.25°C

In principle these cycles are sinusoidal in behavior as depicted in Figure 1. Bob Tisdale has also shown how the temperature increase of the 65-year cycle from 1975 to 1998 led to the assumption that it is due CO2 emissions because they too happened to be parallel. This has been naively extended all the way to the year 2100 and forms the basis for the climate models and the invention of the so-called “climate catastrophe”.


Figure 1:  Sine wave characteristic of the 60/65-year ocean cycle (Source: Bob Tisdale at WUWT).

In this analysis we will attempt to see how the temperature development could be over the next 700 years, assuming of course that the mentioned climate cycles of the past will continue on into the future. This should not be (mis)understood as a forecast for the future climate. Up to now there is only the IPCC forecast that the global temperature will rise by 2 to 5°C by the year 2100 – based only on the expected CO2 increase. However that theory has failed to work over the last 18 ears because the various natural climate factors and cycles never got considered, or they were not allowed to be considered in the climate models. Included among these factors are the mean cloud cover (albedo) and the resulting effective solar insolation (watts per sqm) at the earth’s surface, or the sea surface, which is decisive for the temperature development.Next Figure 2 below depicts the 1000-year cycle and the 230-year cycle, which have been reconstructed from historical proxy data. They stem from a combination of results from various publications in the field of paleoclimatology over the last years. The diagram of the last 3200 years distinctly shows a 1000-year cycle; the last 2000 years of which are confirmed by historical documents. In fact this cycle goes back all the way to the end of the last ice age, i.e. some 9000 years. The reason for the cycle is still unknown today, yet its existence is undisputed.

The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases.

Figure 2: Global temperature over the last 3200 years shows a distinct 1000-year cycle along with the 230-year cycle.

Of historical significance is the fact that over the course of human history warm periods were always times of economic and cultural prosperity. The cooler periods always led to serious problems that led to starvation and huge waves of human migration in Europe. Here it becomes undeniably clear that the alarmist claims that “the earth has a fever” made by politicians such as Al Gore are patentedly preposterous.

The “ideal” 1000-year cycle is varied by the 230-year cycle, which in turn gets varied by the 65-year oceanic cycle, which is depicted in Figure 1. Added to these cycles are the various typically non-cyclical events such as the ENSO, volcanic eruptions, etc. Figure 3 shows the temperature curve for the last 165 years along with the 230-year cycle and the effect of the 65-year ocean cycle. The current temperature values fluctuate by plus/minus 0.2°C due to the effects of ENSO, sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Figure 3:  The 230-year cycle over the last 165 years has been superimposed by a 65-year cycle as well as by other effects like the irregular ENSO events and large volcanic eruptions.

The temperature rise of 0.6°C during the 1975-1998 period, which has triggered all the current climate hysteria, was of the same magnitude as the previous increase that occurred in the 1910 to 1940 period, which in turn had nothing to do with CO2 because back then the concentration in the atmosphere rose by only some 10 ppm (from 297 to 308 ppm). Also the temperature increase of 1.5°C over the last 150 to 250 years is also nothing “out of the ordinary” or “dangerous”, as we are often told in the media. Instead it is only the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) that had gripped the planet from 1400 to 1750. The LIA not only led to the Thames River and Baltic Sea freezing over, but resulted in severe hunger in Europe and caused a mass migration to America.

The figures also show that all three climate cycles reached their maximum shortly after the end of the last millennium. With that in mind, we actually should have expected even higher temperatures than those seen in previous warm periods. Here perhaps the fact that the global temperature has seen a negative overall trend since the Holocene Maximum plays a role. That means that the global temperature has fallen by 2°C over the past 8000 years.

Based on historical climate fact, it is possible to extend the trend into the future to form a possible climate scenario. Figure 4 depicts the extrapolation of the 1000-year and 230-year cycle along with the generally expected trend. Added to this are the fluctuations of the 65-year ocean cycles, the impacts of the ENSO-events, sunspot cycles and volcanic eruptions, which result in additional fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree – just as they have in the past.

Figure 4:  Extrapolating the 1000-year and 230-year cycles 700 years into the future.

Figure 4 shows the real global temperature development of the past 1000 years and its theoretical continuation over the next 700 years. This is not a forecast, but rather it is the extended possible course of the over all temperature trend, which over the mid-term in the next 100 years could see a drop of approx. 0.3°C  and a 2°C drop in global temperature in 350 years – which would mean conditions just like those seen in the Little Ice Age from 1450 to 1700. In about 1000 years the 1000-year cycle will again take on its warm phase and temperatures like those of today can be expected.

In the next 50 years there would be no temperature increase, but rather a slight temperature decrease is expected. In the decades before and after the year 2300 a powerful temperature drop could occur because both the 230-year cycle and 100-year cycle would be dropping rapidly together in parallel.

References:

1 J.R.Petit et al.: Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420 000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature Vol.399, June 1999

2 Th.Steuber et al.: Low-latitude seasonality of Cretaceous temperatures in warm and cold episodes, NATURE Vo.437, 27 Oct.2005

3 W.S.Broecker and G.H. Denon: What Drives Glacial Cycles ? Scientific American, Jan.1990

4 H.Kawamura et al.: Antarctic Dome C Temperature Reconstruction, Nature, 23 Aug.2007

5 J.Veizer et al.: Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon, NATURE Vo.408, 7 Dec.2000

6 K.Kashiwaya et al.: Orbit-related long-term climate cycles revealed in a 12-MYr continental record from Lake Baikal, NATURE Vol410, 1 March 2001

—————

Note from the Die Kalte-Sonne editors: The main point of this post is to provide any analysis of natural cycles and their logical extension into the future. Unaccounted in the projection shown in Figure 4 is the climate impact of CO2, whose role in climate today is hotly disputed. In our book “The Neglected Sun” we presented two CO2 climate sensitivity scenarios: 1.0°C and 1.5 °C warming for a CO2 doubling. Current studies have corrected the original IPCC value of 3°C strongly downwards (see our articles “Studies from 2014 provide hope: warming effect of CO2 is considerably over-estimated. Official correction is imminent“). It will be exciting to watch how research will develop with respect to climate sensitivity over the coming years.

 

University College London Professor Of Climatology Mark Maslin Claims Mankind Now Able To Control Climate!

This past weekend I wrote two posts about a recent two-part German ZDF Television documentary on climate change and its impact on the development of human history: here and here.

Maslin

Image Mark Maslin, cropped from ZDF

At the very end of Part 2, the otherwise excellent German public television documentary abruptly descends into sheer lunacy in claiming that the globe has “strongly heated up” recently and that it is now wresting with “global warming” – and to drive the point home, it inserts an amazing comment by University College London Climatology Professor Mark Maslin at the 42:27 mark (translated from the German voice-over):

We are now at the point where we can decide how the climate of the future will look. When we as a collective world community, all nations working together, are able to really prevent global warming, that would be fantastic. That would be the first time that the climate doesn’t control us, but rather us controlling it. We could make sure that all future generations will have a stable climate.”

Maslin clearly suggests humans collectively have the power to override the global natural climate factors and to tame and steer the world’s climate in any desired direction, and to do so for “all future generations”.

Throughout previous 88 minutes the documentary looked at earlier climate changes that were greater than those experienced today and attributed them to natural factors such as solar activity, volcanoes and ocean dynamics. These natural climate change events included the “very rapid changes in climate” during the last ice age, the end of the last ice age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, the green Sahara, ancient Egyptian warm period, the Roman warm period, and the Little Ice Age.

Strangely, according to the documentary, the sun as a climate driver in the past seem to have just disappeared since 1250 AD. Now we are supposed to believe that humans took control of the climate some 100 years ago.

Physicist: “blatant silliness”

Luxemburg physicist Francis Massen also reacts sharply to Maslin’s bold claim at his website:

This is blatant silliness, probably forced upon the professor to include at least a sentence seen to be politically correct and Zeitgeist aware. This last conclusion is the more silly, as all previous examples clearly have shown that the changes of the climate were not caused by human activity. And today, never mind our technological achievements, we are still unable to change the tilt of the axis of the globe, modify solar activity or put a lid on volcanoes to avoid their eruptions.”

Indeed. In fact governments aren’t even able to control their runaway spending and deficits, let alone the world’s temperature and climate.

 

As Warming Pause Extends To 18 Years, Climate Debate Intensifies. J.E. Solheim: “Cooler Climate” In 21st Century!

Forget all the claims the science is settled, as some smearing activists-in-a hurry are begging us to believe.

The fact is that the debate is just getting started and that the climate issue is very much undecided. The fact that warming has not occurred in 18 years, Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, and that more than 97% of the climate models have been dead wrong have made life difficult for those insisting the debate is over.

Yesterday German skeptic site Die kalte Sonne here featured a debate in Holland between international skeptics and warmists. Clearly the debate is NOT over.
====================================

A new climate dialogue: How will the gaining solar inactivity impact the climate?
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok is far more successful at bringing climate scientists to a debate. He brings scientists from both camps regularly into discussions at the Climate Dialogue platform. On 15 October 2014 a new debate started on the question of: How much impact would a decades long pause in solar activity have on the climate?

What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum?

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.

According to some more skeptical scientists such a small solar influence is counterintuitive. The Little Ice Age, the period roughly from 1350 to 1850, in which winters on the Northern Hemisphere could be severe and glaciers advanced, coincided with the so-called Maunder Minimum, a period of supposedly low solar activity. In their eyes, the sun therefore still is a serious candidate to also explain a substantial part of the warming since pre-industrial times.

Sunspot records since 1600 suggest there has been a considerable increase in solar activity in the 20th century leading to a Grand Solar Maximum or Modern Maximum. However recently these sunspot records have come under increasing scrutiny and newer reconstructions show a much ‘flatter’ sunspot history. This challenges the idea of a Modern Maximum.

The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum. Studying such a minimum with modern instruments could potentially answer a lot of the questions surrounding the influence of the sun on our climate.

We are very pleased that no fewer than five (solar) scientists have agreed to participate in this exciting new Climate Dialogue: Mike Lockwood (UK), Nicola Scafetta (US), Jan-Erik Solheim (NO), José Vaquero (ES) and Ilya Usoskin (FI).

The introduction and guest posts can be read online below. For convenience we also provide pdf’s:

Introduction What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum
Guest blog Mike Lockwood
Guest blog Nicola Scafetta
Guest blog Jan-Erik Solheim
Guest blog Ilya Usoskin
Guest blog José Vaquero

Here you can go to the climate dialogue Klimadialog. You can join in the discussion. This is an exemplary action that brings both sides to a table in a professionally moderated format. The Climate Dialogue web platform is supported by the Netherlands Ministery for Infrastructure and Environment.

========================

Cooling climate in 21st Century

While warmists Lockwood, Usoskin and Vaquero stick to the position that the sun plays only a minor role in modulating the earth’s climate, the skeptic scientists have a very different view:

Jan-Erik Solheim:

Most of the warming in the 20th century is due to the sun.

According to the latest IPCC report, AR5, the influence of the Sun on our climate since pre-industrial times, in terms of radiative forcing, is very small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. Figure 1 in the introduction (SPM.5 in AR5) is quite misleading, since it compares the TSI at solar minimum around 1745 with TSI around minimum in 2008. They are apparently the same. This covers the fact that the Sun has changed quite a lot in the time between.”

And he adds at his conclusion:

The sunspot cycle will be longer in 21th Century, indicating a cooler climate (Fig 5).”

Nicola Scafetta:

Figures 1-4 provide a strictly alternative message to the one proposed by the IPCC. The Sun must have contributed significantly to climate changes and will continue to do so.”

 

Why Does The Solar Cycle NOT Show Up In Climate Data?

By Ed Caryl

Several researchers have noted that the 11-year solar cycle does not show up in temperature or precipitation data. Most recently, Dr. David Evans has introduced his “notch filter” answer to the problem. I think the answer is much simpler.

The solar influence on earth has several components. The Total Solar Insolation (TSI), varies over the 11-year solar cycle by about 0.1%. Solar UV varies by much more, up to 10%, but those wavelengths carry much less energy than TSI, and affect only the top of the atmosphere. The solar wind has little energy, but influences the cosmic ray influx. Other influx, such as Forbush Events, from Coronal Mass Ejections (CME’s), have short term effects. These last two, the solar wind and Forbush Events, do not follow the solar cycle very closely, so tend not to show up in a time power spectrum of climate, or even of cosmic rays.

So why does the TSI cycle not show up in climate data? Because annual and daily changes completely drown out the signal. First, the earth’s orbit around the sun is not circular, but elliptical. We are closer to the sun during the northern hemisphere winter by 3.4% compared to the distance in the summer. Because the TSI varies by the square of the distance change, the change in TSI is 6.8% from summer to winter. This alone would make the 11-year 1% signal difficult to detect, but there are other, much large variations.

C_1

The earth is tilted on it’s axis by 23.5°. This causes a further variation in insolation even at the equator. At the equator, the annual variation is almost 12%, with the maximum occurring at the spring and fall equinoxes, and the minimum occurring on June 21st.

Figure 1: is the insolation seen at three different latitudes. Source here

At 40° latitude, this variation grows to over 100% around the average, and at 80° degrees, to over 200% around the average, including days of 24 hours of sunlight and more days of 24 hours of darkness.

Besides the large annual variations in insolation, there is the diurnal variation, night and day, with another signal that is nearly a square wave. But this isn’t all. The variation in clouds causes albedo changes that are nearly random, and imposed  on the above insolation curves. I say nearly random, because of solar effects on clouds due to changes in cosmic rays. But these effects have only small correlation with solar cycles.

So, a 0.1% TSI change on an 11-year cycle, is buried in the much larger annual orbital and axial tilt cycle, the diurnal cycle, as well as random albedo changes due to clouds. An analogy would be hearing the 50/60 Hertz power supply hum on your HiFi, while playing Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture, complete with cannons, at full volume.

 

Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG): “Solar Doldrums Of The Last Years Led To A Cooling Of The Earth’s Surface

German Physical Society: Solar doldrums of the last years led to a cooling of the Earth’s surface
By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG), in English: The German Physical Society, is wringing its hands over the sustainability of the climate catastrophe. After all, hundreds of physicist jobs are in danger should the catastrophe sputter out. In the March 2014 edition of the information newsletter PhysiKonkret, the DPG poses the rhetorical question (pdf hier):

Climate change: warming pause yes or no?

The DPG lists a number of reasons, but noteworthy is Point 3:

3. Influence of solar radiation. The last decade was characterized by a solar maximum in the year 2000 as well as an above average long solar minimum surrounding the year 2009. That led to a cooling of the earth’s surface.”

In order to not upset the circle of IPCC friends, of course black holes in the ocean which made warmth mysteriously disappear without a trace a la Bermuda Trianagle, were also listed. And: The President of the German Physical Society, Johanna Stachel, announced in a large bold print:

We warn against the view that climate change has stopped. Global warming is advancing unhindered.“

What she most likely means to say is:

We warn climate change not to make a pause. Global warming must immediately continue on.”

Of course this is not written. Overall, it’s all a first good step in the right direction. Finally the sun is being taken as an important factor in the climate interaction scheme.

 

The Real Motivation Behind PRP Journal Shutdown Exposed: It Challenged IPCC Science!

The original motivation behind Copernicus Publishing director Martin Rasmussen’s decision to shut down the new journal Pattern Recognition Physics (see here, here and here) had nothing to do with the alleged “nepotistic” behavior among editors and peer-reviewers, but appears to have had everything to do with politically incorrect questioning of IPCC orthodoxy.

You can see how Rasmussen’s accusations appeared on PRP on the morning of January 17, 2014 at Bigcitylib.blogspot.com.

Note how the…

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors”

…that you now see here was added later.

The “nepotism” accusation was a dubious at best, mostly entails personal intrigue and was added later to cover up the real motivation. It is only a side show to distract from the real reason behind the magazine’s shut down.

Clearly this really gets down to suppressing alternative views that threaten the popular global warming science. It’s a sad example of Germany succumbing to behavior of darker times.

Please restrict comments to the issue of suppressing alternative scientific explanations and the efforts involved therein and the merits of the science presented in the banned journal.

Roger of Tallbloke’s Talkshop recently had an interesting post on the suppression of science that’s well worth reading. The harboring of disagreement with a particular science is not a reason for shutting it down.

 

More Signs Of Global Cooling? Sun’s Record Weak Polar Field May Forebode Maunder-like Minimum

Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt’s Die kalte Sonne site brings us the latest solar report.
=====================================

The Sun in January 2014 and News of the Sun’s Polar Field
By Frank Bosse
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Over the last month solar cycle 24 (SC24) has seen some rather brisk activity. The sunspot number (SSN) reached a value of 82.0, which however was only 77% of the normal value (106) for the 62nd month into a cycle. The southern hemisphere (SH) contributed to most of the overall result in January, outperforming the northern hemisphere (NH) 61:21. The following graphic depicts current activity (in red) and normal activity (in blue):

Figure 1: The course of SC24 in relation to the mean value of all observed cycles.

The figure also shows SC5 in light red. SC5 has some degree of similarity to the current cycle so far. The next figure shows a comparison of the acti9vity of each indiviual cycle after 62 months into the cycle with little changing over the past few months:

Figure 2: Accumulated SSN anomalies of the cycles.

The chart depicts the anomaly of the accumulated sunspots for each cycle 1-24, from the mean value for month 62 into the cycle. SC24 began in December 2008.

So what is the activity determined by and are there indicators for the strength of the upcoming cycle? There is a lot of thought going on over this question. The favorite indicator is the strength of the polar magnetic field during the minimum between 2 cycles.

One of the very good predictions was developed by Leif Svalgaard already at the end of 2004 when he pegged the current cycle would be the weakest in the last 100 years. His 3-month smoothed maximum SSN of 75, which was derived from observations of the sun’s polar field, matches up very well to the present counts.

Since this has been confirmed, polar magnetic fields of the sun are recognized early indicators. At Stanford University they are being measured with great meticulousness and have been on the decline since recording began in 1976.

Figure 3: Polar fields of the sun since 1976, source.

Here we see that the field always reverses at the cycles’ maxima, and that it reaches a maximum when during the minimum of a cycle. The theory on this: The remnants of sunspots drift to each of the poles of the NH and SH (they do not cross the solar equator) and they provide for the reversal of the polar field. It’s a sort of see-saw that has been in steady decline since the SC21/SC22 minimum. Thus, pole reversal is a result of the activity of the ongoing cycle. Data can be downloaded from the above mentioned source. Our main interest is aimed at the behavior at the maximum, i.e. pole reversal. Here we evaluate the smoothed data of the magnetic field and the following diagram is yielded:

Figure 4: Polar solar magnetic field (in centi-Gauss) at the maxima of cycles 21-24.

The data for the period of 30 days before until 30 after crossing the zero-point were evaluated and they determine the slope of the quite linear behavior. Also here falling activity is very well depicted. If we set 1980 equal to 100%, then it drops in 1990 to 51%, to 43% in 2000, and to only 22% in 2013. Not only the maximum magnitude of the polar magnetic field at the cycle minimum for sunspots has always gotten less over the last 30 years, but so has the speed of the pole reversal during the periods of SSN maxima!

So what’s with the polar field? That we are witnessing an especially weak effect is also depicted by the following diagram, which shows the course of the first 320 days after pole reversal:

Figure 5: The course of the unsmoothed data of the polar field after pole reversal.

What we see is a record: After almost one year since pole reversal, we have once again reached a zero-point, which was measured on January 12, 2014. Never has such a behavior been recorded since the beginning of data recording.

Could this delayed build-up of the polar field be an indication of the strength of the SSN minimum in about 5 years? This magnitude is namely the first predictor for the upcoming SC25. Looking at the data shown here, should we expect a Maunder-like “grand minimum” beginning in 2020? To date all indications point to low numbers…surprises cannot be excluded!

 

Distinguished Swedish Climate Scientist Warns Of Solar Grand Minimum … LITTLE ICE AGE In As Little As 15 Years!

Solar 3 waysProfessor Emeritus Nils-Axel Mörner, one of Sweden’s most distinguished climate scientists, has published a paper in the now forbidden Pattern Recognition Physics journal (PRP). His paper warns that the earth may see little ice age conditions by 2030. No wonder the climate establishment mobilized to shut down the PRP special edition! The peer-review uproar is nothing but a diversion.

The paper, titled Planetary beat and solar-terrestrial responses, looks at the sun’s well-documented cyclical behavior and the mechanisms that could be driving solar cycles, which have a proven impact on the Earth’s climate. The paper’s abstract concludes:

The centennial changes between grand solar maxima and minima imply that we will soon be in a new solar minimum and, in analogy with past events, probably also in Little Ice Age climatic conditions.”

In the paper, Mörner also adds:

At around 2030–2050, we will be in a new grand minimum situation (as evidenced by a large number of authors: e.g. Mörner, 2010, 2011; Cionco and Compagnucci, 2012; Casey and Humlum, 2013; Salvador, 2013). The driving forces seem to be the planetary beat and its effects on the solar activity, and the effects of the solar wind upon the Earth (Fig. 6). During previous solar minima, the Earth experienced Little Ice Age climatic conditions. Therefore, we may once again experience such climatic conditions when the new grand minimum occurs.”

In the paper’s conclusion he reiterates the warning:

At the next solar minimum, to occur around 2030–2050, there might be a return to Little Ice Age climatic conditions (as was the case during the Dalton, Maunder and Spörer minima).”

Mörner’s paper looks at the sun’s impacts on the Earth’s climate through solar cycles, whose history has been reconstructed for the entire Holocene through the analysis of 10Be and 14C isotopes. The impacts of solar cycles on the Earth’s climate is very well documented. It is undeniable.

For example there’s a strong link between solar activity and European winters, see here. Also NoTricksZone recently listed over 120 recent papers showing that solar activity have a clear impact on the earth’s climate. The body of scientific literature out there is massive.

So what causes the sun to undergo cyclic changes? In his paper Mörner asks what could be driving the cyclic changes in the sun, and theorizes that it is the planetary motion and the gravitational forces exerted through the planets on the sun’s dynamic mass. The idea is not new, and there is a growing body of scientific literature that evidences it.

Mörner’s paper writes:

Solar activity changes with time in a cyclic pattern. The origin of those changes may be caused by planetary motion around the Sun, affecting the position of the Sun’s motion with respect to the centre of mass and subjecting the Sun to changes in angular momentum and gravitational tidal forces. […]

Abreu et al. (2012; cf. Steinhilber et al., 2007) were able to show that there is an “excellent spectral agreement between the planetary tidal effects acting on the tachocline and the solar magnetic activity”. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. It implies a benchmark in the planetary–solar research. The planetary hypothesis took an important step towards a planetary theory.”

Mörner Figure 3

Source: www.pattern-recogn-phys-2013.pdf

This is plausible because something connected to the sun has to be causing the sun’s cyclic activity. And what more obvious explanation could there be than the 8 planets (plus Pluto) orbiting around the sun? All planets exert a gravitational force on the sun that is hardly negligible. Mörner writes:

The multi-body interaction of the planetary motions on the Sun’s motion is so large that the Sun’s motion around the centre of mass is perturbed by up to about 1 solar radius. The planetary beat also includes the transfer of angular momentum and tidal forces.”

This all has an impact on the sun’s interior and hence its cycles.

Mörner is not alone in claiming we are headed for a low-solar-activity induced cooling. He joins a growing number of scientists who warn the earth should prepare for cooling, and not warming.

Nils-Axel Mörner completed his Ph.D at Stockholm University in Sweden with postdoctoral studies at Western University in London, Canada. He was the head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University. He was an IPCC author and has published more than 500 papers in reputed journals and several books. He has presented some 550 papers at international conferences. He is a world expert on sea level changes.

Above chart source: www.pattern-recogn-phys-2013.pdf

 

Claim Global Warming Causes Cold “An Absurd PIK Construct On The Verge Of Extinction”, German Scientists Say

Absurd PIK construct on the verge of extinction: North American cold spell in January 2014 was not the result of global warming
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
Translated, edited by P Gosselin

Earlier this year the USA was tested by unexpectedly cool temperatures. Die Welt summed up the situation on January 9, 2014:

According to the German Weather Service (DWD) the current cold wave in North America is the harshest in 2 decades. […] The peak of the cold snap was reached on January 6-7 when polar air dipped down to southern USA and Northern Mexico, said a published report by DWD expert Susanne Haeseler and Christina Lefebvre on Thursday. At night temperatures dropped to 30 below zero, and even down to 40 below in Central Canada. In Chicago the high temperature on January 6 was only -25.5°C.”

If it had been a heat wave, then a connection to the projected climate catastrophe would have been fabricated in short order. However, extreme cold snaps such as this recent one traditionally had been simply played down as “weather and not climate“. But over the last few years it appears a new strategy has been put to use by IPCC scientists: Not only heat waves are a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but now so are cold snaps. A double-pack is always better. And the German end-of-world believers at Klimaretter are always front and centre in this respect (excerpt from 8 January 2014):

Is the icy cold in North America a result of climate change? Indeed the weather pattern that is currently freezing Americans is very unusual. But whether or not this has something to do with global warming is still being controversially discussed by experts.”

Next Klimaretter explains that climate change nailed down the Jet Stream in the atmosphere and that in turn impacted low pressure system “Christina” so much that it was able to intensify over North America. Klimaretter adds:

This is how climate scientist Thomas Jung of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Ocean Research sees it. “It cannot be dismissed altogether that this situation has something to do with climate change. However, in my opinion the probable explanation is that this situation is a random variability of the atmosphere. It happens sometimes.” Other scientists like Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [PIK] see a connection to climate change. The extreme cold waves have become more frequent over the last winters, Coumou told news agency AFP. His explanation: The polar vortex feeds on the temperature difference between the Arctic and the middle latitudes. Because the Arctic is warming faster than average, this temperature difference is decreasing – and with it the strength of the polar vortex. As a result it can break out more easily, says Coumou. However, Thomas Jung of the Alfred Wegener Institute has some doubts: From our research we are able to confirm a connection between the retreat in Arctic sea ice and the colder winters in Europe. This impact however is relatively small and thus in my opinion cannot alone explain such extreme weather events.’ Works from climate scientist Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University indicate that the unusual stability of the Jet Stream can be linked to climate change. Also Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research assumes the same. “The rare temperature pattern is connected to the wild jet stream”, the scientist twittered.”

Klimaretter does allow a few skeptic opinions, but mostly the alarmist blogsite provides an extensive platform for those proposing the Jet Stream blockade. That these are fringe opinions is not at all clear in the Klimaretter article. Most fellow scientists in the field view the ideas of Coumou, Rahmstorf and other PIK scientists with skepticism. There are even opposing, counter publications (see out blog article “Study from Colorado State University contradicts the PIK: retreat of Arctic sea ice does not lead to extreme weather“). Also Judith Curry thinks little of linking US cold snaps to climate change. At her blog Climate Etc. she wrote on January 7, 2014:

Is global warming causing the polar vortex? In a word, no. […] The media are mostly in stupid mode over this one. Cliff Mass provides a good overview, the punch lines:

The bottom line: the claims that greenhouse warming causes more cold waves like we have seen this week really seems to be without any basis in observational evidence or in theory. The media needs to stop pushing this unsupported argument. It is SO frustrating that every major weather event causes such claims and counterclaims to be aired, with many media outlets unable to do the minimal research that would allow them to give the public more dependable information. All this bogus reporting has done substantial damage, with many American’s believing that global warming is already causing our winter weather to become more extreme, while the observational evidence suggests no such thing. One day some sociologists will study this situation and the psychological elements that drove it.”

So is the Jet Stream today really flowing more slowly than it did in former times? A team from the University of Reading and the British Antarctic Survey lead by Tim Woolings published an analysis of the Jet Stream’s development in the North Atlantic over the past 140 years in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society in August 2013. The result was clear: The Jet Stream escapades today are no different then in the past. The current behavior is completely within the range of known natural variability. In the paper’s abstract Woolings and his colleagues write:

When viewed in this longer term context, the variations of recent decades do not appear unusual and recent values of jet latitude and speed are not unprecedented in the historical record.”

Also Italian meteorologist Guido Guidi was not able to discover any long-term trend in an analysis of data over the last 66 years. Moreover climate models are still unable to reproduce the polar vortex, so reported Horwitz et al. 2009. Interestingly Veretenenko and Ogurtsov (in print) have even found a relationship between the development of the polar vortex and fluctuations in solar activity. Curiously, in 1974, Time Magazine interpreted similar polar vortices as being the result of global cooling.

 

Backfire! Eminent Physicist Calls Attempted Journal Suppression A Throwback To “Inquisition And Books Burning”!

PRP JournalAs much as an entire array of forces attempted to prevent it, the PRP special edition journal with its 12 peer-reviewed papers that offer an alternative explanation on what contributes to driving climate is coming out – and how!

Ironically, the intense efforts to silence the journal have backfired – the special edition has been receiving widespread exposure rather than being silenced.

Unsurprisingly the dubious attempts to silence the publication have met with loud and harsh objections, see here, here, here, here and here.

The problems began when 19 scientists declared that the special issue shedded “serious doubts” on the conclusions of the IPCC.

That didn’t sit well with publisher Copernicus director Martin Rasmussen, who had come under intense pressure from the climate establishment and took the unbelievable decision to close down the entire journal immediately and “without any discussion with the editors“.

“Inquisition and book burning”

Distinguished Swedish scientist Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner, the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, and the PRP special edition journal editor, has now issued a statement here (last page) on the events leading up to politically motivated cancellation of the journal.

By this decision, we were suddenly thrown back in the evolution of humanism and culture to the stage of inquisition and books burning. […]

To debate is a vital part of science. To forbid and even close down a journal because of an inevitable conclusion which “sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC” is most unscientific and unethical.
Copernicus has disgraced itself in this desperate act of trying to cover up for IPCC.”

Nils-Axel Mörner was also president of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Neotectonics and has authored close to 600 peer-reviewed papers.

Entire special journal here.

Now comes the journal’s real test. Let’s wait to see what the “real experts” say about it.

 

David And Goliath? Nicola Scafetta Fires Back At Harsh Willis Eschenbach’s Criticism!

UPDATE: wnd.com/2014/01/the-thermageddon-cult-9

Like a number of readers, I’m also quite puzzled by what is going on here. Maybe someone could fill us in on the background. It’s not the kind behavior we want to have. We’d prefer to see the long knives returned to the drawer.

Again I’m not taking any sides. But I will say I don’t like watching big guys beat up on little ones. Science is supposed to stay factual with emotions left aside as best as possible. If a scientist has something to say, I say let him get it out there on the table so everyone can see it and decide for himself.

Nicola posted a reader comment that I’m upgrading to a post. It can’t be that all a man has left to defend his reputation with (which he’s worked so hard for) is to post reader comments at a little blog like mine. Nicola’s comment is being upgraded to a post. His science is just as entitled to go through the process of rigorous review as anyone else’s, and to be so without petty attacks from the hinterhalt.

Maybe his science is completely wrong, but let it go through the process. What’s the BFD?

Nicola’s comment:

================================

Because Pierre has linked above a new post on WUWT of Willis that criticizes one paper of the collection, I think that also the readers here might be interested in my comment.

Willis appears to criticize a paper without reading it. He picks up something extrapolated from the context like the famous guy jumping around the Bible who concludes that It says “There is no God.” while the full sentence says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

The same graph discussed above by Willis was discussed with Anthony’s great approval here and here.

The graph is essentially taken from Shaviv (2008): Shaviv, N. J.: Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:1029/2007JA012989, 2008. It has been properly referenced by Solheim and where a lot of details are present. Solheim does not need to repeat the details given the fact that those are in the referenced work.

The uncertainty noted by some above is also discussed in Solheim’s paper and it is due to the fact that the decadal climatic cycle may be due to a soli-lunar oscillation at about 9.1 years and to the 10-12 year solar cycle.  This is clearly shown in numerous figures of the paper such as Figure 7, which is taken from one of my papers, which are these:

Scafetta, N.: Solar and Planetary Oscillation control on climate change hind-cast, forecast and an comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs, Energ. Environ., 42, 455–496, 2013a; and

Scafetta, N.: Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles, Earth-Sci. Rev., 126, 321–357, 2013b.

Willis, unfortunately, has not mastered the work of reading a scientific paper.

Is this all your science, Willis?”

================================

One last note. One factor that motivated me to get active in climate science debate was having watched small, poorly-funded skeptical scientists and dissenters get dragged through the mud by the huge multi-billion dollar climate change industry. Even if the dissenters had been shown wrong, I still would have jumped in. Without an open and fair debate, society cannot possibly progress.

 

Watershed! BBC Now Sees Sun Developing Into A Potent 21st Century Climate Factor As A Real Possibility!

Slowly, almost imperceptibly, but surely, the once diehard the-science-is-settled mainstream media are conceding that the climate debate isn’t over after all – and likely not by a long shot. And if you pay attention, you can see them quietly opening that back door for the quick exit.

The cracking started long ago, and now chips and pieces of the global warming science are starting to fall on the floor around us.

Earlier today the BBC featured a short report “Has the Sun gone to sleep?”

This report looks at the implications of a protracted quiet solar period, potentially lasting decades. Global cooling is turning out to be a real possibility, now even at the BBC!

Today we know a huge body of historical observations shows there is a pronounced relationship between cold winters in Europe and low solar activity. Moreover there’s a huge body of persuasive evidence, comprising mainly proxy datasets, that show the phenomenon is not regional, but global. As much as the BBC tries to play that down, the video holds a couple of big surprises.

Mirrors the Maunder Minimum!

The BBC starts by telling its viewers that the current solar maximum “is eerily quiet“. Solar physicist Professor Richard Harrison says the sun hasn’t been this quiet in 100 years and that the current activity mirrors the activity of the 17th century – the Maunder Minimum, the time of the dreadful Little Ice Age. What we have here is the BBC telling viewers to associate low solar activity with potential cold.

At the 3-minute mark, the BBC reporter asks the key question: “Does a decline in solar activity mean plunging temperatures for decades to come?” For an answer the BBC interviews three scientists.

Could impact the climate – “not fully understood”

Scientist Dr Lucie Green actually thinks that low solar activity could affect the climate, but she isn’t sure “to what extent“, and then even points out that varying amounts of solar radiation impact the globe’s upper atmosphere and that this is something scientists “don’t fully understand“. Therefore, don’t rule anything out.

“Fastest solar decline in 10,000 years”!

At the 4:17 mark, Mike Lockwood says we are witnessing the fastest decline in 10,000 years. He then claims that there’s a close to 20% chance that we may be actually entering a Maunder-like minimum. As one of the scientists who is more than 95% sure that man is now causing the climate change, 20% seems to be a very high figure and so we might suspect Lockwood’s true probability figure to be much higher than 20%.

Note how Lockwood does his best to portray solar impacts on climate as being regional phenomena, affecting the Jet Stream and Europe’s climate, but not the global mean climate. Lockwood here is not being completely forthcoming.

Sun now on par with human activity?

At the 5:26 mark the BBC journalist asks the right question, and the answer the BBC provided truly surprised me. Question:

The relationship between solar activity and weather on earth is complicated. But if solar activity continues to fall, could the temperature on earth as a whole get cooler? Could there be implications for global warming?”

The answer, provided by Dr. Lucie Green:

On the one hand you’ve perhaps got the cooling sun, but on the other hand you’ve got human activity that can counter that. And I think it is quite difficult to say actually how these two are going to compete and then what the consequences are for the global climate.”

Wow. The BBC has really opened the door, perhaps looking to upgrade the impact of solar activity to be on par with human activity. That’s huge compared to what the IPCC scientists claim about the impact of solar activity (negligible). You almost get the feeling that even the BBC is starting to have doubts about the supposed coming warming, and are opening up to the possibility of cooling.