Natural Cycles In A Random World Are Unmistakable…Future Holds Nothing To Fear

By Ed Caryl

Recently, Roy Spencer posted a graph that appeared to be a data record of some kind for the last 100 years. Then he revealed that it was generated in Excel with a simple random number function. The graph showed details that resembled things like El Niño’s and La Niña’s, pauses, and sudden warming and cooling.

I decided to repeat his graph introducing cycles into the mix. We know that the climate follows ~60 (AMO ocean cycle), ~210 (de Vries or Suess solar cycle), and ~1000 year (un-named) cycles (approximately). The following is a graphic of what happens if these cycles are introduced into the random number generator. The graph extends to 1014 simulated years by month. The random number generator is constrained to + and – 0.5, and each month adds 0.9 of the value of the previous month. The cycles use the sine function (SIN()) with input from the fractional year value, multiplied by 0.1 to produce a 62 year cycle, 0.029 to produce a 215 year cycle, and 0.006 to produce a cycle just over 1000 years. For this last cycle the COS function was used to shift the cycle phase by 90 degrees. Each month, 1/40th of each cycle value is added along with the 0.9 of the previous month. This produces a graph that roughly resembles earth’s climate over the last 1014 years with extension to the next 200.

Figure 1 is a simulation of the last 1014 years, with the applied climate cycles shown.

Figure 2 is a magnification of the last 214 years from Figure 1. Blue is monthly data, black is the annual average, the red trace is the simulated AMO 62-year cycle.

Each re-calculation will completely change the data, but similar features always appear. In this iteration, an El Niño appears at 1999, that looks just like the real El Niño of 1998. We see a warming trend in the early twentieth century, and another in the late twentieth century, just like the real warming trends.

In figure 1, we see a Medieval Warming period and two periods of Little Ice Age. A minimum is seen that resembles the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, and the cool 1910s and 1970s appear. Even the cool Maunder Minimum appears in the correct place. Most of this result is not coincidence because the 62-year cycle is timed to match the real AMO, and the 204-year and 1000-year cycles roughly match real solar activity.

In this simulation, two successive warming periods very like the actual twentieth century warming periods, can occur from natural cycles alone, no extra “forcing” from CO2 is required.

So, what will the future bring? Now that we have this model, that reflects the past, as we know it, with general accuracy, can we project that into the future? Sure…this is just an Excel spreadsheet after all. I pasted on 200 more years. As I did so, Excel of course recalculated the whole table. So here is a second example of the last 214 years that it came up with, in case someone accuses me of “cherry-picking”. Note that we get much the same pattern of warming and cooling, with a couple of El Niño’s in approximately the right place in the last 20 years.

Figure 3 is another calculation of the same period as in figure 2. The black trace is an annual average of the monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

Note the resemblance between figures 2 and 3. Each is a different calculation using different random numbers, yet the small addition of non-random sine wave cycles pushes the output into shapes that resemble the climate that happened in this period.

Figure 4 is the future, as projected by our model. The black trace is an annual average of the blue monthly data. All three cycles are shown.

As you can see, the future holds nothing to fear. There will be a few El Niño’s in the next ten years, then a moderate cooling as we come off the peak of the 62 and 204 year cycles. There will be more of those in mid-century, as the AMO rises again, then more cooling for a period at the end of the century as both of those cycles bottom out. No extensive warm periods will appear until late in the twenty-second century, as both peak again.

This model is not new. On the side-bar of this blog, an illustration from Nicola Scafetta’s model is similar, with the addition of some shorter cycles. An earlier post on this blog from a paper by Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss (cited above) also used a similar model. The chief addition is random “weather”.

No CO2 molecules were harmed in the generation of these graphs. Nor, for that matter, were they considered.

For those with Excel expertise, I have posted the file to Dropbox here.

Mean Cosmic Radiation Over Past 8 Years Highest Since 1958 …Current Solar Cycle Weakest In Almost Two Centuries!

The Sun in April
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

The sole real source of energy for our planet also was also below normal in April: The sunspot number (SSN) was 54.4. Taking the average of the previous 23 cycles, that is only 70% of what is average for this month into the cycle.

Compared to March activity rose some 46%. These short-term changes however are usual noise in the overall signal, which says the entire activity since the current cycle began has been only 53% of the mean value since 1750.

Figure 1: Current solar cycle 24 (red), the mean solar cycle (blue) and the similar solar cycle  no. 7, which took place from 1823 to 1833 and was the last in the Dalton Minimum.

The comparison with solar cycle no. 7 could see increasingly large deviations in the months ahead, as solar activity increased markedly, as depicted by sharp peaks of the black line in Figure 1. Such a development appears highly improbable for solar cycle no. 24. What follows is a comparison of all cycles:

Figure 2: The accumulated solar cycle sunspot anomaly for all cycles 77 months into the cycle. The current cycle began in December 2008.

Figure 3: The speed of the solar wind, which impacts the Earth’s upper atmospheric layers, has fallen off since the early 1990s. It is expressed as the geomagnetic Ap Index. It is a measure of the sun’s impact on the Earth’s magnetic field. Source of the image: Climate4you.

Not only the Earth is impacted by the solar winds, but also the entire sun’s surroundings far out in space. The heliosphere reacts to the stream of particles from the sun. When it is weaker – as is the case during times of solar minima – more cosmic radiation from the Milky Way can penetrate into the Earth’s atmosphere. This is measured here on Earth, e.g. in Moscow since 1958:

Figure 4: Changes in cosmic radiation

During the solar sunspot number maxima (compared to 2000) the solar wind is stronger and thus reduces cosmic radiation by up to 20% when compared to the minima in activity. The current cycle (maximum is already over) is bringing only about an 8% reduction. Over the entire period since 2006 there has been significantly more cosmic radiation than any such period since 1958.

Another factor involved with solar activity is UV radiation. It strongly depends on the sunspot number because the ultraviolet radiation is produced in the areas near sunspots. Unlike the other visible ranges of the spectrum, sunspots in UV images appear brighter than the surrounding areas. Although UV radiation mainly has an impact in the stratosphere, there are top-down effects that lead to impacts to the troposphere.

The signals for solar activity all continue to point to “very low“. We can all wait with suspense to see what impacts the low solar activity will have.

Original German version here.

What Caused the Global Warming Pause or Why Hate the Hiatus?

Depending on which global temperature data one looks at, temperatures have not increased in the last 18 or so years. The reasons proposed have been various, ranging from natural cycles to increased aerosols, to heat escaping to space or the deep ocean.

Perhaps there are some other reasons that have not been considered. The following is a simple list, with illustrations. The list is divided into two sub-lists. Things that are natural and things that are anthropogenic or man made.

SOME NATURAL REASONS

1. It’s The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

The AMO has been at the top of it’s warm phase since 1998. The index doesn’t get much higher than it is now. It can only go down from here. It was at a similar peak during the warm 1930s through the 1960s. It was negative during the cool 1970s. The peaks of the AMO tend to be flat for a couple of decades before flipping cool. We don’t know what drives the AMO. Data here.

2. It’s The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

The PDO has been trending down since the early 1980s. It also was up during the 1930s and negative during the 1970s. The AMO and the PDO are the natural ocean cycles that climate scientists talk about. The PDO reached a peak in the 1980s and has been declining since. This index is volatile. The PDO has a huge effect on weather on the Pacific Coast of North America. Data here.

3. It’s The AMO and PDO together

They are sometimes roughly added together. (Even though they are not measuring the same thing.) If one adds them together, it can be seen why the late 1930s were warm and the 1970s cool. The sum (green trace) reached a peak in 2000 and is now declining because of the declining PDO. (Computed by author.)

4. It’s the sun

The sunspot number (SSN) average has declined since the mid-1990s. One can see a cause for the 1970s cooling in the SSN, but not for the 1930s warming. The early 20th century cooling may have been caused by the low SSN around the turn of the century. The sun is excused for the recent pause because the total solar index (TSI) changes only by a fraction of a Watt/m2 over large changes in SSN. But other factors may be in play. (Source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels.)

5. It’s cosmic rays

The neutron count is an indicator of the cosmic ray flux at the top of the atmosphere. Here is the neutron count at Oulu, Finland since 1965. It is thought that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. Therefore high recent count is providing cooling clouds. Graphic downloaded from here, the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland.

6. It’s clouds and earth’s albedo

Albedo and cloud cover reached a peak in the 1998-2000 era, at the beginning of the pause. Clouds, especially high clouds, reflect solar energy. Each 1% of albedo change translates to 1 W/m2. There is another graphic of albedo from the EarthShine project, here. All the albedo data show a significant rise in albedo after 1998. The cosmic ray/neutron count may not match the albedo/cloud cover, but cloud cover really did increase. Graphic used by permission of Dr. J. Floor Anthoni, and seen here.

PAUSE IS ANTHROPOGENIC

I mean by anthropogenic that man may have caused the pause by manipulating the temperature data. These manipulations seem to enhance the warming trend in support of politics, though the stated intent for many was to enhance accuracy. Here are some examples:

7. It’s the time of observation (TOBs) adjustment

Observing times have been gradually changed from afternoon to morning hours. The bias from this adjustment was about 0.2°C for TMax and 0.25°C for TMin. This impacts the historic data, but also, this adjustment is now finished. Most measurement sites now use morning observing times and no more changes will be made, hence the pause. No more warming will come from this source. The TOBs adjustment is clearly visible in the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAW AND FINAL USHCN DATA SETS graphic below, though it is only half of the total. Figure from here.

8. It’s all adjustments including TOBs

This graphic shows the result of all adjustments: homogenization, sensor changes (CRS vs MMTS), and TOBs. Note also that the warming due to all these changes is about 0.5°C, much of the warming that is supposed to have taken place since 1950. Note that these changes went flat during the 1990s decade.  Note the similar shaped curve to the TOBs adjustment with a flat shape in recent times. There should be no more warming from this source. Figure from NOAA/NCDC here.

9. It’s the number of stations

Since 1980, the number of stations reporting temperature data has declined by half. Some of the decline was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This resulted in loss of data from the Russian high arctic and Siberia, among the coldest land stations in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these stations have resumed reporting in recent years, but most have not.

Other stations in Africa and Asia were closed by newly independent former colonies. World-wide, many stations closed instead of being upgraded. On average the remaining stations are at lower elevations and in warmer, populated areas. This situation has now stabilized. Figure from NASAGISS here. A discussion of this problem is here.

These are nine possible reasons for the pause. One or two are sufficient. Nine is overkill.

Why Has There Been Global Warming? Literature Unambiguously Shows: Because It’s Entirely Normal (Stupid)!”

A reader posted a comment, which I’ve upgraded to a post (with some editing).
================================

Why there is global warming

by Harold Faulkner

People in the USA are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the Earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people?

Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900 AD and 1350 AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the Earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph shows the temperatures of the Earth before Christ to 2040.

In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

In approximately 983 AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

After the year 1200 AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982:

The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the Earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e.:

The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the solar system, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at: www.geocraft.com/ice_ages.html.

– Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

– At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

– CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on Earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

– CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

– If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people, cannot allow this to happen.

Harvard Astrophysicist: 2014 “Hottest Year” Claim A “Prostitution Of Science” …Global Warming “Sorrowfully Exaggerated”

Harvard Astrophycist Willie Soon asks if hottest year ever claim is “a joke”.

NoTricksZone sought out astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon’s opinion on the claim that 2014 is the “hottest on record”. What follows is his reply:

2014 hottest year a manipulation

Is this a joke or simply my BAD dream? Prostituting science like this is now consider a virtue. It is no wonder that science writer Lord Ridley said that he has lost his faith on science as an institution.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com.aspx

Why would anyone even bother with claims and insistence of the globe in 2014 being the hottest to a relative colder years all within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius? Poor Anders Celsius should be dancing in his grave.

The claim is based on just one (from a half dozen or so) thermometer-based products whose measurement quality is fraught with uncertainty and with actual error bars at least ten times larger than those claimed “effects”. WMO and others simply pick and choose the “data” that produces the press news they want in time for the Lima, Peru political pow-wow.

In truth the datasets taken as a whole clearly show that the global temperature has been flat-trending for nearly two decades now and that the theory of rising CO2 leading to global warming is sorrowfully exaggerated.

This kind of manipulative science, exemplified by IPCC, WMO, NOAA and what have you, is serving its master in the realm of politics and policy, and is indeed very sickening.

All of them are essentially behaving in ways we would never want any of our school children to behave: cheating and manipulating that are accompanied by careful wording and clever rhetoric.

Of course as a philosophy we all hold science dear. But if we continue to keep silent and do not express outrage like the one I now feel, the notion of science as a philosophy and way of life will soon be reduced to computer games and animation for the mind-controllers and beauty-contest institutions.

If folks reading NTZ still need a bit of fact on how stinky this CO2-global warming ideology has become, you only need to consider reading the blog by Willis Eschenbach on how the UN’s own survey of over 6 million votes show climate change a non-issue.

Willie Soon”

Dr. Willie Soon is Astrophysicist and Geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Photo source: Heartland.

IPCC Models Fail Abominably In Projections of Northern And Southern Hemisphere Temperature

What follows is a modestly abbreviated version in English. The first part is the brief solar activity report, and the second part is about IPCC model failure.
==========================================

The Sun in September 2014. Attention: X-Flares!

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)The sun in September was considerably more active than in the previous months. The sunspot number was 87.6, which was 89% of what is typical in the 70th month into a cycle. The current solar cycle 24 (SC 24) began in December 2008. Figure 1 shows the current cycle compared to the mean of SC 1-23, and solar cycle no. 1:

Fig. 1: The current SC 24 is shown in red, the mean of the previous 23 cycles is depicted by the blue curve, and the current cycle SC 24 strongly resembles SC 1, which is shown by the black curve.

The current cycle resembles SC 1, and should it continue to behave like SC 1, a trailing off of activity cannot be anticipated anytime soon. Indications, however, do point to a longer than normal cycle. Japanese researcher Hiroko Miyahara and his team examined this in 2013 (Influence of the Schwabe/Hale solar cycles on climate change during the Maunder Minimum). They were able to show that the length of the solar cycle correlates with solar activity. “The mean length of the Schwabe cycle during the Maunder Minimum was approx. 14 years, and during the Medieval Warm Period the average cycle length was only about 9 years.”

The sun today is relatively active, though slightly below normal. On September 10 there was an X 1.6 – flare, a a high category explosion on the sun. Flare are designated as follows: C for common, M for medium, and X for strong. See the following image, Figure 2:

Figure. 2: X-flare on 10 September 2014. Source: solarham.net.

With such powerful explosions, material gets ejected from the sun, what is known as a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME). When such plasma strikes the earth’s atmosphere, it leads to polar lights and other effects. The strength of X 1.6 was too weak to have any massive impact on the earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field.

Models fail to project temperature

Now let’s take a detailed look at the warming scenarios of the earth’s surface temperature, this time taking local particularities into account:

Fig. 3: The mean surface temperature since 2000 compared to the period of 1950-1980, Source: GISS

Most of the warming took place in the northern extra-tropics at latitudes between 25°N and 90°N. This is consistent with the expectations one would have with the effects of greenhouse gases.  However, let’s take a look at the temperature series of the northern hemisphere extra-tropic region. Here we also see a “pause” since about the year 2000.

Figure. 4: The temperature curve of the northern extra-tropics as to GISS.

Indeed the trend from 1983 to 2013 differs significantly (0.33 +/- 0.06 °C/decade) from the 2000 to 2013 period (0.09 +/- 0.14°C/decade), which is no longer a significant warming. This hefty deceleration has occurred even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise linearly unabated. We reported multiple times on what the reasons could be for thi.

How do models handle the problem of the asymmetry in warming that we observe between both hemispheres? A recent paper from 2013 by 4 authors of the universities of Berkeley and Washington led by Andrew R. Friedman examined the difference between the northern hemisphere (NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH), named ITA, and summarized what the newest models anticipated for temperature:

Fig. 5: The temperature difference between the NH and SH determined with the CMIP5 models. Source: Figure 2 of the just mentioned paper.

The text of the paper describes: With today’s emissions scenario (close to the IPCC scenario named RCP8.5) there is a highly linear rise of 0.17°K/decade (Point 3, “future projections“ of the aforementioned paper).

But let’s do a reality check and compare it to the actual surface observations since 1900:

Fig. 6: ITA as GISS since 1900, (Data: GISS), Model (thick green curve).

The 1982-2013 period is indeed at 0.165+/-0.04°C/decade, but it has become significantly less. The 1998-2013 period shows a trend of only 0.055+/-0.067°C/decade – not rising significantly – and is barely 30% of what was registered since 1982. No one here can claim that the trend is “highly linear”.

The cause? One cause is offered up by the 2013 paper: The drop in the late 1960s was not replicated by the models and was likely caused by internal variability, very likely by the AMOC (see Fig. 8b of the paper), the authors maintain.

Also the steep rise after 1915 would be due to variability 1915 … and at least for a part of the rise beginning in 1985 – as we have often maintained at this blog.

So it remains: Reproducing internal variability has not been adequately possible by models up to now. The dependency of temperatures on the forcing by greenhouse gases is stronger in models than what it is in reality. The models overblow the anthropogenic impact and thus yield exaggerated prognoses for the future.

Russian National Television Film Warns Of Cooling…Senior Woods Hole Scientist Calls Arctic Model Runs “Far From Ideal”!

In today’s post you will find a Russian National Television film below, viewed only 70 times so far at Youtube, where Russian scientists express doubt on the IPCC’s version of the CO2 story, and warn of a coming cold period. It is the kind of film alarmists do not want the public to see.  It is dubbed over in English

Photo: Andrey Proshutinsky

In fact Russian scientists warn that the recent Arctic melt may actually forbode a coming cold. It’s happened before.

In yesterday’s post here I wrote about how Max-Planck-Institute Arctic scientist Dirk Notz said he would not bet on the Arctic ice decreasing in the years ahead, saying in a nutshell that there are just too many poorly understood factors and play.

In his response Notz brought up Andrey Proshutinsky (photo above), a senior Russian scientist at the Department of Physical Oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I sent him an e-mail for comment, and I’m very pleased to say he replied (my emphasis):

Dear Pierre,

I am sorry for delay with my response. I just got your message because of traveling.

Answering your question I can say that the situation with Arctic ice changes is highly uncertain. Our observational record is too short, models are not perfect and initial conditions used for model runs are also very far from ideal. We speculate that Greenland ice melt could be a factor influencing Arctic-Subarctic processes but how it will work is not clear yet. More observations and modeling studies are needed.

Thanks,

Andrey”

His advisories are unmistakable: 1) initial conditions for model runs are “very far from ideal” and that 2) “the observational record is too short“, and thus taken together ought to be a very loud and clear message to policymakers who are in a rush to declare the science settled and to build a phony climate thermostat.

Russian scientists warn of “cold” ahead

Minutes later a second email from Dr. Proshutinsky landed in my mailbox. It contained a link to a highly fascinating, balanced Russian National Television of December 2013 film titled “Cold”, see below.

His second e-mail:

In addition to my previous message, I am sending you a link to our website front page www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre where we have two movies (one of them I showed during my talk at Royal Society). The second movie was made by Russian National Television last year. There are two options there: in English and in Russian. This is about 50-minute film “Cold” with opinions of different scientists about future climate changes. Of course, this is information to entertain general public but you can see that there are many factors which can influence climate and some of them are well predictable (like astronomic parameters) but others are not predictable (like volcanic eruptions).

Thanks,

Andrey”

As Proshutinsky points out, it was made “to entertain general public” but shows the “many factors” driving the climate. Be patient the good stuff starts after the 20-min. mark.

Arctic melt forebodes coming cold, Russian scientists theorize

In the video starting at about the 25 minute mark, Russian scientists warn why they think cooling is a real threat, and remind us there are many factors at work within our climate system.

At the 37:40 mark a Russian scientist is quoted saying:

Besides excessive amounf of cartbon dioxide adds some fractions of a degree to the dangerous warming. However to be honest, the weather is controlled by forces that are beyond our control. We can only adapt, if we are able to of course.”

“This warming is not forever”

And at the 45:17 mark:

Warm winters of the recent years no doubt has made many of us pretty relaxed about the cold. Stories about the cold of 1941 and 1812 are perceived as tales of the past. But the climate is a variable thing. History can repeat itself and this warming is not forever.”

If the film makes anything clear, it is that the Russian view of climate science is far more balanced and calm-minded than what we are used to seeing in the west. It is little wonder Russia is not signing on to extend Kyoto.

Photo credit: Andrey Proshutinsky, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Spooky Pause…Solar Activity Now Has Leading German (Warmist) Science Journalist Asking About “Threat Of A Little Ice Age”

Science journalist Michael Odenwald at the German news weekly FOCUS used to be quite the warmist, and maybe he still is. But his latest article here tells us that he may be opening up to other climate change explanations: natural factors such as solar activity.

Solar activity has quieted over the last years. Photo image: NASA

Odenwald’s article focusses on the sun’s recent solar activity, noting that the current cycle has only been about as half as active as normal and that the “sun in the second half of the 20th century was unusually active over several cycles.” He then notes how the earth’s climate has suspiciously stopped warming since the sun went quiet.

“Our planet could cool down”

Before citing the works of geophysicist Ilya Usoskin of the Finnish University Oulu, Odenwald writes:

The current low activity of the cosmic oven has possible dramatic consequences for our planet: Our planet could cool down. Perhaps the quiet sun is hidden behind another phenomenon over which scientists have long been wondering about: At around the year 2000 global warming came to a halt.”

Odenwald also informs readers that the high level of solar activity from 1950 bis 2009 indeed had been an outlier and that it is clear that “the global temperature, which has increased for more than 100 years, rose most strongly from 1975 to 2000. According to the IPCC the 30-year period from 1983 to 2012 in the northern hemisphere was the warmest in 1400 years. Roughly calculated it coincides with the most recent Grand Maximum.”

Warnings of a little ice age

Odenwald also writes that some climatologists believe “the real driver of climate change is our sun. Some are even warning of a new little ice age.”

Forecast March-2015 Solar Eclipse Has Power Grid Operators Distressed…”Dangerously Destabilized”

One thing we can be predicted with very high certainty: On March, 20, 2015 most of Germany will see a partial yet substantial eclipse of the sun.

40 gigawatts of rated power blocked in just minutes!

Normally that would be no big deal. But for the first time in history, due to Germany’s massive installed solar capacity of 40 gigawatts, an eclipse of the sun could mean a collapse of Germany’s intense power grid, with possible ramifications for the European power network.

Animation: A. T. Sinclair/NASA

Today’s print edition of Spiegel features an entire story on the coming event, should skies be clear. At it’s online site here it gives a preview of the upcoming event, writing:

The German power grid operators are dreading March 20, 2015. On this day Germany will see a partial solar eclipse during the morning. Should there be no clouds in the sky at this time, all solar power generating systems all over the country would be feeding in drastically less power into the grid in just a matter of minutes – and the grids would become dangerously destabilized.”

Already grid operators are scrambling to avoid such a scenario, and are considering refusing the feed in the power of large solar power plants on that day. Even though the eclipse will sweep across Europe around mid morning, a time well below peak solar power production, no large enough conventional back up system is on hand to react that quickly and that massively on such short notice. Another possibility would be to request large energy consumers in industry to scale back their consumption for the period the eclipse will have an impact.

German T-Online writes:

The shadow of the solar eclipse on March 20, 2015 will sweep across the North Atlantic. Thus in North Germany almost 83% of the sun will be blocked, so reports the website sonnenfinsternis.org. In South Germany it will still be at least 67%. Starting at 50 percent coverage, a solar eclipse is easy to notice.”

GEOMAR Press Release: Solar Activity’s Profound Impact On Climate…Cripples Melting-Arctic Rossby-Wave Idea

What follows is the press release by GEOMAR on the very recent Muscheler et al paper showing the sun’s profound impact on northern hemispheric climate. Other sites touched on this paper, here and here.

Now I’ve translated the entire GEOMAR press release from the German. The results of the study are impressive:
=================================

The sun controlled climate during the ice age

Irregularities in solar activity impacted the climate 20,000 years ago.

04 Sept 2014/Kiel. In a model study, climate scientists of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research in Kiel reconstructed the relationship between solar activity and climate during the last ice age. With their climate-chemical model, they were able to make a considerable contribution to a study by the Swedish Lund University published in the international journal Nature Geoscience.

A known pattern of behavior of the sun is its irregular solar activity. The most well-known activity cycle is the 11-year sunspot cycle where every 11 years there is a switch between sunspot maximum and sunspot minimum. There are also other known fluctuations of other timescales. Sunspots are places on the sun’s surface that appear to be darker because the solar radiation is emitted into the universe with reduced strength. At the same time high energy radiation, foremost in the UV range, leaves the sun. During a sunspot minimum there are fewer sunspots and thus less energy-intensive radiation reaching the earth. When sunspots reach maximum activity, precisely the opposite is true.

More solar radiation, particularly in the UV range, during a sunspot maximum leads to a warming of the stratosphere (between 15 – 50 km) in the tropics and lead to an increased ozone production. Through complicated interactive mechanisms this in turn leads to atmospheric circulation changes which are perceived at the earth’s surface. The mechanisms on how changes in solar activity impact the atmosphere are still the subject of ongoing research. There is especially much speculation on the relationship between large sunspot minima and cold, snowy winters or on whether the current low sunspot activity might be responsible for the pause in global warming.

Scientists of Lund University (Sweden), in cooperation with GEOMAR climate scientists Prof. Dr. Katja Matthes and Dr. Rémi Thiéblemont, have succeeded in reconstructing solar activity back in the last ice age. The study was published in August in the international journal of Nature Geoscience.

Ice cores from Greenland were used to get information on solar activity for that period, a time when Sweden and North Germany were under a thick sheet of ice. The evaluation principle works in a similar manner as with tree-rings: The ice cores contain many layers from which information on temperature and precipitation conditions can be derived. The radioactive, cosmic molecules of beryllium and carbon play an important role here. Namely they are created in the atmosphere when the solar magmatic field around the earth is weak and thus allow lots of cosmic radiation to come through. When the ice core contains lots of radioactive beryllium and carbon, it means there was a weak protective shield, and so indicates weak solar activity.

A combined analysis of ice cores and dripstones allowed the scientists of Lund University to reconstruct solar activity until the end of the last ice age. It shows that the 11-year sunspot cycle also existed at the time, displaying a typical pattern of solar activity. “First of all we have succeeded in producing a high resolution record of solar activity,” says Prof. Matthes. “With our climate model, which transfers the solar signal from the stratosphere to the earth’s surface more accurately than other models, we were able to reconstruct typical atmospheric circulation patterns for a solar minimum, thus enabling us to infer possible temperature and precipitation patterns over Greenland that correspond very closely to the conditions at the end of the last ice age. The agreement is impressive and allows us to suspect that the mechanism for influence on climate by solar activity back then and today function very similarly.”

The results confirm the evidence from other studies showing years with low solar activity are associated with harsh winters over the Northern Hemisphere. One example are the strong winter outbreaks connected with snowfall and storms, as experienced in 2008 and 2010 in North Europe and North America. During these years we found ourselves in a sunspot minima.

“The effect of solar activity on regional climate fluctuations is very revealing. Estimations of future solar activity could lead to more precise climate forecasts over the next deacades,” explains Prof. Matthes.

Study done by:
Adolphi, F., R. Muscheler, A. Svensson, A. Aldahan, G. Possnert, J. Beer, J. Sjolte, S. Björck, K. Matthes, R. Thiéblemont (2014): Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature Geoscience, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2225

This ice core was extracted in Greenland as part of the National Ice Sheet Project of the National Science Foundation. It comes from a depth of 1837-1838 Metern and provides a record of the climate of the last thousands of years. Photo: USGS via Wikimedia Commons.

Contact:
Prof. Katja Matthes (GEOMAR, FB1-Ozeanzirkulation und Klimadynamik), kmatthes(at)geomar.de
Jan Steffen (GEOMAR, Kommunikation & Medien), Tel.: 0431 600-2811, jsteffen(at)geomar.de

German Update Points To Period Of Low Solar Activity, Cites “Non-Negligible Forcing On The Temperature”

The Sun In July 2014 And Arctic Sea In Mid Summer
By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Last month the sun was variably active: The first ten days of the month were eventful, whereas the middle of the month solar activity was very calm with the negative high point occurring on July 17, when zero sunspots were recorded at a time during the maximum. At the end of the month activity picked up again with mean sunspot number for the month was 72.5. Once again the most activity took place in the southern hemisphere. The numbers: 47.1 as opposed to 25.4 for the northern hemisphere. This is 73% of the activity that is usual for this month into the cycle.

Figure 1: Monthly sunspot number for the current Cycle 24 (red), which began in December 2008. In comparison to the mean value of previous cycles 1 – 23 (blue) and the similar Cycle 1.

For a comparison of all cycles, the anomalies of each cycle (i.e. the difference between the monthly SSN data and the mean value) are plotted in the next chart:

Figure  2: Accumulated monthly deviation from the mean for the observed cycles since 1750.

The diminishment of solar activity in the current millennium can be clearly seen. Between 1945 and the mid 1990s we witnessed a profoundly long protracted period of activity. This unusual development is confirmed by a recently published paper by Finnish scientist Ilya Usoskinvon of the University of Oulu appearing in Astronomy and Astrophysics (A&A Volume 562, February 2014). The paper shows that the height of solar activity from 1945 to 1995 was a rare event over the last 3000 years. Pronounced minima such as the Maunder Minimums (from 1645 to 1715) on the other hand are much more frequent.

Figure 3: Sunspot number reconstructed by Usoskin et al. (2014), from 1150 BC until 1950 AD. The red curve depicts the directly observed sunspot count since 1610.

A Chinese paper by the Center for Space Science and Applied Research der Chinese Academy of Sciences in Peking (ZHAO X H, FENG X S., Chin Sci Bull, Chin Ver., 2014, 59: 1284: “Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations”) goes a step further in its conclusion:

“During the past 100 years, solar activities display a clear increasing tendency that corresponds to the global warming of the Earth (including land and ocean) very well. Particularly, the ocean temperature has a slightly higher correlation to solar activity than the land temperature. All these demonstrate that solar activity has a non-negligible forcing on the temperature change of the Earth on the time scale of centuries.”

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

I will present Vahrenholt’s and Bosse’s second part on Arctic sea ice tomorrow! -PG

German Geologist: IPCC Models A Failure, “Have No Chance Of Success”…Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020

Co-author of “The Neglected Sun“/geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning made a presentation at the 7th International Conference for Climate and Energy in Mannheim, Germany, back in April. EIKE has now put it up. The presentation is in German and so I am providing below a round up of the main points made by Lüning.

Lüning starts by reminding the listeners that geology is key to understanding the past, which in turn can help us to better understand the present and provide valuable clues of what to expect in the future.

The German geologist is a specialist in the geology of Africa. The scientitific literature shows that the Sahara was green a mere 6000 years ago, and his slide at the 0:45 mark show remnants of that time.

Remnants of a green Sahara, 6000 years ago.

Back then, in the mid Holocene, it was 1 – 2°C warmer than it is today and the Sahara was teeming with wildlife.

At the 2:20 mark Lüning shows a slide of cave painting, in the middle of the Sahara, depicting wildlife seen at the time:

Cave paintings of wildlife in the middle of the Sahara.

The changes over the Holocener period clearly are greater than what we are seeing today and are due to natural flcutucations, primarily solar activity. Lüning adds at the 3:40 mark:

This is a geological context that unfortunately is lost on many people like physicists who believe their formulae more than they believe the true facts.”

Greenland is cooling

At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was “2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today” and that the ice survived.

At the 5:00 mark he presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

On his slide Lüning writes:

Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred.”

At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.

At the 7:30 mark Lüning brings up the IPCC 1990 millennium temperature chart that distinctly shows a warmer Medieval Warm Period and a little ice age. At the 8:30 various hockey sticks are shown, which Lüning describes as “incorrect”. “Even Michael Mann had to admit that he had exaggerated”.

Climate driven by solar activity

Starting at the 9:45 mark, his charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls “a surprisingly good match”. He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond “stunning”. See chart 13:20 mark below)

Strong correlation between solar activity and temperature.

At around the 14:00 mark Lüning recounts how he naively expected an explanation from Rahmstorf on why Bond’s findings were being ignored. Rahmstorf replied that “Bond’s cycles could not be reproduced by other groups” and that “Bond himself later stopped believing in his cycles” and that “Bond cycles are a scientific dead-end”.

But at the 14:45 mark, Lüning clearly shows this was not true, and presents a 2003 paper by Hu et al, where Bond is one of the co-authors. That paper too also showed a good correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last 12,000 years. Here the theory was enforced, rather than not being reproducible, as Rahmstorf falsely claimed. Another 2005 paper that included Bond as a co-author is shown at the 15:45 mark.

Clear solar signal found worldwide

Lüning then shows other papers showing solar activity driving climate patterns all over the world, in places like Australia, Oman, North Caorlina, China. He sums them up in chart at the 17:04 mark.

IPCC models have no chance of success

Lüning says that there is clearly a solar signal in climate over the millenniums, and therefore says the IPCC models have no chance of ever successfully modeling the climate. He says that the IPCC models have gotten worse, and not better.

Lüning at the 20:00 mark presents evidence showing that the recent warming is due primarily to the extremely high level of solar activity over the 20th century. Even the flowrate of the Parana River in South America is in sync with solar activity (21:45). Even Lake Victoria fluctuates in sync with solar activity (22:30).

Lüning then brings up the solar amplifier and Svensmark’s theory (23:20) and that cloud formation is modulated by cosmic ray intensity, which in turn is modulated by the sun’s magnetic field. Lüning believes such research deserves some funding (applause) and that the sun acting as one of the major climate modulators makes perfect sense.

Warming of last 20 years “statistically insignificant”

At the 28:00 mark he calls the warming of the last 20 years “statistically insignificant” and says it has indeed stagnated no matter which dataset you look at. At the 28:15 mark he shows how the IPCC’s previous prognoses are “all too hot”, see following figure:

Models have all been false.

At the 29:00 mark he calls the recent claims of an unprecedented warning unjustified and shows that similar warming episodes have occurred in the past. Even Phil Jones admits it.

Ocean cycles responsible for the 1980-2000 warming

At the 30:00 mark Lüning says the natural oceanic cycles have been responsible for the recent decadal temperature fluctuations, and at least for half of the most recent 1980 – 2000 warming. The remaining half has to be responsibly assigned to the other factors. At the 31:20 mark, he believes that cooling is ahead for the 20 years:

Cooling projected for the next 20 years.

He thinks it is also possible that the low solar activity will lead to a cooling of one or two tenths of a degree Celsius over the next 5 years, which he says “could be very interesting for the discussion” (32:00). He cites Judith Curry. At the 33:00 mark he cites other papers showing that CO2 climate sensitivity has been overstated and needs to be corrected.

At the 37:30 mark Lüning tells the listeners he expects a huge drop in overall solar activity to take hold in the decades ahead and global temperatures to drop by 0.2°C by 2030 (see following chart).

Lüning believes 0.2°C cooling is possible by 2030.

All graphics cropped from Lüning’s presentation with permission.

Data Suggest That Solar Wind Impacts Global Temperature

By Ed Caryl

On May 17th, Willis Eschenbach posted “Sailing on the Solar Wind” on WUWT. In it, he used a graph of the daily solar wind data since 1963. I wish to thank Willis for his effort in tabulating the daily data AND for making it available for the rest of us.

That graph had some shapes that were hauntingly familiar. Here it is, repeated, but with the vertical axis reversed. Less solar wind is warming, more is cooling.

Figure 1 is a plot of the daily solar wind data since 1963, courtesy of Willis Eschenbach, here.

I saw two large white-space notches in this plot, one at 1996-7, and another at 2008-9, where the solar wind decreased for long periods. These are just before the two recent El Niños of 1998 and 2010. I downloaded Willis’s data and converted it to monthly averages so that it could be compared to the various available temperature data. Here (Figure 2) is that data with a three-month centered average applied to both the solar wind data and the Hadley Center HADSST3 sea-surface temperature.

Figure 2 is a plot of the solar wind (inverted) and sea surface temperature since 1963.

Note the similarity. The solar wind acts similarly to the cosmic ray impact described in Cosmic Rays and the Impact On Climate. A decrease in solar wind occurs just prior to an increase in temperature. This probably happens because the solar wind acts in a similar fashion as CME’s in producing Forbush decreases in Neutron flux. Both produce an increase in cosmic ray production of cloud nuclei. But why the delay? Several temperature data bases were investigated and compared, using one-month delay steps and computing the R-squared value in Excel for each comparison. Figure 3 resulted:

Figure 3 is a plot of the response to a solar wind change (reduction) on various temperature databases. All temperature data were obtained from www.woodfortrees.org. and de-trended.

Two questions are suggested by this data. Where is the initial temperature change taking place? And why is there a delay? The answers seem to be: 1) The initial warming is in the tropics, specifically in the central Pacific in the El Niño region. In that area, there is no delay, the warming occurs immediately and for the following 3 or 4 months. (The green trace.) The other sea surface temperature data base, HADSST3, and its 3-month average, also reflect the initial immediate warming, but also have a peak at 8 months after, probably for those areas away from the tropics that are warmed later, either by moving currents, or by moving atmosphere.

The land data, HADCRUT4, shows a peak at 8 months and again at 11 months. The reason becomes a little clearer when the hemispheric components are examined. The southern hemisphere reacts quickly then drops off after 8 months, probably because the oceans react faster than the land. The northern hemisphere reacts at 8 months and 11 months because the northern hemisphere has greater land mass.

I recognize that this relationship is speculative. But the relationships seen in Figure 3 are consistent and devoid of “noise”. Delays outside of the range shown have consistently very low R-squared values. It is suggested that this research area bears further study.

Flurry Of Scientists, Recent Peer-Reviewed Papers, Warning Of Approaching Little Ice Age

There’s a lot of excitement flaring up, especially on the alarmist side, because of a possible super El Nino occurring later this year – one that could push global temperature to a new modern high.

That of course is entirely possible. However, it isn’t going to really matter, and possibly may only be the last death convulsion of planetary warming. Everyone knows that a cooling La Nina follows an El Nino event. Indeed a number of solar physicists are now warning that we may in fact be on our final days of warmth for a number of decades to come.

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt tells us why in their latest essay.

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

Will the solar doldrums of the coming decades lead to cooling? A look at the latest scientific publications

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by NoTricksZone)

Seldom has the sun been as strong as we have seen it over the last 5 decades. Is it just a coincidence that the largest warming of the last 500 years occurred during this phase?

Just a few years ago the tide changed when the sun ended its hyperactive phase. Few people had anticipated this, and so it was a surprise for many. Solar physicist Leif Svalgaard of California’s Stanford University expressed it as follows at the American Geophysical Union last December:

“None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something.”

And so science commenced to consider and think about what all this could lead to. The latest works on the subject include Qian et al. 2014 (“Secular changes in the thermosphere and ionosphere between two quiet Sun periods“), Zhao et al. 2014 (Modulation of galactic cosmic rays during the unusual solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24) and McCracken & Beer 2014 (Comparison of the extended solar minimum of 2006–2009 with the Spoerer, Maunder, and Dalton Grand Minima in solar activity in the past).

After a number of studies it has become clearer: It’s only the beginning! It is expected that the sun will continue becoming quieter over the coming decades. This has pretty much become the consensus among solar physicists. The latest studies on the subject come from Roth & Joos 2013, who assume a decline in solar activity to normal levels will occur during the 21st century. Salvador 2013 goes further and anticipates a solar minimum for the coming 30-100 years. Read the original abstract:

Using many features of Ian Wilson’s Tidal Torque theory, a mathematical model of the sunspot cycle has been created that reproduces changing sunspot cycle lengths and has an 85% correlation with the sunspot numbers from 1749 to 2013. The model makes a reasonable representation of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr, placing all the solar minimums in their right time periods. More importantly, I believe the model can be used to forecast future solar cycles quantitatively for 30 yr and directionally for 100 yr. The forecast is for a solar minimum and quiet Sun for the next 30 to 100 yr. The model is a slowly changing chaotic system with patterns that are never repeated in exactly the same way. Inferences as to the causes of the sunspot cycle patterns can be made by looking at the model’s terms and relating them to aspects of the Tidal Torque theory and, possibly, Jovian magnetic field interactions.

In the Journal of Geophysical Research a study by Goelzer et al. appeared in December 2013 and also foresees a decline in solar activity.

What climatic consequences could this have? In our book “The Neglected Sun” we assume that temperatures could be two tenths of a degree lower by 2030 as a result, which would mean warming getting postponed far into the future. Russian scientists foresee an even more dramatic situation, as described in Germany’s leading national daily Bild of April 4,2013:

AND NOW THIS! Russian scientist sees next approaching ice age
It will get colder beginning in 2014 +++ Human migration cannot be ruled out”

Just a month earlier The Voice of Russia reported:

Planet on the verge of an ice age
Russian scientists are predicting that a little ice age will begin in 2014. They refute the claims of global warming and describe them as a marketing trick. Global warming is indeed happening. The earth has been continuously getting warmer since the second half of the 18th century, the start of the Industrial Revolution. This is why the process gets connected to an anthropogenic impact. Mankind increased CO2 emissions, which caused a greenhouse effect. But Russian scientist Vladimir Baschkin categorically disagrees. He claims that the climatic changes have a cyclic character and are not at all related in any way to human activities. Together with his colleague, Rauf Galiullin, of the Institute for Fundamental Problems of Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, he points out that the current warming is merely the continuation of the post Little Ice Age and that, measured on a geological scale, the occurrence of a new ice age is approaching.”

Continue reading at Voice of Russia.

Other scientists share this view as well, among them Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies at the University of Western Australia:

Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies, the University of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland,  in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling.”

H.S. Ahluwalia of the Department of Physics & Astronomy of the University of New Mexico sees it in similar way, as he describes in an article in the journal of Advances in Space Research in February 2014. Ahluwalia expects a Dalton-type minimum and reminds us that the last minimum of this kind back around 1810 resulted in a cold period.

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

Sebastian Lüning will be one of the speakers at the upcoming 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas July 7-9. See following 30-second video for more information:

The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

Geologist Sebastian Lüning: Scientific Evidence Showing Sun/Oceans As Primary Climate Drivers Is ‘Massive, Overwhelming’!

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy EIKE announces that the 7th International Climate and Energy Conference is taking place at the Steigenberger Hotel in Mannheim, April, 10 2014. The event is being held by EIKE.

The planned speakers include renowned scientists like Richard Lindzen, Henryk Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Complete program and info here.

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Photo:

Also among the distinguished speakers are geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning (above), co-author of the book “The Neglected Sun” and co-publisher of the German skeptic climate science site Die kalte Sonne.

Recently I had the chance to get some of his insights on the climate issue. First question I asked was why he thought there has been a pause in global warming. He believes the answer is the combination of the downward phase of ocean cycles and lower solar activity, and he expects the plateau or a drop to continue until the 2030s. It is not a surprise that the oceans are now ‘eating heat’, he says.

Lüning then says it’s pretty clear that the global climate of the last 1000 years has been primarily driven by solar activity and ocean cycles and that “the body of evidence supporting this is massive and overwhelming”.

Dr. Lüning has not been very impressed by the IPCC climate models (97% of them have markedly overestimated the projected warming) and I asked him if he thought the models were getting better with time as we keep hearing that they are being “fine-tuned”. Dr. Lüning doesn’t believe so. “They continue to overestimate CO2 and volcanoes and seriously underestimate solar and ocean cycles.” On CO2 climate sensitivity, he thinks a doubling will lead to a temperature increase of only 1.0 to 1.5°C.

I also asked him about energy policy in Germany and the news that an expert commission recently concluded that the German Energiewende has been extremely costly and ineffective and thus if he thought a slowdown in Germany’s renewable energy sector was ahead? He answered: “Yes. Very likely. We cannot risk losing competitiveness altogether. Now is a good moment to correct the direction.”

Finally I asked what message he wished to convey at the EIKE conference:

Study the climate of the past to identify the processes that influence today’s and tomorrow’s climate.”

And with that I’d say you can expect to see an exciting scientific presentation by Dr. Lüning, and from all the other speakers for that matter, at the 7th EIKE Climate Conference in Mannheim next month.

Global Warming Has Peaked…Set To Switch To Cooling. “If You Look At History, This Is Easy To See”

By Ed Caryl

Is the world warming, cooling, or is the global temperature standing still? What does the future hold? Do past trends mean anything for the future? What period are we examining?

For the purposes of this article, several short and long periods will be examined, 15, 150 and over 1000 years into the past, and predictions for 40 to 70 years into the future. 15 years is actually a very short period in light of the fact that the AMO and PDO tend to vary in 60+ year cycles. We are currently near or just past the peak of both of these ocean cycles. The 1970’s cool period was 40 years ago. The 1980’s and 90’s were a period of warming. The peak was reached with a crescendo in the 1998 super-El Niño year. Here is a chart beginning January 1998.

Figure 1 is temperatures from HADCRUT4, sea surface (SST), and UHA, plotted with a combination of AMO and PDO indexes. All data downloaded from WoodForTrees. Linear trend lines added.

The linear trends for all the temperature series for the last 15 years are nearly flat. Some are rising slightly; some are falling slightly. All are, statistically speaking, flat.

Why?

We are at a peak of a 60-year temperature cycle. Many others have described this: here, here, and here, among others. Temperatures are flat because the only way from here is down, up has ended. If you look at history, this is easy to see. Here is the history of AMO and PDO, the two controlling ocean cycles.

Figure 2: The Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO).

If these are combined, Figure 3 results.

Figure 3, AMO and PDO combined. Data from the last 15 years was used in Figure 1.

The thing to remember about the AMO and PDO indexes are that they are de-trended. Any long-term warming or cooling beyond their 60-year cycles are not reflected in these indexes. But we can see in Figure 3 the cooling period around 1910, the rapid warming in the 1920’s and 30’s, the cooling in the 1970’s, and the warming again in 1980’s and 90’s. We can also see that the warming has reached a peak and is set to switch to cooling. If the cycle repeats as it was twice before, the bottom of the next cooling will occur in the 2030’s.

The long term trend is set by the longer solar cycles. Here is the solar activity, calculated from the Beryllium 10 isotope created by cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere in response to solar magnetic activity. There are 3 different calculations shown, along with the Be10 anomaly on which they are based.

Figure 4 has three plots of TSI and one of the Be10 anomaly on which they are based. The Be10 data has been inverted to match the TSI data. (Less Be10 = higher TSI) Source NOAA here.

The minimums seen in the TSI and Be10 data all correspond to well-known historical warm and cold periods. These are:
– Oort minimum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1040 to 1080
– Medieval Maximum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1100 to 1250
– Wolf Minimum                1280 to 1350
Spörer Minimum             1450 to 1550
Maunder Minimum          1645 to 1715
Dalton Minimum              1790 to 1820

Table 1 is a list of the minimums seen in Figure 4 from left to right. Links are to the Wikipedia articles.

Figure 5 is the Hadley sea surface temperature (SST) dating from 1850.

In Figure 5, we can see the cooling in 1910 and 1950-70, as well as the 20’s and 30’s warming and the 80’s and 90’s warming. The current halt to the warming is also seen.

The TSI data resolution was 6 or 7 years, one data point for each half-solar-cycle. I reduced the SST data to the same resolution by averaging the data for 6 years prior to each data point, and then plotted SST and TSI together. The TSI data based on the Beryllium10 anomaly ends at 1982.

TSI sets the long-term trend for temperature. For temperature, I have used the Hadley HADSST2 data going back to 1850. Here is that chart:

Figure 6 above is TSI and SST plotted to the same resolution.

Figure 7 is a scatter diagram of the Sea Surface Temperature versus TSI plotted in Figure 6.

Notice the long delay on SST cooling in the late 1800’s in Figure 6. The delay seems to be one whole solar cycle of 11 to 12 years. There seems to be little or no delay on warming in the early 1900’s. The TSI data is a bit more than one solar Wolf-Gleißburg cycle in length, the peaks coming in 1865 and 1982. From here, the solar cycle is down. The statistics are clear: The slope in Figure 7 is 0.2875°C per W/m2 of TSI. The R2 value is 0.712, R = 0.844, and the p value is 0.00001. If there were no lag in cooling after a drop in TSI, the R2 value would be even higher. It is clear to me that long term, the sun is driving temperature.

We are now moving into a quiet-sun situation. Projections are for sunspots to completely disappear late in this decade. If TSI drops as low as it did in the Maunder or Spörer Minimums, global temperature will drop by 1 to 1.3°C in 20 to 30 years, into another Little Ice Age that might last for 20 to 40 years. Luckily, the drop should be slow enough that perhaps all the CAGW advocates will be gone or converted in time for us to prepare and adapt.

Clear Solar Impact On Climate Shown By New Study – German Meteorologist Calls Parrenin et al Paper “The Latest Gag”

Is CO2 the main driver behind climate?

Warmist scientists would have us believe it is. One recent European study claims that CO2 and temperature rose simultaneously at the end of the last ice age, implying CO2 is a real driver. However, one prominent German meteorologist dismissed it and bluntly called the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement study by Parrenin et al “the latest gag“.

Now yet another new study published at Quaternary Science Reviews shows in no uncertain terms that the sun, the source of almost all of the Earth’s thermal energy, drives the climate and that the climate naturally swings in cycles.

The paper looks at the relationship between climatic variations, vegetation dynamics and early human activity between c. 4150–2860 BC reconstructed from a high-resolution pollen and geochemical record obtained from a small lake located in County Sligo, Ireland.

The study shows that human activity responded to changing climate conditions over the period. No surprise there. For example the abstract writes: “A nearly century-long climatic amelioration between c. 3460–3370 BC facilitated a revival of human activity on a small scale around the lake. Abandonment of the area and full woodland recovery occurred after a period of particularly wet and cool conditions ranging from c. 3360–3290 BC.”

Over the period that was studied, the climate in the region fluctuated between cool/wet periods and warmer/drier periods, each having an impact on human activity. Scientists found greater activity during warm periods.

3990 BC episode of increased rainfall
3970 – 3820 BC: period of warming and drying.
3830 – 3800 BC: episode of high precipitation
3740 – 3630 BC: dry, Templevanny Lough lowest level during Neolithic.
3670 – 3460 BC: wetter, cooler conditions, substantial rainfall
3460 – 3370 BC: warmer, drier
3360 – 3290 BC: particularly wet and cool
3110 – 3050 BC:  warmer, drier
3060 – 3030 BC: high rainfall
2940 – 2900 BC: high rainfall

The study reveals that the periods of climatic fluctuation were not isolated to just Ireland, but indeed are “in agreement with those of moisture/precipitation and temperature reconstructions from northern and western Europe and the Alps, suggesting that the studied period was characterised by a high-frequency climate variability“.

More importantly, what exactly was behind these climatic fluctuations? Human activity? Not at all. The scientists write:

These climatic shifts correspond to variations in solar activity, suggesting a solar forcing on climate.

Oh my, who would have ever thought it? After all, there are only hundreds of other similar studies from all over the world showing precisely the same thing.

CO2 is driving nothing

CO2 is hardly more a thermostat for global temperature than a thermometer is in your home. The following graphic is snipped from Petit et al 1999 here and shows the real (im)potency of CO2 in driving global temperature.

The blue curve above is the mean temperature and the red curve is CO2 concentration. From 130,000 to about 112,000 years CO2 was more or less steady at about 260 ppm. But look what happens to the temperature during this time. It dropped 9°C! You mean mighty “heat-trapping” Co2 wasn’t able to keep the planet warm?

Also note the lag. The same is clear for the other interglacials. Clearly the scientists of the Parrenin et al Paper made some gross scientific errors, or the study is just a sham.

Let’s take a look at temperature vs CO2 from 1943 to 1970. During this time we know that atmospheric CO2 was rising. Yet look at what happened to temperature during that period:

Before-tampering temperature data. Source: National Center For Atmospheric Research, published in 1975 in Newsweek.

The temperature dropped more than 0.6°F. The same is happening today: even though atmospheric CO2 concentration is on the rise, temperatures globally haven’t risen in 15 years.

Ireland graphic credit: NASA (public domain).

Movement! German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped, Other Factors At Play

If Germany had recorded a record 5 warmer winters in a row, people would be reading and hearing about it for days without end. However, just the opposite has occurred: Germany has now experienced 5 colder than normal winters in a row – “a record” – now made official by the German Weather Service (This winter 0.6°C below 1981-2010 average). Yet, hardly a peep from the media on this.

But the media peeps are beginning!

At least one arm of the German mainstream media has reported this. In its Panorama section, German online daily Die Welt has an article about the recent trend, written by Ulli Kulke. The introduction reads:

Spring is just around the corner, at least from a meteorological point of view. However Germany is stuck in a record winter without sun and warmth.”

According to meteorologists, since daily sunshine measurements began in 1951, no DJF German winter has been so cloudy and dreary in Germany as this 2012/13 winter. Moreover the DJF mean temperature for the country was 0.6°C cooler than the 1981 – 2010 average. That makes it the fifth winter in a row this has occurred – a record.

Kulke quotes meteorologist Dominik Jung:

In this regard Jung says: ‘The earlier climate projections, i.e. the climate prognoses of the 1980s and 1990s, have, at least for Germany, more or less massively faltered over the last years.'”

The models have not only been wrong for the winters but also for the summers, Kulke writes, citing Jung on prognoses made for hotter and drier summers:

…of the last 10 summers only one was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003, […] otherwise all other summers were normal or too wet.”

What’s worse for the climate models the Met Office forecasts the cooler weather to continue at least through 2017, Kulke writes. Even IPCC chairman and ultra-warmist Rajendra Pachauri recently conceded the cool trend might last “30 or 40 years“.

Die Welt writes that the recent trend may provide “a tailwind in the climate discussion” for those who claim that “the impact of the sun on climate change over the last decades has been underestimated far too much, and that the role of CO2 exaggerated – which by and large has been supported by two new peer-reviewed studies in journals this year.”

Die Welt adds on the cosmic ray – cloud formation – cooling theory:

Theoretically this relationship has been known a long time. The parallelism between global temperature and solar activity over the past 1000 years appears to confirm it.”

Indeed the theory is so compelling that even CERN and the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen are conducting large scale, extensive experiments and studies on it. Die Welt now appears to be opening up to a new climate theory:

“…the results could deliver new explosive material for the climate discussion.”

This truly marks a change in direction for Die Welt.

No matter what is claimed, one thing is certain: The climate discussion is now progressing ahead in Germany with the massive, unstoppable inertia of a glacier, grinding to a pulp every false claim in its path.

Observe how the mainstream German media is coming around and conceding the discussion is indeed far from over, acknowledging that the solar theory is real and gathering in strength, and that warming has unexpectedly stopped.

Russian Arctic Scientist: Permafrost Changes Due To Natural Factors…”It’s Going To Be Colder”!

Sebastian Lüning’s and Fritz Vahrenholt’s an interesting view on permafrost from Russia. I’ve added some extra quotes from the video for non-German readers.

After widespread sea ice melt in the Arctic in the 1930s and 40s, the ice re-established itself. In the 1970s the temperature dropped and sea ice increased. In the 1970s and 90s at the Hudson Bay and Beaufort Sea, seals suffered under the extensive ice and the population fell dramatically.

In Siberia today the permafrost is supposed to be gradually melting, so we are told. But if you ask local Russian scientists, this cannot be confirmed (see video above).

Russian permafrost expert slaps down AGW

In the video a German journalist travels to Siberia and speaks with Russian permafrost expert Michali Grigoryev on the state of the permafrost (2007). Grigoryev shows the journalist a rare baby mammoth uncovered from the ice, and adds that such finds are becoming more and more frequent today. “Because of climate change”, the journalist asks at the 0:48 mark? Grigoryev answers:

No, you are wrong. The permafrost is not melting. There is no man-made climate change.”

The journalist then quotes the Russian scientist:

Indeed above at the surface it has gotten warmer, but that’s just part of a normal cycle. The permafrost is rock hard, And that is how it is going to stay. There’s no talk of thawing.”

At the 1:24 mark, the scientist says:

The cyclic warming is coming to an end. It is going to get colder soon. The climate depends on the sun and the oceans. Three factors have coincided and have warmed the climate, but in 8 to 15 years, it’s going to be colder again.”

As the clip was made in 2007, that means we have just 3 to 10 years left before the cooling sets in in earnest. We note that there’s been no warming in 15 years and that the signs for cooling are mounting.

In another from Siberia, multiple super warm periods were found over the last 2.8 million years. Those were certainly caused by purely natural processes, and not anthropogenic influences.

But let’s look at the more recent 10,000 years, i.e. the current interglacial. A German-Norwegian team led by Juliane Müller of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bermerhaven, Germany, recently discovered that the sea ice cover west of Greenland gradually increased from 8500 to 1000 years before present. Off Eastern Greenland sea ice pretty much remained constant during this period. The study appeared in July 2012 in the Quaternary Science Reviews.

In yet another study by a team led by Funder shows that the Arctic sea ice 8000 years ago was less than half of the minimum we saw in 2007. In the meantime most of the climate models are able to reproduce this lack of ice during the middle of the interglacial (Berger et al 2012, Climate of the Past Discussions). The cause of this warming and the ice melt in this case was the Milankovitch cycles.

Finally, we have the Medieval Warm Period back. Canadian scientists have just discovered that the Northwest Passage had been completely ice-free during the summer, which today is still not the case.

Solar Influence On Winter Severity In Central Europe, Dispels Junk Claim A Warm Arctic Causes Cold Winters

We’ve been hearing a lot of bogus “model science” asking us to believe the preposterous notion that a warm Arctic and reduced sea ice there “could” lead to bitter cold winters across Europe and North America. In summary the new science insists warming leads to more cold. Now there’s a new paper out in the Geophysical Research Letters titled: Solar influence on winter severity in Central Europe, which tells us this is a load of BS.

The sun has a major impact on climate. And there’s no denying it: solar activity reached record levels over the 20th century. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

The key points of the paper:

• Freezing of the Rhine occurred from 1780-1963 regularly during sunspot minima.
• Coldest winter continue to occur during sunspot minima even today.
• This cooling is a regional phenomenon, but not a hemispheric signal.

The authors used historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. They concluude:

The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.”

The cause of the rising average winter temperatures over the last decades will be attributed by some to greenhouse gases. But we have to recall that the sun not only undergoes 11-year cycles, but also, 22, 87 and 1000-year cycles. In happens that solar activity was at a very high level over the last decades, and so warming over the last decade, especially in combination with the warm phases of the PDO and AMO, should not surprise us at all.

As the paper says, the sun plays a major role, and so ignoring its cycles in models is just bad science. The tragedy of it all is that the solar cycles are known and they could be easily built into the models, which then in turn would gain immensely in value. But because they do not produce the desired results for activist scientists, they are left out and forcing tricks from other factors such as aerosols and volcanoes are used for explaining the inconvenient cool periods.