Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt present their monthly solar activity report at their Die kalte Sonne site.
In May the sun was very quiet as sunspot number was a mere 18.8, which is only 36% of what is typical for the month this far into the cycle. Seven days saw no sunspot activity at all.
The following chart shows the current cycle, Solar Cycle 24 (red), compared to the mean of the previous cycles (blue) and the similarly behaving SC 5 (black).
It’s clear that the current cycle is significantly weaker than the mean and far weaker than the cycles we saw throughout most of the warming 20th century. So far there have been a number of signs indicating that upcoming SC 25 will also be a weak one. Historically periods of weak solar activity are associated with cooler periods and altered weather patterns.
The current cycle SC 24 has been so quiet that it is in fact the weakest since SC 6, which took place close to 200 years ago.
The above chart shows the accumulated monthly anomaly for each cycle this far into the current cycle. Bosse and Vahrenholt write that SC 24 has a chance, though a very small one, to overtake SC 5 and become the second weakest cycle since observations began in 1755.
Arctic sea ice remains stubbornly thick
Arctic sea ice has been surprising many observers lately because it has so far refused to melt like some predicted it would. Tony Heller here writes that the Northwest Passage is “blocked by very thick ice in the Beaufort Sea“. Latest sea ice extent chart shows sea ice extent being back into the statistical pack. There are even forecasts that point the melt season may be a slow one, see Weatherbell Weekend Summary.
Ice blocks Arctic study
Little wonder that a scientific global warming expedition to the Arctic had to be cancelled – due to excessive ice! James Delingpole at Breitbart reports: “Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice“.
Dr. David Barber, lead scientist on the study, insisted that all the unexpected ice was caused by “climate change” — sort of like blaming obesity on a lack of calories.
Northern hemisphere snow cover well over normal
Also surprising in these times of “global warming” is that northern hemisphere snow cover is well above normal as of June 15, according to Environment Canada:
Snow cover over the northern hemisphere remains more than 1 standard deviation above the mean. Source: Environment Canada.
Greenland is also defying global warming. Kirye at Twitter tells us accumulated surface mass balance as computed by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) is far above the mean:
Accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt). Source: DMI.
El Nino 2017 disappearing before arriving
At Weatherbell meteorologist Joe Bastardi reports that the forecast El Nino for 2017 has weakened considerably over the past few months. As what appears to be a curve from Scripps, the curve has gone from a powerful projected El Nino to a La Nina in just over the course of a couple of months (watch Joe’s Weekend Summary for the details).
Source: Cropped from Weatherbell Weekend Summary.
If the revised forecasts hold, a cooling globe over the coming months is likely.
54 responses to “Lowest Solar Activity In 200 Years Accompanied By High Northern Hemispheric Snow And Ice”
” due to excessive ice! ”
too much ice at one place? really? This argument is weak beyond believe!
“It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions,” Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study,”
Their own words chatbot-sob!
So finally the ice age arrives? You know, the one you – Pierre – predicted in 2008 by telling people that global surface temperature would decrease to 2.5 °C below 1951-1980 mean by 2020.
Will you agree that man made global warming is real if that doesn’t happen?
Currently the artic sea ice extent is barely scratching the 2 standard deviations limit, meaning that ~96% of the records show higher ice extent. That’s not “being back into the pack”. In fact the extent today is almost the same extent as in 2016 and 2012 (a year with record low extent) at the same time in the year: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Is it really? Those SMB graphs … have you noticed they start at 0 and never end at 0? And yet we get graphs like this one: https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/greenland-cumulative-mass-loss-through-late-2013.jpg
That’s because the runoff is greater than the ice that is added yearly by snow. Or with the words on the linked dmi website: “Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.”
Greenland is definetly not defying global warming.
I guess we will see. What happens if you lose that bet?
‘Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet.” ‘
In other words, snow and ice accumulation in the interior pushes glaciers outwards, where they eventually calve into the ocean. Kinda like they have been doing for several hundred million years.
All this tells me is that there is so MUCH accumulation inland that the glaciers need somewhere to go- melting? not so much.
If this were “in balance” the same amount of ice would melt that gets added by snow over the year. It was pretty stable until “recently”, see: https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/greenland_mass_balance.gif
Calving increases when ice gets in contact with the warming ocean water. That’s also the case in parts of Antartica.
So tell me, exactly WHEN is a non-linear, chaotic energy system EVER in balance?
Between 3:55 and 4:00 PM on any 4th of July during an elephant stampede in your living room?
And what probability distribution best describes it? (love to see their answer to that)
Just keep your head buried in the sand Seb, sonny.
Chatbot-SebH blathers: – “Currently the artic sea ice extent is barely scratching the 2 standard deviations limit, meaning that ~96% of the records show higher ice extent.”
Only because the data for the meaningless cherry picked mean we’re carefully selected from a local maximum, which turns out to not be the highest maximum.
It’s called lying by omission, as Tony Heller points out here.
Lower solar activity, increased ice coverage? Some would say this contradicts the global warming theory??
Natural variability didn’t just seize to exist. Even when temperatures are going down, they can still be higher than they would have been without global warming.
An analogy for you: let’s say you won the lottery and let them pay out your prize via monthly rates (human contribution to global warming). Let’s also say you salary went up every few years (natural variability), but now you want to work only part time to spent more time with family. Your salary will go down (cooling), but you income will still be higher than it would have been without the lottery win. Got it? 😉
Just wait until they claim that human activity is effecting the Sun, which is the real driver of climate.
“a curve from Scripps, the curve has gone from a powerful projected El Nino
I don’t see that in the chart.
The highest is less than 0.5, so they were thinking in that direction in their MJJ forecast but I would not claim that as a forecast for a “powerful” event.
I suppose this is a subjective call.
I found the Weather Bell video that Pierre links to a lot clearer on that.
So higher CO2 results in lower sunspot activity? Obvious!
My response to Seb vanished the instant I hit ‘post.’
Just wait for it, the moderator usually restores those comments. Happens all the time because of some keywords that WordPress’ filters on this blog don’t like.
To be safe I sometimes make a copy, when I think of it. Last week I didn’t and the post was lost, permanently it seems.
Less Sun Spots = hotter Sun and here on June 19, 2017 in Arizona were are to expect 118 F and tomorrow 120 F. But the Jet Stream is pushed far North over the Western USA and dropped sharply over North central USA while curving sharply North in Eastern USA where there is strong wind and rain coming from the Gulf of Mexico to Greenland… Where there is expected to be more ice/snow forcast. Seems like the El Nino is still strong to me. Those high temperatures in the West are causing more evaporation of surface water’s and the jet stream is taking it to the Northeast. Kind of makes you think of how the Little Ice Age started that was noticed by the Eastern USA and Europe and yet no one was monitoring the temperature in the Western USA that was at that time undiscovered territory.
[…] Fonte: notrickszone […]
[…] Lowest Solar Activity In 200 Years Accompanied By High Northern Hemispheric Snow And Ice […]
As “Volcanic eruptions are triggered by cosmic rays” (Ebisuzaki et al 2011*), REPELLING those rays with tested Laser Plasma Shields, will stop devastating-COOLING electro-volcanic eruptions! https://LaserEarthShield.info *www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X10001966
It seems obvious that there is a misconception on what Solar Minimums and Maximums mean. Sun Spots are a Cooling of the Sun and the more there are the lower the Solar Radiation Minimizes is a Solar Maximum. That when there are very few Sun Spots the Solar Radiation Maximizes, but is called a Solar Minimum. At a Solar Minimum we get stronger and hotter El Nino’s that create more evaporation in the Equatorial Region that it carried higher into the atmosphere where it meets the Colder Atmosphere near the Poles and precipitates as all the frozen forms of water, because of the wider temperature variance, as fewer clouds form nearer the Equator. This creates short term Glacial Periods as seen in our past Holocene with the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age cooling in regional areas of the Northern Hemisphere and an increased Antarctic Ice as it now is. It then takes a Solar Maximum over decades to longer to create a more Tropical Equatorial Region as those Glaciers melt, bringing the Rain back toward the Equator. None of this is “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” and is Cyclic in it’s repatriation. What must be prepared for is colder winters that always follow El Nino’s and their duration is often dependent upon how long a Solar Minimum lasts, because of how much Ice is created at the Poles. And when there is more Ice at the Poles it creates stronger storms nearer the Equator during the Spring through Fall months…that is another trend in itself.
the anti-science presented here is indeed a path back to the dark ages.
why can every laymen here write stuff that contradicts 99% of what real scientists say?
“the anti-science presented here is indeed a path back to the dark ages.”
There have been 750 scientific papers published since 2016 that support a skeptical position on AGW alarm. Do you suppose the all those scientists are in the dark ages too?
Please read: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
When sunspots occur there are also bright “blotches” caused by the same phenomenon. When sunspots are facing Earth the radiation indeed decreases, but over a full solar rotation (30 days) those blotches beat the decrease and in total more radiation reaches Earth. That’s why we call it a solar maximum, because radiation is at a maximum.
LIBERAL-BOT ASKED Will YOU AGREE THAT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL IF THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN?
I’M ASKING WHEN WILL AL GORE ADMIT HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE WEATHER BUT GOT AN OSCAR FOR BEING STUPID BY HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITY IDIOTS!
FOR LIBERAL STOOGES LET ME EXPLAIN!
CLIMATE CHANGE = WEATHER
You can always know when their worried. Suddenly they demand that people prove there ISN’T warming when their own AGW hypothesis was falsified long ago.
STRIKE ONE: No Hot spot in the troposphere of the tropics as the physics behind the models demands.
STRIKE TWO: Demonstrated lack of skill in the models to forecast atmospheric temperatures.
STRIKE THREE: Demonstrated failure to predict the now agreed on existence of the hiatus in atmospheric warming.
Game over. Even though there are many more strikes against them.
STRIKE FOUR: The globe isn’t warming – only some regions are. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases. For example, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling since the 1970s. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about today’s climate. It is well within the range of natural variability.
“: The globe isn’t warming – only some regions are. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases. ”
Kenneth, you beat a pretty bad post by making a claim that is even more false. The idea that AGW has to be uniform all over the globe is totally bizarre.
If large regions of the globe aren’t warming, but cooling, is it accurate to say that “global” warming is, in fact, global?
The Arctic cooled by -1.5 C between the 1940s and 1990s. Since the 1990s, the Arctic has begun warming again. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean warmed during the 1950s to 1970s. Since then, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been cooling. Is it accurate to say that the poles have been warming if they’ve only undergone warming and cooling oscillations?
What I probably should have written is that the modern climate is well within the range of natural variability. There is nothing unprecedented or unusual about today’s temperatures. To alarm us about “global” warming, don’t you think we’d probably need to have something unusual happening to the globe right now? Don’t you think it should be warmer now than it was during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when 0-700 m ocean temperatures were 2.0 C above today’s levels even though CO2 was in the 260 ppm range? That doesn’t fit with the models, does it?
The DWD has a pretty nice globe image displaying the hot and cold spots on this planet in a chosen month compared to the same month or seaon in the 1961-1990 period: http://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/temperaturglobal/temperaturglobal.html
Warming is indeed not the same globally, nothing is the same globally. Yet we call the globe a globe. Global atmosphere, global economy, global communication network, etc …
Unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration caused by human emissions with no corresponding temperature increase beforehand is not unusual enough?
Why wouldn’t it? Human CO2 emissions are not the only thing that cause temperature change. They are acting on top of whatever nature does. And yes, natural changes in climate over long periods of time might have been bigger in the past than what we currently observe. That doesn’t change that we have a big influence right now.
I just randomly looked at about 10 months over the past year and half. Couldn’t help but notice the hot areas almost always were in places where there are very few stations, e.g. Siberia, Arctic, etc.
It doesn’t look all that “unprecedented” here: http://www.hyzercreek.com/co2.jpg
And it’s only “unprecedented” for the Pleistocene/Holocene if you believe that the selected values for the past CO2 concentrations are entirely accurate – and of course you believe that.
Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications. To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”; (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.
Can you explain why you believe in unprecedented temperature increases in response to CO2 when the entire Northern Hemisphere warmed up by 4-5 degrees C within a matter of a few decades while CO2 concentration didn’t budge, whereas anthropogenic forced temperatures have changed by just 0.05 C per decade since 1850 while CO2 has risen by 125 ppm? How does this affirm that CO2 is the cause?
“I just randomly looked at about 10 months over the past year and half. Couldn’t help but notice the hot areas almost always were in places where there are very few stations, e.g. Siberia, Arctic, etc.”
Pierre, you do not need to look randomly at anything. UAH had last year as the hottest on record. It is obvious from the data, that the globe is warming. No need for a biased eyeball estimate. Pure facts.
UAH and RSS had 2016 as statiscially tied with 1998. The 0.01 – 0.02 difference is larger than the margin of error.
You need to look at scale at the bottom. Warming since the 60s according to woodfortrees is around 0.8 degrees or something. That’s the first yellowish color on the scale.
You should maybe look at geological history then and maybe realize that the planet looked very different in those times. 300 million years ago, there was no connection between South and North America, there was no middle sea, etc. Use your imagination what could have been the reasen that CO2 levels decreased so drastically 300 million years ago. Sudden rise of plants?
And you write it yourself: “if you believe that the selected values for the past CO2 concentrations are entirely accurate” …
One more time, the current increase in CO2 levels is unprecedented and human caused: http://imgur.com/a/yru36
It is far greater than any natural variation that happened in the same timespan, see woodfortree graphs in the other thread.
And last but not least: CO2 is not the only driver of temperature changes, but it currently is most likely the main driver! Therefore: unpresedented!
“STRIKE ONE: No Hot spot in the troposphere of the tropics as the physics behind the models demands.
STRIKE TWO: Demonstrated lack of skill in the models to forecast atmospheric temperatures.
STRIKE THREE: Demonstrated failure to predict the now agreed on existence of the hiatus in atmospheric warming.”
This is uneducated nonsense.
The hotspot should be there, with the warming. it is not a specific thing of AGW.
the models are doing fine. you are only looking at UAH data and you are stuck on the pause. it is over.
yeah, the pause again. you do not even notice that two of your three points are the same thing?
sod, the greenhouse theory is built on there being a tropospheric hotspot. The IPCC’s first several reports featured it, as it’s an important part of their models. Since it’s not shown up, people like you say that it’s not important anyway, never mind.
Dr. David Evans, 2008
So then why did the IPCC admit in 2013 that 111 out of 114 climate models failed to simulate the pause (their word: hiatus)?
There has been 0.1 C of warming since 1998 according to RSS, UAH. That’s 0.05 C per decade. And that’s with +40 ppm CO2 added. That’s not even statistically significant.
Hedemann et al., 2017
The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.
1. The physics upon which the models predictions are based and the GCMs they produce demands that a persistent hot spot over the tropics exist in the upper troposphere. If it was there I would be detected by satellite/radiosonde data and in lapse rates. It has never shown. To fail to admit this FACT is the height of folly or self delusion.
2. The lack of skill in almost predicting the atmospheric temperatures in almost all of the climate models the IPCC has relied upon cannot be questioned based on the Satellite data sets and Radiosonde data which closely agree. Again self delusion.
3. Now after first admitting “the pause” existed and making over 60 excuses for it, them denying it and making over 60 excuses for it, and then once again denying it just in time for the Paris meeting, the same group of “scientists” have finally admitted once again that “the pause” occurred AND that the climate models failed to predict it.
Even Mann agrees it occurred.
Hotspot … this one?
2) Is that so? Models aren’t too far away from satellite data and almost match for ground measured data. http://imgur.com/a/sXjtE
3) The pause existed? Maybe we should all switch to heat content instead of temperatures … the oceans continued to warm significantly and at a rate that is consistent with the CO2 forcing. Kenneth likes to write that the Sun is the reason ocean heat content increased … but why hasn’t the Sun caused higher atmospheric temperatures then (the pause)? The pause/hiatus is also not really visible in ground measured data, is it? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/offset:-318/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp/from:1958/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/offset:0.14/mean:12/plot/rss/offset:0.30/mean:12/plot/uah6/offset:0.43/mean:12 (includes satellite data as well, and CO2 concentration)
Global Ground measured data is worthless for determining a average global surface temperature. Even the MET has gone with satellite data. Global surface station coverage is worse than spotty with huge areas being filled in by interpolation. There is no consistent set of stations reporting year to year and those that do are few and far between in places like S. America and Interior Africa. Further NOAA and NASA GISS arbitrarily select the ones from which they use data for their reports with no explanation given as to the reason for their omissions and selections.
The already significant and ever growing discrepancy between the satellite data sets and radiosonde data which closely agree and the CIMP-5 climate model ensemble upon which the IPCC relies cannot be disputed.
Can you link to a current version of that graph that includes data until 2017?
It looks like satellite temperature data (which isn’t measuring at ground level, is it?) does tend to overshoot ground based measurements in the extremes. But I don’t see how they deviate by very much?
And then there is also this, from the scientist who adjusts RSS temperature data, so they match over time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
In what way do either of those papers affirm that modeled expectations for a tropospheric hotspot have occurred? They just claim that if we adjust our measurements, they become more consistent with models than if we don’t adjust.
According to Wunsch and Heimbach (2014) “the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin” cooled below 2000 meters between 1992 and 2011. Is that consistent with CO2 forcing?
Yes. Even the IPCC acknowledged that. That’s why 111 of 14 (98%) of climate models failed to simulate it according to the IPCC.
Hedemann et al., 2017
“The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
Yes it is. But you’ll intentionally missunderstand whatever I write … so I’ll let you use your imagination here. Hint: the oceans have currents.
So when oceans cool, it is consistent with AGW forcing. When oceans warm, it is consistent with AGW forcing. When 0-1000 m ocean temperatures rise by 2 C within 200 years without any changes in CO2, it is consistent with AGW forcing.
When 0-20 m ocean temperatures rise by 1.3 C in 45 years (1900-’45) while CO2 concentrations change by <10 ppm, this is consistent with AGW. And yet when 0-20 m ocean temperatures only rise by 0.3 C in 65 years (1945-2010) while CO2 concentrations rise by 80 ppm, this, too, is consistent with AGW.
What you have here is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Another name for an unfalsifiable hypothesis is a belief.
No, what we have here is someone not understanding what I am writing (intentionally or not). I don’t think that is because of my bad Englisch.
Imagine a pool of water and you use a small immersion coil to heat the water (= CO2 forcing). Now someone throws either ice cubes or glowing hot stones into that pool. Do you think the immersion coil stops heating the water when ice cubes are thrown into it? The pool is certainly cooling.
I hope that you’ll someday understand mechanisms that are not one-to-one, but are a bit more complicated. You are linking to a lot of papers describing them and yet you demonstrate here that you have no clue what you disagree with.
Your link was to a discussion about a paper dated June 13, 2013! Try to keep up to date please.
The old adage, after being proven wrong, a liberal can always be counted on to change the subject (the basis for the argument) is once again in play.
When satellite temperature data called into question the model projections, and after manifold attempts to alter the data record were exposed, then the warmist camp decided ex post facto that it was not global temperature, but heat content (of the oceans) that mattered after all.
The gig is up, boys. Die Zeit ist um.
Seems everyone only talks about temperatures. As we can’t agree on whether they have been fiddled or not look at something else. What else is important?? How about amount, location, and intensity of rain. Number i ntensity, and location of hurricanes etc. The IPCC and peopl,e like SOD don’t like to talk about those things because model performance is so bad with those events that it is laughable. Models of on,.y one variable in a complex system is meaningless even if that one variable was perfectly projected.
[…] P. Gosselin from F. Bosse and F. Vahrenholt, June 18, […]