A sleeping sun could have a big impact on the UK's climate

Welcome to the real world - what took you so long?



Anybody taking bets on the Thames being frozen by 2035?

Opportunities to study the Sun in its present, very unusual and unpredictable state don't come along everyday. I agree, whether its linked to AGW or not, funding should be made available for this.

Will the £10 million the Met Office have asked for to make their long range forecasts better take into consideration these solar factors?

"Anybody taking bets on the Thames being frozen by 2035?"



I heard the Thames can't freeze anymore. When frost fairs were held the Thames, the river was different - iirc it flowed slower - meaning that it could become iced over.

#4. - quake



"I heard the Thames can't freeze anymore. When frost fairs were held the Thames, the river was different - iirc it flowed slower - meaning that it could become iced over."

I think you are correct. Conditions in the Thames are now completely different in many ways to those which existed in those days.

Some interesting reviews on sun activity ( or lack of it) research on www. wattsupwiththat.com . It is obvious that there isn't complete consensus by scientists on the effect - real or apparent- of CO2 on climate in general and global warming in particular.

That we are putting all our eggs in the CO2 basket could prove a very costly mistake for mankind. The planet - bless it - having seen climatic variations going beyond the catastrophic, will roll on regardless whether we are still on it or not.

And as for those fortunates who are milking the wind-power bandwagon I say good luck to them. They have found the 'Emperor's Clothes' and people daft enough to pay for them, so CO2 can't be all bad.

Paul I am a little concerned if scientist have only just discovered that the sun causes Global warming. I discovered that back in 2006 and I am not a so called scientist, but use common sense. I was working for a Carbon Management company at the time and had to leave them, after finding out Global warming by man was a hoax. I sent you an email about this a few years ago and you disputed what I was saying. Before 1000AD, the Romans were growing vines in Britain because it was so warm, in the dark ages the Thames froze over because there was no sun spot activity. After the 2nd world war and all the industrial production going off, the temperature of the world dropped. Ask anybody around at the time about the winter of 1947. In 1976, they were talking about an min ice age, that never came. I am concerned that we have no plan, for food production and prices are escalating for keeping our houses warm in winter.

We are currently in Solar Cycle 24 which started Jan 4, 2008 marked by the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot. The predictions concern Solar cycle 25.



This site is dedicated to solar activity...



https://www.spaceweather.com/



It has quite a few links and an alert service for geomagnetic weather caused by solar storms. If the suns magnetic field weakens it allows more cosmic rays into the solar system and these are associated with lightning strikes here on earth. This blog on the Dalton Minimum...



https://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/



gives some useful links too. There has been an increase in observed noctilucent cloud formation. So something is going on up there with the physics that create these tiny ice crystals.

"Before 1000AD, the Romans were growing vines in Britain because it was so warm"



there were vineyards in Britain during the little ice age

#4



You seem to have bought into one of the MANY warmists' lies...

The thing is nobody knows what will happen to the next solar cycle and what the consequences will be yet we are told by our politicians that the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a flatearther. Blair Milliband Brown Cameron Huhne & Clegg what a bunch of Shermans



smoke me a kipper

As you say, interesting times. Between climatic warming or cooling - as far as UK goes - I would fear the latter more than the former. The historical accounts of cooling after the "Medieval warm period" make uncomfortable reading.



A few anomalies are perhaps worth noting: Arctic cooling was v. marked (unlike today); storminess increased (contrary to Paul H comment); there were some unusually hot summers as well as cold ones in Little Ice Age - increased variability and extremes perhaps being more of a characteristic of the period. If the latter proves the case it will be amusing to see factions arguing over whether this is due to global warming or cooling!



Incidentally Quake: grapes were grown here in the LIA - but only in walled gardens and not very successfully. Also we have benefited from 2000 years of grape breeding and improvement since Roman times. Roman grapes were likely to have been much closer to Mediterranean originals than varieties grown in the north today, so by implication probably needed very favourable conditions to have been worth growing here (unless Roman taste in wine was decidedly unfussy!).

6. pipcath wrote:



"It is obvious that there isn't complete consensus by scientists on the effect - real or apparent- of CO2 on climate in general and global warming in particular"



That's right pipcath; the consensus among climate specialists that CO2 is the main cause of the observed temperature rise is only 97.5%, with a further 1.5% undecided and all the rest of the remaining 1% rejecting CO2 but disagreeing about what the cause might actually be.



And I read on 'Answers in Genesis' that "many Ph.D. scientists...reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture", so disagreement about evidence in the fields of biology and geology also appears to be about as equally widespread.

13. At 23:23 17th Jun 2011, newdwr54 wrote:

That's right pipcath; the consensus among climate specialists that CO2 is the main cause of the observed temperature rise is only 97.5%, with a further 1.5% undecided and all the rest of the remaining 1% rejecting CO2 but disagreeing about what the cause might actually be.



What utter nonsense... One, the survey carried out to determine this "made up" percentage will have been a sham. Two, even if the "made up" percentage were true it does not mean the consensus is right!



Fewer and fewer people are believing this drivel. If your livelihood depends on the CO2=AGW scam then I would suggest you begin looking for alternative employment. When the lid finally comes of this and the real investigative journalists begin their work, it is not going to be pretty.

14. nibor25 wrote:



1: "...the survey carried out to determine this "made up" percentage will have been a sham..."



No, it's in the peer reviewed literature: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract



2: "...even if the "made up" percentage were true it does not mean the consensus is right!"



That's true; and the world might be 6,000 years old like 'Answers in Genesis' says.



"If your livelihood depends on the CO2=AGW scam then I would suggest you begin looking for alternative employment."



My livelihood is heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry, alas. I'm considering a career change, but who would have me?

newdwr54 . . .it's late, so I really should be going to bed rather than posting from alcohol diminished memory but isn't your 'peer reviewed literature' the one that has been thoroughly debunked (numerous times) as more accurately representative of around 70 people?

And you work in the fossil fuel industry - thank god for that, we'll need people with your skills over the coming years. From your previous difficulty in understanding QV's stats, I was beginning to think you were an Environmental Health Officer.

With all due respect to other contributors on this site I really cannot believe the level of debate here. To even contemplate that the star we call the sun, which is in a permanent state of nuclear reaction, has a million times the mass of Earth and from which we derive all of our heat, can not be the major driver of our climate through the variation in its radiative output, is clearly ridiculous in my humble opinion.

Fudsdad, I totally agree and have been switched onto that idea the last 5 years. Until the scientists measure the effect of the suns warming or cooling, we won't have the true answer. It shows that so called intelligent people, can lack the basic factor of common sense. It doesn't give me a lot of faith in the scientific community. I totally agree that we should be looking for greener, cheaper and more sustainable forms of energy, but I don't like Global warming being used as an excuse to tax me and then for the tax to be used for other reasons like the NHS.

Wow! GISS May temperature anomoly is out down to +0.42 from last month of +0.55

NCDC is also down. I wonder what HadCRUT3 will turn out to be.

The last London frost fair took place in 1814, right in the middle of the "Dalton Minimum". It began on 1 February, and lasted four days. An elephant was led across the river below Blackfriars Bridge. I am not entirely convinced about the arguments that it could not occur today. If William Hill offered odds over the next 20 years I think I would consider them.

Here's a list of sixteen studies predicting a cooler climate that have not been taken seriously by the "concensus".



When talking about current knowledge in climate science just be wary that there is true science happening out there by the foot soldiers that you will probably never get to hear about. The main current theme for climate science is the version publicised by a media and politically savy small group intent on ensuring that their theory remains the focus of attention when funding is allocated.



https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/past-prophesies-of-future-solar-inactivity-and-cooler-climate/



There should be now be a risk assesment of the effects of a cooling climate for a modern industrial society on a regional basis, which is one of the reasons I don't trust the IPCC who only provide the assesments for a warming climate.



We will probably find that although temperatures will follow the previous examples of the Maunder or Dalton minimums that modern society is not as vunerable as the societies present during these previous lows.



As far as increased CO2 levels saving us from a new little ice age, I would expect this to receive the same scorn as the now defunct predictions of increased temperatures of 2-6 degrees by 2100, 95% confidence level in the completely wrong direction, at what cost!

#NeilHamp



As I understand it, the reasons for the non freezing Thames today are due to physical factors: such as the old London bridge (which used to cause ice jams) no longer being there, combined with a generally easier flow of water today. Also considerable artificial heating due to industrial waste and power stations etc. If the latter had been absent - the Thames might have frozen in1963 and perhaps other years.



Nowadays, I believe it is possible to find feral tropical fish in parts of the river! Similar conditions occur in other industrial rivers. In Sheffield - a colony of self regenerated figs is known, that apparently dates (no pun intended!) from a time when quantities of warm water were released into the river by industrial processes.



So, for this and other reasons, I wouldn't rush to place your bets just yet. But who knows - with the increasing "energy saving" going on today, the odds of river freezing might increase even if the climate remains steady.

#19. - NeilHamp wrote:

"Wow! GISS May temperature anomoly is out down to +0.42 from last month of +0.55

NCDC is also down. I wonder what HadCRUT3 will turn out to be."

Please see my post(s) in the "Deluge" blog.

HadCRUT3 seems late this month.

I wonder if it might be that they don't believe it and are double checking?

#10. - dispozest wrote:

"#4

You seem to have bought into one of the MANY warmists' lies..."



I don't understand. Surely the contention that it was easier for the Thames to freeze over in the past is an argument against "warming".

That is, it is saying that if conditions were now identical to those then, the river would still freeze over?

And as regulars here will know, I am not a "warmist".

Or am I once again, failing to detect irony in quake's post?

#8. - Crytic wrote:

"We are currently in Solar Cycle 24 which started Jan 4, 2008 marked by the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot. The predictions concern Solar cycle 25."

I am a bit surprised by that date, since going entirely on sunspot numbers, I would have said that cycle 24 began around September 2009. As far as I can tell, back in January 2008, sunspot numbers were still in decline from cycle 23.

Of course, the precise point at which a cycle starts will have a bearing on whether the number of spots is considered low for any point in the cycle. It will also have a bearing on whether a cycle is considered "late".

Still, I suppose that whoever determined that cycle 24 started in Jan. 2008, must know what they were doing.

newdwr54,

In view of your mention on the prevous blog about AQUA CH5 anomalies for June, I thought you would be interested in the current cumulative anomalies for this year, compared to 2005 and 2010.



Anomaly at June 15th:



2005 +0.138 degrees

2010 +0.383 degrees

2011 -0.104 degrees



Otherwise, by this measure, it this year is 0.242 degrees cooler than 2005 and 0.487 degreees cooler than 2010, and and unless temperatures for the remainder of the year soar, there doesn't seem to be slightest chance that this year will get anywhere near those years.

At the moment, based on this measurement, this year is looking somewhere between 2008 (HadCRUT3 0.312c) and 2009 (HadCRUT3 0.439c), which would probably put 2011 in 11th place, although the actual cumulative HadCRUT3 so far for this year, 0.277c, puts it in 13th.

In case someone mentions it, the figure of 0.277c for this year to date is from the UKMO data files and seems lower than the cumulative mean of 0.299c, calculated from the monthly figures from January to April.

I don't know when the UKMO figure was calculated, so it may not be up to date.

Also, the UKMO don't calculate their annual figure from monthly figures, so it may have been calculated differently.

Increasing cold with rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Who would have believed it.



This solar research has been reported by NASA and NOAA, and others with a much smaller media footprint. Certainly the 11 year cycle would appear to be fragmenting. Cooling climates driven be fewer sunspots. Svensmark is rubbing his hands in glee.



Perhaps we can now get down to studying the climate cycles and their drivers not assume that when we are on the rising part of a cycle that rise will continue for ever. It might also get ideas that CO2 does it all pushed to the rubbish bin as it should be.



Time for some climate scientists to grow up to reality and start some real work.

Many will have seen the coverage given by BBC Newsnight last Thursday evening (June 16) to the report by the American National Solar Observatory (NSO) about reduced sunspot activity in period 24 and the prediction that solar radiation levels reaching Earth will reduce further in period 25 to the extent that a return to the conditions of the 'Maunder Minimum' will recur with the associated effects upon climatological conditions.



On Newsnight Kirsty Wark introduced this news story. In the studio were the BBC's science correspondent and Ken Caldeira, of the IPCC Steering Group together with Doug Parr, Chief Scientist with Greenpeace.



Most regrettably Dr Frank Hill, Associate Director of the NSO's Solar Synoptic Network was not present to give a balanced discussion to the debate.



The findings and predictions made by the NSO scientists were dismissed out of hand

and (somewhat predictably) greenhouse gases and CO2 emissions were cited to be the reason why mean average temperatures were likely to continue to increase by 2100 to substantially higher levels.



I have complained to the BBC Newsnight Editor by e mail about the lack of balance in this whole piece. We know from reading the posts on this website that the scientific facts do not confirm the hypotheses and theories still circulating about AGW-induced global warming as postulated in the 'Stern Review' of 2006/7 and yet the inaccuracies are still being trotted out in live debate on BBC TV.



The whole subject of solar radiation, sunspot activity and the likely influence upon Earth's mean average temperatures and hence climate needs far more than a few minutes TV coverage at 10.30pm in the evening.



Mr Hudson - an opportunity for you!

John Marshall. I 2nd that. Probably the mini ice age they predicted in 1976 will now become true. It would be great to see the Thames freeze over again and for Christmas fairs to be held on it again. But then again we have the H&S police.

#29. - Paul Latham wrote:

"The findings and predictions made by the NSO scientists were dismissed out of hand

and (somewhat predictably) greenhouse gases and CO2 emissions were cited to be the reason why mean average temperatures were likely to continue to increase by 2100 to substantially higher levels."

It's a pity I missed that, I wonder if it is on iPlayer?

It is typical of the BBC that they should go ahead with the programme without ensuring

that both sides of the case were represented. It's like having a trial without a defence lawyer.

I am not dissapointed however, that the warmists continue to paint themselves into a corner on "climate change", since it is going to be all the more enjoyable when it comes to them having to explain why they were wrong.

This will probably not be published as the BBC seem to have a 'D' notice on him, but Piers Corbyn has been accurately predicting the weather using his Solar/Lunar techniques for years. (www.weatheraction.com) Meanwhile, the BBC fails to mention the complete lack of independance of the IPCC as exemplified by its publication of policy recommendations based on vested interests of NGOs such as Greenpeace. (www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace) Instead the BBC jumps on every hiccough in the decommissioning of Fukushima, spreading ever more FUD and completely failing in its remit to educate.

I hope you will read about the Cloud research presently conducted at CERN. Prof. Kirkby is testing Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's (1997) observation that global cloud cover correlates closely with galactic cosmic ray intensity. His team at CERN has been conducting cloud chamber tests under laboratory conditions to discover the mechanism. This has yielded very promising results and is due for publication in the next few months.



Their proposal is simple: Although clouds retain some of the Earth’s warmth, for most types of cloud this is more than compensated by an increased reflective loss of the Sun’s radiation back into space. So more clouds in general mean a cooler climate — and fewer clouds mean global warming. The Earth is partly shielded from cosmic rays by the magnetic disturbances carried by the solar wind. When the solar wind is strong, at the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle, fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth. The observed variation of cloud cover was only a few per cent over the course of a sunspot cycle. Although this may appear to be quite small, the possible long-term consequences on the global radiation energy budget are not.



[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

I came across a very interesting blog by a Stephan Wilde, another amateur who is interested in weather and climate. The article is about how the Sun can affect Earths climate, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

The article is on Irish Weather Online and the url is

https://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html Have a read its worth it..

Ken

Why did the Mods remove my link?



Sigh - here it is again. https://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_proposal.pdf

Why is it that time and time again the only place in the whole BBC to get a balanced objective account and discussion of what is really interesting in the debate on weather and climate change is here on Paul Hudsons blog? Is it because Paul is the only person in the BBC who has the knowledge? Or is it because such articles which challenge mainstream thinking would not be allowed from a larger platform in London by the BBC hierachy? It is such a real shame that because this blog is promoted from Look North in Leeds, and not from London, so many BBC licence fee payers will not even know it exists.

#35 - TallyHo wrote:

"Why did the Mods remove my link? "

Was it clearly separated from the rest of the text?

For anyone interested, the Newsnight programme on the sun is still available on iPlayer, although only until the 23rd., from this location:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120y31/Newsnight_16_06_2011/

Firstly I thought it was interesting that the BBC Science Editor, Susan Watts stated as fact that the more sunspots you have, the warmer the planet is, and the fewer you have, the cooler it is, and I don't think it is as clear cut as that.

Also, Dr Lucie Green, stated that the sun was unusually quiet and that it would continue to get quieter, which again I don't think is the case. As far as I am concerned, the Sun, based on sunspot numbers, is just at the beginning of cycle 24, i.e. at month 21 of a possible 132 months, and will not reach it's maximum until around 2013, so I don't know how anyone can currently say that it's going to get quieter from now on.

She actually said that from now on, "the sunspot number will drop and drop", but I can only see it rising for the next 2 years.

Watts went on to say that any effects of a "quiet sun" woudn't be sufficient to offset the effects of CO2 emissions, obviously blissfully unaware that temperatures have actually been falling by some measures over the last 10 years and that most of the model projections in the various IPCC models were excessive, even most of those in the "commitment" scenario, which assumes zero growth in greenhouse gasses.

I was also surprised that Ken Caldeira said that if the emissions from the volcanic eruption in 1991 had stayed in the stratosphere, that would have been enough to offset all of the expected warming over the next century, since the global HadCRUT3 anomaly only fell by 0.14c between 1991 and 1992. Clearly he was using one of the lower estimates of future warming.

But most of the programme seemed to be a discussion of the merits of geoengineering solutions, not about the likely effects of a "quiet sun".

God help us if some of those suggestions ever get off the drawing board, since they will probably make matters worse.

Outrageous! Just watched the Newsnight clip - thanks QV.

A feature on sunspots and the cooling effect of a quiet sun was hijacked by the "catastrophic climate change" issue and the possibility of geo-engineering projects to counteract it. Everyone totally bought in and signed up to the IPCC view and no balance whatsoever.

A graph:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html

The Skeptical Science graphs show no actual recorded warming for ten years so what is your point exactly Quake? It is all model projections and we know what we think of them because they are already wrong.

Quake # 40



still pushing John Cook's true believer site I see. Interesting comment form one of his acolytes reads something like this



"Badgersouth at 04:11 AM on 17 June, 2011

@Albatross #7:



Kudos on your repsonse to Poodle.



BTW, Joe Romm is now using the word "disinformer" rather than "denier." Perhaps we should follow suite?"



How sweet is that! Sums it all up eh bro. These guys are really down where it's at. Tribalism at its best. I think we should all follow 'suite'.



As I said - how suite is that!



Smoke me a kipper

I only present the skepticalscience graph to show what the mainstream (including my) position is on this - any maunder-like minimum is not going to have a significant global cooling effect.



That's especially so given the expected future warming.

Another reason why I don't think a Maunder Minimum would have a significant impact on global temperature is from looking at reconstructions of global temperature across the Maunder Minimum period (~1650-1700). There doesn't appear to be a particularly large cooling impact in that period.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

#40. -, quake wrote:

"A graph:"

A graph on the "Skeptical Science" website.

A site with possibly the least appropriate name on the internet!

#43 - quake wrote:

"That's especially so given the expected future warming."

You may "expect" it, but how you can do so in view of past performance

of the models is beyond me.

Have you not read anything I have posted about IPCC model accuracy over the last few weeks?

I am not a fan of the "maunder minimum" theory myself, but any impact will be felt

on much lower temperatures than are currently being projected by the IPCC models.

#39. - Fudsdad wrote:

"Outrageous! Just watched the Newsnight clip - thanks QV.

A feature on sunspots and the cooling effect of a quiet sun was hijacked by the "catastrophic climate change" issue and the possibility of geo-engineering projects to counteract it. Everyone totally bought in and signed up to the IPCC view and no balance whatsoever."

Kirsty Wark didn't do herself any favours either, by all that talk about spotty teenagers at the start of the item. I don't think that the Newsnight audience needs the discussion to be dumbed down to that level. It was also clear that she hadn't the slightest clue what she was talking about. We can't all be experts on every field of science, especially recent developments, but the sunspot cycle is fairly basic stuff.

Still haven't had time to look seriously at the implications of the upward adjustment of the sea level rise figures, but I have come across this recent article on the Fox News website.

https://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

If this article is to believed, then the plan was to add 0.3mm to actual sea level rise each year to take account of isostatic rebound. It seems to me that this could give the appearance of the sea level rising when based on actual levels at the coast.

This is further complicated of course by the fact that isostatic rebound varies over the whole of the earth, and despite the impression given in the article, land is actually sinking in some places, so to get the real effect at any given location, you would have to take the local rebound figure into account. Presumably the 0.3mm figure is a global average, although how that can be measured accurately is beyond me. It seems to me that what is required are two measures, actual sea level and ocean volume, if such a thing can be measured accurately.

quake . . .

just out of interest, take a look at the 1850 - 1950 SSN and compare it against the temp record for the same period. One might say (rather unscientifically) that when SSN regularly max out around 100 albeit with the odd spike here and there, the temp record stays quite flat.

Temp rises seem to occur when SSN are well above 100. Maunder minimums SSN barely get above above zero in comparison.

Looks like we've only got two or three months until CERN publish their results of the CLOUD project... I must admit, the proposal pdf (thanks for the link TallyHo) made some very interesting reading and if their theories contained in the pdf are proved correct, it's the end for AGW.

Look on the bright side chaps- it would seem that old Sol has handed us a falsifiable test for the cAGW theory.



If temperatures fall or stall (a small rise would still 'support' the theory, given it's loose criteria) then cAGW is incorrect.



i Await with baited breath. And a cuppa.

If these predictions are correct then apart from poor weather we will have problems with farming. Cooler, dryer springs and summers will lead to poor crops. One saving grace. If the atmospheric CO2 content continues to increase there will be the added plus of better growth with lower water use, a function found in all experiments of crop growth under a higher CO2 atmosphere.



Whether we will be able to afford the energy to keep warm is another matter.

The May HadCRUT3 figure is still not published.

In fact according to the UKMO, it hasn't been calcultated yet and they hope to have

the figure by the end of the week.

They must be busy!

Over on Richard Black’s blog “Solar predictions bring heat and light” he is posting a lot of alarmist statements.



I like this one from Joanna Haigh; "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.”



This seems a terribly naïve understanding of consequences. Let’s assume we have another 70 years of cold weather which results in the disastrous state of affairs as described by the contemporary reports of the time. In the Northern Hemisphere there will be deaths from the resulting famine. The poor diet will result in greater susceptibility to disease. The reduction in population will result in less AGW so if the carbon link is true [ I’m still not frying even though we have had massive increases in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years ] we see might minimal rises in global temperature until the population recovers. Of course war might result in someone chucking nuclear weapons around causing a ‘nuclear winter’.



I note that on his blog comments are severely restricted in length, is this a deliberate act to stifle the debate?

David Whitehouse has a very good article about Richard Black's comments on the solar minimum.



https://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3259-solar-science-little-ice-ages-and-journalism.html



Its rather long but worth reading

#54 - oldgifford wrote:

"Over on Richard Black’s blog “Solar predictions bring heat and light” he is posting a lot of alarmist statements.

I like this one from Joanna Haigh; "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.”"



I would prefer the word "predicted", rather than "expected", but I think the latter was the word used by the BBC science editor, Susan Watts, used on Newsnight.

If these people looked at how much temperatures had actually increased on the first 10 years, instead of having total blind faith in the IPCC projections, their "expectations" might be somewhat different.

Re 55.



Richard Black's reporting on the matter is fine. The numbers he provides are mirrored by the press release from the American Astronomical Society (that the GWPF even links to!) which ends with:



"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing.""

#57



Ah yes.. Richard Black, that unbiased, balanced reporter of alarmist clap trap.



It's much worse than we thought.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479



But then again it is really?



https://www.climatedepot.com/a/11561/BBC--AP-Conned-Expert-Report-on-dire-state-of-oceans-produced-by-NGO-lobbying-outfit--It-was-just-a-couple-dozen-ecowarriors-in-a-room-chatting-about-their-fears



And to think I used to believe the BBC...

Id trust the BBC a lot more than "climatedepot". I think we all know what the purpose of climatedepot is, and it aint truth.

nibor25 . . that's a scream, well spotted.



quake . .""We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood."



Still very poorly understood? This is not correct surely. I thought that they had ruled out any chance that the sun plays a significant role in temps here on earth. Settled science, nails in coffin etc. etc. Sounds like some people are feeling a little nervous about the prospect of actually being able to compare observations with models when one of the inputs changes.



I would agree that a return to mini ice-age conditions is a bit of a leap over the course of one or two solar cycles. If for a moment we hypothesise that the sun plays the dominant role in 'climate change', then we should see that it's taken a century or so to heat up the planet to current levels. One might reasonably assume that it could take quite while to cool down before mini-ice age conditions take hold.

#59



Of course you would.



The review was actually carried out by a guy called Ben Pile of https://www.climate-resistance.org/about-2



Climate Depot just supplied the link as they do on many occasions. Is Ben Pile's review of the process that created this Alarmist report accurate? Don't know, suggest someone, with the time, investigate further.

@Paul Briscoe



Thanks for the pointer to co2science, they've a shedload(very scientific term - meaning lots) more papers and studies covering the MWP than I'd managed to collect :-)



Excellent work, mate - Losing an argument over the existence of the MWP, must agree with you.....



Seems that our only bone of contention, now that it's existence is acknowledged is whether you and your favourite website think it was global or not ;-)



Oops, and whether you said or intimated that you had some isotopic studies that didn't have one in. As I've previously stated - I've not seen one, that didn't have a period of elevated temps in it analogous to the MWP, but it seems that neither have you, as I've asked and not received quite a number of times now.



And with regards to this:



"What’s worse is that you’ve now admitted that you KNEW there were serious question marks over this paper, yet you served it up as “evidence” anyway, without any caveats, in your attempts to discredit a website that says things you don’t like. I can only presume from your repeated taunts that I’m “not very good at this” that you presumed I would lack the competence to spot the flaws!"



Actually, that's not true.



I was unaware of the criticisms of it, but having read/re-read both those and the paper in question it would seem that Mr McIntyre has a number of valid points, but in the same manner, if one is to accept him as an authority in these matters, then you'll also need to accept his criticisms of both Mann and Kaufmans work. Indeed, in their particular regard, their failings are both directly manipulative and repeated.



I'm not sure his criticisms of the Sargasso Sea paper were quite so damning:



He argues there are some calibration problems and that as a result of that and the assumed forcing of the salinitity, it's producing a forced fit. There may still be some valid data contained within it. Indeed, Mcintyre states as much and he further says that it needs some re-analysis at some point.



So, given this new (to me) information, I'm quite happy to exclude this paper from our discussions. As, as I said previously, that still leaves me with lot's more data than it does you.



With further regards to the “You’re not very good at this” statement, time with tell, but as it stands at the moment my opinion has not changed.



Regards,



One of the Lobby

This article has come up on the GWPF website (if warmists can bring themselves to read it):

https://thegwpf.org/science-news/3267-new-sea-level-study-divides-climate-researchers-.html

I thought it interesting that according to the article, the researchers say that sea level rose by 5cm/century for 400 years, starting in the 11th century, due to the Medieval Warm Period.

Is this actually evidence that the MWP was more extensive than previously thought?

Apart from that, the reliability of the research seems to be in some doubt.

blunderbunny



I suspect that others here would probably prefer it if we did not hijack another thread. If you want to believe that you "won" our "debate" on the previous thread that's fine by me because it is ultimately what we both wrote back there that will be used to judge us.



I put the word debate in inverted commas because it was NOT a proper debate. You repeatedly failed to properly read what I had written (nothing has changed in your latest comments either!). When I made sound reasoned arguments you either ignored them or misrepresented them in your "response". You misquoted (or failed to properly check) scientific papers. You ignored scientific evidence which clearly undermined what you were claiming. You accused hard-working scientists of manipulation and dishonesty based solely on the assertions of blogs and tried to use this as supporting "evidence" in favour of your position. You also say you have more data than me yet fail to see that NONE of it proves what you're claiming (and some actually DISPROVES it).



If that constitutes a "victory", then I guess you beat me!!



Paul

63. QuaesoVeritas wrote:



"...the reliability of the research seems to be in some doubt."



It is very odd that Schroeter, the scientist whose critique of Kemp et. al. is extensively covered by the GWPF, is quoted as saying "over a period of more than 2000 years the influences of continental drift and the so-called isostatic rebound will be felt."



This is true, but it ignores the fact that Kemp et. al. specifically *include* the effects of isostatic rebound in their calculations. They subtract this out in order to obtain the sea level rise proper. To quote:



"To extract climate-related rates of sea-level rise (Fig. 2C), we applied corrections for crustal movements associated with spatially variable and ongoing glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)." [https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes ]



So I'm left wondering if Schroeter actually read the paper at all; or whether he has just been misquoted by the GWPF (perish the thought)?



As for MWP: the jury's still out on whether this was a global phenomenon. But even if it was, then we should note that the rate of sea level rise in that period was about 0.6m per century. Currently it is around 2.1m per century. Here is a nice graphic taken from the paper.



You will note that yet another little hockey stick has joined the burgeoning team.



https://www.realclimate.org/images//Kemp_sealevel_20111.png

QV and newdwr54



I won't bore you with the details of my "debate" with blunderbunny on the previous thread.



The indications are that solar activity was high during Medieval times and this alone would be expected to cause the mean temperature of the Earth to be fairly high during that period. So this might well explain why sea levels started to rise at that time.



However, as I think you've said yourself, QV, the effects of solar activity don't appear to be that straightforward. For example, we have discussed before the possible link between low solar activity and cold winters in Europe (as for the LIA).



It seems from the proxy data that the tropical Eastern Pacific was quite cool during Medieval times, whilst the Western Pacific was apparently quite warm. Also, it is widely accepted that parts of North America suffered from serious drought. All of this is consistent with a predominance of La Nina conditions. Then there is evidence of very warm conditions in the North Atlantic, consistent with a strong ocean conveyor during that period.



Was all of this simple coincidence, or was it all linked to the very high solar activity? Either way, it indicates that the distrbution of heat was very different to what we see today.



Paul

@66, Paul Briscoe wrote:



" ... It seems from the proxy data that the tropical Eastern Pacific was quite cool during Medieval times, whilst the Western Pacific was apparently quite warm. … “



Here is the proxy data used to make that claim:



https://climateaudit.org/2008/09/03/mann-2008-mwp-proxies/



Note that the most hockey-stick shaped proxies come from Lake Korttajarvi and are known to be the result of building work and not temperature.



Even this knowledge does not prevent them from being used even now in 'peer-reviewed' papers:



https://amac1.blogspot.com/2011/06/tiljander-data-series-appear-again-this.html



It seems that hockey-stick shaped data series are so rare that climate scientists find their use irresistible even when they are known to be riddled with problems and that 'peer' reviewers continually fail to notice these problems.

Rob,



With respect, you surely wouldn't expect a hockey stick shape in situations when the MWP was cool. Sadly, the images change too fast to pick out the details and I would like to try and figure out exactly what McIntyre has actually done before commenting further....... and it's too late now!



However, it turns out that there is plenty more data which backs up the claim that the Eastern Pacific was cool during medieval times. Sadly, the paper is a PDF, but if you do a Google search for: "Tropical Pacific – mid-latitude teleconnections in medieval times" by Graham et al (2007), you'll find that it lists a number of proxy reconstructions which confirm the above.



"It seems that hockey-stick shaped data series are so rare that climate scientists find their use irresistible even when they are known to be riddled with problems and that 'peer' reviewers continually fail to notice these problems."



That's just propaganda, Rob, and it is untrue, as I pointed out on the previous thread.



Paul

67. RobWansbeck:



From your link to Climate Audit: this article is dated Sep 3, 2008. In it McIntyre states: "... [I] plan to continue examining this data."



I have searched Google scholar using 'McIntyre' as author with key search words "paleoclimate", "proxy", and "tree ring". I can find no peer reviewed literature containing that name and those terms between 2008 and the present. Only a link to an article on McIntyre's own website.



Are we to assume that McIntyre's 'examination' of Mann's Paleoclimate papers are still a 'work in progress'?



Australia's Chief Scientist made some interesting observations yesterday. Bemoaning the lack of peer reviewed evidence, either in challenging the consensus view on climate change or in supporting alternative explanations for it, he said:



"Just because it is out there doesn't mean it is right... the overwhelming weight of evidence, and I am talking weight of real evidence, not volume, or volume as in loudness, is pointing in one direction. [Policy should be] based on a rational review of the science and not on decibels.''



That seems to be a clear call to McIntrye and co: if you have a proper rebuttal of Mann's or others' paleoclimate work then please place it in the peer reviewed scientific literature rather than on your weblog. That way you it is more likely to be taken seriously.

#39 QV

Same on this side of the pond, only one tv network will even approach the the facts.

The rest are lock, stock, and barrel for paying pollution restitution to third world

countries and the truth be damned.

#59, quake would rather believe the BBC than Climate Depot. Really?



The BBC was taken in, and reported, a claim by a 'group of qualified scientists' that the oceans are dying and species death is imminent.



This 'group of qualified scientists' turned out to be a back room containing members of Greenpeace, WWF and others, non of them actually qualified, who were brainstorming a set of ideas. The end result was given to the IPPC who told the BBC that they had peer reviewed evidence about the oceans. The BBC, without checking, broadcast the 'news' as fact.



Climate Depot reported this and the research into where the information came from, which proved zero peer review or proof of claims, which showed how gullible the BBC are when it comes to enviro-scares.

newdwr54 @69

looks like M&M didn't have to according to wikipedia that is . . I think this is attributed to Hans von Storch

"At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions."

and further down it says . . .

"The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating "the so-called 'hockey stick,' a previous reconstruction".



Interesting coincidence, with four of the five most active solar cycles on record occurring during the same period.

I have to say that I generally agree with the spirit of the IPSO report, but I regret the emphasis on "climate change", compared to the other factors.

It is clear to me personally that the main problems are over-fishing, pollution and habitat destruction, resulting from the rapid human population and economic growth on the planet, rather than "climate change". Indeed the report summary actually states:

"Resiliance of the ocean to climate change impacts is severely compromised by other stressors from human activities, including fisheries, pollution and habitat destruction."

This implies that the ocean might be able to cope with "climate change", were it not for the other stressors.

Yet the first of the reports recommendations is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions, when the authors must know that isn't going to happen.

Unfortunately, I doubt if many of the other recommendations will happen either, so I guess the human race will continue to pillage the oceans for it's own selfish ends. until it is destroyed along with most of the habitat on land. What these academics fail to realise that a lot of people make a lot of money out of the sea, which essentially provides them with "free" resources. They aren't going to give that up without a fight.

Incidentally, both the report summary and the press release say "EMBARGOED 1300 BST Monday June 20th 2011". Presumably that means UNTIL that time/date, but if so, shouldn't it say so?

lateintheday @ #69



Yes, you are correct. The comments are from von Storch, who had published a paper criticising the hockey stick methodology in 2004. I have to say that his interpretation of the US NAS report is very different to the impression I got when reading it! I thought it found the statistical analysis employed by Mann made very little difference - a conclusion also reached by Wahl and Ammann (2007).



The US NAS report made certain recommendations and stressed that more proxy data dating back to earlier times would reduce uncertainties but the suggestion that it upheld all the criticisms of Mann is simply untrue.



Of course, all of the above pre-dates Mann et al's more recent work, which we have been discussing here. Indeed they referred to the recommendations of the US NAS report in the introduction to their 2008 paper. I'm not aware of anyone having attempted a paper of their own to rebutt Mann et al's 2008 and 2009 papers. That is the point newdwr54 is making.



Indeed the only paper I've found on the subject states that it broadly supports the findings of Mann et al (2009). It's a PDF, so you'll have to google it, but it is:



"Evidence for global climate reorganization during medieval times", Graham et al (2011).



Paul

PB

"Of course, all of the above pre-dates Mann et al's more recent work, which we have been discussing here"

whoops - got my hockey sticks mixed up, sorry.

"#59, quake would rather believe the BBC than Climate Depot. Really?"



You have to be kidding me that you are so surprised. Climate Depot is run by a former US republican "communications director". Ie spin master.



Second I bothered to investigate this myself and the accusations you gleaned from Climate Depot turn out to be false. The original ClimateResistance post has an update admitting a mistake. Turns out when they reported there were no experts or peer reviewed papers to back up the report, they were looking at the wrong project.



So yeah BBC over "climate depot" any day. Not the first time climate depot has misreported.

@68, Paul Briscoe wrote:



“ …. That's just propaganda, Rob, and it is untrue, as I pointed out on the previous thread. …. “



(referring to my point that hockey-stick shaped data series are so rare that climate scientists find their use irresistible even when they are known to be riddled with problems and that 'peer' reviewers continually fail to notice these problems.)



If there really are so many hockey-stick shaped proxies why don't climate scientists use them instead of continually reusing only a few problematic ones?

@69, newdwr54 wrote:



“ ….. I have searched Google scholar using 'McIntyre' as author with key search words "paleoclimate", "proxy", and "tree ring". I can find no peer reviewed literature containing that name and those terms between 2008 and the present. Only a link to an article on McIntyre's own website. ….. “



McIntyre and McKitrick published their concerns here:



https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812509106.full.pdf+html?sid=55f75660-a747-4ea5-b85d-e7c23d9c8e45



and Mann responded here:



https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812936106.full.pdf+html?sid=55f75660-a747-4ea5-b85d-e7c23d9c8e45



although he seems to have avoided the issues.

@75, Paul Briscoe wrote:

“ ….. The comments are from von Storch, who had published a paper criticising the hockey stick methodology in 2004. I have to say that his interpretation of the US NAS report is very different to the impression I got when reading it! I thought it found the statistical analysis employed by Mann made very little difference - a conclusion also reached by Wahl and Ammann (2007). ….. “



What you failed to mention was that Wahl and Ammann also confirmed McIntyre's claim that the R2 verification statistics were close to zero.



Full infamous story here:



https://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html



and table of verification statistics here:



https://climateaudit.org/2006/03/06/verification-r2-revealed/



Notice how they had to increase the number of decimal places for one of the periods to prevent it appearing as zero.

76. lateintheday wrote:



"whoops - got my hockey sticks mixed up, sorry."



That's ok. There are so many these days!

79. RobWansbeck:



A 'letter to the editor' is not a peer reviewed rebuttal.



Why doesn't McIntyre publish a proper rebuttal if he is so confident?



If I were you, that is the question that would be keeping me awake at night.

RobWansbeck @ #80



"What you failed to mention was that Wahl and Ammann also confirmed McIntyre's claim that the R2 verification statistics were close to zero."



Yes Rob, but what McIntyre and Montford maybe neglected to tell bloggers was that Mann, in his response to Joe Barton, stated that:



"(R2)....is not a sufficient diagnostic of skill, precisely because it cannot measure the ability of a reconstruction to capture changes that occur in either the standard deviation or mean of the series outside the calibration interval. This is well known. See Wilks, D.S., STATISTICAL METHODS IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, chap. 7 (Academic Press 1995); Cook, et al., Spatial Regression Methods in Dendroclimatology: A Review and Comparison of Two Techniques, International Journal of Climatology, 14, 379-402 (1994). The highest possible attainable value of r2 (i.e., r2 = 1) may result even from a reconstruction that has no statistical skill at all."



In other words, Mann is effectively saying that R2 is meaningless in this context. Perhaps this is why Wahl and Ammann concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick’s results are “without statistical and climatological merit.”



So, as you can see, there are 2 sides to every story.



Paul

@82, newdwr54 wrote:



“ … Why doesn't McIntyre publish a proper rebuttal if he is so confident? … “



Perhaps you should ask Steve McIntyre.



Maybe you should also ask why climate scientists don't have their novel statistical techniques published in peer reviewed statistics journals?

@83, Paul Briscoe wrote:



“ …. Yes Rob, but what McIntyre and Montford maybe neglected to tell bloggers was that Mann, in his response to Joe Barton, stated that:



'(R2)....is not a sufficient diagnostic of skill, … ' …. “



Yes, Mann did say that and unfortunately there were those, perhaps including yourself, who were taken in by it.



Far from neglecting to tell bloggers both McIntyre and Montford have discussed this matter in detail.

From the Hockey Stick Illusion:

“ However unfortunately for Mann, the Cook paper that he cited in favour of the RE statistic actually stated that a suite of verification statistics should be used. Cook's list of suggestions was headed by McIntyre's own preferred measure, the R2, alongside the RE and such exotica as the CE statistic, the sign test and the product mean test.”



The point that Cook was making was that no verification statistic in isolation should be used as an indication of skill. You should use several and if you fail any one, including R2, then you fail verification.

Of course Mann's statement was taken by those less knowledgeable to mean that you could ignore the failure of the R2 measure. I suppose you could call it a 'trick'.



You really should read the HSI ;)

Hmm AMSU temperatures continuing to rise through June



Roy Spencer recommends using channel 5 at https://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/



If you click on all years back to 2002 you will see that June seems to be the warmest this decade except for last year. I wonder when this will be reflected in the terrestial global temperatures



Still no news from HadCRUT3 for May

#86. - NeilHamp wrote:

"Hmm AMSU temperatures continuing to rise through June

Roy Spencer recommends using channel 5 at https://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

If you click on all years back to 2002 you will see that June seems to be the warmest this decade except for last year. I wonder when this will be reflected in the terrestial global temperatures

Still no news from HadCRUT3 for May "

The cumulative AQUA CH5 anomaly at June 20th, was +0.12c relative to the "average" figure which is no longer in the data files. This puts it on a par with 2005, which had a UAH anomaly of 0.22 deg. Although this June's figure could still rise, a UAH of 0.22 deg. would rank it below 2010 (0.52), 2002 (0.39), 1998(0.32) and 1991 (0.28). I am quite surprised at where 1991 fits in the ranking.

So far this year as a whole, the CH5 anomaly is running at -0.96 deg., which puts it above 2008 but below 2009. It appears to be catching up on 2009 but that year temperatures started to increase rapidly after the middle of July, so I still think that this year will end up lower than 2009 and in about 11th place, as far as AQUA CH5 & UAH is concerned.

I don't remember HadCRUT3 being so late before and it is very odd that the May figure is so late.

After all it is only 1 week before the end of June and about 2 weeks before the UAH June figure is published. Having said that, the HadCUT3 calculations are probably a lot more complicated than UAH.

RobWansbeck @ #85



I note that you haven't mentioned the Wilks book. Sadly, I can't access the relevant part of the book to see what it says on the subject of r2. I'm presuming that Mann would not have cited it if he did not believe it said what he claimed.



Having read the US NAS review, I have seen no suggestion that a low r2 value invalidates a reconstruction. My understanding is that low CE and r2 values may have resulted from the inability of the proxies to predict short-term fluctuations in temperature during the validation period. However, this would not adversely affect their use in determining long term trends in temperature.



"You really should read the HSI ;)"



You quote from "The Hockey Stick Illusion" as though it is a peer reviewed paper - IT IS NOT! As such Montford is free to make any assertion and put any gloss on it that he wants (and has been shown to have done so). So why should I spend time reading a blogger's book, based on the assertions of another blog when there are serious peer reviewed papers and a US NAS review on the subject?



As Alistair McIntosh stated in his review:



"The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog."



Paul

#74 QV agrees with the IPSO report. Has he bothered to find out who these self appointed planet saving people are? No.



They claim all sorts of problems non of which stand up to scrutiny.



Habitat Destruction. This has occurred but left to its own devices it recovers. The worst habitat destructive method is rainforest clearance for bio-fuel production. The introduction of a monoculture and prevention of forest recovery by biocide application does great harm to forest and animal alike.



Over Fishing. This is rampant but can be reduced. The biggest problem is fishing in coral reef areas using cyanide, used in the far east, is worse than any sort of fishing we might use. It kills everything, corals, seaweed, everything. And if the fish are not cooked correctly it kills humans.



Ocean Acidification. One of the complete myths of climate change. Sea water pH levels are between 7.9-8.3. This has not changed for millions of years let alone in the 20th,21st centuries. Claims that a measured 7.9 as proof of acidification show a complete ignorance of either sea water properties or the acid/alkali range of pH of sea water. Since pH of 7.0 is neutral 7.9 is alkali and within the standard range. Since ocean pH has not been measured everywhere on the planet we can only surmise that the range we have might be wider. Lower pH values have been found near black smokers on the ocean ridge system of 4.5 which is very acidic but this is 2.5km below the surface and due to other chemicals not CO2.



Human Population. To some this would seem to be excessive. Rising third world population levels is of concern when it is clear that they now find it difficult to feed themselves. World food prices have climbed to levels not affordable to the developing world so they have to produce their own food. They are finding this difficult because new strains of grain crops are barred from entering these countries, by order of the UN. Fertilizer use has dropped due to price so food production is sporadic to say the lease. The best help is for these people to develop to western standards. Population would soon level off or even drop, as has happened in the developed world. Without immigrants the population of the UK would be much lower. But I do not blame them for trying to better themselves.



World Energy. Claims that we are running out of oil are not based on fact but on wishes of the environmentalists. The US has a claimed 2% of global petroleum reserves. But a reserve is that resource available for extraction within the sales price and under the laws of the country. Present time laws in the US prevent drilling in many places with recoverable oil or gas. Use of coal is to be outlawed, if the EPA gets its way, and Shalegas extraction has been stopped. Remove these energy sapping laws and reserves jump to 30% of the global supply, that is from known fields. UK search for shalegas has been stopped because of fears of earthquake, quite unfounded by the way. Any disturbance felt being like a heavy lorry passing 50 yards away on a main road.

So we have plenty of energy if only governments allow us to get it and use it. Wind and Solar both need backup 24/7 from conventional producers for their paltry production so can be ignored. Our ever rising power bills are due to the subsidy payments to wind and solar producers which will continue unless the government comes to its senses.



Fancy paying £2500 per year for electricity? You soon will if wind and solar have their way.

#89. - John Marshall wrote:

"QV agrees with the IPSO report. Has he bothered to find out who these self appointed planet saving people are? No."

Yes.

The contributors to the report are clearly listed in the report summary.



"Fancy paying £2500 per year for electricity? You soon will if wind and solar have their way."

I said I agreed with the "spirit of the report", not with the emphasis placed on "climate change", so your last comment is not relevant.

It is possible to be concerned about the environment without believing in "climate change"

Interesting to read above about the CERN CLOUD project, due to report in three months.



If a clear, provable link is established between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation it will hopefully blow the IPCC out of the water. To be useful science it will have to make predictions about global temperatures.



I hope that the BBC will report the CLOUD findings prominently; their paltry reporting of the recent major advances in astrophysics was disappointing (if not unexpected), Paul Hudson being an honourable exception.



This is important because our politicians will be influenced by public opinion as it turns ever more sceptical of the Global Warming Myth. AGW sceptics lack the sheeer organizing ability of green extremists; we don't go on protest marches. But as warmism is increasingly discredited, and the very subject treated with disbelief scorn and derision, the politicians squandering our national resource on useless windmills must some day see the error of their ways.

"If a clear, provable link is established between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation it will hopefully blow the IPCC out of the water."



I doubt the results will be as exciting as that. Depending on the cloud project results, all that will happen is there will be another bar labelled GCRs on this diagram in future IPCC reports:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg



My bet is, assuming the effect is not negliable, the bar won't be particularly large.

Getting back to the topic of this blog, I must admit that I find it very difficult to relate to a lot of what is currently being said about sunspot numbers.



In her interview on "Newsnight", Dr. Lucie Green of UCL, said the following:



"The Sun always goes through these minima in it's activity, but what is surprising is just how quiet it is, so it's been extremely quiet, at it's quietist for about 100

years now, and the expectation is, looking at the current data, that it will probably continue to get quieter, so the sunspot number will drop and drop."



The article to which P.H. has provided a link above, includes the following statements:



"The sun is heading into an unusual and extended hibernation, scientists predict. Around 2020, sunspots may disappear for years, maybe decades."

and

"The prediction is specifically aimed at the solar cycle starting in 2020. Experts say the sun has already been unusually quiet for about four years with few sunspots — higher magnetic areas that appear as dark spots"

and

"Earlier this month, David Hathaway, NASA's top solar storm scientist, predicted that the current cycle, which started around 2009, will be the weakest in a century. Hathaway is not part of Tuesday's prediction."



I decided to do some number crunching myself, based on sunspot numbers going back to 1749 . The following is based entirely on sunspot numbers and the definition of when a cycle starts and ends is based on the point where the 12 month mean ssn is at a minimum, which may differ from other methods, such as the polarity of sunspots.



Based on the above, I reckon that cycle 24 started in July 2009, which means we are at the end of the second year of an average 11 year cycle. Clearly that means that the last 4 years saw the end of one cycle and the start of another, so to say that "the sun has been unusually quiet for about four years", is true, but nothing unusual.



The 12 month average reached 1.68 in June 2009, but there have been lower figures over the 24 cycles, i.e. 0 in June 1811, 0.09 in November 1823 and 1.44 in December 1913.



Dr. Green states that "so it's been extremely quiet, at it's quietist for about 100 years now", but the 100 year mean ssn is actually almost at it's highest point, with a figure of 62, compared to an absolute peak of 65.135 in July 2004. Prior to 1958, the 100 year mean never got above 50.



There does seem to be a correlation between both

Truncated again - here is the remainder:



There does seem to be a correlation between both the maximum 12 month average and the length of the previous cycle and the minimum figure at the end of the previous cycle. Based on the length of cycle 23, the maximum 12 month mean during cycle 24, should be about 81 and based on the cycle 23 minimum, it should be about 89, with an average of 85. This compares to a figure of 120 for cycle 23. It is true that this figure is lower than the last 7 cycles, and the last cycle with a lower figure was cycle 16, ending April 1934, with a figure of about 78.



Based on "hind-casts" of previous peaks, the above method has a correlation of about 0.72. However, some years do not behave as they should according to this method.

Cycle 19, which ended in April 1965, had a peak of 202.7, compared to an estimate of between 126 and 139. The preceding cycle had an end minimum figure of only 3.35, which suggested quite an average peak, but it turned out to be the highest since 1749.



So, based entirely on sunspot numbers, I would say that cycle 24 will be low, but not exceptionally low. It certainly doesn't look like turning out to be another cycle 19.



Of course, since we don't know the characteristics of cycle 24, it is not possible to use this method to estimate cycle 25.

Sorry, the first sentence on my second post should read:



There does seem to be a correlation between the maximum 12 month average and both the length of the previous cycle and the minimum figure at the end of the previous cycle.

QV . . .we can always count on you to count. However, in this instance be warned - nobody has a clue what's going on. Hathaway's method worked for a couple of cycles, and now it doesn't. Leif Svalgard's method shows some promise but is only capable of short term prediction. Landsheidt's projections are making the headlines at the moment but quite frankly if this cycle suddenly booms into life, he'll be back in the bin along with many others. I like Vuks arguments but to be honest, I don't understand most of them - too much physics!

I find it amusing that some folk on this blog refer to the unusually quiet sun as part of the reason behind the flat temp trend of the last decade. Especially when the consensus view is that sol has such a minor effect on temps. And even more so when as you point out, at this stage we're only talking about a slightly lower and slightly extended solar min.

lateintheday,

I haven't made any particular study of the methods you mention, so I don't really know anything about them or what they are predicting.

As far as the effect of any decline in solar activity on global temperatures is concerned, I have never been able to find a consistent pattern.

However, based on my estimate of this cycle, what we are looking at may be similar to the cycles between about 1880 and 1913, when the peak 12 month ma never got much above 90. During that period, the HadCRUT3 12 month ma generally fell by about 0.6c, which if repeated over the next 30 years would equate to temperatures similar to the 1950's and 1960's. Hardly a mini ice-age.

@88, Paul Briscoe wrote:



“ I note that you haven't mentioned the Wilks book. Sadly, I can't access the relevant part of the book to see what it says on the subject of r2. I'm presuming that Mann would not have cited it if he did not believe it said what he claimed.

“



I see that you're still fooled by the 'trick'. Wilks, like Cook, also cautioned against relying exclusively on R2 and gives examples of how it can give misleading HIGH values.



The same applies to RE hence the advice to use a suite of statistics. Mann's quote was that R2 ( by itself) was not a sufficient diagnostic of skill. This is undisputed. Mann then used this to justify not using R2 and therefore sidestepped the issue of verification failure.



Mann failed to mention that the same argument could be used against any verification statistic including RE.



You must also be aware that in order for these statistics to have any value assumptions must be made about the quality of the data and these assumptions are not necessarily valid. This is how, for example, Mann's non-dendro/non-Tiljander reconstruction fails to verify prior to 1500AD yet by adding the Tiljander data does verify. This even though the relationship between the Tiljander data and temperature during the verification period is know to be totally spurious.

RobWansbeck @ #98



If things are as cut and dried as you suggest, it seems strange that the US NAS were not more critical of Mann's methods, don't you think? Could it be that they have considered other factors that the blogs you read didn't cover?



At one point in this blog post, McIntyre mentions the US NAS review as one of the sources listing the various validation tests. He implies that the tests all have to be met:



https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/repost-of-tamino-and-the-magic-flute/



However, at no point does the NAS review state that all tests must be met. Instead it states:



"However, r2 measures how well some linear function of the predictions matches the data, not how well the predictions themselves perform. The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not in itself a useful indication of merit."



On the face of it, this appears to uphold Mann's claim, indicating that your accusation of some kind of "trick" is unwarranted.



Given the above, it's a shame I can't access the full text of the Wilks and Cook et al papers to check precisely what they say on this matter. From past experience I'm certainly not prepared to take McIntyre's word for it!



The point, surely, is that a low r2 probably reflects the short term variability inherent in the data during validation - something which would be expected and which does NOT impact on the thing that matters - the trend. Consequently, a low r2 does not adversely affect the reconstruction's ability to detect long term temperature trends. So the NAS's stance may well reflect an understanding of the science that McIntyre and co. lack.



Regarding your final paragraph, I haven't seen Mann trying to claim that no validation is needed. The disagreement appears to be over whether R2 is important or not. On the basis of what I've read, I think McIntyre is vastly overstating its importance.



Paul

@99, Paul Briscoe



The quote you gave from the NAS panel regarding R2 is:

“ The coefficients in that linear function cannot be calculated without knowing the values being predicted, so it is not IN ITSELF a useful indication of merit."



Note the 'in itself'. This is not disputed. It, like other verification statistics, can be misleading if used in isolation. Mann has led you to believe that R2 is not useful at all rather than not in itself useful.



Have you spotted the trick yet?



From the NAS report:

“ MR. BLOOMFIELD. [ North's statistical expert] Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman. “



The whole point of using a suite of tests is that you have to pass them all although in climate science it now seems that a suite is used to give you more chance of passing one then you discard the rest.