Monthly Archives: March 2017

Solar Cycle 24 February Update And Some Thoughts On Cycle 25.

There were no visible Sunspots on 11 March 2017.  There was but one Sunspot cluster showing on 12 March.  This will become more common as Solar Cycle continues on its way to its demise and the beginning of Cycle 25.  From Wiki, we get the record of The “Spotless days at the end of the cycle”.   These numbers have been recorded since Cycle 9 that ended in March 1855.  The recent “grand maximum” beginning with Cycle 18 thru Cycle 22 provides us with these numbers:

Cycle Start/Finish Max sunspots Sunspotless days-end of cycle
18 Jan44/Feb54 151.8 446
19 Feb54/Oct64 201.3 227
20 Oct64/May76 110.6 272
21 May76/Mar86 164.5 273
22 Mar86/Jun96 158.5 309
23 Jun96/Jan08 120.8 817
24 Jan08/   ?   81.9 (Apr14) ?


Cycle 24 has been much less active than its recent predecessors. It was ushered in following 817 spotless days.  This appears to be significant but we probably need to see how this plays out at the end of Cycle 24 and its effect on Cycle 25.

The current, seemingly, most used way to predict the size of Cycle 25 is examining the Solar Polar Field Strength of Cycle 24.  As noted in previous postings the technique is to examine the average field strength after the Maximum occurs.  Typically, it levels out.  The average field strength is computed by adding North and South field strengths and dividing by 2.  Below is a plot of the field strength for Cycles 21,22,23 and 24. Looking at the left

plot, so far the Cycle 24 average is about 50. The high point for Cycle 23 looks to have been about 70. This suggests that Cycle25 will be smaller than 24.  But Cycle 24 average field strength of  nominally about 50, could become larger over the next year. So again, we will have to wait and see.

(Unfortunately, the expanded left chart is unavailable.An  expanded left chart was put in this posting but it was too large to show the period of the Cycle 23 and 24.)


Below is the February 2017 Cycle 24 chart comparing it to Cycle 23.


CO2 And Climate Change Science–Part 2: A Summary Of The Science

The website CO2 Coalition has a post titled “Climate Change: A summary of the Science”.  It one of the best summaries I have come across lately.  It is fairly long, so I could do my usual and summarize it, but there is virtually nothing in it that I would want to skip over.  So, I will not deprive the reader. I will put it in, in its entirety.  I hope that my posting yesterday will fill in any blanks you may have otherwise had.



News 26 Feb, 2017

Climate Change: A Summary of the Science

The climate change science is settled, but not how the climate alarmists want you to think.

Continue reading

CO2 And Climate Change Science–Part 1 Carbon Cycle

This posting sets out a preliminary understanding of the “carbon cycle” that you may not be aware of. The next posting will build off of this to lay out the science of climate change.

The Sun is the Earth’s source of energy. The energy is transported in the form of waves (radiant energy) known as electromagnetic energy. The Sun’s enormous surface temperatures generates these waves. The waves have a wide range of frequencies. In general, the waves are known familiarly as x rays, ultraviolet, sunlight, short wave infrared, radio waves, and microwaves. These waves heat the Earth.  Not all of the waves get through to the Earth’s surface.  Some are absorbed like Ultraviolet by ozone;  some are reflected back into space by clouds; and some are scattered by encountering mater in the atmosphere.

Much of the  Suns energy is reemitted from the Earth as longwave infrared. Some of the reemitted energy is delayed on its way back out into space by the so called greenhouse gases and water vapor. This slowdown is the reason the Earth has a habitable temperature. The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2).  However, water vapor is the largest factor, by far, in the greenhouse effect.

Continue reading

UAH Global Tropospheric Temperatures–February 2017

The February global temperature anomaly came in at +0.35C which was up +0.05C from January 2017.  The primary contributor to the rise was the warm spell in the Northern Hemisphere.  The UAH global tropospheric temperatures are shown below:

 This chart is a running centered 13-month average which smooths the “red” line in the chart.  The peak at the time of the El Nino was +0.85C.  The La Nina that often follows an El Nino was hardly significant this cycle. The history of the anomalies since January 2015 through February 2017 is shown below.


2015 01 +0.30 +0.44 +0.15 +0.13
2015 02 +0.19 +0.34 +0.04 -0.07
2015 03 +0.18 +0.28 +0.07 +0.04
2015 04 +0.09 +0.19 -0.01 +0.08
2015 05 +0.27 +0.34 +0.20 +0.27
2015 06 +0.31 +0.38 +0.25 +0.46
2015 07 +0.16 +0.29 +0.03 +0.48
2015 08 +0.25 +0.20 +0.30 +0.53
2015 09 +0.23 +0.30 +0.16 +0.55
2015 10 +0.41 +0.63 +0.20 +0.53
2015 11 +0.33 +0.44 +0.22 +0.52
2015 12 +0.45 +0.53 +0.37 +0.61
2016 01 +0.54 +0.69 +0.39 +0.84
2016 02 +0.83 +1.16 +0.50 +0.99
2016 03 +0.73 +0.94 +0.52 +1.09
2016 04 +0.71 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.54 +0.65 +0.44 +0.71
2016 06 +0.34 +0.51 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.39 +0.48 +0.30 +0.48
2016 08 +0.43 +0.55 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.44 +0.49 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.41 +0.42 +0.39 +0.46
2016 11 +0.45 +0.40 +0.50 +0.37
2016 12 +0.24 +0.18 +0.30 +0.21
2017 01 +0.30 +0.27 +0.33 +0.07
2017 02 +0.35 +0.54 +0.15 +0.05


Warmers Were Wrong–Polar Bear Population Is Growing

The polar bear became the symbol of the catastrophic effect of “global warming” in 2005. “Photo shopped” scenes of bears starving and floating away on an ice floe were ubiquitous. It was said the bears were on the brink of extinction.

But the warmers were wrong. Though the Arctic Sea Ice coverage has diminished over the recent years, it has not meant the demise of the polar bears.  The polar bear population has increased by 33% since 2005.   The YouTube video explains why the warmers were wrong.




Several years ago,  a very prominent polar bear spotter and scientist,  recognized that the polar bear numbers were growing, was disinvited to a UN sponsored meeting to discuss this topic.  They did not want any facts get in their way,  so the narrative of the bears nearing extinction was unabated.  Now most of the authorities agree that the bears are not on the verge of extinction.



Did EPA Employees Weep Over The Job Losses In The Coal Business?

EPA employees do not want to cooperate with the Trump Administration.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

“This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.”


The paragraphs above are from the dailycaller 5 September 2016 posting “Obama kept his promise-83,000 coal jobs lost and 400 mines shuttered.

Who are the cheerleaders wanting the coal business to fail? The EPA !!  Who authored the Clean Power ACT?  The EPA  !!

Continue reading

CERN CLOUD Study Says IPCC Climate Sensitivity Is Too High.  Svensmark Vindicated Some What.

Water vapor is acknowledged to be the primary “greenhouse gas”.  In the warmer’s theory, any increase of global temperature due to atmospheric CO2, results in a corresponding increase of water vapor.  The impact on temperature is a tripling of that which would occur from CO2 alone. This feedback loop is called Climate Sensitivity.

Climate Sensitivity


Actual temperature records show that this is not happening.  There has been only a slight rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years and that rise may have been from natural causes rather than CO2. See this argument in this posting. The most recent IPCC global warming report was ambiguous on this issue, apparently recognizing that their long held standard 3X increase was in trouble. Studies by many groups have demonstrated the multiplier is not 3X and at least 2X at best.  See the following chart:

Continue reading