There are two recent papers indicating that global cooling will begin soon. Both studies believe that more cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will be responsible for reduced global temperatures. The cosmic rays produce lower level clouds which reduce temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.
“Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’ Climate is by a group of Russian scientists led by Y.I. Stozhkov. The Paper considers Milankovich theory on global temperatures but dismiss it for this study saying that “…… (Milankovitch) changes happen on a long -term scales and are unlikely to be related to the contemporary process of global warming.” The three orbital factors in this theory are:
- the Earth’s orbital eccentricity which changes or 100,000 to 400,000 years
- the tilt angle of the Earth’s rotational axis which has about a 41,000-year cycle
- the precession angle changes with periods of 19,000 to 26,000 years
They considered solar luminosity but feel that the changes in total solar irradiation (TSI) are too small to alter average global temperature by no more than 0.05C.
The study also looked at the cosmic rays. The team compiled monthly Δ T* data for the period from 1880 to early 2016. Using that data, they made a spectral analysis for the same period. The result is shown on the chart below: (*Δ T often called the “temperature anomaly”.)
The team looked at cosmic rays versus Δ T and found a relationship. Cloud formation is a function of cosmic ray presence in the Earth’s atmosphere. That is illustrated from the team’s chart shown below:
The team interestingly does not attribute cosmic ray intensity in the Earth’s atmosphere to solar activity. The study reports:
“Another influence on the Earth’s climate is solar activity; the main period of its variations is ≅11 years. Despite numerous attempts to find a connection between different solar activity indices and temporal variations in delta T values, no such link has been firmly established.”
Their contribution is —-an increase in cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere will lower global temperature. Thus, leaving the reason the cosmic rays increase or decrease as an unknown. Their Figure 1 seems to suggest they see a drop in global temperature beginning soon and lasting until at least 2060.
The second study will be posted next.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, cosmic rays, gamma rays, Global Temperatures, Interglacial periods, Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Activity, Sun, sun and climate
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:
||Sunspotless days-end of cycle
|| 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.
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.
Posted in AGW, chemistry, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, Ocean Acidification, photosynthesis, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate, The Pause
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.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Global Temperatures, photosynthesis, Radiation, Sea Level, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, Sun, sun and climate
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.
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:
The website inc.com/quora posted “Why You Should Never, Ever Stop Challenging Conventional Wisdom”. I have lifted most of their little gems of wisdom. I am posting this as it fits well with my previous blog about theTheory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect.
The experts are usually wrong.
Experts (those who predict the future for a living) are, more often than not, dart-throwers. They perform no better than chance. And recently they have performed even worse than chance.
“Economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions.”
We are ALL biased. We see the world through a very hazy prism of our experiences.
There is no unbiased news outlet. Even “real news” has an element of untruth to it. Almost every news story I had intimate knowledge of made a significant reporting mistake of factual error in the story.
We’re human, and we make mistakes. We’re human, and we see the world with our strong bias. We overweight individual sources and underweight others. We discount data that is very good, and we rely on data that is wrong. We see patterns when there are none and see coincidences when there are conspiracies
The “expert” can be dangerous. Continue reading
Jeane Dixon was guest on late night TV as well as frequently in magazines and other media because she made predictions-some of which came true but mostly were off target. For years, media featured her New Year predictions. Her notoriety sprung from her prediction that the 1960 Presidential election would be won by a Democrat but the winner would not live out his term. Following President John Kennedy’s assassination, someone remembered her prediction and the rest, as they say, is history.
From Wiki, comes the definition of the Jean Dixon Effect.
John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, coined the term ‘the Jeane Dixon effect’, which references a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions. Many of Dixon’s predictions proved erroneous, such as her claims that a dispute over the offshore Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu would trigger the start of World War III in 1958, that American labor leader Walter Reuther would run for President of the United States in the 1964 presidential election, that the second child of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his young wife Margaret would be a girl (it was a boy), and that the Russians would be the first to put men on the moon.
I think it is time to declare the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect. The theory certainly fits the Effect definition as posited by John Allen Paulos.
And it is about time to do that. A new, ultra-fast computer, the Cheyenne, has just been brought on-line in Wyoming. It will be used to do studies, some of which will be related to “man-made global warming”. What we can expect are more erroneous predictions made faster than they used to be. That’s progress. And of course, it means more doom-laden stories for the media to circulate.