.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, April 10, 2009

NASA’s acknowledgement of “deep solar minimum” is still deeply dishonest

I speculated last year that NASA solar scientists were avoiding notice of the prolonged solar minimum because they want to avoid talking about what happened the last few times there was a deep solar minimum: that the earth cooled dramatically.
By refusing to even consider the possibility of an extended solar lull, Hathaway himself can avoid having to address the impact that such a lull would have on global temperature. If he did address that question, he would obviously have to note that the last really long such lull seems to have caused the Little Ice Age, which would place him on the side of the "deniers" in the debate about human-caused global warming. If low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age, then the "grand maximum" levels of solar activity during the 20th century would be the cause of 20th century warming, and the hoax of human-caused warming would be exposed.
It looks like I overestimated the integrity of Hathaway et. al. Apparently they are fully capable of acknowledging that we are in the midst of a deep solar minimum while still not mentioning the well established correlation between solar-magnetic activity and climate.

Dr. Tony Phillips issued a NASA solar-science update last week titled Deep Solar Minimum. NASA has stopped denying the obvious:
In a way, the calm is exciting, says [solar physicist Dean Pesnell]. "For the first time in history, we're getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like."

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway.
How long will the quiet last? Phillips notes that “The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than the one we're experiencing now.” Indeed, and the PEAKS of 1900-era solar cycles were also low:

Solar activity, as measured by sunspot counts (from Cap'n Bob)

While Phillips, Hathaway and Pesnell tell their audience about the the early 20th century period of lowish solar activity, they fail to mention how it coincided with a prominent dip in global temperature:

HadCRUT 3, with 21 year smoothing. The Dalton and Maunder minima were also famously cold.

Phillips even quotes NASA solar scientist David Hathaway’s acknowledgment that, "five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years,” yet they STILL fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room: that this period of high solar activity coincides with the period of global warming that the IPCC attributes to CO2.

These are supposed to be our experts, the one’s who make sure that what is known about solar science is properly taken into account by the IPCC and by our domestic policy-makers. Instead, they are providing as much cover as they can for the IPCC’s outright refusal to account the most well known facts about the correspondence between solar activity and global temperature.

What Pesnell and Hathaway know

Even a non-specialist like Dr. Phillips would be well aware of the un-missable coincidence between deep solar minima and global cold spells. Don’t kids still learn in high school that the sun went blank for 50 years at the onset of the Little Ice Age (right after they learn that Galileo’s improvements to the telescope allowed people to start counting sunspots)?

But Pesnell and Hathaway know much more. EVERY solar physicist is well aware that numerous studies have found correlations of 0.6 to 0.8 between solar activity and climate on every time scale, from the decadal to the millennial, going back 500 million years. For the longer time scales, see Shaviv and Veizer 2003:
We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations.
(Cosmic Ray Flux serves as a proxy for solar activity because higher solar activity, with its attendant higher solar-magnetic flux, blocks more cosmic rays from reaching the earth.) For the shorter time scales see the 1150 yr study by Usoskin et. al. 2005:
The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 — .8 at a 94% — 98% confidence level.
Even global warming alarmists Lockwood and Frohlich begin a recent paper by acknowledging that, “[t]here is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate,” citing 17 papers to this effect (without mentioning the two above, or dozens of others).

Such a strong correlation over such long time periods implies a causal relationship, and it can only go one way: earthly temperatures are not causing sunspots.

One avenue by which an active sun warms the earth is easily understood. Increased solar activity brings with it a slight increase in Total Solar Irradiance (primarily in the form of a not-so-slight increase in UV). But this known increase in TSI is far too small to account for the observed high degree of correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Either the UV effects are somehow being magnified (perhaps by affecting atmospheric chemistry in some way), or that OTHER manifestation of solar activity—the solar wind—is somehow affecting global temperature.

The front running candidate for a solar-magnetic warming effect is Henrik Svensmark’s GCR-cloud theory: that the solar wind blows away the Galactic Cosmic Radiation that would otherwise ionize the atmosphere and seed cloud formation, in effect blowing away the clouds, causing the earth to warm. Many are highly skeptical of Svensmark’s theory, but whatever theory one prefers, the physical evidence is clear. There is some powerful mechanism other than direct TSI forcing by which solar activity is driving global temperature, and EVERYBODY knows it.

Inverting scientific method

The IPCC’s fraud is to use doubts about the mechanism by which indirect solar effects drive temperature as an excuse for completely omitting indirect solar effects from their models. The only solar effects that are included in the IPCC models are direct TSI forcings. Indirect solar effect, known from the data to be much more powerful (capable of turning solar activity into the dominant driver of global climate across the entire geological record) are completely excluded from the IPCC prediction scheme, simply because we are not certain how they work.

This is an exact perversion of the scientific method, which is defined by the priority of data over theory. The IPCC throws out the data because it is uncomfortable with the state of the theory.

Using the IPCC’s method, a pre-Einsteinian scientist would have to predict that a rock released into the air would waft away on the breeze because we understand how the breeze pushes the rock, but we don’t understand this invisible force that some people call "gravity." Thus by the standards of the IPCC, the tendency of dropped rocks to fall should not be accounted in our predictions, even though we are well aware of the overwhelming empirical evidence that heavy objects do fall. Sorry, but that is just not science, and neither are the IPCC’s predictions of dangerous CO2-driven global warming.

Solar magnetic warming has been mis-attributed to CO2

When the solar-magnetic variable is omitted from the IPCC models, the warming effects of the solar-magnetic flux get misattributed to any correlated variables that ARE included. Since CO2 and solar activity both reached historical highs over the second half of the 20th century, the warming effects of the high solar wind get misattributed to CO2. That is how the IPCC arrives at its claim that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2: by pure anti-scientific fraud.

Pesnell, Hathaway both know it, and are desperately spinning to cover it up. Despite being our solar experts, they toe the fraudulent IPCC line to the letter. In Phillips’s article, NASA acknowledges the slight increase in Total Solar Irradiation that accompanies high solar activity, but assures the American people that: “The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”

Nobody knows better than Pesnell and Hathaway that direct TSI effects are insufficient to account for the magnitude of the causal relationship between solar activity and temperature that is implied by the data. Nobody knows better than these two that the IPCC completely omits indirect solar effects from its models. Nobody knows better than these two that this causes late-20th-century warming to be misattributed to CO2. Yet they still pretend that the warming effects of CO2, which they know to be a fraud, will dominate the solar effects, which they know have been grossly understated.

This as the fraudsters now in charge of our energy policies are charging at manic speed to unplug our fossil fueled economy before the global cooling caused by our inactive sun pulls the rug out from under their global warming hoax.

Can Dr. Phillips please take a look at the right side of that temperature graph?

Really? “The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming”? In fact, "the changes so far" HAVE been "enough to reverse the course of global warming":

HadCRUT3 raw, peaked in 1998 (blue is 21 yr. smoothed).

Global warming stopped a decade ago, and global temperature has dipped substantially in the last couple of years. What can one call this NASA assertion that "the changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming" but a flat out lie about the readily available temperature record?

David Hathaway's Solar Cycle 24 predictions are just as counterfactual. He is STILL using his long since invalidated prediction scheme to predict that Solar Cycle 24 will ramp up TOMORROW:

Even Hathaway's colleagues have stopped paying attention to his meaningless "predictions":
Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

De-regulate energy production NOW

If we would uncap our energy resources, our economy would rocket out of this recession/budding-depression. Instead, thanks to the flat-out anti-scientific dishonesty of our so-called "scientists," we are on the verge of destroying our economy out of trumped-up hysteria about global warming, even as we are already descending into a period of global cooling of who knows what depth. These eco-religionists are insane, and they are going to get a LOT of people killed.

Your analysis is spot on except that we are not dealing with people capable of dispassionate observation and rational thought. It's not a conscious hoax. It's a religion based on a set of beliefs that suit people with a particularly pessimistic world view.
The link between the solar wind and temperature has long been observed. The causal mechanism is described at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com
Tell ya what. Write a letter to your great grandchildren about your disbelief in global warming. Bet you'll be the fool of the family one day.
Anonymous, it is truly amazing how stupid you leftists are. I am writing letters to my grandchildren. But you won't. You sneak around anonymously, not willing to put your name behind this insane attempt to unplug modernity that you vote for and believe is a great thing. Go ahead. Let your children know what side you were on when it mattered.
Let me make a prediction.

Every progressive disaster of the past is treated as a sign of general American wickedness rather than a sign of the failure of progressivism per se. Thus, to take just one example, the Eugenics movement and its excesses becomes lost to progressive history.

So too, anonymous' grandchildren will talk about the wicked America that
1. Attempted to deny modernity to the third world
2. Granted vast government subsidies to wicked Capitalists who made patently false claims about bizarre "never will work" alternate technologies.
3. Made the poor of America freeze because of the hike in energy costs.
4. Restricted or denied the ability of ordinary people (especially the poor) to travel.
5. Dramatically increased the cost of food because of hysterical fears about contaminants.

And when Anon pleads to his grandchildren that he was a progressive, they will laugh with scorn and say "Yeah right! Next, you'll be telling me the Ku Klux Klan were big in the Democrat Party".
"EVERY solar physicist is well aware that numerous studies have found correlations of .06 to .08 between solar activity and climate on every time scale."

Just curious, is that a typo? .06 and .08 seem kinda low (although it's been a while since my last statistics class).

Great posts on global warming. Very readable with a lot of punch.
Yes. That was a typo. The correlation coefficients are .6 to .8, as the quoted excerpts specify. I meant to put zeroes BEFORE the decimal points, to enhance readability. FAIL. Fixing now. Thanks!
Well, here we are on May 19, 2009 and in East TN we are breaking our record cold temp. tonight with a frost/freeze warning. The average last frost/freeze date for our area is is May 10. Our expected temp. by morning is 32 F/Zero C or below. The last few years we have been flurting with lower records later in the spring and earlier in the fall. It looks like many farmers and gardeners are going to have to replant some of their crops. I sure hope there is enough extra CO2 to help the new plants make up for the set back. LOL!
Maybe the dreaded "Warming" will help short term before it kills us all. :-)
It is nice to see some common sense.

If you ignore all the competing theories on the mechanisms driving earth's climate and just look at what mother nature tells us in the geological record you can see we are on borrowed time.

On page 7 of David Archibald's "Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States" he shows a plot of the last five Volstok interglacials superimposed and aligned on peak temperature vs time. As David says the past ice core record show:

"The Holocene, the period we are in now, is tracking along with three of the four previous interglacials. Of those three, if the Holocene ends up being like the Eemian, then we may have up to 3,000 years of Little Ice Age-like conditions before we plunge into the next glacial period. If not, then the plunge could start any time now." http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

And even the Eemian with its extended interglacial shows the additional tag end is much cooler than now.

Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics has an article again based on what mother nature tells us. It shows the transition into an Ice Age can take as little as ten years.

"Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.

The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder."

Scientists know there are changes in the shape of the earth's orbit, and changes in the angle and wobble of the earth's axis. These changes are described by mathematical models. This article explains in layman's terms, the scientific studies that valid the theory that predict the timing of past ice ages based on those mathematical models. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

One wonders if the UN and wealthy politicians of the world have an unstated motive for pushing CO2 caused Global Warming/Climate Change in the face of other scientific evidence to the contrary. A global Carbon tax uses the wealth of North America and Europe to build up a first world civilization in the areas of the tropics. It simultaneously destroys the ability of the poor and middle class people in North America and Europe to travel or even provide themselves with a decent standard of living.

Are the politicians and very wealthy rats preparing to desert the good ship earth as she heads into another Ice Age? Are they saving there own skins at the cost of those of their voters?

The whole "global warming" craze started in 1972 with Maurice Strong's Stockholm speech. This was right after a group of scientists and researchers organized a series of studies known as CLIMAP -- the Climate Long Range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction project in the spring of 1971. The aim was to find conclusive proof that proved or disproved Milankovitch theory that changes in the earths orbit and axle tilt caused ice ages.

"In the summer of 1974, Imbrie performed the long-awaited test...These results were everything for which Imbrie and his colleagues had hoped. Each of the cycles found in the Indian Ocean cores matched the predicted cycles within five percent. That such a coincidence might occur by chance alone seemed highly unlikely. Before long, Nicklas G. Pisias provided additional evidence in support of the astronomical theory. Using a more powerful spectral method, he found a statistically significant 23,000-year cycle in core V28-238. CLIMAP investigators -- realizing that their isotope records from the Pacific and Indian oceans matched the corresponding parts of isotope records already known from other oceans -- felt justified in concluding that the succession of late Pleistocene ice ages had indeed been triggered by changes in the earth's eccentricity, precession, and tilt." http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

The only questions that remains is "Do you believe politicians and the wealthy would lie to save their own skins and that of their children?"

Do you think a deep solar minimum compounded by increased volcanic activity could trigger the decade long slide into another Ice Age?


The largest volcanic eruptions since AD 1800 correlate with periods of enhanced seismicity , changes in the earth’ s spin rate, and the Chandler wobble. Furthermore, a marked increase in the number of major eruptions apparently occurred during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum (1645-1715) at a time when global temperatures were depressed. Solar activity might trigger volcanism through solar-induced climate change which could lead to variations in global spin rate and hence to increased crustal stresses and seismic and volcanic potential . Such solar activity may be modulated by planetary tidal effects which might additionally lead to enhanced crustal stress through direct influence on the earth’s axial tilt, wobble and rate of rotation .

“A good correlation exists between the long-term smoothing of the sunspot cycle, and Greenland temperatures – with cool temperatures corresponding to long-term sunspot minima”
We acknowledge valuable discussion with R. W. Decker, J. E. Hansen [James Hansen]and J. E. Sanders. Work was supported by NASA.”


You have permission to use this as you wish.
I don't know, for me it is hard to believe what NASA says, I mean, they kept in the dark what happened in Roswell and now they reveal things like Project SERPO??? Come on... these guys say what they need the people to believe on.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?