Solar Cycle Oh Dear…

Someone somewhere in some article / comment got me looking at the solar cycle data from NOAA:

It was weeks back and I’ve lost track of the pointer chain for who and where. I just left the tab open in my browser for a closer look “later”. Well, “later” got here. My first impression had just been:
So we’re at the bottom of a low solar cycle, so what.

Closer attention lead me to the “Oh Dear” that’s the “So what” part. The sunspots are “way low”, but fairly quickly. About 1/2 what they were three years after the last peak in the prior cycle (about 12 vs 25+) even if using the 2nd lower peak of the prior cycle. Low cycles tend to be long cycles, so this implies a lot lower to go. Then, looking at the AP values, they have NOT dropped to the bottom yet. We are NOT at the bottom, even though sunspot counts are at bottom like levels. That’s the “Oh Dear”…


Sunspots May 2017

Sunspots May 2017


Planetary A Index - AP for May 2017

Planetary A Index – AP for May 2017

IF the AP chart is saying what I think it is saying, that we have a few more years of decrease ahead of us and we’re at near nothing sunspots now, it’s a bit of a worry what we’re going to get in terms of solar activity. This ought to be enough to pretty much prove it’s solar output that drives the system, not The Magic Gas CO2; but I’d really rather not have snow in June… My guess is somewhere between “now” and about 2018 to 2020 we’ll have the effects whacking us. Probably already hitting high altitude and high latitude places given the snow and cold reports on Iceage Now website:

Over time, as lags get wrung out, we will likely see more cold and snow at lower altitudes and latitudes. IF, and it is a very big IF, this is accompanied by a slowing of the Gulf Stream (as it often has been in very cold times), that will show up as “summer like rains” in Florida winters. There’s a paper that found in lake sediments that things like pine / oak ratios change toward warmer in Florida when Europe is going icy. I think it is referenced here:

The original link is now a dead one and the replacement paper is named differently, so may not be the same as the original one. It would be nice to confirm if it is the same one, but I’m out of time for now. In searching for it named as originally, I came on this study of the same lake, but different isotopes / analysis and which references it (Grimm et. al. 2006):

It finds that during the depths of a Glacial period, Florida tends to wider winter / summer ranges as the coastlines move far out from their present locations. So fast swaps make Florida a bit warmer in winter, but as the ice builds up, Florida gets a climate more like that further north. FYI, “BSR” is: “(4) bacterial SO4 reduction (BSR),”

In the late Pleistocene, the Florida peninsula was approximately
twice as wide as it is today. During the last 20,000 cal yr, sea level
has risen as much as 130 m, resulting in shorelines that have progres-
sively gotten closer to Lake Tulane, particularly after sea level rose
above the Florida continental shelf. Consequently, groundwater
rose, flooding soils that had previously been well above the water
table. Lake Tulane deepened, as did most other Florida lakes, many
of which had dried out during the galcial maximum (Jacobson et al.,
2012). If BSR had been important, that should be evident with
lower δ34S values. However, the opposite occurred (Fig. 2). Thus, we
rule out BSR as the main control. In addition, BSR could not impart a
trend to the entire 20,000-year record, as described above. A similar
argument applies to any other process of in-lake modification of the
isotopic record, including diagenesis.

After the Younger Dryas (ca. 12,000 to 11,000 cal yr BP), the
difference between summer and winter temperatures in central
Florida steadily decreased, while mean annual temperature increased
(Grimm et al., 2006).
Summer precipitation in Florida is dominated by
convective and convergent thunderstorms. In summer, land warms
enough to create convectional circulation. Sea water is colder and
sea breezes originate frequently. Sea breezes (on-shore) from both
the east (Atlantic Ocean) and west (Gulf of Mexico) collide over
land, rise, and form thunderstorms (Grimm et al., 2006). Some
12,000 years ago, the winter land–sea temperature differential was
too little for strong sea breezes and thunderstorm development. As
the coastline came closer, winter-time storms as well as summertime
convection storms could bring sea spray-derived, isotopically heavy S
to central Florida, resulting in higher δ34S values in Lake Tulane sedi-
ments. Disappearance of Ambrosia which coincides with higher δ34S
in the lake sediment, indicates that winter frost was absent during
the Holocene (Grimm et al., 2006).

My text from my article / link:

What I find particularly interesting about this one is that it shows that even Florida is anti-phase to Greenland. Mostly it is based on water, rather than directly on cold, but that’s fine. It finds that during the glacial (when Florida was about twice as wide as it is today), the way rains were controlled by warm / cold was about the same. When it is cold, not much rain. When it’s warm, lots of rain. Now that happens between winter and summer, then it shows up as a climate shift.

So every Heinrich Event shows up as cold in Europe, but wet in Florida (so the pine trees grow and the pine pollen spikes up) as Florida gets wetter and warmer. When it’s warm in Europe, Florida is more cool, so dry, and you get oaks. There’s a lot more in the article. Grasses and some other plants too. GISP Ice cores.

The key takeaways for me were simple. That 1500 year cycle keeps on happening. Though sometimes with a partial skip (weak cycle). It is water mediated with the Gulf Stream taking a break for a while and both Arctic and Antarctic deep water formation being involved. Something outside natural ocean oscillations drives it as it stays on the same periodicity despite a variety of ocean changes and ice changes and even strength of event changes. The metronome doesn’t shift much (though the effects sometimes skip a beat).

Whatever “it” is, it effects ocean circulation on a very wide scale, and the ‘backing up’ of the Gulf stream in particular, and other places in general, will cause various shifts of wet / dry and warm / cold to happen.

But perhaps most comforting, for me, is just the realization that a D. O., or Heinrich or even Bond Event while a global event has different local impacts. So if, right now, a Bond Event happened and England were starting to freeze over: Florida would be getting a bit warmer and have plenty of rain to grow tropical food plants. (So all you folks in the UK, get your passports ready and “Come On Down!!” ;-)

So IF this is the start of a major European cooling via a slowdown of the Gulf Stream / North Atlantic Drift and reduced energy delivery, watching for warming, more rain, and even milder winters in Florida / S.E. USA ought to be a confirmation of both the paper and the solar / cold link for Europe. Longer term, Florida cools off in the depths of an Ice Age Glacial (but doesn’t everyone in the Temperate belt?)

I think I need to plan another stay in Florida for next winter… If we go into a full on Ice-Age Glacial, it looks like Florida loses the hot summer thunderstorms (eventually as the ice builds up) and ought to be downright near ideal. Lots of added land as the coastlines move out too. So looks like the place to be if / when that happens. Colder winters will also thin out a lot of the imported tropical exotics there too, like the Pythons… (note to self: Bring gun with bird / snakeshot loads… carry knife on belt when outside down by the Everglades.)

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events, AGW Climate Perspective and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Solar Cycle Oh Dear…

  1. To celebrate the wisdom of President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the UN’s Paris Global Climate Agreement, and free us from the UN’s collective culture, this booklet was published today.

    Freely available for atomic, nuclear and particle physicists to criticize, correct and/or deny IN PUBLIC, instead of hiding behind frightened AGW proponents.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. jim2 says:

    We are indeed fortunate to have this imminent lull in the solar cycle. It just can’t happen fast enough, although I’m not a big fan of cold.

    We have the possible increase in cloud cover to watch and also the modified solar spectral distribution. It’s almost like God is watching over us.

    I wonder if there is a substantial lag in the ocean heat content if insolation, one way or the other, is diminished.

  3. E.M.Smith says:


    IIRC, somewhere I read / heard it was about a 6 or 12 year? lag. Something like that. Given that the “slowdown” of the sun started about 2005, I’m OK with that…

  4. andysaurus says:

    Hi E.M. It was probably me that put you onto the solar cycle source at NOAA because I have been preaching about it for years and monitor it every month. My usual Facebook post is to point people towards it and suggest that they buy sweaters and/or coal. I see that they have removed the graphs from the predictions on their history tab, but they used to show a range of peak sunspots between 175 and 125, and you can see that actual figures precede their (many times modified) projections by about a year.
    The nadir between SC23 and 24 was the longest period of zero readings for centuries. About 18 months as I recall. You are right about the lag, Joanne Nova’s husband David Evans had a multi part analysis of why. It starts here . It fits with hindcasting so stands a chance of being correct IMHO.
    May’s figures should be out soon. I can’t wait.

  5. omanuel says:

    I think it was JoNova’s husband (Dale Evans ?) that Indentified the lag time from solar activity to Earth’s temperature.

  6. jim2 says:

    Looks like the most recent Grande solar cycle was 1960. Making the (unwarranted) assumption for the sake of discussion that we are now at global peak temperature, that would be a 60 year lag. Will it take 60 full years to achieve max cooling? Or what?

  7. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi Chief. Dave Evans Notch filter theory suggest 11 year Delay from the effect of solar minimum.

    post abt Dave …

    Dave Evan site …

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  8. andysaurus says:

    @omanuel if you read my comment at 12:15, you will see it is David Evans. :)

  9. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi Chief. From your old post …

    J Martin says:

    3 October 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Also from the same thread on WUWT, dscott said ” However, the geologic record is clear without exception, EVERY interglacial ends at the down swing of the obliquity cycle when it passes 23.NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!

    * I have done the math for this calculation and posted on here previously. The obliquity went through 23.5 degrees approximately 1300 ad. The beginning of the little Ice Age sequence of three or four minimums. Break out your bear skin coats And dig yourself and underground Hobbit house haha.

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    We are currently at approx, 23.43701° deg obliquity.
    According to this chart (PNG)
    We won’t reach 23.0°until about the year 3500 so although we are likely very close, we can’t say with certainty how soon/close we are to the shift in climate state.
    We don’t know for sure if the climate has a bi-stable state (although it certainly appears to) which quickly flips once obliquity passes some critical value near 23.0 deg and it gets a cooling kick of some sorts (like a quiet sun). I suspect it changes state relatively quickly but only after the coincidental occurrence of both low enough obliquity and some outside push that nudges the climate to flip into the alternate cold stable state of an ice age. It could be complex or simple, just a quiet sun and the necessary low obliquity or perhaps a combination of low obliquity, a quiet sun and some other random input like a large volcanic eruption or large impact at the right time of the year and location/intensity to break the hysteresis of the interglacial and flip it into the glacial.

  11. Larry Ledwick says:

    Ooops misread the chart in about 3500 years from present according to the chart not the year 3500.
    The image works if you right click the icon and open in a new window.

  12. pearce m. schaudies says:

    @Larry. I suggest read the last links in the list I first posted. No need to read all the comments first. When obliquity goes pass 23.5 it just means the whole system is ready for one or two more events to trigger it rolling down hill into full glacial.

    So …

    1300 + 5000 = 6300 – 2017= 4283 more years to full glacial and average temp 9 K ( now abt 14 K). Typical inception drop abt 1 K per 1000 yrs. ( as the molton core cools, the drop is abt 1 K per million yrs)

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  13. pearce m. schaudies says:

    oops – last 2 links.

  14. E.M.Smith says:


    I think the “flip” happens from ocean current rearrangement. Gulf Stream / N. Atlantic Drift slows. Europe / N. Polar area gets colder and more ice / snow forms. Glaciers start up high in the mountains and the ice builds downward. Ocean depths start to shallow out a bit. That, then cuts off circulation under the polar cap as the Pacific approach is only 10s of feet deep ( something like 50 feet in the deeper parts…) and the area between Iceland and Europe is not so deep either. Doesn’t take much more ice up top and lower depth to significantly reduce heat added by the current.

    So a Solar dimming reduces the driving force from Tropical Ocean heating (that whole UV / IR thing) and the polar end starts out dumping heat like crazy from exposed water, then ices over and starts to shallow down. Between them the heat delivery first gets deflected away from Europe (backing up in the Gulf of Mexico and near Florida) and the tail of the Gulf Stream doesn’t have the speed to reach Greenland / Iceland anymore. That’s the death knell. Once the arctic ices over and does NOT melt, ice just accumulates into a full on locked up Glacial. No recovery until 100,000 years later when polar summer heat is enough to melt it again. Only ONE setting of precession, obliquity, and eccentricity works for that, and we don’t have it now. It passed some 10,000 or so years ago.

    Also, as the ocean shallows, Drake Passage doesn’t let as much water stay in the circumpolar current. More cold water gets deflected up the spine of South America. I think that cools the whole Pacific, again changing the ocean currents dynamic and likely also ENSO and all. Colder oceans, colder skies, colder N. Pole and glaciers are merging…

    Every mountain becomes a hundred meters+ more above sea level. That alone causes much more ice, glaciers, and cold snowy down slope winds.

    Also, we are at 23.4 degrees and decreasing. We are in a range where I’m pretty sure that 1/10s of a degree matter and we don’t have real 1/10s of a degree precision on the onset of ice ages / end of interglacials. While I certainly HOPE we have another 1500 years (next Bond Event cycle?) to the trigger, that’s betting a lot on perfection… Though personally I’m betting we just get a Bond Event out of this one, not glacial inception. But I could be fooling myself…

    I have coined the term Bond Event Zero (c) for this one. I noticed some time after I did that some Wiki editor decided to christen the L.I.A. as Bond Event Zero. That, IMHO, is a political lie. It was just a “Half Bond Event”. So this one ought to be worse.

    0 	≈ −0.5 ka 	≈ 1500 AD 	See Little Ice Age;[12]
    1 	≈ −1.4 ka 	≈ 600 AD 	See Migration Period;[12]
    2 	≈ −2.8 ka 	≈ 800 BC 	Late Bronze Age collapse may have been triggered by drought in the Eastern Mediterranean.[13][14][15]
    3 	≈ −4.2 ka 	≈ 2200 BC 	See 4.2 kiloyear event; collapse of the Akkadian Empire and the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.[16][17]
    4 	≈ −5.9 ka 	≈ 3900 BC 	See 5.9 kiloyear event;
    5 	≈ −8.2 ka 	≈ 6200 BC 	See 8.2 kiloyear event;
    6 	≈ −9.4 ka 	≈ 7400 BC 	Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[18] as well as with a cold event in China.[19]
    7 	≈ −10.3 ka 	≈ 8300 BC 	
    8 	≈ −11.1 ka 	≈ 9100 BC 	

    Notice the spacing on the others.

    1-2 – 1.4 ky
    2-3 – 1.4 ky
    3-4 – 1.7 ky
    4-5 – 2.3 ky
    5-6 – 1.2 ky
    6-7 – 0.9 ky
    7-8 – 0.8 ky

    Now look at 6-8 at 1.7 ky. Sorta looks like maybe 7 was a half Bond Event cycle. The dating in the old ones gets sketchy as you go further back in time, and there are some other cooling events that didn’t get counted as Bond Events. Now look at the LIA time vs last real known Bond Event. 900 years or 0.9 KY. Really more like 700 years from onset of the L.I.A. in about 1300. Gee… 700 x 2 = 1400 or 1.4 ky. Where have I seen that number before….

    So if the older ones are actually measuring 1/2 Bond cycle events, and you have some inaccuracy in the middle ones dates, this could very easily be a 1.4 ky periodicity with 700 year harmonics. 1.4, 1.4, 1.4, (add the excess .3 to 2.3, gives 2.6. So two 1.3 cycles… only a 100 year error) etc.

    That’s my belief. We get a full on Bond Event, starting about 2018 to 2020. Then in about 1400 years more we have unrecoverable glacial onset.

    Hopefully my guess is in gross error, the L.I.A. was in fact Bond Event Zero, and there is an irregular period to Bond Events, not 1.4 ky clockwork, so we get a longer cycle now after a short one. But: “Hope is not a strategy. -E.M.Smith”…..

    So watch for warm Florida winters, growth of European glaciers, and a polar cap that fails to melt back in summer… if that happens, move south, pronto.


    The problem I have is with comparing 23 to 23.4 degrees. Matched to the same precision, we have 23 vs 23… and a big Oh Dear… We are now dancing in the snow in the error bands… That is what the math forces us to understand.


    It may not be your HTML so much as the sometimes odd things WordPress does with it to “help” you… In comments it works differently than in postings, too, which means I have to context switch my html based on where I’m typing… (so does it steal angle brackets here, or is that in postings…)


    I think the real peak was in 1998, so about a 30 to 40 year lag. It is cooler here, now, than it was then, from simple observation. That would make the cold happen about 30 years after the first slow solar cycle, about 2008, so call it 2038 – 2048 for the coldest point. Now if it is itself a very cold excursion, it ought to be entering the decline 1/2 cycle earlier, so 2023 to 2028 kind of choices. Habibulo thinks 2040 will be the bottom of the cold (studies the sun much more than almost anyone else, IMHO) with onset in about 2020 IIRC.

    @Dave Evans Lag:

    OK, sounds right to me. So call it 11 years. (I remember reading stuff saying one spot cycle lag, likely his stuff). It could be 14 years in long cycles. Take 2008, add 11 or 14, you get 2019 to 2022. Looks like everything keeps landing on those same general points / ranges for the SHTF moment.

    IMHO we’ve already got some of it started up in the mountains this winter. So it will get worse for the next 30 years and at some point someone will decide to declare an official starting date. I’ll guess that they choose 2020 as the official start (adding 12 to 2008 and giving a nice round number).

    But time will tell.

  15. philjourdan says:

    Lief over at WUWT keeps poo-pooing the relationship between Sunspots and climate. I guess only time will tell us if there is one.

  16. M Simon says:

    There was a Russian paper (WUWT had it IIRC) predicting 2014 to 2020 as the onset. If you think of sine curves (flat tops) 2014 is probably right. If you want noticeable slope 2020 seems good.

  17. Pingback: Solar Cycle Oh Dear… – Climate Collections

  18. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi Chief. You said- The problem I have is with comparing 23 to 23.4 degrees. Matched to the same precision, we …

    Looking at one of Javiers charts, 23.6 is about 500 ybp and 23.8 about 1500 ybp. The total range for obliquity is 22.1 to 24.5, so dealing with tenths helps. With a little yoga you may get over your aversion, heh.

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  19. Larry Ledwick says:

    Really more like 700 years from onset of the L.I.A. in about 1300. Gee… 700 x 2 = 1400 or 1.4 ky. Where have I seen that number before….

    The start of the little ice age is pretty precise and has a very obvious indicator. It appears the “switch event” occurred in 1306-1315 when Europe had almost continuous rain which turned much of it into knee deep mud.

    Two great natural disasters struck Europe in the 14th Century. One was climatic: the Little Ice Age. This term is used in wildly varied ways by different authors, and there actually seem to have been two cooling episodes: an earlier one from the late 1200’s to 1600 or so, and a later one in the 1700’s and 1800’s. During the earlier one, the Baltic Sea froze over in 1303, 1306 and 1307, something never before recorded. Alpine glaciers advanced. The Norse settlements in Greenland were cut off and grain cultivation ceased in Iceland. The last ship sailed from Iceland to Greenland in the early 1400’s (tantalizingly close to Columbus); when contact was resumed in the 1700’s, the settlements were long abandoned. Starvation, disease, raids by English pirates and conflict with natives have all been suggested as causes, and all probably played a role in the demise of the colonies. In France, crops failed after heavy rains in 1315; there were widespread famine, reports of cannibalism, and epidemics.

    Scientists today find evidence of this so-called “Little Ice Age,” in polar and Alpine glaciers which the data show began to advance at this time. Moreover, historical records from the day confirm that the winter of 1306-7 was unusually frigid, the first such lingering cold snap Europe had endured in nearly three centuries.

    Florence: Arno River (click to see larger image) While the drop in global temperature was probably no more than one degree on average, it was enough to make a significant impact on agriculture. For instance, grain and cereal production had to be abandoned in Scandinavia, and viticulture (wine-production) became impossible in England, as it still is for the most part. Not only cooler but wetter, too, the change in climate brought with it increased rainfall which precipitated other problems, such as flooding. In particular, the Arno River which flows through Florence (central Italy) swept away many bridges with the force of its waters.

    But the first real pan-European catastrophe resulting from the onset of the “Little Ice Age” was a widespread failure of crops. Beginning in 1315, the weather was so rainy that most grains sown in the ground suffered root rot, if they germinated at all. Also, the lack of sun, high humidity and cooler temperatures meant water evaporated at a slower rate, which caused salt production to drop. Less salt made it more difficult to preserve meats and that, combined with the losses in agriculture, led to famine by year’s end.

    When the same happened again in 1316 and then once more in 1317, peasants were forced to eat their seed grain. With little hope of recovery even if weather improved, despair spread across the continent. Frantic to survive, people ate cats, dogs, rats and, according to some historical records, their own children. In places, the announcement of a criminal’s execution was seen as an invitation to dinner.

    Later branded the Famine of 1315-1317, this disaster marked the beginning of a decrease in European population that would last more than a century and a half. Many cities were hard hit—for instance, in Ypres (Flanders) a tenth of the population died in six months and in Halesowen (England) the population dropped by fifteen percent during this period—all this led to general de-urbanization across the continent.

    So if the pattern is consistent the key indicators for onset of strong cooling from the historical record are heavy nearly continuous rains in Europe and the Baltic sea freezing over.

  20. pearce m. schaudies says:

    @Larry- from historical record …

    Moreover, historical records from the day confirm that the winter of 1306-7 was unusually frigid, the first such lingering cold snap Europe had endured in nearly three centuries.

    So we have …

    winter of 2009–10 in the United Kingdom (also called The Big Freeze.

    and …

    Beginning in 1315, the weather was so rainy that most grains sown in the ground suffered root rot.

    Now if we start having extra rain beginning soon after 2015 in N. Eu, go long raincoats, rubber boots, umbrellas, heh.

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  21. pearce m. schaudies says:

    oops- math transpose error!

    2015 sb. 2018 watch for unseasonable spring rain.

  22. Larry Ledwick says:

    Plus or minus a bit of error due to the complexity of climate that is my expectation. We don’t know for certain what the rain environment in California was in the early 1300’s but this spring (Oroville dam etc.) is reminiscent of some of the mud slide springs California has seen in previous decades as the precipitation cycle shifts from dry to wet.

    In 2013 we had unseasonable wet fall weather (2013 flooding from nearly continuous rain here in the Denver area) This year our snow pack is looking very good. And we have had a rainy spring (and some hail this year)

    Unseasonable rain would be a reasonably expected outcome of a general cooling of the atmosphere as the colder temperatures lower the atmospheres ability to hold water vapor. Once that moisture level is lowered then the lower specific heat of the dryer air would make dramatic cooling easier due to improved IR radiation of heat to the cold sky at night etc.

    The problem is all these are just local anecdotes of weather, and hard to separate from normal random variations and some sort of a firm cycle in precipitation. This is the sort of problem that AI might be useful to sort out, input rain data and flooding data along with temperature data, and see if the AI system can pick out consistent patterns.

    For example if you have heavy flooding and cold rain in the spring in country xyz followed by a harsh winter the following winter, expect hard winters to follow in the neighboring countries in following years.

    I have notice a poorly defined pattern in weather over the years that I have difficulty explaining or quantifying. But think of it as a pattern of high moisture, or drought which slowly walks like a gyroscope’s precession around the globe.

    My feeling is that this pattern of wetter weather slowly moves west to east about 1000 miles or so each year. California has started getting wet, such as the Oroville rains and Sierra snows, the last couple years and Colorado also is starting to get increased snow fall this year and I expect this wetter pattern to slowly move eastward. The races on the bonneville salt flats were rained out 2 years in a row 2014-2015 with an shortened racing season in 2013. This pattern seems to repeat in that normally dry desert region about every 10-12 years or so (solar cycle link?) Normally the salt flats is dry hard salt pan as hard as concrete in late August when the races are normally held.

    Also rained out in 1992 and 1983 when Utah has major flooding problems.
    This was part of a 4 year long wet cycle in the great basin.

    Patterns of flooding and drought in the great basin

  23. E.M.Smith says:


    The problem isn’t with the 23.4 measure NOW, it is with the 23 for prior glacials. We don’t really know if that 23 means 23.1 or 23.2 or 22.9 or… It is just “23” no dot. That means anywhere from 22.5 to 23.4 and THAT’S the problem. Until we know EXACTLY prior glacial onset times to less than 100 years, we’re in that error band of thousands of years.

    Maybe someone has found a way to get that precision and I Just have not been caught up to date on the newest ‘whatever’; but until that historic glacial onset gets a decimal point and a tenths value, you MUST compare “22.5-23.4” to 23.4, and that means it could be started already. Or it could take 1500 years… Or…

    And no, yoga does nothing to change the rules of math.


    Yeah, that’s based on the TSI constancy argument. We’ll find out in about a decade. The spectrum shift gives a plausible mechanism with near constant TSI, so this Grand Solar Minimum will say which thesis is the right one.

    @M. Simon:

    I attended a presentation by Habibulo Abdusamatov (sp?) in Chicago. He’s the guy you are thinking of, I think. IMHO he’s got it nailed. Talked to him after the presentation. He is rich in clue and care…

    I have his card somewhere… Don’t remember him spelling it with a Kh… but it’s really Cyrillic anyway.


    Yup. That’s why the current global increase in flooding has my eye… Ocean is warm, IR / Red causing even more evaporation, so lots of precipitation. We’re in the discharge phase for the ocean heat and that is via water… Late cycle when the oceans are cooler and we swap back to high UV / Blue, we ought to get a very cold drought for a while…

    It is also why I moved the Wiki date of 1500 to 1300 for the “surmise”…

    There have been spectacular floods from Sri Lanka to Peru to Canada to… News of them not so much…

  24. cdquarles says:

    @ Phil, he will. His thing, it seems to me, to be a fixation of TSI variability, where maybe the key is a combination of several things, some that are covariant and some that aren’t. We do know that Sol is a variable star. Variable, here, if I am understanding it correctly, is the spectrum emitted broadband. That is, more EUV/UV versus more IR, for the same or nearly the same ‘color’ temperature. [Remember that the SB color temperature does not have to correspond to the thermodynamic temperature nearly as much as some assume.)

  25. cdquarles says:

    This, again, is something that grinds my gears. Could someone please tell me where this talk of Earth’s climate system came from and how it is different from Earth’s weather system? I know that ‘progressives’ like to drop history down the memory hole and abuse language (Newspeak/Doublethink); but if climate is *only* a statistical summary description of previously realized weather using arbitrary ‘bins’, how in the heck can we change the climate without grossly changing the weather, locally, over the whole globe and where our, like all other life on this rock’s influence is only local? /rhetorical

  26. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Interesting details on obliquity driving glacial / interglacial cycles.

    if someone could post fig.13, good comparison.

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  27. Larry Ledwick says:

    Useful to remember as all the climate catastrphists rant about the Paris accord
    From twitter:

    Bill Mitchell‏Verified account @mitchellvii 4 hours ago

    Why the hell do scientists think the world is too hot? We are at some of the coolest levels in 10,000 years!!!

  28. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Looks like 23.5 deg obliquity usually causes 508 w/m2 at 65N on 21 jun. This often triggers ( enables ) interglacial on way up, and exit on way down.

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  29. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Heres one talks about jupiter saturn influence …

    … And then this collection …

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  30. E.M.Smith says:


    Me too.

    I’m much more fond of:

    Than the notion of average weather… that average bit seems an invention of the Climate Catastrophe Clowns… ANY TIME anyone uses an average, be very suspicious. It is ONLY a statistic and a much trickier one than most folks realize. Averages hide things. Often very important things and errors…

    Then the other good definition is “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get”. Pithy and accurate, IMHO.

  31. jim2 says:

    EM. What’s your take on the tight error bars assigned by BEST for their global product? Mosher says it’s accomplished by the jackknife method (I believe that was it.). IIRC, their precision was in tenths of a degree. That just doesn’t seem possible. Dr. JC has also expressed skepticism, but I haven’t seen any rigorous proof that it’s wrong.

  32. E.M.Smith says:

    They have the precision, just not the accuracy…

    The GAT rests on two fallacies:

    Intensive values can not be averaged and retain meaning. ALL averages of temperatures from different instruments measuring different air, presented as having meaning as temperatures, are bogus.

    Nyquist is not met, therefore the result is wrong. How much wrong, noone knows.

  33. A C Osborn says:

    jim2 says: 2 June 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Their Final Product is, to be blunt, absolute CRAP.
    Have you actually looked at their output as I have.
    I suggest that you find the most local Weather Station to you as you know the area, look at the original data and BEST’s original data and then look at their Final Product for that station.
    What they do is work out the Temperature Trend over a very large area and then superimpose that over the single station.
    What that means is that it does not handle coastal values at all well, where they are controlled by the local surface water & prevailing winds, whereas the major land mass is not.
    Take a look at the Irish weather station Valentia Observatory, one off the oldest in the world and see what they do to the data which is supplied by the Irish Met Office.
    Or take a look at the Icelandic ones, Paul Homewood did a lot of work on those.

    Mr Mosher made the statement that he only needed the Latitude and Elevation to tell you what the temperature was for that place, which is patent bullshit as you can test it for yourself the temperatures at the same Latitude and Elevation of a Continent can vary by as much as 10 degrees C from one side to the other East to West.

  34. A C Osborn says:

    He also made this statement, which I have recorded for posterity.

    “Steven Mosher | July 2, 2014 at 11:59 am |

    “However, after adjustments done by BEST Amundsen shows a rising trend of 0.1C/decade.

    Amundsen is a smoking gun as far as I’m concerned. Follow the satellite data and eschew the non-satellite instrument record before 1979.”

    BEST does no ADJUSTMENT to the data.

    All the data is used to create an ESTIMATE, a PREDICTION

    “At the end of the analysis process,
    % the “adjusted” data is created as an estimate of what the weather at
    % this location might have looked like after removing apparent biases.
    % This “adjusted” data will generally to be free from quality control
    % issues and be regionally homogeneous. Some users may find this
    % “adjusted” data that attempts to remove apparent biases more
    % suitable for their needs, while other users may prefer to work
    % with raw values.”

    With Amundsen if your interest is looking at the exact conditions recorded, USE THE RAW DATA.
    If your interest is creating the best PREDICTION for that site given ALL the data and the given model of climate, then use “adjusted” data.

    See the scare quotes?

    The approach is fundamentally different that adjusting series and then calculating an average of adjusted series.

    in stead we use all raw data. And then we we build a model to predict
    the temperature.

    At the local level this PREDICTION will deviate from the local raw values.
    it has to.”

  35. jim2 says:

    I would say they don’t even have the precision. (I just had this thought as was driving home.)

    The precision will be blown out by the Tobs, I’m thinking. The adjusted temperature could be 5 or 10 degrees off the real temperature and this could vary day by day. This will affect both the accuracy AND the precision because it will increase the absolute variance over the number of days measured.

  36. jim2 says:

    Oops. Meant to put this in the paris treaty topic. Move it if you like.

  37. E.M.Smith says:


    As moving comments is a royal pain in the butt, and they are both climate related anyway, I’m gonna let it lay.

    Since folks are adding to the BEST bash:

    Also their method involves a gigantic number of automated cut / splice operations (they brag on that… like bragging you make English Tea using cold water and tea bags in a cup, IMHO…). This, by definition, means they are strongly enriching the “splice artifacts” in their Data Food Product…

    Per precision and accuracy: Um, Precision is just the number of digits after the decimal point. More just means more bits, not better results. Accuracy is just how close those bits match reality. In High School Chemistry, we were taught an interesting saying “NEVER let your precision exceed your accuracy”; thus my line that they HAVE the precision, just not the accuracy, is a kind of “Math put-down”. Saying they have done it exactly wrong, and created a lot of digits after the decimal point that have no meaning as they are well beyond the accuracy available to them…

    Basically, someplace with a reported 12.3 C will be shown as 12.487646576984378376 which has LOTS of precision, but isn’t at all accurate and is way out of whack with the actual temperature of 12.121 C that was misread by the instrument… What actually ought to be reported is 12 C since the 1/10 C place is variable and NOT in sync with reality (i.e. inaccurate).

    H.S. Chem Teacher would take points off of ANY calculation on your tests or homework where precision exceeded accuracy. He was a stickler for that one. With good cause. I thank him to this day… He was also my Physics teacher. Same rule there too. Folks would protest “But I got the right answer!” and he would say: No you didn’t, you had the wrong precision… Tends to drive the point home.

    Explaining a “dig” kills it almost as much as explaining a joke… Oh Well.

  38. Larry Ledwick says:

    This is the issue which finally made me mostly switch off any concern over the validity of the global warming models etc. They have piled so many fundamental errors upon each other that it is functionally impossible for their data to be of any value at all.

    Nyquist, intrinsic, extrinsic, back filling data and retroactive adjustments (undocumented) of historical data, built in bias due to dropping high altitude and high latitude stations, literally having incorrect location data for some of their reporting stations (a station located on a bluff above a bay is calculated to be in the middle of the bay), no tracking of station moves and equipment changes, no effort to fix or even recognize obvious data faults. Implied precision and accuracy that exceeds that of the instruments used to record the data, bad statistical assumptions, or improper assumptions applied to statistical methods. Using temperature as a proxy for heat content without any effort to account for specific heat (average temperature means nothing if you don’t know what the humidity was for example).

    It is like a users manual of things not to do in a scientific analysis.

  39. p.g.sharrow says:

    One of those things that I can’t figure is why humidity is not is used when calculating energy content of the measured air mass. They take the temperature as well as humidity readings and then discard the most important part when judging climate changes. Even plants and farmers use both to determine climate growing conditions. The information is there in all weather records and reports, just one more column to add into the data base spreadsheet…pg

  40. E.M.Smith says:


    Now don’t fib to us… you know the answer… because it wouldn’t show the desired result… :-)

  41. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Here’s part B on Holocene climate variability

    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future
    Falling Skys &
    Wolves at Door

  42. jim2 says:

    @E.M.Smith says: 2 June 2017 at 9:52 pm

    OK, I missed your math dig. I was using precision in the sense of deviation.

    Point being, the Tobs correction will add a lot of noise to the temperature measurements. For 1,000 thermometers, over the course of a year there will be 360,000 data points. So maybe this noise would average out to a truer value after all.

    But as you point out, there are other problems with the various temperature reconstructions.

  43. llanfar says:

    @jim2 Having followed the WUWT temperature project (New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial), I have zero faith in readings put out by any government agency…

  44. E.M.Smith says:


    The basic math flaw is one of statistical removal of error by averaging readings. That can remove RANDOM error, as over many measurements of THE SAME THING the random errors will tend to cancel. Unfortunately, averaging can not remove SYSTEMATIC error and such averaging is bogus when measuring DIFFERENT things.

    (The CAPS are not “shouting”, they are highlighting key words in key concepts).

    That SAME vs DIFFERENT thing is the “intrinsic / extrinsic” problem. Change the humidity of the air and you now have different heat vs temperature and can not remove any error via averaging different thermometers in different places.

    The RANDOM vs SYSTEMATIC points at things like the change from Stevenson Screens (with aging whitewash putting in a warming bias} to the electronic gizmos (that sucked their own exhaust when measuring humidity.) Both put a warming bias in, but it was systematic across all the instruments. Average them all together, you still get the systematic bias.

    So take 10 thermometers in one batch of air in one place at the same time and average their readings, you can in fact improve your accuracy and precision as the random errors in the thermometers average away. Put them in 5 different towns at different distances from the ocean and then measure 2 times, one noon the other midnight: each is measuring a different air sample with different humidity and pressure. Averaging them together can’t do a thing to improve your base readings as you measured the intrinsic property of variable things.

    Folks learn that the first one works ( 10 thermometers in ONE calorimeter read at the same time) and think the averaging math extends to the second one, when it doesn’t. Once they believe that averaging a hundred thermometers together can move accuracy and precision out a few decimal places, it is near impossible to get them to see the reason why it can’t when measuring 10 different things once instead of one thing ten simultaneous times.

    Shortly after that, one ends up in the accuracy vs precision statistical mire as nearly nobody gets that right unless repeatedly schooled on it. By that time, pretty much everyone in an audience has left and the opponent is intractable, so nothing much changes. (Yes, many battle scars…)

    FWIW, IMHO, the best way to get folks to grasp precision vs accuracy is by example:

    Actual Property: 12.2345678912345678 C (but well beyond our ability to measure)
    Measured value: 12.2346 (instrument with 1/1000 C ability)
    Precision of instrument, to 1/10000 C, but with error in the last place.
    Accuracy of instrument? That last digit is not matching reality, so 1/1000 C
    Report value of 12.234 you are both precise and accurate.
    Report value of 12.2 you are accurate, but not precise (have no error, but lacking digits)
    Report value of 12.3 you are inaccurate (value wrong) and imprecise (few digits)
    Report value of 12.234678 you are highly precise and inaccurate (digits wrong but lots of them)

    The wiki description isn’t exactly wrong, but you must wander through a lot of verbiage to get the basic ideas right, where a few numbers illustrate it pretty quickly.

Anything to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s