Nature: Fastest decline in solar activity in 9,300 years

As someone who believes the sun is responsible for the climate of the earth, I find this fascinating. 

I also need to follow-up on how they measured the solar activity over the last 9,300 years.

This via Nature

“The recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end,” says this study on nature.com.

The study,  published in 2015, looked at past variations of solar activity. In 2010, the study found, scientists estimated a mere 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years.

However, “the decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in 9,300 years.”

“If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%,” the paper continues.  

“Numerous studies have identified links between past climate and solar variability42,43,” the paper points out. “During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), very few sunspots were seen despite regular observations44.”

Galileo started observing sunspots in 1611. And they were observed regularly thereafter. We have excellent sunspot numbers for the last 500+ years. 

“The Maunder Minimum coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe,” the researchers agree. “On longer timescales, a grand minimum of solar activity, the Homeric Minimum (∼2,750–2,550 years before present), affected climate conditions through western Europe.”

The authors foresee a gradual descent to Maunder Minimum-like conditions, which will be last from a few decades to more than 100 years.

 

Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 was not the driver

You need three things to demonstrate causality: 

  1. Correlation
  2. Time Sequence
  3. Rule Out Other Possible Explanations. 

The AGW crowd has waved their hands over #2 and #3 since the beginning. 

Take a careful look at this graph. You will see that CO2 is in red and temperatures are in black. The temperature rises and falls before CO2 does. That means that CO2 cannot be causing temperature change. In fact, it could be just the opposite: temperatures change causes CO2 to change! 

CO2 changes come AFTER the temperature changes.

“While the CO2 and temperature go up – somewhat – together,  when the temperature plummets after each peak, the CO2 stays high!” says reader Jimmy Walter.

“If CO2 were the driver, the temperature could not drop!”

Via Dr. Roy Spencer

Another Arctic ice panic ends as world temperatures plummet

In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño. Via the UK’s The Telegraph

Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years

Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead

In a final communiqué at the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the nations took “note” of Mr. Trump’s decision to abandon the pact and “immediately cease” efforts to enact former President Barack Obama’s pledge of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.  But the other 19 members of the group broke explicitly with Mr. Trump in their embrace of the international deal, signing off on a detailed policy blueprint outlining how their countries could meet their goals in the pact.

So they corporately agreed to move forward with the Paris Treaty. And then they promptly, individually backed out of it. 

Priceless. 

If you just Google the letters “INDC” (“Intended Nationally Determined Contribution”) along with the name of a country, you can find out exactly what that country has promised to do as part of the Paris Agreement.  So let’s take a look at what a few of the big countries are up to.

Read here what each G-20 country is actually doing for climate change.

There’s not doubt in my mind that Trump did the right thing. Everyone wanted to take the US money and not do anything themselves. 

We should make Obama personally pay back the taxpayer money he illegally gave away. 

Turkey can’t get free money from US, decides climate is safe, Paris unneccessary

JoNova rightly notes: Ergodan does his own climate maths — decides that the most significant inflatable cash cow has  disappeared from the sky. The global climate suddenly looks clearer, and so Turkey pulls back from Paris accord:

(Reuters)  The U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement means Turkey is less inclined to ratify the deal because the U.S. move jeopardizes compensation promised to developing countries, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday.

“Therefore, after this step taken by the United States, our position steers a course towards not passing this from the parliament,” he said.

Al Gore Praises “Climate Leader” South Australia

South Australians have rolling blackouts because they don’t have enough energy to power their homes and businesses. Australia made catastrophic renewable policies that were endorsed by Al Gore. Gore considers Australia as a climate world leader. 

I’m sure he’d be happy if the lights were off in the whole world — except for his mansions. 

Via ABC News Australia

Donald Trump ‘isolated’ on climate change: Al Gore says rest of world moving on without US President

7.30 By Callum Denness

The United States will meet or exceed its Paris Agreement emissions targets despite an increasingly isolated President Donald Trump withdrawing from the accord, former vice-president Al Gore says.

In Australia to promote his latest film, An Inconvenient Sequel, the climate campaigner and one-time presidential candidate said Mr Trump was out of step domestically and internationally.

“The country as a whole is going to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement, regardless of what Donald Trump says or does,” Mr Gore told 7.30.

Disputing the argument renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive than conventional power sources, Mr Gore praised South Australia’s recently struck deal to build a battery storage facility with Tesla.

“The electricity from both solar and wind continues to come down every single year. And the new historic development is battery storage is coming down significantly in cost,” Mr Gore said.

“And this historic announcement that South Australia is leading the entire world with the installation of the largest battery in the world, it will be the first of many to come.”

104 Years Ago Today

104 years ago today, the hottest temperature ever recorded on earth: 134°F in Death Valley. They had a big celebration for the 100th anniversary. 

Will they ever have a similar celebration of the coldest temperature in the USA of −79.8°F recorded in Prospect Creek, Alaska on January 23rd, 1975, or the coldest temperature on Earth of −128.6 °F at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21st, 1983.

Doubtful, since that would run counter to the AGW talking points. 

BTW, notice that the record hot was over 100 years ago; the record colds were 40 years ago…

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’

ou’d think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers—but apparently not.

Via Julie Kelly: 

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways.”

 

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”

Why is the media ignoring the record low temperatures? – Video

  • Record Cold USA During Summer in Dakotas and the Great Lakes – Media Ignores. 
  • 28 Jun 2017 – Dozens of summer cold records set in Dakotas & Great Lakes and temperatures at least 10-15F below normal … and the media remains silent.

Last week all you heard was it’s so hot the airplanes can’t take off, but now with record cold during summer and 1/4 of the northern and N.E USA below normal … not a peep.

Also, global temperatures aren’t rising as expected this summer, another indication of the intensifying mini ice age. Snows in Russia  days earlier, meters of snow in South America and atmospheric compression events at dozens of locations planet wide.

 

More rational policies in our future?

“President Trump’s bold decision underscores the ill-informed science, economics, ethics and energy politics that have driven climate cataclysm caterwauling for decades.” – Paul Driessen

 

“Al Gore says President Trump’s Exit Paris decision will bring “a global weather apocalypse.” Coal-billionaire Tom Steyer called the action “a traitorous act of war.”

And then some common sense: 

“Please. What would really impact our planet’s habitats, wildlife and scenic vistas are the millions of wind turbines and solar panels the world would need to generate expensive, intermittent electricity – if we abandoned the oil, natural gas and coal that still provide 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. And for all that, at best we would get an undetectable 0.2 degrees C (0.3 F) less warming by 2100 … IF plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change and extreme weather.“

Generating just 20% of US electricity with wind power would require some 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, up to 18 million acres of land, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. Multiply that times global needs, and you get the picture.”

Via IceAge Now

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth’s Climate

NewImage

Great article from Mike Jonas on solar influence on climate

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.

In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. This should also answer Leif Svalgaard’s question, though it seems rather unlikely that he would be unaware of any of the material cited here. Certainly just about everything in this article has already appeared on WUWT; the aim here is to present it in a single article (sorry it’s so long). I provide some links to the works of people like Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder. For those who have time, those works are worth reading in their entirety.

NewImage

Table of Contents:

1. Henrik Svensmark

2. Correlation

3. Galactic Cosmic Rays

4. Ultra-Violet

5. The Non-Linear System

6. A Final Quirk

Book rejecting climate science sent to teachers

NewImage

More than 200K copies mailed nationwide. 

Local science teachers refuse to read it. Their minds are already made up. #ThatsNotScience

Kendrick High School science teacher Eric McDowell is one of thousands of teachers to receive a copy of “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” a book being distributed nationwide through the mail by a conservative, Illinois-based think tank, the Heartland Institute.

Approximately 200,000 copies of the book – which denounces the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe climate change is manmade and dangerous as false and “an insult to science” – have been distributed to K-12 teachers and college professors across the country, according to the Heartland Institute’s website.

The book was mailed out with a cover letter that asked teachers to “consider the possibility that the science in fact is not ‘settled.’ “

“I got a copy but didn’t bother reading it as it is a waste of my time,” McDowell wrote in an email to the Daily News. “Thus, it got sent to the recycling center for their employees’ perusal.”

In addition, the mailing includes a copy of an 11-minute DVD titled “History of Climate Change in Greenland.” The film was previously released under the title “Unstoppable Solar Cycles: Rethinking Global Warming.”

The book was first released in December 2015, at the time of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris.

The second edition of the book, which is currently being distributed, includes a foreword by Marita Noon, executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She is also listed in the book’s preface as a columnist for Breitbart.com and other conservative publications.

Noon writes, “The global warming movement is the most extensive and most expensive public relations campaign in the history of the world. Nearly every government agency in the United States and many more around the world are promoting the manmade-climate-change-scare scenario.”

Oops – Polar ice not receding after all

NewImage

Data shows that it in fact may be standing at its greatest extent in at least 97 years.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average.

More: 

Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

However, new data released by NASA reveals that the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since satellite measurements began in 1979.

Considering that the late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive at that time than they had been since at least the 1920s.

This indicates that not only is polar ice not receding, it is now quite possibly at its greatest extent in at least 97 years.

Leonardo ‘Private Jet’ Dicaprio Bashes Trump Over Paris Climate Pullout

NewImage

Leonardo DiCaprio – the man who once flew 8,000 miles on a private jet to pick up an “environmental award,” is bashing Donald Trump over his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord.

Shortly after Trump made his announcement in the Rose Garden yesterday, DiCaprio tweeted, “Today, our planet suffered. It’s more important than ever to take action. #ParisAgreement.”

It’s unlikely that DiCaprio himself will be taking any action if that means curbing his own carbon-belching luxury celebrity lifestyle.

Last year, the Oscar winner took a round trip of 8,000 miles on a private jet from Cannes to New York and back again to collect an honor from a clean-water advocacy group.

After flying on another private jet to attend the soccer World Cup in Brazil in 2014, DiCaprio stayed on a 470-foot yacht owned by oil billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The yacht uses fuel equal to 83 American household’s annual worth of CO2 emissions.

After being entertained by the oil billionaire, DiCaprio attended a People’s Climate March in New York where he protested against – you guessed it – the oil industry.

During his Oscar winning speech, DiCaprio decried global warming as “the most urgent threat facing our entire species”.

This was after the actor had taken no less than six private jet trips from New York to LA in the space of six weeks.

He also took a private jet from L.A. to Las Vegas and stayed in Vegas for just eight hours to attend a party before flying all the way back again.

Leo was so worried about global warming that just months after his Oscar speech, he got his celebrity friends to fly 6,000 miles from LA to St Tropez so they could listen to his speech on, you guessed it, global warming.

And I’m not done.

Leo’s 2000 movie The Beach was made at the cost of a precious eco-system in Thailand being completely ruined.

As part of his environmental activist re-brand, DiCaprio also complains about over-fishing, a passion that didn’t prevent him from serving his guests whole sea bass, having flown them all in on CO2 belching helicopters, at an event where a film was screened about – you guessed it – over-fishing.

DiCaprio has even been lambasted by environmentalists like Robert Rapier, who accused the actor of living a lifestyle that, “diminishes his moral authority to lecture others on reducing their own carbon emissions.”

Really? Ya think?

DiCaprio represents everything that’s wrong with today’s virtue signaling Hollywood elite.

They lecture ordinary Americans about their lifestyle to earn entertainment industry brownie points, while living extravagant, luxury, carbon-spewing lifestyles themselves.

Continue reading

7 Things You Need To Know About The Paris Accord

7 Things You Need To Know About The Paris Accord

President Trump announced on Thursday that the United States will be withdrawing from the Paris Accord, much to the dismay of tree-hugging alarmist leftists everywhere. Despite the Left’s apocalyptic rhetoric, leaving the Paris Accord was the right call based on a simple cost-benefit analysis. Here are seven things you need to know about the Paris Accord.

More:

1. Under the accord, the U.S. had a target of reducing its carbon emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. That alone would have resulted in “extreme changes in energy use” because “even Mr. Obama’s bevy of anti-carbon regulations would get the U.S. to a mere 45% of its target,” per The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

2. The accord would have required the countries involved to raise their carbon emission-cutting goals every five years. According to The Daily Signal, the Obama administration intended to eventually curb carbon emissions by 80%, essentially North Korea levels.

3. The accord is non-binding legally, but activist courts may have used it as a legal weapon. Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro noted that Trump’s White House counsel, Donald McGahn, argued that “that courts could theoretically use the Paris Accord to strike down Trump’s attempted rollback of carbon emissions regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.” Despite the Left’s insistence to the contrary, this could have been a real possibility, as the judiciary’s record of late shows a preference toward policy rather than the law itself (ie Trump’s travel ban). Shapiro also pointed out that the Left is acting as if “the world will burn up” for leaving the accord, which begs the question: if the accord is voluntary, why is the Left acting in such a hysterical manner?

4. The accord doesn’t hold China and India to a high standard. Via the Journal‘s editorial:

China and India offered benchmarks pegged to GDP growth, which means they can continue their current energy plans. China won’t even begin reducing emissions until 2030 and in the next five years it will use more coal. 

China also can’t be trusted to reduce their carbon emissions since they have a history of misrepresenting their total emission levels.

5. The U.S. had pledged $3 billion a year to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. Under the accord, participants would provide $100 billion to organizations like the Green Climate Fund to provide money to poorer countries to neutralize the costs of curtailing carbon emissions. The Obama administration has already funneled $1 billion to the organization without congressional approval as part of a $3 billion pledge.

But such funding would hardly help impoverished nations, as South African activist Leon Louw, who works for an influential free-market think-tank in Africa, told Climate Depot in 2011:

“What the government of rich countries are saying to poor countries is: ‘Those of you who are best at causing poverty, we will enrich you, we will give you money,’” Louw told Climate Depot while attending the UN climate summit.

“Government to government aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty. Countries that get more government to government aide have lower economic growth rates. Countries with less aid, have higher growth rates. If you subsidize failure you get failure and foreign aid does exactly that. It rewards people for being unsuccessful,” Louw stated.

6. The accord’s impact on the climate would have been minimal. Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, estimates that if all the promised cuts under the accord were implemented, temperature would decline by only 0.17°C in 2100. The U.S. cuts under the accord would be responsible for reducing temperatures by 0.031°C in that same time-frame.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate scientist, noted in a column that reduction in temperature under the accord “is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks.”

7. The accord’s impact on the economy, on the other hand, would have been detrimental. According to Lomborg, the accord would cost $1-2 trillion a year worldwide after 2030; by 2035 U.S. would have lost over $2.5 trillion in GDP, per The Heritage Foundation.

When putting it all together, the cost-benefit analysis is clear: withdrawing from the Paris Accord was the right move. A minimal decline in temperature for economic calamity is simply not a wise tradeoff.

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Funny how this data is coming out now that Trump has pulled us from Paris. 

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average.

More:

The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend.

Note: this was when “settled science” predicted a coming ice age. 

As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe.Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

Crickets…

Trump Pulls out of Paris Climate Agreement

Global Warming

Back in 2009, NRO columnist Kevin Williamson broke down the global warming claims as follows:

“The planet is getting warmer, human activity is a main factor, the consequences will be catastrophic, and some U.N.-style climate policeman is going to be able to manage a mitigating response — in an economically efficient manner that also is consistent with our political liberties and national sovereignties.”

He said that we need to divide the issues (and that paragraph) up into what we agree with:
1. The planet is getting warmer
2. Human Activity is the main factor
3. The consequences will be catastrophic
4. UN climate cops are going to be able to manage the mitigating responses
5. That will be done in an economically and efficient manner
6. That will be done without violating our political liberties and national sovereignty.

The Paris Agreement forces us to swallow that entire paragraph whole.

Does anyone actually believe that Paris will accomplish steps 4-6? And at what cost to us?