“The sun is still in a slump – still not conforming to NOAA “consensus” forecasts“. Sunspot counts are staying low, confounding predictions for Solar Cycle 24. So is the Ap geomagnetic index. Does this mean that scientists are money-wasting idiots who can’t get anything right Anthony?
ISES Solar Cycle, January 4, 2011.
Question: if a declining solar magnetic field, “a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth” (Science Now, Sep.t 14, 2010) means that the natural solar influence should be a cooling one, why is the global temperature rising? Is it possible that there’s some kind of… unnatural influence at work?
I wonder if when solar geomagnetic activity rises again we’ll see that instead of counteracting the… uh, unnatural influence it begins amplifying it.
“Do solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain by solar activity?“ Alec Rawls, an apparently anti-gay, anti-muslim, rigidly partisan failed sheriff, tells us that the temperature anomaly that coincidentally started at the same time as atmospheric CO2 climbed is entirely driven by Sunspot cycle length, somehow. He read it on a commercial weather company’s website.
Those solar scientists and climatologists all have it backwards and wrong. Don’t they know that sometimes there’s a lag in climate response to solar activity and sometimes there isn’t? And that it’s the duration of a sunspot cycle that matters, somehow, not the actual energy output?
Strangely, actual solar scientist Leif Svalgaard disagrees with him at length in the comments.
“NASA’s Sunspot Prediction Roller Coaster“. Christmas Guest pudding from Ira Glickstein about NASA’s solar cycle predictions, who concludes with a statement that might have been a helpful opening sentence: “I am not any kind of expert on Sunspots”.
The current solar cycle has proven unusually quiet and probably influenced by anomalies in 2003, making NASA’s predictions, based primarily on observed geomagnetic precursors, erratic. Those stupid scientists, thinking that their careful observations and analysis would be any match for a crank with Excel on his PC!
Glickstein thinks that after the publicity for the Algore film An Inconvenient Truth solar scientists “felt pressured to please their colleagues and superiors by predicting a Sunspot doozy that would presage a doozy of a warm spell.” That is the dumbest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard of.
Ira Glickstein's amateur assessment of NASA's sunspot prediction. What data is the amusing dramatic blue trend showing? None. What a mess.
“Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero“. No sunspots! Has this ever happened at this point in a solar cycle? (Yes.) This means the Earth must be cooling according to “It’s the Sun” denialists. Except 2010 was the hottest year in the instrumental record.
Anthony Watts gives us a big blob of copy and pasted Solar data and hopes we don’t draw the logical inference from it all. The comments, as always when the Sun is mentioned, are a glow with arguments about whether the Sun is externally heated or not…
“Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day“. December 23rd gave us Anthony Watts’ first Christmas Guest, and Paul Vaughn (M.Sc.) served up a delightful slice of Dunning-Kruger pudding. There’s nothing a denialist likes more than a new and obscure correlation to (briefly) divert the conversation… Causation is for sissies.
Paul wants to show that Earth’s Length of Day is influenced by cosmic rays, which slightly affect atmospheric density. Hence, using the power of wishful thinking, all Global Warming is natural and will reverse itself. Eventually. Paul gives us lots of cluttered stock promoter-style charts, spreading a tiny proportional change over a full chart range. You’d think an analytical genius like, perhaps, Steve McIntyre would call him to task on it wouldn’t you?
Yes, atmospheric and oceanic angular momentum impacts Length of Day. Trivially. This influence, measured as being on the order of one millisecond out of 86,400,000 over a period of months, is significant? Try again. Cue the ignorant arguments about magnetic fields in the comments.
“SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise – UV declined, TSI constant“. Could it be that measurements of Solar UV and Irradiance show enough variability to be a factor in climate trends? Anthony Watts wants you to think so. There’s a NASA news report about the SORCE spacecraft’s Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) results that can be spun that way, so he pastes it in.
Decrease in Solar ultraviolet radiation, 2004 - 2007. Source: Joanna Haigh/Imperial College London
Too bad that:
- The unexpected UV decline may be an artifact of the instrumentation.
“I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.
- If the change is real the impact would be the opposite of the observed climate trends.
“If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
Still, NASA scientists are simultaneously assessing the accuracy of the measurements and considering what this apparent information might suggest for solar models. The rigid mainstream scientific consensus strikes again?
“Something to be thankful for! At last: Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes“. Anthony Watts has once again found a natural cause for Global Warming (which isn’t happening). Now it’s cosmic rays! Anthony finds the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics paper Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes “compelling”, especially when combined with denialist Jo Nova’s amateur illustrations (apparently the solar magnetic field absorbs cosmic rays).
The theory, which Henrik Svensmark has been relentlessly but unsuccessfully promoting for years, is that the sun’s magnetic field deflects Galactic Cosmic Rays, which seed cloud formation as they pass through the atmosphere. Hence a weaker solar magnetic field will trigger cooling by increased Earth’s albedo.
Do you think Anthony realized that the effects observed in the paper are only on the order of several days in duration? Naw. Or that Anthony noticed the authors’ admission that this effect is swamped by the anthropogenic impact? Naw.
Anthony’s quote-mining is always fun to watch. He highlights this sentence in the paper’s abstract: “These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship.” but conveniently ignores the one immediately in front of it: “However, the results of the GCM experiment are found to be somewhat limited by the ability of the model to successfully reproduce observed cloud cover.”
Update: Here’s Jo Nova’s entertaining cosmological depict of the theory (purple annotation mine):
Jo Nova's concept of Cosmic Rays being eaten by... space dragons?