It’s The Evidence, Stupid!

Willis Eschenbach on another quest for the facts makes for some interesting reading, there may not be a 11 year solar cycle evident in the earths climate record. Any ideas, on what causes climate cycles if it is not the sun?

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz:

thumb its the sunIt’s the sun, stupid.

And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s what heats the planet.

Unfortunately, the dang facts got in the way again …

View original post 1,737 more words

9 thoughts on “It’s The Evidence, Stupid!

  1. chillguy33 May 24, 2014 / 6:43 pm

    Shouldn’t the massive heat storage and conveyance provided by the oceans be understood? I’ve seen no evidence that this little problem is finished or near finished. Has it been started? Solar activity was low during the Maunder Minimum; and solar activity looks to be low again at present. How can this factor be ignored?

  2. Sean May 25, 2014 / 2:25 pm

    I think Willis may be a bit lost in the wrong details. From what I understand, length of solar cycle was the only parameter related to cooling vs. warming. Cycle 23 was 12 years long and the minimum in dec 2008 was one of the weakest periods of solar activity ever recorded. NASA regularly measures the height of the atmosphere and the lowest height they ever measured was shortly after this. Not long after that the north south amplitude of the jet stream seem to increase leading to severe cold in some areas and warmth in others. The last time there was a cycle as weak as this was a century earlier. But whatever is going on with the sun and earth’s weather in this century long variation is superimposed on ocean cycles that are only 2/3’s as long. Teasing out correlations from such a noisy signal as the weather can’t be easy particularly when multiple very slow cycles are involved and the observation period is short and less comprehensive as you go back in time. The next couple of decades are going to be pretty interesting partially with predictions that SC25 will be much weaker than SC24.

  3. Anthony j. Mengotto May 26, 2014 / 10:10 pm

    You have to have heat in order to have energy. No sun = no energy. When the energy is reduced, the same energy that controls the jet stream, does not push up the jet stream to the north as much or for a long period of time. The sun controls the jet stream weather it’s going to the north or south. That is why we had the artic air so far to the south this winter. Not including the sun is like saying, the reason we have winters is not because of less sunlight or shortened days of light from the sun in the north. That being said, It’s the sun silly!!! Still think it’s not the sun? Well, did you know on this Memorial Day weekend we sill have ice on the great lakes? Here’s the link Maybe now were just starting to see the effects of a very weak solar cycle. And as we start the down trend to the next minimum, don’t be surprised if you here about this in the month of June!!! Sound’s like he needs to go to the school of David Archibald. Anthony

    • Sean May 27, 2014 / 7:16 am

      But it’s not just the sun. The central-eastern US was cold, the western states were warm and Europe was warm. Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics predicted this weather pattern last fall based on warm water in the eastern north Pacific. This created a high pressure ridge that pushed the jet stream north into Alaska (which was warm this winter) and then came crashing down through central Canada and the US which were very cold. I am not disputing that the state of the Sun can have an effect on the jet stream, just that Mother Nature also uses the oceans to move these rivers of wind around. Its just very hard to sort out the driver at any moment in time.

      • rishrac May 27, 2014 / 8:19 am

        When it comes to the position of the IPCC, it’s not suppose to be cold.. at all. The IPCC is scrambling to make up ideas on how the numerous predictions have failed. How could they have possibly missed the impact the oceans have on either weather or climate? They didn’t factor that into their models? Are they that stupid? The answer is no. In my arguments with them of course that was taken into account. The irradiance of the sun, for example. So either they were lying about taking a lot of other factors into account, or the models that they used were so wrong as to be ineffective.
        It’s a moving target to nail them down on anything. They conveniently forget anything that was predicted a few years ago, as if they never said it, more and stronger hurricanes, no snow, more and frequent droughts, and then move on to weather events that are happening now. They leave that window between climate and weather vague to support their viewpoints. If I talk about where it is cold, that’s weather, if they talk about where it is hot, that’s climate. Weather is not climate they will tell you. They like to have their cake and eat it too. Currently, cold fusion is more believable than climate science.

  4. Charles S. Opalek, PE May 30, 2014 / 4:39 pm

    Weather Action, Global Weather Oscillations and Harris-Mann are only the beginning of organizations using the solar-lunar influence on climate to predict weather months and years in advance with high accuracy.

    Take note warmistas. Your pagan religion of global warming is heading for the dustbin of history.

  5. DaveK June 11, 2014 / 3:56 pm

    My suspicion about Willis’ analysis is that the reason he can’t find the correlation is primarily due to variability in the length of the solar cycles. It’s hard to see frequency signatures in the response curves when the forcing input doesn’t behave well. Hysteresis in the response function certainly wouldn’t help with that.

  6. Ian Vickers June 12, 2014 / 8:38 am

    I’m surprised to see so many logically thinking individuals miss an important factor here. Solar output (all together, including the 11 year cycle discussed here) at most varies by 0.07% as far as direct observations since the 70s have seen. These variations do line up very well with sunspot observations, but their total effect on insolation is very minimal. Please people, if you look at the data, pay attention to issues of scale!

    Now I cannot say that another grand minimum (like the maunder minimum of the 1600s) won’t lower temperatures, but it is unlikely to be more than a degree, perhaps 1.5°C if conditions are quite extreme. We don’t have enough data to say any more than that.

    There is another potential effect the data is just starting to reveal, and that is variation in UV light, which may be far more variable than previously thought. The effect of such variability is still not understood, but we cannot extrapolate unknowns to mean extraordinary effects when we know its effects have been part of a very stable climate system for the past nearly 10 000 years.

    In my opinion, the data just doesn’t support global cooling from solar activity in any long term fashion. Even the “100 000 year problem” vs Milankovitch’s cycles has lots of conflicting evidence and uncertainty.

    Greenhouse gases, however, are much better understood, and can have a significant long term effect that is very difficult to regulate, beyond controlling our output.

    If the two effects nearly cancel out for a time, fine. But solar variance goes up as well as down, within our lifetimes, whereas GHGs are certainly not going down until emissions are controlled.

    • rishrac June 14, 2014 / 7:26 pm

      Ian, Solar irradiance is what they studied, the emf spectrum stretches from at 1 cycle (and maybe some sub cycles) up to cosmic rays. All of those effects are known too, and yet somehow they weren’t studied, were they? Are you saying the sun only produces visible light? Let me tell you this, I can melt ice without an increase in temperature or pressure

Leave a Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s