Global Cooling on the way.

[AGWSnowJob]

Global Cooling Coming? Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict
4.9°C fall (!)
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the forgotten
correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets
cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in
2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway,
who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.

Our knowledge of they solar dynamo is improving, and David adds the
predicted solar activity 'til 2040 to the analysis. Normal solar cycles
are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17
years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David
predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further
2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in
temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he's wrong.
As David says " The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move
south to Kansas."

He also predicts continuing drought in Africa for another 14 years, with
droughts likely in South America too.

If he's right, it's awful and excellent at the same time. Cold hurts,
but wouldn't it be something if we understood our climate well enough to
plan ahead?

http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

[T. Keating]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:26:25 +1100, "AGWSnowJob" <***@SnowJob>
wrote:

Lot's of snippy..

More crap paid for via Oz coal industry..

B.T.W. Bonzo is also paid by the same people to spam usenet..

If we wait until 2040 to find out he is DEAD & wrong, then start
mitigating CO2 emissions, Earth's biosphere will go into a far
overshoot(AGW positive feedbacks), and literally bake the carbon out
of Earth's surface layers for the next 100,000 years.

Post by AGWSnowJob
Global Cooling Coming? Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict
4.9°C fall (!)

snip..

Post by AGWSnowJob
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

[DonH]

Post by AGWSnowJob
Global Cooling Coming? Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict
4.9°C fall (!)
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the forgotten
correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets
cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in
2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway,
who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.
Our knowledge of they solar dynamo is improving, and David adds the
predicted solar activity 'til 2040 to the analysis. Normal solar cycles
are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17
years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David
predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further
2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in
temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he's wrong.
As David says " The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move
south to Kansas."
He also predicts continuing drought in Africa for another 14 years, with
droughts likely in South America too.
If he's right, it's awful and excellent at the same time. Cold hurts,
but wouldn't it be something if we understood our climate well enough to
plan ahead?
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

# I wouldn't bet on it.
Seven billion human locusts, impacting on fragile and finite planet
Earth, can't move without deleterious effect, especially if we pump billions
of tonnes of chimney smoke into the air annually - hot air rises, steam adds
to clouds, and dust particles seed clouds; whence, flooding rains in some
places, and drought elsewhere. Gases? Yes, CO2 (and steam) adds to global
warming, which slowly but ruthlessly impacts, climatically, everywhere.
Skeptics & Deniers (SAD) are brave, in that they oppose the multitude of
accumulating facts which indicates AGW is a real, and significant, threat.
Selectively picking such facts is a dangerous pastime.
Get it wrong, and we're all dead that much quicker.
Even getting it right, is no guarantee Homo Sap will survive the present
century.
Doomsday cometh, and only heroic efforts can stop or delay it!
Carbon Tax or Trade is an excuse for doing virtually nothing.
Recycle chimney smoke? Too hard? You must be kidding!

[HardySpicer]

Post by DonH

Post by AGWSnowJob
Global Cooling Coming? Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict
4.9°C fall (!)
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the  forgotten
correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets
cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in
2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway,
who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.
Our knowledge of they solar dynamo is improving, and David adds the
predicted solar activity 'til 2040 to the analysis. Normal solar cycles
are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17
years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David
predicts  a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further
2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in
temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he's wrong.
As David says " The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move
south to Kansas."
He also predicts continuing drought in Africa for another 14 years, with
droughts likely in South America too.
If he's right, it's awful and excellent at the same time. Cold hurts,
but wouldn't it be something if we understood our climate well enough to
plan ahead?
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

# I wouldn't bet on it.
   Seven billion human locusts, impacting on fragile and finite planet
Earth, can't move without deleterious effect, especially if we pump billions
of tonnes of chimney smoke into the air annually - hot air rises, steam adds
to clouds, and dust particles seed clouds; whence, flooding rains in some
places, and drought elsewhere.  Gases?  Yes, CO2 (and steam) adds to global
warming, which slowly but ruthlessly impacts, climatically, everywhere.
   Skeptics & Deniers (SAD) are brave, in that they oppose the multitude of
accumulating facts which indicates AGW is a real, and significant, threat.
   Selectively picking such facts is a dangerous pastime.
   Get it wrong, and we're all dead that much quicker.
   Even getting it right, is no guarantee Homo Sap will survive the present
century.
   Doomsday cometh, and only heroic efforts can stop or delay it!
   Carbon Tax or Trade is an excuse for doing virtually nothing.
   Recycle chimney smoke?  Too hard?  You must be kidding!

[Surfer]

Post by AGWSnowJob
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense).

<snip>

Post by AGWSnowJob
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

"....Professor Solheim has a paper in press that credits me with the
discovery of the use of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to predict
climate...."

But the following suggests they are wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

<Start extract>

In 1991, Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published an article
claiming "strikingly good agreement" between solar cycle lengths (the
fluctuating lengths of cycles undergone by sunspot numbers) and
northern hemisphere land temperatures over the period 1860–1990
(Friis-Christensen 1991).

What the science says...
The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global
warming is based on a single study published in 1991. Subsequent
research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper,
finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar
activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global
warming since 1975.

Solar cycle length is a useful indicator of long term changes in solar
activity. When the sun gets hotter, we observe shorter solar cycles.
When the sun shows a long term cooling trend, solar cycle length is
longer. A 1991 study by Friis-Christensen and Lassen smoothed out data
on solar cycle length and compared it to Northern Hemisphere
temperature (Friis-Christensen 1991). The authors suggested the close
correlation between solar cycle length and temperature supports the
direct influence of solar activity on climate over the past 130 years.
Note in particular the close correlation after 1980 during the modern
global warming trend.

Figure 1: Changes in solar cycle length (blue crosses) versus change
in Northern Hemisphere temperature (red *).
Loading Image...

However, the solar cycle data presented in Figure 1 consists of two
incongruous sets of data. The first 20 points of the graph are
smoothed using a 1-2-2-2-1 running average. However, the last 4 points
(marked 1 to 4 in the figure below) are not filtered in the same
manner. Points 1 and 2 are only partially filtered. Points 3 and 4 are
not filtered at all. In effect, it's like marrying two separate sets
of data. When the latest data points are properly filtered using the
latest solar data, the decrease in solar cycle length from 1980
disappears (Laut 2003).

Figure 2: Left: Original solar cycle length data from
Friis-Christensen 1991. The last two points, 3 and 4 are due to errors
in the authors’ arithmetic. Right: Updated solar cycle lengths using
latest data from Thejll 2000.
Loading Image...

In 1999, one of the co-authors of the original 1991 paper updated
their analysis with the latest data (Lassen 1999). They found that the
solar cycle length showed no trend in the last few decades of global
warming. They concluded that "since around 1990 the type of Solar
forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer
dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air
temperature".

Figure 3: the top figure compares temperature to solar cycles. The
bottom figure plots the difference between temperature and solar cycle
length, showing a strong divergence in the mid 1970s (Lassen 1999).
Loading Image...

Other studies confirm Lassen's conclusion:

- Kelly 1992 models the effects of a combination of greenhouse and
solar-cycle-length forcing and compare the results with observed
temperatures. They find that "even with optimized solar forcing, most
of the recent warming trend is explained by greenhouse forcing".

- Laut 1998 analyses the period 1579–1987 and finds "the solar
hypothesis—instead of contradicting—appears to support the assumption
of a significant warming due to human activities".

- Damon 1999 uses the pre-industrial record as a boundary condition
and finds the SCL-temperature correlation corresponds to an estimated
25% of global warming to 1980 and 15% to 1997.

- Benestad 2005 concludes "There have been speculations about an
association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate,
however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's
global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly
sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux
since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of
solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming".

Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming
are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent
research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper,
finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar
activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global
warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity
indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent
decades while global temperatures have been rising.

<End extract>

[troppo]

Post by Surfer

Post by AGWSnowJob
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense).

<snip>

Post by AGWSnowJob
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

"....Professor Solheim has a paper in press that credits me with the
discovery of the use of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to predict
climate...."
But the following suggests they are wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

[Snip]

Only John Cook is right, everybody else is wrong.

There is a strong correlation between sunspot cycles, solar cycle length,
and warm/cold periods in history.

But let's not make the same mistake as the warmists and climate-model
script kiddies have made, in assuming that correlation equals cause and
effect, then kicking and screaming when actual observations demonstrate
conclusively that the assumption is wrong.

Leif Svalgaard,

http://www.leif.org/research

has pointed out that there are errors in the data.

It could take a couple of years or so for better data, but imho it is
worth keeping an eye on Leif's stuff.

Archibald's prediction could be correct, but could still fall on its
face.

Not going to comment on Trenberth's "missing" heat. Dunno what he's got
(obsessive compulsive disorder, anal retentive syndrome?) but I actually
feel sorry for the guy ...

[Surfer]

Post by AGWSnowJob
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are
about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense).

<snip>

Post by AGWSnowJob
http://tinyurl.com/6p3wth4

"....Professor Solheim has a paper in press that credits me with the
discovery of the use of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to predict
climate...."


But cf this comment about a recent paper by Solheim and Humlum.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/

<Start extract>

Humlum et al., 2011 present a study in the journal Global and
Planetary Change, claiming that most of the temperature changes that
we have seen so far are due to natural cycles.

They claim to present a new technique to identify the character of
natural climate variations, and from this, to produce a testable
forecast of future climate. They project that

the observed late 20th century warming in Svalbard is not
going to continue for the next 20–25 years. Instead the
period of warming may be followed by variable, but generally
not higher temperatures for at least the next 20–25 years.

However, their claims of novelty are overblown, and their projection
is demonstrably unsound.

<End extract>

More here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/