Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Home Right Column 'The sun goes blank again during the weakest solar cycle in more...

‘The sun goes blank again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century’

-

Via: http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2016/6/23/1015-am-the-sun-goes-blank-again-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century

By Meteorologist Paul Dorian – Vencore, Inc.

The latest solar image is completely spotless for the second time this month; image courtesy NASA

The latest solar image is completely spotless for the second time this month; image courtesy NASA

Overview
For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank.  On June 4th, the sun went completely spotless for the first time since 2011 and that quiet spell lasted for about 4 days.  Sunspot regions then reappeared for the next few weeks on a sporadic basis, but are once again completely missing from the surface of the sun.  The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.  At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir.  The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020. The current solar cycle is the 24th since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began and is the weakest in more than a century with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Solar cycle 24
We are currently more than seven years into Solar Cycle 24 and it appears the solar maximum of this cycle was reached in April 2014 during a spike in activity (current location indicated by arrow).  Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase.  The peak of activity in April 2014 was actually a second peak in solar cycle 24 that surpassed the level of an earlier peak which occurred in March 2012.  While many solar cycles are double-peaked, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak.  The sunspot number plot (above) shows a clear weakening trend in solar cycles since solar cycle 22 peaked around 1990.

While a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous “superstorm” known as the Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (number 10). In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead. The last solar minimum phase lasted from 2007 to 2009 and it was historically weak. In fact, it produced three of the most spotless days on the sun since the middle 1800’s (bar graph below).

Top "sunspotless" days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Top “sunspotless” days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Consequences of a solar minimum
Contrary to popular belief, solar minimum is not a period of complete quiet and inactivity as it is associated with numerous interesting changes.  First, cosmic rays surge into the inner solar system with relative ease during periods of solar minimum.  Galactic cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system must propagate upstream against the solar wind and a thicket of solar magnetic fields.  Solar wind decreases and sun’s magnetic field weakens during solar minimums making it easier for cosmic rays to reach the Earth.  This is a more dangerous time for astronauts as the increase in potent cosmic rays can easily shatter a strand of human DNA. Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. With sharply lower aerodynamic drag, satellites have less trouble staying in orbit— a good thing. On the other hand, space junk tends to accumulate, making the space around Earth a more dangerous place for astronauts.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Vencore, Inc.

#

1256 COMMENTS

  1. One wonders if that’s why the last several tornado seasons have been a total flop. How many years now without an authentic fujita F3? Last F4 or 5? Tuscaloosa? I’ve put my tornado chasing equipment in storage and bought a new bowling ball.

  2. Daily Caller 2016/06/23
    Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of “disturbing” data manipulation with “serious and far ranging” effects forced a federal lab to close, a congressman revealed Thursday.

    The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics – including many related to the environment – from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years.

    • They heard about the Clinton’s SLUSH FUND! They wanted their own Slush Fund…betcha the whole Congress has their own “charity”. Like that person head of the Food Stamps in her city, made a killing for herself with them. If you don’t have a Gruberment Job…you can get in serious trouble for starting your own Slush Funds.

  3. Hilarious no info rwnjs think this story has anything to do with our climate change. Jesus you people justparrot whatever the F foxnoose breitbart and drudge tell you. Its pretty sad how easily you people are controlled.

  4. Hey warmers: It’s the orange ball in the sky. The one responsibility for both weather and climate. AGW remains a myth. You really have nothing to hang your empirical hat on. And if you say CO2, I’m going to remind you that the real studies show that CO2 actually lags warming rather than leading it. Translation: It’s an effect, not a cause. But you go ahead and listen to that so-called 97 percent (of whom, 95 percent have no training in the field).

  5. Some expert predicted years ago an ICE AGE was returning amidst all the lying liars at the peak of the phony global warming sh it.

    Especially one Al Gored who should be in jail for his DAMNING lies that destroyed a lot of business IMO. I read the ICE AGE report and it made sense to me and after that I always believed that is what is COMING.

    • Algore predicted the seas would rise 250 ft. in the next few years…then he went out and Bought an Oceanfront Mansion costing over $8 Million near Santa Barbara, Ca. Must not have been too worried. Plus Obama Stopped the Oceans RISING 250 ft. remember? Then He and Moo bought an Ocean Front Mansion In Hawaii right be for he got Re-elected. Theirs cost over $30 Million!

  6. Our Grubers in DC figured out that our Weather/Climate is connected to MONEY…TAXES…and Regulations. Now they are having a hard time “selling” their “scientific discoveries” to the American Citizen Tax Payers. They should have just listened to their ole Grannies, like we did. Granny always used to say…”Everybody always Complains about the Weather! But Nobody can do anything about it!”
    uh-oh…Can the Grubers send me to the Fema Camps for saying that?

  7. They said it would happen, and apparently it did. Pollution from fossil fuels finally reached the sun, diluted the amount of available oxygen in the solarsphere, reducing its ability to produce fire. This is the same exact thing that produced the last ice age. Mark my words, if the general weather patterns turn markedly cooler in the next 4-5 months, we have only ourselves to blame 🙂

  8. As an amateur radio operator for over 45 years, many of us have studied and understand solar activity because our overseas communications depend on the sun and its activity.

    There is something called a Maunder Minimum. It has, in the past, brought on mini ice ages.

    Also, these idiots that a predicting numerous power grid outages due to massive solar flares are full of it. (No late night radio talk show hosts need to be mentioned….) We have not had any flares in months! Yes, we have had disruptions due to solar winds. But the flares themselves have died away. So the scare tactic/clickbait in this article isn’t valid.

  9. So … all said our star has a profound effect on the weather of all the planets in our solar system. Is that why we call it our “solar system?” Question for you all…. Of Topic … The jet exhaust trails over the last 15 years have visually changed. They persist (do not evaporate) and during the day the sky fills with their expanded “clouds”. We can have a weather forecast of clear skys and by afternoon the sky is anything but clear. Why is it never mentioned the effect on climate this must be making all over the world??

  10. NewEnglandPatriot,
    The hypothesis of man made co2 climate change has never and will never be subjected to the scientific method. It depends on money hungry “scientists” to call it a theory, corrupt politicians to call it a policy, gullible cool-aide drinkers to believe it, and the citizens to pay for it.

  11. You guys getting this yet? The Sun is on some kind of WTF? activity loop. Whereas before the Earth could get by on large Green house emissions, now we can’t. We need to in all haste change what we are doing in order to mitigate what the Sun might do and is doing to global temperatures. This temperature spike is happening in our solar system.

      • Agree, Global warming, climate change is being sold to the peons as a problem we have control on, but must act soon. The reality is this is the Sun, and what was once a logical reason to reduce Green House gasses etc is turning into something else. A dire emergency to reduce anything in our atmosphere that will magnify the problems that our Sun may send our way.

  12. Every single day now…We are learning how big a RACKET Gruberment IS. Must be nice. The Tax Payers are fewer and fewer today, and getting soaked with all the Multi Millions of Illegals Obama brings into our country, who hop on his O-Gravy Train. Nearly a Third of our Citizens 95 Million people, are permanently OUT of WORK…QUIT Looking…and never counted among the “Unemployment Numbers!” So the Gov. numbers are made up, kinda like AGW.

  13. No effects on global whastever though. The Warmer Cabal treats solar input as a constant. The sun could go out tomorrow and models would still predict warming and the cabalists would want you to send them all your money.

  14. And we are beginning to enter the minimum phase of a 206 year supercycle that will DROP temperatures worldwide, with the minimum temperatures in about 2030. Search GRAND MINIMUM and get the scary truth about what is going to happen to our climate.

  15. What does ol Al, Ol hillarries “Shame an snuff America partner” have to say about this ………and the other climate scare mongers? Should we burn more coal to heat the world back up to a perfect 98.6?

  16. The sun operates on a 360 year cycle with three phases: regulation oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. The last time there was a Grand Minimum was the Little Ice Age. The present phase began in 2009 with a new Grand Minimum now underway. Prepare for decades of colder winters reaching a bottom around 2040. Along the way there will be increasing fuel shortages, food scarcity, disease and loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can. No amount of pithy CO2 increase will change this inevitability.

    http://www.windpowerfraud.com
    http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

    • Nah, that’s bull shit. The sun is 33 miles in diameter and spirals around the north pole at an altitude of no higher than a few hundred miles. In the Summer, it’s making smaller, slower loops, but will gradually expand and speed up until it reaches the furthest distance from the North Pole—the Winter solstice.

    • I’m certain you have never been near a building or institution where climate modelling is successfully executed. If you knew the tiniest bit of information you’d know that computer models refer to hardware such as Dell, HP, etc. Last time I checked the current excess energy in our climate system falls within the 95% confidence interval of the range predicted by current modelling simulations. Obviously you’ll not care, because you don’t understand the models.

  17. We are peaked now at the warm part of the warm cycle of the 100,000 year Ice age cycles, Its a time when the weather hovers and changes more dramatically in our comfort zone, nothing to worry about except that Canada, Russia and and everything else above the 49th parallel is under a couple of thousands of feet of ice in a mere fifty thousand years from now. These are the good times folks, this report from one of the nations top notch geologists. Read the book “On the Trail of the Ice Age floods” by Bruce Bjournstad. Its fascinating and makes for Great vacation planning! That’s the only way to round out what your imagination cannot stretch itself around. See it with your eyes. tour it from Missoula Montana following the Columbia river and its surrounding flats and canyons down into Oregons wine country in the willamete vally and onto the mighty Pacific. You will know and believe. All else is politics for the minions and idiots. I know thats a bit rough on some people but really, read the factual accounting of this planets ongoing records of climate change and please, turn GORE off when he gets on his global warming rants, they are abusesof reality for abuse of your pocketbooks. Its possible we will survive because of coal and coal alone. A slight possibility but still a real possibility.. Open your eyes, see the real thing, rocks dont lie! Follow the Columbia river from Missoula Montana to the Pacific Ocean for a great family journey.
    Courtesy of Great Flood Wines, inc, @ Great Flood Wines dot com, (currently in the shop for design changes).
    Winesdotcomm represented soon…… , floods, find the wines, learn the truth!

    • We are peaked now at the warm peak of the warm cycle of the approximately 100,000 year Ice age cycles

      Complete junk science and nonsense. First, we’re in an interglacial of the current ice-age. Second, the natural warming cycle peaked about 8 ka back and the Earth is in a natural axial nutation cooling orbital phase. d. Third, the planet is warming at unprecedented rates (30x natural) due to human induced CO₂ into the atmosphere. Fourth, we pay some very smart people to observe and research this phenomena.

      • “Smart” does not mean “correct”. AGW predictions show this very clearly.

        30x natural, compared to what?

        The present warming trend started over one hundred years before any significant human CO2 output. And as a “warming trend” it is a paltry one degree C per century. The planet has been much warmer than this many times in the past; warm periods are always more stable and more conducive to the proliferation of life and civilization.

        • They don’t say that they are correct but they do have the best explanation for the evidence. If they weren’t there’d be others publishing better unfalsifiable explanations and I’m sure there’ll be a few tweaks here and there but not the central theme. AGW predictions have all proven to be accurate … care to share which one/one that the theory predicted that didn’t materialize? What do you think 30x natural means … that is as clear as it can be to a scientist when discussing current extant and climate. It usually refers to the current ice-age. Your warming trend is pure vacuity and any glimpse at the ice core data will show you how inaccurate your statement is. The planet is in a natural cooling cycle so the current warming is unnatural. Your last sentence is a non sequitur and basically meaningless.

  18. If the Sun is a Nuclear furnace like the Main Stream Scientific Community tries to tell us… why does it weigh 1000 X less that what would be necessary for it to function ?
    How can Sun spots that are on or near the surface of the Sun be Millions of degrees cooler that what can be measured a million miles away from the surface ?
    How can the surface be 5000 degrees and 10 million degrees many miles away from the surface ?

    • climate change ==

      “Let’s scare the living hell out of everyone and gain power, influence and money while pretending to do something about it! First we’ll start with catastrophic predictions in the short term, when those fail utterly we’ll push them back to the year 2100! All Hail Us! Savoirs of the Planet! “

  19. This is very interesting. Look into the mounder* minimum (mounder is spelled wrong) It suggests that the lack of activity on the sun correlates with global cooling (only speculation) but this lack of activity will solve or at least shed light on the mounder minimum. If you have a reflector scope get a solar filter and you can see the spots for yourself, you walk away with an absolute feeling of something waaaay bigger than yourself

  20. Science has become so dirtied and discredited because of the left that most intelligent people are readily going to point that fact out every time they get the chance.
    The new priesthood of a post modern world. Might as well be consulting the astrologers 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia.

  21. No where does this article speak to the planetary effects (earth is of interest to me) of these solar minimums. Longer winters? Cooler summers? Wetter? Drier? Crop effects? Poor reporting.

  22. This article will only energize the “deniers” and, therefore, the writer should be cast into Hell. Climate change is caused by human activities. The Sun isn’t even on our planet.

  23. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

    The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

    Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

    Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

    Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.

    Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalms 2:1-12)

  24. Another “maunder minimum” coming along with global cooling. Perhaps this one will last more than 70 years. It is a good thing we heated things up otherwise this would be a catastrophe. Thank your industrial revolution kids.

  25. This is bad news for the global warming crowd. If the Earth gets noticeably cooler over the next few years, then how can they keep screaming that mankind is overheating the planet? Of course, they can lie about it like they’ve been doing since the beginning of this AGW nonsense.

  26. Oh my gosh! We are all doomed. It is global warming! or Global cooling! or Climate change! Or whatever the daily panic catastrophe from the demoncRAT liars is. We are all finished if we don’t vote demoncRAT. right? LOL Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hey demoncRAT liars. We get it now. We will NEVER listen to you or the state press again. Get used to it. You better arm up too. Like we are. We are not afraid of you anymore. And We are not afraid to fight like you are.

  27. this couldn’t be correct? it goes against Obunghole and his minions narrative of global man made warming, you know the theory that caught weather scientists falsifying data, making up numbers, and changing climate figures going back 100 years to suit their fraudulent narrative

    • caught weather scientists falsifying data, making up numbers

      You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. I’m sure you’ll demonstrate that I’m incorrect and cite the peer-reviewed science that you gleaned those pearls of wisdom from, right?

        • Only an uneducated m0r0n who is obviously neither a scientist nor scientifically literate would be fooled by the fossil fuel shill Tony Heller (realclimatescience) who has never researched nor published one article about climate science using its given name or its pseudonym Steven Goddard. Heller/Goddard has had to issue several written apologies to NASA, NSIDC and NOAA for his pseudo-climate science alleging they were wrong over the years to avoid libel suits as he didn’t have the evidence to support his denier claptrap. The classic was he published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register on 8/15/2008. Goddard claimed that the NSIDC plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on 8/25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.” Anthony Watts May 17, 2016 at 10:10 am “Goddard has no presence here after he failed to admit to CO2 freezing out of air blunder a few years back.”

    • Nope. They understand thermodynamics and how blocking or making the path for outgoing IR longer causes the surface of the Earth to warm as our planet stays in energy equilibrium with space.

        • You clearly don’t understand the Earth’s energy balance. I suggest you visit NASA or NOAA websites that have very good lay person explanations. Hint: The moon’s surface temperature doesn’t behave the same as the Earth yet for all intents and purposes both are the same distance from the sun.

          • The moon has the albedo of an ice cap, for one. It has month-long day and night cycles as well.

            But I’m sure what you’re”hinting” at is the moon’s lack of atmosphere, implying this is why Lunar surface temps differ from that of earth, ergo, climate scientists are totally legitimate in their study of earth’s atmosphere as it relates to climate.

            First, yes the study of earth’s atmosphere as it relates to climate is legitimate. My point is that, since it is by definition a secondary effect, all the data, knowledge, and understanding of it is worthless without an understanding and accounting of the Primary driver of climate, the Sun.

            Back to the moon. It has vast surface temp swings from day to night. This is partly because of the two-week long day, followed by two weeks of night. It is also because, as you hinted, there is no significant atmosphere.
            But a Lunar atmosphere would serve to regulate the vast temp changes, by acting as an insulator and causing dispersion. In other words, your “hint” demonstrates that atmospheric effects are dampeners, regulators, of extreme shifts that would be caused by the Primary. This is in direct opposition to the position of AGW proponents’ claims that atmospheric effects will be the cause of devastating shifts.

            tl;dr: wrong argument bro

            • Clearly you have little grasp of AGW theory and the role of the atmosphere. Pretending atmospheric and climate scientists haven’t a grasp of the science is just crass ignorance on your part.

      • What happened to runaway global warming?
        Global warming scientists said winter storms would be a thing of the past and kids won’t ever see snow again.
        What about all those predictions that arctic ice would already be all melted and permanently gone?
        What happened to the dozens of hurricanes they said would hit the US coastlines every season?
        What happened to all the predictions of accelerated rising sea levels?
        What happened to all the predictions of increased tornadoes, droughts, floods, disease, starvation, locusts….?

        Every prediction has been proven wrong.

        Is there anything that would invalidate their hypothesis?

        • Do you always segue off-topic when schooled or lose a point?

          You have a long list of red herrings and straw man fallacies – a great indicator that the writer is a bull$h!tter! An informed person with integrity would state when prediction was made, by whom, and provide the evidence that it failed. So far everything I have reviewed has been coming in worse than predicted. What did the first IPCC report predict … how well has it fared? If you know the Q and A then it will be self-evident to you that you’re FOS.

          • You can’t respond. Just like all global warming believers. Gotcha! You can only make personal attacks. I’ve played this game with you people many times. I have quotes, sources and you’ll just change the subject, never admitting you’re wrong.

            Name something, anything that would invalidate the hypothesis.

                  • It’s really sad so many people like you are so uninformed and brainwashed. They’ve been doing this since the early 1900s, switching between global cooling and global warming every 30-40, using the same language and scare tactics. The solutions are all the same: bigger govt, more taxes, less freedom. You should study history — of politics, not science.

                    • Cupcake you are making up stories again. As to uninformed … it is evident that you have little science knowledge at middle school level. OMG, not this ancient trope again. It was Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, who advocated calling it “climate change” because it seemed less threatening. And the climate has indeed been changing over time, but not over the last few thousands of years, and never near as fast. And while CO₂ may have been a following indicator in the past, it is the leading cause at this time, as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades. I’ll ignore your opinion about taxes as it is not germane to the science.

                    • In about 20 yrs, liberals will change back to global cooling and scare us with the coming Ice Age. It’s the sun, and solar cycles, not man-made CO2.

                    • Science has no ideology. What bothers me more about the real morons who feed you this tripe is that we are launching ourselves into a new planet equilibrium that is unfriendly to our (human) and extant existence. We are in an ice-age. Current warming has nothing to do with sun or solar cycles … if that were true the planet would be in a long-term cooling trend thanks to the current axial nutation forcings and slightly cooling sun. You’re quite good at making up fairy tales. Unfortunately for you we know it’s the external forcing of human-induced CO₂ that’s causing teh unprecedented warming.

                    • We’re in an inter-glacial period. The sudden and temporary emergence from Ice Ages has nothing to do with CO2 or man-made CO2.

                    • Nope … your science is awful. We are in an ice-age, period. We’re either in an interglacial or a glacial. Climate has been studied for two centuries. The full theory of anthropogenic global warming was first formed in 1896. In the past 800k years or so orbital forcing factors (mostly axial nutation) would create shifts in temperature which would be greatly amplified by CO₂ being sequestered (cooling) or released (warming). CO₂ was the feedback on top of nutation, so the both of them were the major forcing factor. Atmospheric CO₂ content is close to 0.041%, a miniscule swing of ±0.01% during the past 800k years with orbital forcing has taken the Earth in and out of glacial periods.

                    • It is winter in the SH, so what’s your point? No belief required … you just need to to a little more reading and pay attention in science class when you get to HS.

                    • This is where you warmists ALWAYS bail:
                      1) identify something, anything that invalidates their hypothesis (global cooling or no climate change?)
                      2) what caused all the periods of cooling or lack or warming while CO2 was increasing? (you can’t because it invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of temps.)

                      I have more, but know it’s a waste of time with you people.

                    • Well glad to know you have more because so far you’re produced nothing but gibberish. I can’t answer (1) because you keep this hypothesis untitled so who knows what you’re rambling on about except you, perhaps? (2) makes no sense at all unless you don’t understand how seasons come and go and that we have two hemispheres, and that there is a dynamic weather system. Maybe your science is so poor you don’t know how to express yourself. The current warming is entirely driven by the external forcing of human-induced CO₂. I’m not sure you will be able to digest this but try Gillett et al (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050226) who show the human attribution of the warming trend to be 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together) .Take a very close look at Figure 1 which in (a) shows all forcings, (b) natural forcing only (declining trend i.e. cooling), (c) GHGs only and (d) aerosols only (also declining i.e. cooling).

                    • The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
                      ———–
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
                      Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    • The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
                      Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    • The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.

                      How can you not know that? You just repeat what you’re told.

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Scroll up and check for the name of the hypothesis I supposedly proposed/used. If you can’t find it, i know you won’t, then you’re just been playing charades … but I’m game.

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Denier is a person who gainsays science.

                    • Your hypothesis, you know the one where CO2 causes global warming? Cat got your tongue? Not capable of independent thought?

                    • Making up stuff is not going to fly. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    • I’ve done this before and know you can’t answer. It’s why AGW scientists never want to answer direct questions.

                      If it was true, scientists would present their case to world for scrutiny and everyone would believe it. When people hear opposing viewpoints, most people immediately disbelieve the nonsense. The data doesn’t exist.

                    • What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Spell out the hypothesis that I have stated. You can scroll through all our comments and then either point to what I have missed or acquiesce and move on as you’re unable to tell me or anyone else what hypothesis I’m supposed to be answering.

                    • Everybody reading these comments can see you’re afraid to answer. Are you a liberal college professor or student?

                    • Nope what comes across very clearly is you have an inability to express what you want to discuss. Puerile projection is so passé.

                    • But evidence that challenges the prevailing theory bores Kate Marvel, who brushes it off by declaring: “No serious scientist truly believes that the slowdown in surface warming invalidates greenhouse physics.”

                      This is utterly superficial. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not the issue here. At issue is a whole series of more complex questions: whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet, and whether any effect from carbon dioxide (which is actually a very weak greenhouse gas) might be offset by the enormous number of other factors in an extremely complex system. So to cite basic physics—a common trope of the warmists—is a glib and irrelevant answer.

                      Marvel goes on to assert that the pause in warming can be explained by “a massive increase in ocean heat content.” Well, all right, I suppose this is a plausible theory. But it is also a very new one—and only one of 52 different theories offered to explain the hiatus.

                    • Very weak deflection. Where ever you sourced that from you were duped. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    • Do you even know you own hypothesis? I suppose it’s too easy to refute since you’re not answering.

                    • Most recent warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century followed by cooling for about 30 yrs (which triggered the switch to the coming Ice Age in the early 70s) and then some warming beginning in the mid 70s. Of course they changed the historical temps to erase the cooling.

                    • You’re uninformed. Did you not know they changed the historical data to create the appearance of global warming?

                    • It wasn’t just changed, it wasn’t done in secret, it is in the public domain with full methodology and reasons. If you think it was nefarious you’d better start assembling your research to rebut what was done. You probably haven’t seen the homogenization plotted against raw data … if you had you’d see that raw has a steeper warming trend. So what’s your point? Other than 1024 – to current showing that warming has probably been underestimated.

                    • The first time was all secret. When it was discovered, they first changed it back without explanation. They also recalibrated many of the surface thermometers in the early 2000s to create the appearance of global warming. Mann wiped out the Medieval warming period and the little ice age to create the appearance of global warming. Did you not know of such things?

                      Still can’t answer any questions. What would invalidate your hypothesis? (Still too afraid to state one?) (ans. Hint. nothing. CO2 causes everything.)What caused all the historical periods of cooling or lack of warming while CO2 was rising? (hint, it’s not CO2!)

                    • The big difference between you and me is that you only know one side, your side. It’s like you never heard any opposing viewpoints or the science behind it. We skeptics know all sides. You’re gullible, lack curiosity and don’t really care about the truth. Everything you’ve said, we’ve heard it before.

                      You still can’t answer those two:
                      What would invalidate the hypothesis (even yours)?
                      How to explain the periods (many decades) of cooling or lack or warming while CO2 was rising?

                    • You are not a skeptic … you are a science denier. A skeptic understands the science whereas you’re clueless. BTW: true skeptics (scientists) have had 60 years or more to produce an alternate model and/or hypothesis to explain the unprecedented warming. Nothing has appeared in the peer-reviewed publications yet that was unfalsifiable. Your last question is not valid until you can show the data that has many decades of cooling. Your first one is still not clear … could you give the name of the hypothesis you want to discuss? Seems like you just ignored the excellent science paper I cited for you which would have answered your questions.

                    • I think you’re ignorant. I think you people placed all your eggs into one basket (CO2) and are now paying the price trying to hold on to a discredited hypothesis.

                    • You deflect again, why? Can’t find the decades of warming or what? Still can’t name the hypothesis you inconsistently but repetitively prattle on about. This is ignorance on steroids and I quote you:

                      The sudden and temporary emergence from Ice Ages has nothing to do with CO2 or man-made CO2

                    • To repeat:

                      “No serious scientist truly believes that the slowdown in surface warming invalidates greenhouse physics.”

                      This is utterly superficial. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not the issue here. At issue is a whole series of more complex questions: whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet, and whether any effect from carbon dioxide (which is actually a very weak greenhouse gas) might be offset by the enormous number of other factors in an extremely complex system. So to cite basic physics—a common trope of the warmists—is a glib and irrelevant answer.

                    • whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet

                      I already gave you the published peer-reviewed science that answered that posit … why are you repeating yourself and not reading the science?

                    • You deny or gainsay what is explained by science from ignorance as you have neither education or knowledge..

                    • Why won’t you answer?

                      1. What would invalidate your hypothesis?
                      2. What explains all the historical periods of cooling or lack or warming when CO2 was rising?
                      ——-
                      I’ve done this before with you people and know you people never answer. Never. You can’t, because it exposes all the flaws inn the hypothesis and your thinking.

                    • You got to tell me what hypothesis. I’ve been waiting patiently for you to name the hypothesis but for some strange reason you are unable to say whether it is the Milankovitch hypothesis or gravity according to string theory or Clausius-Clapeyron hypothesis etc.

                    • What would invalidate your global warming hypothesis? You know the one that says CO2 causes global warming?

                      I’ve done this before and know you’re unable and unwilling to answer and eventually you’ll just go away before you make a larger fool of yourself.

                    • Still waiting. If CO2 causes global warming, but global temps fall or don’t rise with more CO2, doesn’t that invalidate it?

                      Did you hear about the 18 yrs and 9 months with no warming? It was called the hiatus and AGW scientists offered dozens of explanations, one being aerosols, but they realized it invalidated their hypothesis, so they just changed the historical temps instead, and viola!, global warming was back!

                    • You got to tell me what hypothesis? I’ve been waiting patiently for you to name the hypothesis but for some strange reason you are unable to do so.

                    • Read history. It repeats. It’s full of stories like this:

                      “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.

                    • Where was that reported from in the Arctic ocean? You need to be specific as there was no way for the whole Arctic ocean to be incorporated in that statement as humans didn’t have the technology or observation posts.

          • Here’s just one: “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

            David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

            • I hate to share this with you but that’s not a climate science prediction but someone’s opinion which is meaningless. Predictions will be found in published peer-reviewed science journals.

              • The peer-review proves for anything related to global warming has been corrupted. It’s much like Rachel Carson where it was a circular process with her friends and colleagues reviewing each other’s work.

                • Absolute nonsense. It is quite obvious you are neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously nescient. Climate science is the only doubly peer-reviewed science thanks to the IPCC.

          • The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
            Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                • I haven’t a clue of what you’re trying to express … you have written a load of gibberish. If you’re trying to regurgitate a theory or hypothesis then look it up and reference it and ask your question or pose your posit. Alternatively, is this some hypothesis you’re trying to formulate? If so I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to articulate … it’s a meaningless word salad.

                  • The entire hypothesis is bogus. Since all their predictions have proven wrong, now they say global warming causes everything.

                    Name something, anything that will invalidate the hypothesis. Higher temps, colder temps, more storms, less storms, … anything?

                    • What hypothesis? Why are you coy … they have titles .. I can’t guess which hypothesis you’re trying to articulate if you don’t spit it out. For example, the Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

            • If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any help/links from a scientist or scientifically literate person who knows what they’re doing?

  28. Hmm, another comment thread on a scientific, technical article littered with posts from idiots who can’t find anything else to discuss other than their stupid political leanings. This just goes to show how little education most people have. Mark Twain once quipped: “It is far better to remain silent and thought a fool then to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Clearly none of these posters has read Mark Twain either, let alone studied the intricate cycles of our sun. Typical.

  29. Even the weather services are already predicting a cold winter coming up for much of the U.S. Get ready for a doozy, especially in places like the Midwest and Appalachians. Prolonged below zero temps are coming; say goodbye to your crepe myrtle and photinia.

      • My friend’s ask as to why I want to retire in Florida. They say that it is too hot. Yet I can pull up the temperature on my phone and show them that it is 92° here right now with 72% humidity but only 89° in Florida with 60% humidity. Yet it was just snowing here 4 weeks ago.
        The winters are long and brutal. Your nose literally seals shut from the sub zero temps and it feels as if someone is whipping you in the face as soon as you walk out the door.
        Northern states should be deemed unfit for human occupancy from December to April.
        I wish that we could hibernate.

    • You apparently are unfamiliar with temps in the north in the winter.
      That is why I am retiring to my Lake Davenport home from my Michigan home.
      You do not understand what grey dreary days are like for months on end, and what -28° with 30 mph wind feels like. It will kill you within 15 minutes if you are left stranded.
      I will take Florida with its yearly temperature swing of about 70° versus my present 120° swing.

  30. The scientific press often repeats that dark matter makes up “25% of the Universe” or that dark energy makes up “70% of the rest of the Universe.” To anyone familiar with plasma physics, it is well known that plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe. It is a fascinating convergence that the amount of gravitational mass invented to save conventional theories is the same as the ionized plasma that is overlooked.

    Wal Thronhill
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

  31. Global Warming is a terrible phenomenon. It now causes sun-spotless days. Obama told us he was the One the world was waiting for. He is here to tame the seas, the cause the tides to recede to to lower the sea levels. The Messiah act in strange ways that country folks like me cannot even contemplate. DC, NYC and coastal Elites, 93% Blacks, MSM know this messiah like no other.

  32. America 2.0 coming soon. All Whites, Montana Idaho is a good start. Every American city is pathetic with black, hispanic gangs, must be cleaned up ASAP. The Donald can’t start soon enough. I will volunteer for free to help the round up.

  33. This MUST be caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming… mustn’t it? We humans are just so awesome, so powerful! In fact, we’re about to blow ourselves out of existence with nuclear weapons…

  34. Capt. Ron
    Can any one out their contact al gore and ask to put up a rainbow
    That would prove that he has been put in charge of the climate makers, and I will buy him a beer for happy hour when he shows up

  35. There are solar cycles? Why didn’t all the Global Warming fanatics mention that? Couldn’t it be that cycles in sunspot activity might have something to do with cycles in global temperatures?

    I used to think sunspots were cooler regions of the sun (because they’re dark, see?). But after reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker, I learned that sunspots are regions of GREATER sun activity. And that sunspots and cosmic ray activity have caused cycles in earth temperatures from time immemorial.

  36. Democrats will now switch to “global cooling” as a big threat. Populated areas will freeze requiring mass migration or, more likely, mass immigration from the warm countries in the middle east, think Islam. Democrats will start taxing citizens for not driving enough and not driving fossil fueled cars because they are contributing to global cooling. Democrats will insist that coal be burned everywhere to stop the horror of global cooling. They will claim that global cooling will contribute to “hail stone” hurricanes and will propose taxes to erect large umbrellas over our cities to deflect the hail. No matter what the weather or climate democrats will tax it.

  37. Somehow, someway by some pixie dust and mental gymnastics the Walking Left (Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, et al) will try to exploit this for their political advantage. Let’s see how many days this takes. They’ll probably just end up blaming Christians when they have nothing to come up with.

  38. From the Scientific Journal Nature. Not qualified to explain the Theory. But can give you the gist of it. An Astrophysics theory was recently confirmed by actual observation. It was peer reviewed, and accepted. The Sun is expected to exhibit unusual activity cumulating in about a decade. It is expected to last for three decades. Of course, the Sun may have other plans. Anyway, if the Sun performs as expected the Earth will experience a three decade cooling cycle. However, nothing to presage an ice age.

    The Climate Change people will love the consequences. These changes will not be predictable. They will impact on Regional Areas. As they progress prior changes will change again. The idea of Four Seasons will be in constant flux.

    When the Sun ends this cycle things will settle back down over a fairly short but unknown time period. They don’t say but would assume the changes to be somewhat permanent or at least gradual.

    From the Governments point of view this is great. Can Tax every change, blame it on the worlds people. If not that then on Bush. Perhaps too Sarcastic?

    This will sure put a dent in the Global Warming scenario.

      • When first coming across it made notes. That was about six months past. No longer have a subscription to Nature nor Scientific America. Google Astrophysics – newly confirmed theory. Most likely will find a reference without having to pay for it. Bring up “Quora Digest” and pose the question.

        By formal training an electrical engineer. Know enough to translate the mathematics into common language.

          • Don’t be so damn lazy. If really concerned do something about it, look it up.

            Anyway, what does it matter. You have but three choices; It occurs, It does not occur, or some modification. Due to my age could care less, just found the Theory mildly interesting.

            Read the Democrat Party platform. Looks like they will be involved with climate change and global warming. Those opposing them will surely raise this Theory as a defense. So just have patience.

            • I do find it amusing that people will produce and argue for results using opinion and hearsay, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the primary science sources. Quote and cite the primary source or STFU.

              • Have a short memory do you? It came from the Journal Nature.

                Don’t know why you even pursue this line? It is of little importance as there is nothing you can do about it. You do have a way with adjectives, give you that.

                  • First it was short memory, now lack of comprehension. Are you going to just fade away?
                    Well, looked up the notes. Sure enough wrote down the particulars. But guess what… not going to give it to you. Pick up the phone, call them, tell them what you are looking, ask for a reprint and pay for it just as I had to pay for the subscription. You are not only lazy but cheap. What other negative attributes do you have; sure there are many. You have got to be one of those inapt democrats! You have my condolences.

                    • OK. I’ll take that as your admission and concession that you have no citation for your fabricated junk science. Time for you to acquiesce and move on. Your humiliation was firmly established several comments back.

                    • Now you accuse me of junk science? Engineers do not do junk science, nor any science for that matter.

                      Want junk science? Look to the Global Warming and Climate Change idiots. Never a citation, never list qualifications, Never published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. Not one Astrophysicist among the lot. Even the Farmers Almanack employs two and have a forecasting accuracy of 87 percent.

                      Who denies Climate Change? Nobody. Any fool knows it will change with every breath.
                      Who denies Global Warming? Nobody. Been going in cycles for many millions of years.
                      Who denies Global Cooling? Nobody with more than two brain cells. It also cycles.

                      So what is denied? The idiotic conclusions is a good place to start. A complaint is made against too much CO2. Well guess what? It is real good for growing plants to feed a growing world population. The plants put off Oxygen which bind with other gases to help clean the air.

                      People are blamed for Global Warming and Climate Change? Why? Because governments can tax them. Can’t tax the real villains; The Sun. The Inclination of the Planet to the Sun. The eccentric wobble of the Planet. Volcanic eruptions, Periodic changes in Ocean Currents. These are primary. Mans activity is but a pinprick in comparison.

                      I do concede I have been responding to someone border line retarded.

                    • Nice deflection to avoid a simple science citation. Your jejune, pleonastic, truculent jeremiad of junk science shows why engineers are not scientists and very poor at research. When will engineers realize that they are not automatically scientific polymaths? Anyone in a physics department will tell you that an alarmingly large fraction of the relativity-disprovers, climate-deniers and other cranks submitting unsolicited manuscripts with bizarre theories-of-everything describe themselves as “retired engineers”. And to confirm your ignorance and leave no doubt as to your scientific illiteracy you make a classic science blunder about plants and CO₂. Obviously, you’re clueless to the biogeochemical, energy, landuse and temperature autotrophic drivers necessary for photosynthesis to occur. CO₂ alone does squat and too much decreases nutrient and protein yields in C3 and C4 vegetation. Ever studied the PNL hypothesis? Obviously not … here’s some science now go educated yourself:

                      “Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature, May 7, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/nature13179

                      Projections for conditions under increased atmospheric CO₂ (drought) make this problematic for crops. In addition, research is showing that rice will not germinate at 35°C or above, and that many important crops become less nutritious when grown in elevated CO₂ levels. Consider the effect on agricultural productivity of the 2003 European or 2010 Ukraine/Russian heat wave. Then there is the problem of pest migration due to warmer temperatures. It all adds up to a very murky picture for agriculture in the later part of this century. That should make you less sanguine.

        • UAH and RSS satellite record shows 0.12°C/decade warming trend which is an unprecedented 30x faster than last four natural warming cycles. Observations and measurements show that human-induced CO₂ into the atmosphere is the external forcing responsible for this warming. Gillett et al (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050226) show the human attribution of the warming trend to be 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together)

            • It was you suggestion to Google satellite record … so what was your motive then to recommend that and now disown it? Your hearsay about tampering surface records is meaningless without verifiable evidence from authoritative sources which excludes the denierosphere.

              • The satellite data does not confirm the surface record adjustments.
                I’m not disowning the satellite data, simply pointing out that it is the most accurate, but the period it covers is far too short to extrapolate any trends from.
                It can be both, accurate, and the period can be to short to predict any significant trend.

                You should learn a bit about science and logic.
                The satellite data covers 35 years, and the surface data is a massaged joke.
                Neither proves AGW in any way.

                • simply pointing out that it is the most accurate

                  You’re either delusional or a liar or grossly ignorant. Pick one. The satellite data measures the mid-troposphere through microwave radiometers, and is actually significantly more difficult to interpret than the ground-based observations. The idea that the satellites are some kind of truth-o-meter is really not correct at all. The differences between satellites and the surface are limited to those regions of the earth that have variable land cover – like SNOW covered areas. The satellite algorithms assume a constant emissivity and well … that’s just wrong. The satellite data are the MOST adjusted data we have. It is such an indirect measurement (more calculations) and a relatively new science, so it became and remains the most fudged. Manipulated. Or are you going to call it massaged? If massaged, then you’re going to have to admit that other data sets are correctly adjusted or homogenized and stop using denier terms.

                  The rest of your comment is just pure bull$h!t and I must presume it is for the same reason you select to answer the above vacuity.

                    • Mercifully you have escaped the ravages of intelligence due to suffering from cranium intra réctum since your youth. When you lose the argument do you always pretend that you have some knowledge when clearly you have squat as you so ably demonstrate repetitively.

                    • Why are you so hate filled?

                      Is it because you finally understand the idea that 30 years of data does not confirm any long term trends?
                      I know math is hard for you drama types….

                    • We have data going back millions of years from many sources. The satellite data track well with the better datasets … so your argument is moot.

                    • Millions of years from many sources?
                      How about 13 trees?

                      That’s how many they used to produce the hockey stick graph, which was bogus.

                    • Confirmation of the hockey stick (through 2013):
                      1. 1998: K. R. Briffa, et al., Influence of volcanic eruptions on Northern Hemisphere summer temperature over the past 600 years, Nature, 393, 450-455, 4 June 1998
                      2. 2000: T. J. Crowley, Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289, 270
                      3. 2000: S. Huang, H. N. Pollack, P. Y. Shen, Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures, Nature Letts., 403, 756-758
                      4. 2002: C. Bertrand, et al., Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study, Tellus, 54,3,2210244, May
                      5. 2002: J. Esper, Cook, Schweingruber, Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability, Science, 295, 5563, pp.2250-2253, Mar. 22, 2002
                      6. T. M. Cronin et al., MWP, LIA, and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay, Global Planetary Change, 36, 2003, 17-29
                      7. 2004: H. N. Pollack, J. E. Smerdon, Borehole climate reconstructions: Spatial structure and hemispheric averages, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D11106, 9pp, 2004
                      8. 2005: E. Jansen, et al., “Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records”, Science, 308,5722,675-677, Apr
                      9. 2005: A. Moberg et al. Northern Hemisphere 2,000 year Temperature Reconstruction using low and high-res proxy data
                      10. 2005: S. Rutherford, et al., “Proxy-Based Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstructions”, J.Clim,18, 2308-2329,2005
                      11. 2005: R. Wilson, et al., “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low/high-resolution proxy data”, Nature,433,7026,613-617,Feb2005
                      12. 2006: R. D’Arrigo, et al., On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming”. J.Geophys.Res.,111(D3)
                      13. 2006: T. J. Osborn, K.R. Briffa, “The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years”.Science311(5762):841-844,2006
                      14. 2007: A. Moberg, et al., Ch 6: Palaeoclimate, IPCC 4th Assessment Report, 2007
                      15. 2007: R. Wilson, et al., “A matter of divergence:Tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree ring data”, J.Geophys.Res.,112,D17103,Sept2007
                      16. 2007: J. Jouzel, et al., “Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years”, Science, 317,5839,793-797,Aug2007.
                      17. 2007: M. Ammann and E. Wahl, Climatic Change, 85, 1-2 , 71-88
                      18. 2007: M. N. Juckes, Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation, Clim. Past, 3, 591-609, 2007
                      19. 2007: Wilson et al. N. Hemisphere Tree-Ring-Based Temperature Reconstruction 1750-2005, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D17103, 11 Sept.
                      20. 2007: E. R. Wahl, C. M. Ammann, Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence, Climatic Change, 85:33-69, 2007
                      21. 2008: A. Moberg, R. Mohammad, T. Mauritsen, Analysis of the Moberg et al. (2005)hemispheric temperature reconstruction, Clim. Dyn. 31, 7-8, 957-971, Dec. 2008
                      22. 2009: D. S. Kaufman, et al., Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling, Science, 325, 1236 (2009)
                      23. 2009: H. von Storch, Zorita, Gonzalez-Rouco, Assessment of three Temperature Reconstruction Methods in the Virtual Reality of a Climate Simulation, Int. J. Earth Sci. , 98, 1, 2009
                      24/25. 2010: M.P. Tingley, P. Huybers, “A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time. Part I: Development and Applications to Paleoclimate Reconstruction Problems”; Part II: Comparison with the Regularized Expectation-Maximization Algorithm”. J.Clim.23 (10):2759-2800,2010
                      26. 2010: D. Frank, et al., A noodle, hockey stick, and spaghetti plate: a perspective on high-resolution paleoclimatology, WIREs, Climate Change, 1, 4, 507-516, July/Aug. 2010
                      27. 2011: J. Martin-Chivelet, et al., Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000yrBP, based on δ13C of speleothems, Global and Planetary Change, 77,1-2, pp 1-12, 2011
                      28. 2011: R. F. Spielhagen, et al., Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, Science, 331, 6016, pp. 450-453, 2011
                      29. 2011: J. Oerlemans, Jan2011,Science Express Index “2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility”
                      30. 2012: F. C. Ljungqvist. et al., Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-240, 2012
                      31. 2012: R. Rohde, et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011, J. Geophys. Res.
                      32. 2012:J. Gergis, et al., “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an AUSTRALASIAN temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, J. Climate
                      33. 2012: T. Melvin, H. Grudd, K. R. Briffa, Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data, Holocene, Oct. 26, 2012
                      34. 2012: F. C. Ljungqvist, et al., Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227,240, 2012
                      35. 2013: N. J. Abram, et al., Acceleration of snow melt in an Antarctic Peninsula ice core during the twentieth century, Nature Geosci., 6, 404-411 (see figs. 4 and 5)
                      36. 2013: S. A. Marcott, et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science, 8, 339, 6124, 1198-1201

                    • You lost the argument and the science when you have to go to non-scientific science-denier sites. What are you going to do when Steyn loses and has to file bankruptcy to pay the damages. Pro tip: Steyn hasn’t been able to get one scientist climate expert or skeptic to join his defense team.

  39. Yes, the sun has been very unactive recently, which is partially why it’s so disturbing that 2016 is on pace to become the warmest year on record, (2015 was the previous record). Global warming is real. Climate change is real. Ocean acidification is real. Wake up.

      • Yes.
        The earth has not warmed for more than 18 years.
        But you would only know that if you did not allow the legacy mainstream media; the activists; and the bought and paid for grant and publicity seeking “scientists” be your only source for information.

        • The earth has not warmed for more than 18 years

          You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. Exactly what is your source for information as it definitely isn’t peer-reviewed science.

            • I do find it amusing that people will produce and argue for results using data from non-scientific sources, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the primary sources. Why on earth wouldn’t you start with the primary sources in the first place? Because they don’t support your false assertion? There’s a plethora of published peer-reviewed science on the topic!

              Pro tip #1: Wattsupwiththat isn’t a science site. It’s a propaganda site trying to look like a science site, and failing more and more as it falls deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories and general crapola. Watts. Let that sink in for awhile. The guy who has no science background and has been wrong about just about everything he ever published. BEST ran his “grade A” station at his request, and they show the exact same warming. Watts slinked away without honoring his declaration that he’s conceded defeat if they showed the same warming. Watts has been wrong about ALL of his predictions, because he said the earth was cooling. And he was wrong about the stations and their overall reporting accuracy. He has no background in what he’s writing about, and it shows. BTW: he is also fed up with you deniers not understanding basic science.

              • There you go folks.
                The left wing brain is impenetrable.
                The religious zealots of “Sciencism” will accept no facts that are not church doctrine.

                So certain are the willfully ignorant that they are “amused” as they ignore the truth.

                Have fun with your flat earth friends, luddite.

                • Interesting but you deflect very weakly and avoid explaining why go to secondary or tertiary non-scientific sites for science? Your last sentence is pure projection and describes you succinctly as you are apparently afraid of science … why?

                  • Wow!
                    All those 11 cent words have just taken me down in defeat (not).
                    And it is proof of one of the left’s favorite dodges.
                    A flurry of words that essentially say nothing, prove nothing, but just allow you to get another post in.
                    Why?

                    Because you believe he who posts the most wins.

                    Climate theory as spouted by the hoaxers has failed to predict anything, but has been adjusted to explain everything.

                    We have not warmed since 1998, yet the claims every year are that we just had the hottest (fill in the blank ) ever.

                    Being the energizer bunny of posters only makes you sad.

                    And now you will insist upon the last word.

                    • Do you always deflect with weak off-topic nonsense when you lose the point? Your disdain and ineptitude for English is because it is your second language or a lack of education? So back to the original crap you sprouted that you have yet to support with evidence from science:

                      The earth has not warmed for more than 18 years

      • What increased droughts?
        Wildfires?
        There are many causes of wildfires, chief among them deranged Global Warming fanatics.
        Extreme heat?
        You mean it hasn’t been this hot since the last time it was this hot?

        Take your Thorazine and give us all a break from your bullshit.

        • Did you Google Hottest Year on Record? Yes, hot air absorbs moisture from plants (making them tinder) and decreases relative humidity, thereby increasing the duration and frequency of droughts, and wildfires. It’s a game of statistics. That alone won’t kill us, but we are approaching the tipping points of Arctic Amplification (when the ocean absorbs more heat because it is a black body, compared to ice, which reflects heat), and the melting of the Arctic Permafrost (which is a HUGE reserve of C02)

          Ever been to Montana? In 5 years, Glacier National Park will be gone. When this happens, and you you see a link on Drudge, maybe you’ll remember this moment and open your eyes.

          • You are clearly delusional.
            We’ve always had wildfires, and climate is only one small factor in how many and how severe they are.
            Get a brain.

            I work in the Arctic, btw, and your horror stories are just another AGW fantasy.

            And you still haven’t answered what you are doing to save the planet, other than blowassing your AGW bullshit all over the place.

            • Yawns is spot on and you’re so far removed from reality that I must conclude that mercifully you have escaped the ravages of intelligence due to suffering from cranium intra réctum since your youth.

                  • Yes, but those things can only be accepted as “real” after making certain metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality.

                    Because, as I said….we don’t actually know what reality is, or even if there is such a thing. Descartes illustrated this very well. “I think, therefore I am” is as far as one can get in determining what is “real”. After that, it’s all stacks of assumptions and guesswork.

                    And yes, I was being pedantic. I find that the best response to obnoxious elitism is a bit of calculated pedantry.

                    • That jejune jeremiad fails as it is almost as weak as the god of the gaps fallacy.

                      stacks of assumptions and guesswork

                      You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one.

  40. Cooler weather is sure too follow and we head too the solar minimum 2020 or so !
    Our magnetic field will shrink and weaken even more !
    Dire global warming folks will be saddened by the lack of accuracy of there computer models of C02 making it hotter again !
    Since that theory came out it CO2 has not been a reliable indicator so why not ?
    The basis of Global warming is C02 but it has failed to track too the models consistently.
    Bad Science is when politics involved , it appears the truth has been B.S.

  41. There was a scientific paper released a coupe of years ago predicting a solar minimum. Unlike long term global temperature science, which is in its infancy, solar correlations has much better data correlations.
    Prediction? A mini ice age is coming.

  42. Weakest Solar Cycle in a century? What a joke! Almost fell out of my chair. In case you haven’t been watching, this “11 Year Solar Cycle” theory is gone! Yep bye bye theory…. In fact the past 2 “Cycles” have been completely out of sync. There are no Solar Models able to predict Solar Activity with any level of certainty? The solar cycle was discovered in 1843… So tell me, what Scientist given the 4.5 billion years the Sun has existed would deem a cycle that has been tracked for 173 years to be immutable? The Sun has become unpredictable, and there is nothing they can do but let the press continue to report the existence of a Cycle that has dissolved before their eyes. To do otherwise would be to admit they lack the ability to predict solar output, thus they cannot say whether the Sun sill heat up for 10,000 years, or cool down for a thousand years. So why give money to attempt to do something about Climate Change when you have no idea what to do?

      • Wow, you are hopeless how about monitoring Solar Activity daily for the past 30 years. I guess you recognize the letters S O H O. Didn’t think so. You are listening to idiots. Tell me why didn’t they predict the 500 year flood? Tell me why if you study ACTUAL SOLAR SCIENCE you find that they have stated that the past two cycles DID NOT OCCUR at the 11 year period. So I roll out a chart that shows your a complete moron that means it is true.

        • Unless you are doing the study, you are collecting the date, you are monitoring sunspot activity, you would not know that these stories are complete lies. It is all to keep you locked into the Globalist plan to take over based upon Climate Change. They ABSOLUTELY have no ability to predict the weather beyond a couple of days even then they are mostly wrong. They likewise lack the ability to predict Solar output… FACT! Prove me wrong with actual data. You cannot, that data does not exist. the Real data proves that the Cycle has disappeared…

    • Since we can’t tax what happens on the sun, I think they will stick with the man made theory.