25 for 25

By David Archibald – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Back on March 7, 2006, the National Science Foundation issued a press release predicting that the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 would be “30 to 50 percent stronger” than Solar Cycle 23. Solar Cycle 23 had a smoothed maximum amplitude of 180.3. The press release described the forecast as “unprecedented”. Perhaps it was as in unprecedentedly wrong. Solar Cycle 24 had a smoothed maximum amplitude of 116.4 in April 2014, which made it 35% weaker than Solar Cycle 23.

NASA has recycled some of the language from that 2006 press release in this release on NASA researcher Irina Kitiashvili’s forecast of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude which includes this line:

Continue reading

The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling

By Allan MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Introduction – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – A Failed Hypothesis

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (“CAGW”, aka “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Climate Crisis”, “Climate Emergency”) scare is a failed hypothesis and the greatest scientific fraud in history. Global warming alarmism has been promoted by political extremists and believed in by their gullible acolytes for decades, even though there is no credible evidence that catastrophic global warming exists in reality, and ample evidence that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified.

The failed CAGW hypothesis assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel combustion drives dangerous runaway global warming. The alleged evidence for this fraud is climate computer models that greatly over-predict current observed warming, typically by 300 to 500%. These climate models deliberately employ excessively high assumed values of climate sensitivity to CO2, and are designed to create false alarm.

Continue reading

Scottish Sunspots

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From WUWT

In a recent post, Anthony published Leif Svalgaard’s new paper showing 9,000 years of reconstructed solar activity.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/27/svalgaard-paper-reconstruction-of-9000-years-of-solar-activity/embed/#?secret=2dyAExqkss

In the discussion, someone pointed out that the “Maunder Minimum”, a time of very low solar activity, corresponds with the coldest decade in a long-term reconstruction of summer temperatures in Scotland. Their temperature reconstruction is based on a group of pine tree-ring records spanning 800 years. Their graph is shown below:

Continue reading

Solar Cycle Wave Frequency Linked to Jet Stream Changes

By Francis Tucker Manns, PhD – Re-Blogged From WUWT

It’s not the heat It’s the humidity 

Abstract: The sun controls climate change. Not industry. Not you. Not me. It is the sun.

Solar cycle 24, the weakest in 100 years, is stumbling to an end. The sunspot cycle averages about 11 (± 1.5) years. There may not be any sunspots this week. In the spring of 2017 the sunspot number was low or zero and Canada was plagued with spring floods from melting snow and heavy rainfall.

imageimage

Continue reading

Approaching ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ Could Cause Global Cooling

By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.

Interplanetary magnetic field – Image from NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center

Continue reading

Forecast for Solar Cycle 25

By James A. Marusek – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

I. Introduction

The sun is the natural source of heat and light for our planet. Without our sun, the earth would be a cold dead planet adrift in space. But the sun is not constant. It changes and these subtle changes affect the Earth’s climate and weather.

At the end of solar cycle 23, sunspot activity declined to a level not seen since the year 1913. [Comparing Yearly Mean Total Sunspot Numbers1]

Continue reading

Lindzen, Soon and Spencer debunked?

By Andy May – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

On Bret Stephens facebook page, I [complimented] Mr. Stephens on what I thought was a very good column. I also noted that the eminent climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen had said similar things. To this a George Smith replied, in part, as follows:

“Few “skeptics” have been debunked as much as Lindzen and Spencer.”

Link to comment here.

If you follow the link you will see it is followed with a google search for “Lindzen debunked.” No support, no data, no peer reviewed references, just anything that says “Lindzen debunked.” This is “internet slime” at its worst. We see a lot of this sort of reprehensible behavior around climate science, often by people who have no scientific background at all. But, I am a scientist with 42 years’ experience and have been studying and writing about climate science for years, so I do want to address some of the scurrilous attacks found in this google search.

Continue reading