From Watts Up With That?
Guest essay by Javier
Monthly number of sunspots
Conclusions from author
At this time everything appears to indicate that the SC24-25 minimum should take place by late 2018 to mid-2019. If this is the case SC24 will be ~ 10-10.5 years long, not unusual for a solar cycle. The time from ≥ 30 sunspots to the minimum should be above 24 months, but probably below the 38 months of the SC23-24 minimum. Since the length of the low activity period is usually related to its depth, it is likely that the SC24-25 minimum should not be as deep as the SC23-24 minimum. This is in contrast with the recent prediction by James Marusek at WUWT that “this upcoming period of minimal sunspots shall be longer and deeper than the last one.”
As usual, extreme opinions that this could be a monster minimum (David Archibald, 2017), or that it will take place so soon (or already) that will make SC24 one of the shortest cycles, are unlikely to be correct.
If the minimum takes place indeed by early 2019, we can expect the next minimum by 2029-30, indicating that the current period of below average solar activity should extend until ~ 2032. Afterwards I expect that solar activity should return to levels typical of the 20th century Modern Maximum.
Just looking at that chart, is sure should make a person wonder if the current warming hasn't been caused by the increased solar activity.
From this morning on the site:
A good discussion of whether total atmospheric water vapor is increased by warming. The last paragraph sums up quite well why the science that points to human causes can only be described as junk science.
"So, we see the crucial role assumed for water vapor in the entire man-made climate change hypothesis. CO2 has only a minor role to play in warming the Earth by itself. It is only the assumed, but unmeasured, feedback from water vapor that allows a large impact on our climate to be predicted. Yet, as shown above, this assumed feedback cannot be measured with any accuracy with the data we have available. In fact, over climate time scales (>30 years) we cannot even be sure the feedback is positive. There is a strong correlation between temperature and total atmospheric water vapor concentration over short time periods, especially over the oceans from 1988 to 2017, when the AMO index was rising. But, it falls apart over longer periods of time and it is negative in the crucial upper troposphere. I can offer no solutions or great insights here, only questions and problems."
Again, if someone came on this forum and said that he had a computer model that he had curve-fit to historical data - and that if we followed his advise, we would make lots of money, we would laugh him off the forum.
Of course we have warmed 1 degree C in the last century and CO2 has increased from less than 300 parts per million to over 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution.
We are being told that this is carbon pollution and bad as well as the warming being bad and causing climate change(which is now synonymous with man made climate change-natural cycles don't happen anymore).
As if those conditions 100 years ago, before humans started spewing toxic CO2 into the atmosphere represented the optimal conditions.
So what would happen if we returned that atmosphere and oceans to their state of 150 year ago?
With certainty, over a billion people would starve within a few years, as crop yields and world food production plunged 25%. Food prices would more than triple.
Over the past 40 years, the weather/climate for growing crops and for life on this planet has been the best in over 1,000 years. If you want to blame human caused climate change, then at least get the entire story right about what you are claiming is being caused by climate change.
The chart below on world food production does not lie. We've been told and models have shown for 2 decades that adversity from human caused climate change would reduce crop production.
Release date: 07/06/2018
Global warming has increased the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere of course and this has increased high end, extreme rain events(around 7%) and potentially can strengthen some hurricanes but there has been no trend yet, and will likely increase the rate of sea level increase a bit(from the 1 inch/decade currently).
So those are most of the bad things.
If there were NO good things, then we might consider ways to reduce this negatives if they are cost effective. Certainly adaptation is needed along the coastlines no matter what.
But if the benefits, the massive increase in world food production, by itself are much greater than all the negatives combined, then why spend trillions to reduce beneficial CO2?
Spend it to fight real pollution. Spend it to fight poverty and help the poor. Spend it to bring fresh water to the billion people on the planet that don't have enough........or to develop ways to conserve or renew water in places like the Ogallalla Aquifer that's drying up in the Plains. Spend it to develop cleaner energy(even if its fossil fuels).