Future Timeline

[BethesdaWX]

Oh I see. Of course it would.

That's what Landscheidt hypothesized anyways. He claimed the 1960s and 70s cooling was related to geomag-aa. Geomag-aa is far lower than it was in the 60s and 70s. So the cooling effect should be even larger.

(The cooling in the 60s and 70s has nothing to do with geo-aa, and everything to do with aerosols, the pdo, volcanoes, and weaker tsi)

Dude, "lag" just means when cooling will start, not how much will occur. We should not see Any of the "significant" cooling yet anyway.

"Landshedit" apparently needs to look at the past, not model predictions. In the Past, it has always taken 150-250 years to go from Solar-Warm to Solar-Cold. MWP to LIA = 250yrs+ RWP to DACP = 200yrs+..... Real Issue........We have NEVER been able to remove that energy in 5 years...Not even 50 years! Try starting at 100 years, and maybe we can Continue this discussion.

The drops from MWP peak, to LIA base, was 1-3C depending on your proxy choice. (1C assumes the MWP was cooler than today). The point is, it has always taken a Long time to remove that cumulative effect. Issue is, we don't understand how it works, and we do not yet know of a mechanism. All we can say.. It has happened before, and it correlates well to todays temps, and might happen again.

1) Why would Geo-AA Cooling Start now? (Lag of 4-11yrs depending on IMF Polarity) And, what makes you think we can Erase a Century of Geo-AA warming in just 4-6 years? There is a reason it takes an extended Minimum in Solar activity to Lower Global temperatures.

2) The 1960's/70's cooling was related to Geo-Mag AA, but probably < 0.1C was due to the Drop. Also, we had just come out of a Raging Solar Cycle, the -PDO/-AMO, Aerosols, etc, played a larger ole.

[skierinvermont]

So there is no correlation and no causation. What reason do I have to believe geo-aa has any more affect on climate than piracy?

[BethesdaWX]

So there is no correlation and no causation. What reason do I have to believe geo-aa has any more affect on climate than piracy?

1) No there is a correlation to todays temps...a very good one when adding in PDO/AMO, but saying all warming will be erased in 5 years is silly.....even 50 years is pushing it........it's always taken over a Century, over 200 years in fact.

2) Just because we do not know of a mechanism doesn't mean there is none. Look at our Solar Formulas applied to models.....stating that solar cannot cause the warming we've seen...............yet it has happened before...and the one and only correlation we find in all aspects is with the MAGNETISM.

There is something else going on irrelevant to TSI/Irradiance, it happened in the LIA, in the DACP, the RWP, MWP, etc. We've seen spikes of 2-3C throughout the holocene in Volstok and Greenland Ice cores...so yes its happened before.

We just don't know how. Look at how the NAO/AO correlate to the Magnetic Index...it's fantastic and compelling, it really is.

[skierinvermont]

No there is not a correlation. Geo-AA's 1990 peak was much stronger overall than the 2003 peak. And yet we have continued to warm since 1990.

[BethesdaWX]

No there is not a correlation. Geo-AA's 1990 peak was much stronger overall than the 2003 peak. And yet we have continued to warm since 1990.

Can you read? Why are you looking at peaks when the Mean Value has been UP? 1999-2006 had the Highest base EVER. The earth is no longer warming, it is cooling.

In the Past, it has always taken 150-250 years to go from Solar-Warm to Solar-Cold. MWP to LIA = 250yrs+ RWP to DACP = 200yrs+..... Real Issue...............We have NEVER been able to remove that energy in 5 years...Not even 50 years! Try starting at 100 years, and maybe we can Continue this discussion.

FYI: The Lag time during Direct IMF has never qualitatively been below 7yrs...so 1991 + 7 is 1998..... Not my argument, but you should understand Lag.

]

[skierinvermont]

I am looking at means. The most recent cycle was much weaker than the previous cycle (or the one before that). 5 year mean is red line.. clearly lower in the more recent cycle than the one before it.

[BethesdaWX]

I am looking at means. The most recent cycle was much weaker than the previous cycle (or the one before that). 5 year mean is red line.. clearly lower in the more recent cycle than the one before it.

Its pathetic to Manipulate the stats.......Stop the Graph in 2005. You Manipulate the Stats when you include the Recent Minimum.

Also show me your datasource

The Lag during Direct IMF (22yr cycles) has been 7-10yrs......so 2005 is really 2012- 2015

[skierinvermont]

You Manipulate the Stats when you include the Recent Minimum...Stop the Graph in 2005.

Also show me your datasource

The end date does not affect the red line which is a 5 year mean value. The 2003 cycle was weaker than the 1990 or the 1980 cycle OVERALL based on 5 year means.

Graph is based on data downloaded here for the Geo-AA index:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/geomag/aastar.html

[BethesdaWX]

SKIER:

-Stop the Graph in 2005, you manipulate the data making it appear the Magnetic Field has Weakened since 1980...when it has Increased Through 2004/05.

-Apply the Lag, Earliest cooling possibility is 2012-2015

-Realize that it has Always Taken Centuries to remove the influence...MWP/LIA, RWP/DACP........what is 5 years gonna do? Nothin

I understand its typical for warmists to manipulate data, but I thought you were better than that. Your argument makes absolutely no sense, Zero, Zip, Notta, Blank, Blah.

[skierinvermont]

SKIER:

-Stop the Graph in 2005, you manipulate the data making it appear the Magnetic Field has Weakened since 1980...when it has Increased Through 2004/05.

-Apply the Lag, Earlier cooling possibility is 2012-2015

-Realize that it has Always Taken Centuries to remove the influence...MWP/LIA, RWP/DACP........what is 5 years gonna do? Nothin

I understand its typical for warmists to manipulate data, but I thought you were better than that. Your argument makes absolutely no sense, Zero, Zip, Notta, Blank, Blah.

Stopping the graph at a different date will not affect a 5 year means. I guess you don't understand what an average is, so here it is anyways. The 5 year mean was higher during the #1 and #2 cycles than during the #3 cycle (the most recent). The 5 year mean between cycles also dropped. ON AVERAGE the most recent cycle was weaker than the one before it, not including ANY data post 2005.

[BethesdaWX]

Stopping the graph at a different date will not affect a 5 year means. I guess you don't understand what an average is, so here it is anyways. The 5 year mean was higher during the #1 and #2 cycles than during the #3 cycle (the most recent). The 5 year mean between cycles also dropped.

Wheres the Mean Calculated Trend? (black line) Also You stopped in 2006/07, not the beginning of 2005! Come on dude, Man up and Post it.

be a man, if i were in your shoes, i would do it.

[skierinvermont]

Wheres the Mean Calculated Trend? (black line) Also You stopped in 2006/07, not the beginning of 2005! Come on dude, Man up and Post it.

No it stops in 2005. The trendline is not important. It's the 5 year mean that is important.. the 5 year mean never got as high during the most recent cycle.. and was lower between the 1990 and 2003 cycles than between the 1980 and 1990 cycles.

FYI the trendline is STILL negative.. despite the fact that the graph starts with a minimum and ends with a maximum.

[BethesdaWX]

No it stops in 2005. The trendline is not important. It's the 5 year mean that is important.. the 5 year mean never got as high during the most recent cycle.. and was lower between the 1990 and 2003 cycles than between the 1980 and 1990 cycles.

FYI the trendline is STILL negative.. despite the fact that the graph starts with a minimum and ends with a maximum.

Are you a Coward?

Just post it and don't make excuses. Stop at the beginning of 2005, and post the running mean! That is how we calculate the Overall Trend

Lag is 7-10yrs during high IMF (flipping polarity). 2004, for instance, will be seen anywhere from 2011-2015.

The temprature will react in the fashion the mean trendline shows! It takes CENTURIES to remove the trends....Based on changes in the MWP-LIA, and RWP-DACP

[skierinvermont]

What a Coward.

1) Stop at the Beginning of 2005, not the end, and Post the Mean Trendline.

2) Thats the overall trend, which temps should follow. Lag is 7-10yrs during high IMF (flipping polarity). 2004, for instance, will be seen anywhere from 2011-2015.

The temprature will react in the fashion the mean trendline shows! It takes CENTURIES to remove the trends....a few blips don;t matter.

If it takes centuries to react.. then why have we warmed this century? A century or two ago geo-aa was extremely low.. and if it takes centuries to react .. it should have cooled the past century. You're just making up things as you go along.

Here's ending at the START of 2005 as you demanded. WITH a trendline. Trendline is still quite negative. Where's the cooling that Landscheidt specifically predicted for this decade based on this?

[skierinvermont]

The trendline is based on the blue data. Extending the red line will not affect it. The red line cannot be extended because it is a CENTERED 5 YEAR MEAN. I cannot extend the red line without including data after the start of 2005, but you demanded that I not include any data after the start of 2005.

[Jebman]

Thought I'd share this website here to see what everyone thinks about it. It contains some really interesting predictions regarding where we go technologically and culturally in the coming decades/centuries, but of course also contains some near doomsday AGW and evironmental predictions. Some of this stuff seems really farfetched, while other ideas are more reasonable IMO.

Figured this might stir up some interesting debate at least (as if there isn't enough of that on the climate change sub-forum ) So anyway, have at it!

http://futuretimeline.net/index.htm

You have made my day forever. I am so happy, so elated, that I am nearly in tears. Recently, I have become badly obsessed with science fiction novels.

The above resource WILL trigger yet another technological singularity craze.

WOW - I LOVE this future timeline SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is even better than snow!!!!!!!!

Wooooooooo---Hoooooooooooo!!!!

[skierinvermont]

The effect of decreasing piracy is cumulative. It will take many decades of high piracy to cool the climate back down.

[BethesdaWX]

The effect of decreasing piracy is cumulative. It will take many decades of high piracy to cool the climate back down.

Do you mind continuing your Red Line through the entire Graph? Thanks

It Doesn't Matter Anyway Because:

1) It's always taken Centuries, 200yrs+ to go from Solar warm to Solar Cold (MWP/LIA, RWP/DACP)......they (1992 & 2003) are both Incredibly High Maxes. AA index is cumulative...ok? Even a 30 year drop may only impose 0.3C cooling. We may have warmed 0.8C since 1850, but we've warmed possibly 1.5C+ since 1700, the bottom of the LIA. Again, these are timespans over 300 years! 5 years, 50 years, will barely even dent the trend!

2) The Lag has been found between 7-11 yrs qualitatively....during high IMF (interplanetary magnetic Field flips). So, for example, 2004 would could show up between 2011-2015. So really we should see nothing yet.

The Last peak was in 1992, which could show up anywhere from 1999-2003, if we were to level off (we did)

Just because we do not know of a mechanism doesn't mean there is none. Look at our Solar Formulas applied to models,stating that solar cannot cause the warming we've seen...............yet it has happened before...and the one and only correlation we find in all aspects is with the MAGNETISM.

There is something else going on irrelevant to TSI/Irradiance, it happened in the LIA, in the DACP, the RWP, MWP, etc. We've seen spikes of 2-3C throughout the holocene in Volstok and Greenland Ice cores...so yes its happened before.

We just don't know how. Look at how the NAO/AO correlate to the Magnetic Index...it's fantastic and compelling, it really is.

[tacoman25]

So there is no correlation and no causation. What reason do I have to believe geo-aa has any more affect on climate than piracy?

That is simply not true. You are assuming that correlation has to mean when AA drops, the temps has to drop as well. If you instead look at AA as a possible negative forcing competing with other forcings (CO2), there IS a correlation between lower AA since the early 1990s and slower warming since then...especially since the early 2000s, after which AA really began to drop off.

In addition, the overall trends in AA over the past 100 years do show some correlation to temperature trends, especially when other factors are also accounted for. I'm not saying AA is for sure a signficant forcing, but to say there is no correlation demonstrates a poor understanding of correlations.

You are not being openminded about this at all.

[tacoman25]

No there is not a correlation. Geo-AA's 1990 peak was much stronger overall than the 2003 peak. And yet we have continued to warm since 1990.

That doesn't equal no correlation. The warming has slowed. There are other forcings involved.

Using your logic, there must not be a correlation between CO2 and temperature, since CO2 has continued to rise over the past decade but temperature has not followed.

[skierinvermont]

That doesn't equal no correlation. The warming has slowed. There are other forcings involved.

Using your logic, there must not be a correlation between CO2 and temperature, since CO2 has continued to rise over the past decade but temperature has not followed.

There isn't a statistically powerful correlation between CO2 and temperature. If it weren't for the very clear causative mechanism, then I would not believe CO2 to have an effect.

The only similarity between CO2 and temperature is they both exhibit a general upward trend, for which there is a 50/50 chance purely by luck. That is not statistically powerful. There is a correlation just as powerful for piracy as there is for CO2.

[skierinvermont]

That is simply not true. You are assuming that correlation has to mean when AA drops, the temps has to drop as well. If you instead look at AA as a possible negative forcing competing with other forcings (CO2), there IS a correlation between lower AA since the early 1990s and slower warming since then...especially since the early 2000s, after which AA really began to drop off.

In addition, the overall trends in AA over the past 100 years do show some correlation to temperature trends, especially when other factors are also accounted for. I'm not saying AA is for sure a signficant forcing, but to say there is no correlation demonstrates a poor understanding of correlations.

You are not being openminded about this at all.

See above. This is not a statistically powerful correlation. This is opposed to other short term variables like TSI which do have a statistically powerful correlation which has consistently and predictably modulated temperature up and down with a 1-2 year lag.

If there were evidence for a causative mechanism, I would be much more open to the idea.

[tacoman25]

There isn't a statistically powerful correlation between CO2 and temperature. If it weren't for the very clear causative mechanism, then I would not believe CO2 to have an effect.

The only similarity between CO2 and temperature is they both exhibit a general upward trend, for which there is a 50/50 chance purely by luck. That is not statistically powerful. There is a correlation just as powerful for piracy as there is for CO2.

This is getting old...seriously.

I can't believe you are actually arguing against the CO2/temperature correlation now. I understand you believe the causative mechanism is the important part...but the correlation is also important evidence, and according to theory, should become increasingly dominant as CO2 forcing become greater.

I know you have posted graphs in the past in support of the CO/temperature correlation, so it's kind of hard to take this last post seriously.

[tacoman25]

See above. This is not a statistically powerful correlation. This is opposed to other short term variables like TSI which do have a statistically powerful correlation which has consistently and predictably modulated temperature up and down with a 1-2 year lag.

If there were evidence for a causative mechanism, I would be much more open to the idea.

I definitely do not see a stronger correlation with TSI. And like you said, TSI is a short term variable, so it's not directly comparable to something like CO2 anyway.

[BethesdaWX]

See above. This is not a statistically powerful correlation. This is opposed to other short term variables like TSI which do have a statistically powerful correlation which has consistently and predictably modulated temperature up and down with a 1-2 year lag.

If there were evidence for a causative mechanism, I would be much more open to the idea.

Dude, TSI and temperatures diverged in the 1970's, and TSI only fluctuates <1% through each solar cycle.

The AA-Index, with a 7-10 year lag in high IMF fluctuations, qualitatively, correlates perfectly when PDO/AMO are added. So, the peak in 2004, at earliest, could manifest sometime this year, or could show up in 2015.

Just because we don't know of a mechanism doesn't mean there is none.

1) It's always taken Centuries, 200yrs+ to go from Solar warm to Solar Cold (MWP/LIA, RWP/DACP)......they (1992 & 2003) are both Incredibly High Maxes. AA index is cumulative...ok? Even a 30 year drop may only impose 0.3C cooling. We may have warmed 0.8C since 1850, but we've warmed possibly 1.5C+ since 1700, the bottom of the LIA. Again, these are timespans over 300 years! 5 years, 50 years, will barely even dent the trend!

2) The Lag has been found between 7-11 yrs qualitatively....during high IMF (interplanetary magnetic Field flips). So, for example, 2004 would could show up between 2011-2015. So really we should see nothing yet.

The Last peak was in 1992, which could show up anywhere from 1999-2003, if we were to level off (we did)

Just because we do not know of a mechanism doesn't mean there is none. Look at our Solar Formulas applied to models,stating that solar cannot cause the warming we've seen...............yet it has happened before...and the one and only correlation we find in all aspects is with the MAGNETISM.

There is something else going on irrelevant to TSI/Irradiance, it happened in the LIA, in the DACP, the RWP, MWP, etc. We've seen spikes of 2-3C throughout the holocene in Volstok and Greenland Ice cores...so yes its happened before.

We just don't know how. Look at how the NAO/AO correlate to the Magnetic Index...it's fantastic and compelling, it really is.

[skierinvermont]

This is getting old...seriously.

I can't believe you are actually arguing against the CO2/temperature correlation now. I understand you believe the causative mechanism is the important part...but the correlation is also important evidence, and according to theory, should become increasingly dominant as CO2 forcing become greater.

I know you have posted graphs in the past in support of the CO/temperature correlation, so it's kind of hard to take this last post seriously.

No I haven't posted graphs of their correlation... CO2 and temperature don't really "correlate" in a statistical sense.. they both show upwards trends but that doesn't make for a powerful statistical correlation. Half the variables in the world show upwards trends. Half show downwards trends. It's not statistically powerful.

If CO2 and temperature showed long term opposite trends, that would disprove AGW. But both of them showing upwards trends is very poor corroborating evidence. The "correlation" between CO2 and temperature is no more powerful than the correlation between piracy and temperature.

[skierinvermont]

I definitely do not see a stronger correlation with TSI. And like you said, TSI is a short term variable, so it's not directly comparable to something like CO2 anyway.

TSI does have a much more statistically powerful correlation than Geo-AA. When TSI goes up temperature goes up, when TSI goes down temperature goes down. This is a much more "powerful" (IE much lower probability of false positive) test than two variables which both show general upwards trends. No such "powerful" correlation exists for geo-AA (or for CO2). The chance of a false positive in the geo-aa : temp or CO2 : temp correlations is nearly 50%. The chance of a false positive for the TSI : temperature correlation is nearly 1%.

[BethesdaWX]

TSI does have a much more statistically powerful correlation than Geo-AA. When TSI goes up temperature goes up, when TSI goes down temperature goes down. This is a much more "powerful" (IE much lower probability of false positive) test than two variables which both show general upwards trends. No such "powerful" correlation exists for geo-AA (or for CO2). The chance of a false positive in the geo-aa : temp or CO2 : temp correlations is nearly 50%. The chance of a false positive for the TSI : temperature correlation is nearly 1%.

Skier, are you talking short term or long term??? I'm confused.

TSI is a short term Variation with short term correlations, it varies <1% per solar cycle...................Geo-AA correlates on a Multi-Century Scale. A blip in Geo-AA for 5 years will do little to nothing unless its extended.

Just because we do not understand any mechanism yet means nothing given our poor understanding on the matter. The process is most likely quite intricate, but its there. We see it in the NAO/AO correlations...but we do not know why it correlates.

[skierinvermont]

Skier, are you talking short term or long term??? I'm confused.

TSI is a short term Variation with short term correlations, it varies <1% per solar cycle...................Geo-AA correlates on a Multi-Century Scale. A blip in Geo-AA for 5 years will do little to nothing unless its extended.

Just because we do not understand any mechanism yet means nothing given our poor understanding on the matter. The process is most likely quite intricate, but its there. We see it in the NAO/AO correlations...but we do not know why it correlates.

It's not geo-AA it's piracy.. 5 years of high piracy is not enough to cool the climate. We need at least 50 years of high piracy to cool the climate back down.

[BethesdaWX]

It's not geo-AA it's piracy.. 5 years of high piracy is not enough to cool the climate. We need at least 50 years of high piracy to cool the climate back down.

Look at the LIA, RWP, DACP, MWP, the Holocene in its entirety, we've seen 1-3C spikes/dips...TSI variations cannot account for that. Nothing else can...........except the Geomagnetic sun.

So, what are we left with? Magnetism & the relationship between 10/BE Conc & the weakening MagF.