In South Africa we here are currently experiencing raging bush fires, strong winds and temperature swings…even port towns are getting damaged by storm surges washing onto roads…obviously the media attributes this to AGW…which is really pathetic since temps have generally been colder.
I would definately say that winter 2008 was definately cold but also wet, not like our typical dry winters…

Frank Lansner (12:29:16) :
“Fact is, the temperatures in the ocean down to 2 km depths has been measured to be slightly falling since 2002.”
I believe Frank was refering to Argo probes not SST.

1979 -0.219* neutral
1980 +0.050 neutral
1981 +0.031* neutral
1982 -0.202* neutral to strong El Nino
1983 +0.059 very strong El Nino to neutral
1984 -0.207* neutral
1985 -0.309* moderate to weak La Nina
1986 -0.165* neutral to weak El Nino
1987 +0.087 moderate to strong El Nino
1988 +0.134 weak El Nino to moderate La Nina
1989 -0.174* strong La Nina to neutral
1990 +0.014* neutral
1991 +0.189 neutral to moderate El Nino
1992 -0.147* strong El Nino to neutral
1993 -0.134* neutral
1994 +0.037* neutral to weak El Nino
1995 +0.191 moderate El Nino to weak La Nina
1996 +0.050 weak La Nina to neutral
1997 +0.044 neutral to very strong El Nino
1998 +0.671 very strong El Nino to mod La Nina
1999 +0.096 moderate La Nina
2000 +0.071 strong La Nina to neutral
2001 +0.224 weak La Nina to neutral
2002 +0.380 neutral to moderate El Nino
2003 +0.321 moderate El Nino to neutral
2004 +0.258 neutral to weak El Nino
2005 +0.389 weak El Nino to neutral
2006 +0.278 neutral to weak El Nino
2007 +0.364 weak El Nino to weak La Nina
2008 +0.042 moderate La Nina to neutral

You have to go back to 1997 to get a similiar average anomaly. Astericks indicate colder years(Jan-Aug) than this one.
Here’s a nice graph of eruptions and their SO2 emissions from 1979-2003.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png/800px-TOMS_SO2_time_nov03.png

Carsten Arnholm
Thanks…interesting data piece,now problem is,,, which one is the most accurate one…

How about
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/maxmin.new

WordPress does awful things that even monospace fonts can’t fix, so I
recommend the FTP URL.

For the following, just us column 1 (cycle), column 2 (start date), and the last column (cycle length). I guess cycle 23 is up to 12.3 years or so.

MINIMA AND MAXIMA OF SUNSPOT NUMBER CYCLES
===============================================================================
Sunspot Year Smallest Year Largest Rise Fall Cycle
Cycle of Smoothed of Smoothed to Max to Min Length
Number Min* Monthly Mean** Max* Monthly Mean** (Yrs) (Yrs) (Yrs)
——————————————————————————-
– 1610.8 — 1615.5 — 4.7 3.5 8.2
– 1619.0 — 1626.0 — 7.0 8.0 15.0
– 1634.0 — 1639.5 — 5.5 5.5 11.0
– 1645.0 — 1649.0 — 4.0 6.0 10.0
– 1655.0 — 1660.0 — 5.0 6.0 11.0
– 1666.0 — 1675.0 — 9.0 4.5 13.5
– 1679.5 — 1685.0 — 5.5 4.5 10.0
– 1689.5 — 1693.0 — 3.5 5.0 8.5
– 1698.0 — 1705.5 — 7.5 6.5 14.0
– 1712.0 — 1718.2 — 6.2 5.3 11.5
– 1723.5 — 1727.5 — 4.0 6.5 10.5
– 1734.0 — 1738.7 — 4.7 6.3 11.0
– 1745.0 — 1750.3 92.6 5.3 4.9 10.2
1 1755.2 8.4 1761.5 86.5 6.3 5.0 11.3
2 1766.5 11.2 1769.7 115.8 3.2 5.8 9.0
3 1775.5 7.2 1778.4 158.5 2.9 6.3 9.2
4 1784.7 9.5 1788.1 141.2 3.4 10.2 13.6
5 1798.3 3.2 1805.2 49.2 6.9 5.4 12.3
6 1810.6 0.0 1816.4 48.7 5.8 6.9 12.7
7 1823.3 0.1 1829.9 71.7 6.6 4.0 10.6
8 1833.9 7.3 1837.2 146.9 3.3 6.3 9.6
9 1843.5 10.5 1848.1 131.6 4.6 7.9 12.5
10 1856.0 3.2 1860.1 97.9 4.1 7.1 11.2
11 1867.2 5.2 1870.6 140.5 3.4 8.3 11.7
12 1878.9 2.2 1883.9 74.6 5.0 5.7 10.7
13 1889.6 5.0 1894.1 87.9 4.5 7.6 12.1
14 1901.7 2.6 1907.0 64.2 5.3 6.6 11.9
15 1913.6 1.5 1917.6 105.4 4.0 6.0 10.0
16 1923.6 5.6 1928.4 78.1 4.8 5.4 10.2
17 1933.8 3.4 1937.4 119.2 3.6 6.8 10.4
18 1944.2 7.7 1947.5 151.8 3.3 6.8 10.1
19 1954.3 3.4 1957.9 201.3 3.6 7.0 10.6
20 1964.9 9.6 1968.9 110.6 4.0 7.6 11.6
21 1976.5 12.2 1979.9 164.5 3.4 6.9 10.3
22 1986.8 12.3 1989.6 158.5 2.8 6.8 9.7
23 1996.4*** 8.0 2000.3*** 120.8 4.0
——————————————————————————-
Mean Cycle Values: 6.1 113.2 4.7 6.3 11.0
——————————————————————————-
*When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maxi-
mum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the
monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and
in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used
at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of
occurrence of “old” and “new” cycle spot groups.

**The smoothed monthly mean sunspot number is defined here as the arithmetic
average of two sequential 12-month running means of monthly mean numbers.

***May 1996 marks the mathematical minimum of Cycle 23. October 1996 marks the
consensus minimum determined by an international group of solar physicists.
April 2000 marks the mathematical maximum of Cycle 23. However, several
other solar indices (e.g., 10.7 cm solar radio flux) recorded a higher
secondary maximum in late 2001.

http://climate.uah.edu/august2008.htm

(Ok, after the 1980´ies all these graphs of global temperature changed back so the giss graph today mostly has the 1960´ies – 1970´ies looking like a plateau rather than a great fall in temperature, but it was not for nothing the scientists back then cried “ice age”.)

In the last 400 years whenever we have low solar activity / low sunspot numbers / Long sun circles, we see falls or even dramatic falls in temperature.

How responsible is it to say “Its probably not gonna happend this time” ?

As a climate realist I do see solar variability as an important factor…but think about it… the solar cycle 1964-1977 was longer than the current one and nothing major happened right?? No ice age happened…

Your facts have been adjusted. Cycle 23 is 12 years so far, could be longer. You have to go 100+ years back to find a longer cycle.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/solar_cycle_length.png

michigan
sorry LOL

Data that is “counter” to the underlying theory, rejects the theory, not the data. Whether there is a “counter” theory or not is “counter” to the scientific method.

Those of us that have been through a few climate cycles are not going to fall for your “watermelon” theories. When I was born it was warm. Then it got cold. Then it got warm again. Now it is getting cold.
If you want respect, break out the man-made portion of that cycle, and show how much negative impact it has made. Until then you are just another phophet on the street corner, with a sign that says: ” The end is near”.

morph to this
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif

to this
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions

Looking forward to the next installment.