http://www.viewzone.com/paper03.html

This is definitely SC24 activity, but as often happens when the specks are small, Joy’s law is not well obeyed. The leading polarity seems to be ‘black’ which is what it was for SC23 southern Hemisphere spots.
http://solis.nso.edu/vsm_current_m630l_mr.jpg

“anyone else notice 1, maybe 2 new sunspecks today?”

Can’t see the specks yet but I definitely see a plage and a pronounced BMR (bi-polar magnetic region) fairly deep in the southern hemisphere, just coming out of the eastern limb.

Are these related to your questions on CA about the climate having a higher sensitivity to TSI than “we” think?

nobwainer (07:49:37) :

“… every occurrence of Neptune/Uranus coming together in the last 700 years DID correlate with a solar minimum as per Dalton, Maunder,Sporer, Wolf?

Just for fun I tested this statement in a simulator. It somehow “works” for conjunctions in 1308, 1479, 1650 and 1821, but fails for 1993.”

And what does your Simulator say for 2009?

Evidence from both 29 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena.
Also true, but says nothing about the size of the variability, which is the crux of the matter.

Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~ 10 Kyrs.).

are dealing with changes not of the Sun, but of the aspect of the Earth over ten of thousands of years.

Phenomenological analyses of TSI monitoring results during the past (nearly) three decades, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era.
Is the only reference to our debate and that only over the industrial era.

The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future.”
The TSI record only shows three solar cycles of ~11 years each and 11-year cycles are not the 30-year intervals that define climate, so a bit a sleight of hand here. Could even be true, but says nothing about the tiny size of this variation.

A paper in the Journal Of Geophysical Research from a year ago (2007),
“If ACRIM satellite composite is adopted the Sun might have further contributed to the recent global warming.”
contains the weasel words if and might have and is therefore a far cry from ‘prevailing understanding’ and ‘accepted’.

Long been debunked?

Indeed, absolutely yes.
This image from the wikipedia you like so much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
shows [as is proper] that there is no change from minimum to minimum, and, in particular, not the calibration error in the ACRIM data between cycle 21 and 22.
At the recent SORCE 2008 meeting Judith Lean concluded that for TSI “longer-term variations not yet detectable-… do they occur?”. You can see more of the modern view of TSI reconstructions here: http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/haberreiter/Schoell_subm2007.pdf Especially their Figure 4, that shows how at each minimum TSI returns to the same value. Note also how the older [now obsoleted] TSI reconstructions converge with time to the flat-lining that I have pointed out repeatedly.

So, yes, long debunked!
Hunting around on the Internet for snippets that out of context may support your opinion is no substitute for deep knowledge of [and active participation in] the field. You would be better informed by accepting this and move forward with a solid basic understanding that can be had here ‘chez’ Anthony.

Long been debunked?

Debunked, absolutely. Note the two weasel words: “if” and “might have”.

Look at this from Wikipedia [that you like so much]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
No increase between minima.

At SORCE 2008 [that I have referred you to repeatedly] Judith Lean concluded that “longer-term variations not yet detectable – … do they occur?”

So, yes, debunked!

For more about longer-term variations of TSI, see http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/haberreiter/Schoell_subm2007.pdf
Especially their Figure 4. No variation of TSI from minimum to minimum. Note, how the earlier reconstructions, that showed such variations, have steadily converged to flat-lining.

As I have said before, hunting around on the Internet for snippets that match your opinion is no substitute for actually knowing what is being done [as well as being an activity participant] in the field.

… every occurrence of Neptune/Uranus coming together in the last 700 years DID correlate with a solar minimum as per Dalton, Maunder,Sporer, Wolf?

Just for fun I tested this statement in a simulator. It somehow “works” for conjunctions in 1308, 1479, 1650 and 1821, but fails for 1993.

Really? Here’s the ACRIM website:

http://acrim.com/

“The Earth’s weather and climate regime is determined by the total solar irradiance (TSI) and its interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses. Evidence from both 29 years of direct satellite monitoring and historical proxy data leaves no doubt that solar luminosity in general, and TSI in particular, are intrinsically variable phenomena. Subtle variations of TSI resulting from periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovich cycles: ~20, 40 and 100 Kyrs) cause climate change ranging from major ice ages to the present inter-glacial, clearly demonstrating the dominance of TSI in climate change on long timescales. TSI monitoring, cosmogenic isotope analyses and correlative climate data indicate that variations of the TSI have been a significant climate forcing during the current inter-glacial period (the last ~ 10 Kyrs.). Phenomenological analyses of TSI monitoring results during the past (nearly) three decades, TSI proxies during the past 400 years and the records of surface temperature show that TSI variation has been the dominant forcing for climate change during the industrial era. The periodic character of the TSI record indicates that solar forcing of climate change will likely be the dominant variable contributor to climate change in the future.”

A paper in the Journal Of Geophysical Research from a year ago (2007),

“If ACRIM satellite composite is adopted the Sun
might have further contributed to the recent global warming.”

http://acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20&%20West_2007JD008437.pdf

Long been debunked?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I guess I will stop searching for a suit to wear to the ceremonies awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics.

There are effects associated with the changing size of the magnetosphere, for instance, the tendency of geomagnetic activity [and aurorae and satellite drag, etc] to be larger near the equinoxes is likely due to the magnetosphere being slightly smaller a these times, but it is unlikely that that has anything to do with the radiation budget in the lower atmosphere. Although you can find people that will claim that [and weirder things].

I think that you misunderstand me. You are apparently assuming that I mean the entire downstream portion of the magentosphere. There is no reason that every cubic inch of it would have to contribute, just a portion that interacts with the atmosphere, that is also influenced by the sun. For example in this article, the US Geological Survey talks about the interaction of the magentic field with the ionosphere.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geomag.usgs.gov/images/magnetosphere_simple.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geomag.usgs.gov/intro.php&h=287&w=520&sz=23&tbnid=F7ob7bXq1HAJ::&tbnh=72&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddiagram%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bmagnetosphere&hl=en&usg=__y_yGApmq39QLO2RV8S_mOouH6d0=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

I am not sure if the deflection of the magnetic field is significant at that altitude, but if it is, the ionosphere will be effected in some way. We all know that the ionosphere changes when the sun is active to allow for radio enthusists to have more success at long distance communication. Perhaps it is not shape, but composition. I.e., in a less active solar environment the radiation that is bounced is biased more toward the infrared bands.

I am not claiming that any of this is happening, but I am wondering if it is possible?

As the solar winds subside, the oblong shape of the earths magnetic field becomes more spherical since there is left deflection. The center of the long tail is always on the side of Earth facing directly away from the Sun and is therefore the night side.

At night, the Earth loses a net energy to space, which lowers the night temperatures and accounts for the low end of the temperature average.

My conjecture is that perhaps the magnetic field distorts the atmosphere, if even only some trace gasses, so that a greenhouse effect could be extended to a greater extent into space around Earth, nighttime cooling could be slowed to some degree. It would not have to be the bulk of the atmosphere, just some ionized gas, or even just a “small puff of air”.

When the magnetosphere is more spherical, perhaps the night side can then give up more energy, leading to cooler times. If this is possible, it could have a much greater effect on the temperatures of earth than the variability of solar irradiance would imply.

Sadly, I have not found any links on the web supporting or dismissing this idea.