I thought that the flux from the sun was channeled in streamers along the plain of the ecliptic not just as a plasm sheet but in some discreet funneled jets – like the ancient swastika symbol for the sun? I will have to do some more reading!
On top of the general outflow there are occasions where distinct narrow ’streams’ can be found.

So – its ALL internal variability – as an ecologist I find that hard to believe – but I will chew it over!
But you are willing to accept that the Sun has ALL internal variations? [unless you ascribe them to planetary influences and even then one can argue that they are internal to the solar system as a whole - unless you argue that passage through the galactic spiral arms controls everything - in which case they are internal to the Galaxy - unless you argue that oscillating gravitational waves as a signature of the expanding universe are responsible ( http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/posters/P4_01_Lynch_Poster.pdf ) - in which case etc, etc]

So – its ALL internal variability – as an ecologist I find that hard to believe – but I will chew it over!

Appreciate the time you take.

We have had reports of California fire-related haze over the Rockies several days earlier this week.

On the lighter side:

http://www.topix.com/album/detail/boulder-co/MC50TGQ3GVIEOTJC

Landscheidt talked of the transfer of angular momentum and torque rather than small rises on the surface. His graphs of this changing over time look remarkably like the sunspot cycle.
Angular momentum is measured with respect to an axis of rotation. L takes that to be the barycenter. Because the barycenter moves around [follows Jupiter] the axis moves too, so you get a ‘change’ of angular momentum simply because the axis moved. The Sun doesn’t feel a thing from this and there are no ‘effects’. The these movements look like the solar cycle is because Jupiter’s orbital period is close to the solar cycle period.

if TSI has not changed much since Maunder Minimum AND the magnetic field has also not changed much – then that only leaves the Interplanetary flux
The flux is just the total field through a sphere around the Sun. Double the field, double the flux. No change in field, no change in flux.

as measured by Lockwood and Stamper and modelled by Solanki
The ‘doubling’ inferred by Lockwood et al. didn’t happen and Solanki’s model was adjusted to fit the ‘doubling’. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf

and assumed that the geomagnetic field captured some of that energy and the aa index thus followed the IP flux.
aa is wrong [too low] before 1957, see: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf

If the aa has not changed, why do we get a variation in beryllium-10 and carbon-14 at the same time as the MM?
Because the cosmic ray flux does not depend on aa, but on the sunspot number, which was smaller during the MM

Why do radiogenic isotope variations track the palaeo-ecological data on temperature and precipitation patterns?
Because these patterns in turn influence the deposition of the isotopes. See: http://www.leif.org/research/Aldahan%20GRL.pdf

Landscheidt talked of the transfer of angular momentum and torque rather than small rises on the surface. His graphs of this changing over time look remarkably like the sunspot cycle.

One question to Leif: if TSI has not changed much since Maunder Minimum AND the magnetic field has also not changed much – then that only leaves the Interplanetary flux – as measured by Lockwood and Stamper and modelled by Solank – and assumed that the geomagnetic field captured some of that energy and the aa index thus followed the IP flux. If the aa has not changed, why do we get a variation in beryllium-10 and carbon-14 at the same time as the MM? Why do radiogenic isotope variations track the palaeo-ecological data on temperature and precipitation patterns?

Divide by the mean temperature in Kelvin [290K] and you get a non-dimensional quantity. The graph of that quantity doesn’t change, only the scale, no there is really nothing wrong with the standard practice.

Why does climate science insist on using dimensional quantities to describe important phenomena?

All kinds of mathematical sins, errors and misunderstandings can be hidden inside dimensional quantities. is not this just another example of this?

Or three: It’s much more pleasant to do a global warming story about tropical islands sinking (think beach scene) than a story about Siberia being 2 degrees hotter at -78 instead of -80 ;-)

Not that I would EVER accuse the MSM of location bias 8-)

Hmmm…. GAO prides itself on catching all sorts of bogosities and lies in government, and they seem to love roasting sacred cows…

Anyone have a contact in the GAO who needs to make a rep for themselves?

Just a thought ;-)

Yup… the dorm I lived in at U.C. had ‘central heat’ from a mile or two across campus. Specific on/off days were religiously held without regard to weather. Complaints were met with a reiteration of the specific start /stop day in fall / spring… Isn’t it nice to know that bureaucrats are the same everywhere?

Yes. The Russians were given large credits for shutting down lots of inefficient Soviet era factories (that would have died anyway). These they sell to Europe. That is how Europe meets it’s Kyoto goals (to the extent they can) not via actual change. That is also why Russia did a sudden about face and endorsed Kyoto. (Vat? No need to stop fuel burning? Ve get monye from Eurocrazies for noddink? Oky Doky. Ve sign up!)

One of the blogs above mentioned the inability to adjust the heat flow to buildings in base in Barrow. Since steam condenses at a constant temperature (assuming a relatively constant pressure), reducing the steam flow will lead to a greater quantity of condensed steam in the lines relative to the amount of steam vapor since the amount of heat lost from the pipe is unchanged at the lower flow. A buildup of condensate can lead to a phenomenom referred to as water hammer that can result in catastrophic failure of the piping if not kept under control. I have no doubt that this has occurred in just about every Russian town with central steam heating leading to policies of not allowing steam flow regulation.

On another note, having lived in northern Canada, one of the observations I have made is that it is not unusual for it to be relatively windless whenever the temperature drops to low levels (below -25 to -30 C and below). This may help explain the heat island effect in some of these communities under severe cold conditions. I would be interested if anyone else has the same observation.

The calculation of the magnitude of the tidal effect is also straightforward [and has been alluded to in this blog already], and as long as arguments are not given that show where the tidal calculations run of the rail, one is faced with the problem of a 1 millimeter bulge, that hardly can have any effect, considering that the solar surface is covered by millions of Texas-sized [that is in excess of 1000,000,000 millimeters] blobs moving randomly at 1000,000 millimeters per second.

I’m right now reviewing a paper that argues that geomagnetic activity [because it is caused by the supposedly planetary driven Sun] should repeat exactly and precisely from now on the values it had in the 1840s and on, so there is the proof that mainstream science even today continues to examine these ideas. And up to now, they have consistently failed. They are not being ’suppressed’ in any way, they just don’t measure up [and this paper under review doesn't either, BTW].

Leif, I expected an answer similar to the one you gave. “The tide/alignment argument” has not been studied in sufficient depth (using recently available software helps) for anyone who has not had demonstrated the distinction between a rough guess and a precise cut in this area.

Allowing the theory to fall “by the wayside” has now been shown to be wrong for a couple of reasons, not least of which is that the belief that “the alignments have drifted out of phase because..(insert reason here) ” is not the study of syzygies and oppositions viewed heliocentrically.

To claim that the Ching-Cheh Hung finding “fails on its merit” and “The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent” has, somehow “not turned out to be fruitful” is, more or less, what I expected you to say but hoped you may have addressed it without pointing to a poor example of something that has failed “on its merit”.

The tide/alignment argument was thought of a long time ago [ca. 1850] and was actually the leading [conventional] theory for at least half a century. The reason is has fallen by the wayside is that as more data and knowledge has accumulated the theory has failed to deliver [the alignments have drifted out of phase because Jupiter's orbital period is a bit longer than the average solar cycle]. Also, the magnitude of the tides [which is easily calculated using arguments and knowledge three hundred years old] is exceedingly small [one millimeter]. The theory is not studiously ignored [scientists are studiously looking for things that work and are useful for predictions], it simply fails on its merit and has not turned out to be fruitful.

Uninsulated pipes became more widespread only in recent two decades due to deep economical crysis.

A number of bloggers have found that October, 2008, is actually the tenth warmest October.

It is quite evident that GHCN is adjusting their temperature measurements skewed toward the higher temperature dataset. Could this be deliberate?