As for the “global temperature database” you refer to; satelite data for global temperature variations has been available as well as ground data. You can see the latest measurements here: earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Laki (Iceland) 1783-84 shows up well in TonyB’s data. It had a major effect on the NH winter temperatures in 1784 in Europe and N America.

Also there’s a link below to a 2005 paper where Laki and Tambora affected growth of the Irish Oak.

http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/437.pdf

Tallbloke: The oceans should have stored more energy with the increase in TSI since SC20 and, going back further in time, since SC14, but I can’t answer your question if it can account for ALL of the increases in SST anomalies. Changes in cloud cover would have an impact, as would the variations in volcanic aerosols.

I did post a video recently about the change in global SST and global temperature since the 1997/98 El Nino. It uses a JPL SSH animation in addition to graphs. It’s about 5 minutes long.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/lingering-effects-of-199798-el-nino.html

Many thanks Bob, great site, and brilliant animation video, really gives an insight into the dynamics of the world’s ocean circulation and climate. Look forward to your new article.

Nobwainer (Geoff Sharp): Why doesn’t Krakatoa show in your graph where you’ve marked?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/krakgiss.jpg
The green error bar might have something to do with it. And in my opinion, GISS is optimistic with their confidence.

Thanks Bob, but I am still not convinced. The Hadley spreadsheet supplied by TonyB earlier allows accurately that the temps rose from 1883 and 1884 before falling back to the same level 1885 and if we look at the ice core details thru the Dalton the “unknown” and Tambora eruptions only show elevated sulfur dioxide readings for approx 3 yrs each. I am not denying there is an impact, but suspect its a lot lower than Leif suggests.

http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken_hobgoblin.xls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_sulfate.png

PaulHClark: Thanks for the linked paper. I’ll take a more detailed look after I’m done with the post I’m preparing, but at first glance, it appears in that 2000 paper Yousef is using a version of TSI that’s obsolete.

I’m not an expert, but I can point you at some information on one of the wavelengths. UV. It creates (therefor modulates) the ozone in the upper atmosphere. It also drops more during sun cool periods. Why does ozone matter? Look under the ‘resources’ tab up top and look for ozone in the comments.

The short form is that O3 blocks the 9-10 micron IR band. Knock out ozone and you open an IR window, so heat leaves in a hurry.

Right now, ozone is down…

The second issue is that the magnetosphere becomes weaker. This lets more cosmic rays hit the air and makes more clouds. More clouds make us cooler by reflecting more sunshine away.

Put these two together: Less heat gets in as light, more leaves as IR, we get colder.

I was doing a little more to develop my understanding of the Gleissberg Cycle and came across this interesting paper which has some predictions that look to be coming to fruition.

http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

Bob Tisdale – I always enjoy reading your posts but I need to catch up on all you produce – the paper above seems to indicate a strong correlation to SST with the Gleissberg cycle – I think you have hinted at such a connection yourself – I thought you might be interested.

Interestingly we are at a minimum of the Gleissberg cycle now.

The solar state gets one name, while the cold climate gets another, so…

The solar minimum ought to be the Landscheidt Minimum since he first predicted it… however the cold period I think ought to be:

The AlGore Cold Period to remind the world for all time about folly…

(Though I could be talked into the Hansen Cold Period…)

I was at that meeting [gave the talk just after Hathaway's]. The change from min to max is about 1.3 W/m2 or 0.1%. The very low recent minimum values are likely due to a drift of the calibration of the instruments used for the PMOD composite. Here is the difference between PMD and the better calibrated SORCE [TIM] TSI series: http://www.leif.org/research/Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png . You can see it is steadily dropping. This is not a solar effect.

Many parts of the atmosphere are related and there has been an observed link between the ionosphere and the troposphere, the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The sun does effect the upper to layers and varies with the solar cycle.
The effects you link to [and many others] go in the other direction: the weather [thunderstorms etc] influencing the ionosphere.

I did post a video recently about the change in global SST and global temperature since the 1997/98 El Nino. It uses a JPL SSH animation in addition to graphs. It’s about 5 minutes long.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/12/lingering-effects-of-199798-el-nino.html
What I’m looking for is a high-resolution animation of Global SST or SSH since the 1970s. JPL has them as far back as 1992. With everything else I’ve found or created using the NOAA websites in earlier times, the resolution doesn’t work out.

Give me a day or two for a post that might help answer the rest of your question. I’ve segmented high latitude Northern Hemisphere TLT data (MSU AHU) and compared it to NINO3.4 and Sato Index data. ENSO and volcanic aerosols are known to cause changes in global and Arctic temperature and the correlations are quite good. The impacts on high latitude North America and North Atlantic are much greater than on Europe and Asia for example. Things you might expect. The preliminary graphs are done, but as I write a post, there’s always something that I think of that would help illustrate an effect better or emphasize a point.

Regards

vukcevic (16:17:11) :
If I assume high energy GCR travel at 99% of speed of light, it will take another 75 years (around 1650 start of Maunder) to reach the heliosphere.
Cosmic rays do not travel in straight lines, they are bend and twisted by the galactic magnetic field to the extent that we cannot see where they are coming from. It may be a million years before we see any from Tyge Brahe’s supernova.

REPLY: Those graphs don’t have the same vertical scale, so the “opthamologist” (eyeball) comparison is invalid due to the scale difference, which makes one appear to have a steeper rate of trend with time than the other. Magnification effects of scale can be misleading. But that happens on both sides of the debate.- Anthony

I disagree, my posting was to counter the accusation that the data I posted was fabricated, even with the small change in vertical scale it should be apparent to all but the most optically challenged that the MSU data in each graph is the same. For those I’ve rescaled the graph!

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CompT-1.jpg