Examining SORCE data shows the Sun continues its slide toward somnolence

Guest post by Guillermo Gonzalez

I recently happened upon the SORCE/TIM website and decided to look up the plot of the full total solar irradiance (TSI) dataset (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#plots)

guillermo_image1

SORCE TSI since 2003 - Click for a larger image

The SORCE mission began collecting TSI data in February 2003.

I was curious to see if the variations in the TSI had begun to rise yet, perhaps indicating a start to cycle 24. Visual inspection of the SORCE TSI plot showed just the opposite – variations continue to decline in amplitude. If cycle 24 has started, there are no signs of it in these data.

We can be a bit more quantitative if we examine, instead, a plot of TSI variance with time. I produced such a plot using the daily average TSI data provided on the SORCE web site.

guillermo_image2

TSI variance, current minimum - Click for a larger image

The red data are variance values calculated at two-week intervals. The blue curve is the smoothed data calculated in the same way as smoothed sunspot numbers (basically a 12-month running average). Note, the vertical axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale.

To compare the recent TSI variance trend with the previous sunspot minimum, I looked up the ACRIM2 daily average TSI data at: http://www.acrim.com/Data%20Products.htm

guillermo_image3

TSI variance, 1996 minimum - Click for a larger image

These data are plotted on the same scale as the SORCE data. The smoothed data show a minimum TSI variance near the beginning of 1996, some months before sunspot minimum (October 1996). Notice that the minimum value for the variance during the 1996 minimum was about an order of magnitude larger than the present TSI variance.

The SORCE web site quotes long-term 1-sigma precision (relative accuracy) of their TSI measurements to be 0.001%/yr. This corresponds to a variance of 2  ´ 10-4 W2 m-4. However, the precision should be considerably better than this on the 2-week timescale that I selected for calculating the variance. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate a quote for the estimated precision of the ACRIM2 measurements. It would be worthwhile to know if the minimum TSI variance of the previous sunspot minimum measured by ACRIM2needs to be corrected for the instrumental precision.

Guillermo Gonzalez writes on his background:

I’m an astronomer, though my present title is associate professor of physics at Grove City College, PA. I  wrote a paper (in Solar Physics) with Ken Schatten back in 1987 on  predicting the next solar maximum with geomagnetic indices. That was my only contribution on anything having to do with the Sun-Earth connection, but I also got a letter published in Physics Today in  1997 wherein I urged readers to takethe Sun-Earth climate connection  more seriously.

These days most of my research is on extrasolar planets.

UPDATE: I received a suggestion for an overlay via email from Terry Dunleavy and I’ve worked one up below. This was done graphically. I took great care to get the two lined up correctly. Note however that the datasets span different lengths of time, as you can note on the two timescales I’ve included on the combined graph.  The vertical scale matches exactly between graphs though.  – Anthony

guillermo_overlay_by_watts1

TSI variance graphs combined - click for a larger image

UPDATE2: Here is another graphical comparison of the two TSI variance graphs, scaled to have a matching X-axis and appropriately aligned side by side. – Anthony

Click for a larger image

Click for a larger image

434 thoughts on “Examining SORCE data shows the Sun continues its slide toward somnolence

  1. Hi,

    I think Leif might differ but this could be a new grand minimum. Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more. However TSI does vary enough to correlate to cooling or warming. I do how ever think it is related to the Tropical Thunder storm regions and the link between the ionosphere and troposphere. A simple change of 2 to 3% in cloud cover is enough to explain the warming and cooling of the historical period.

  2. I wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying?

    Seems like that would have been a new cry long ago.

  3. I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.

    How do they expalin this remains static?

    Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.

  4. John H @16:08:06

    … wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying

    Let’s hope they don’t or we’re into Aztec Sun sacrifice.

  5. I’m a geologist/mining engineer so I’m very much uninitiated in the field of solar physics except for the wonderful tutorial that I am exposed to on this blog almost daily. I’ve followed the drama of the failed forecasts of when cycle 24 is going to begin and heard of desperate researchers who are almost counting dust mites on instrument objective lenses.

    It is certainly easy to see in your first SCORCE figure the damping of TSI variance with time. But also evident is the decline in intensity to 1360.7 watts. Is this particularly low? Normal? When you get a long quiescent period like the Maunder minimum, does the intensity continue to decline or does it flatten out and sit there for decades?

  6. Everyone was thinking in dec 2012 when the Mayan calender ended that was going to be the year when we had a super sunspot year and the world would change. Well lets turn it around and say that in dec 2012 cycle 24 still wont hav started and yes things will change but not like some expected!! Hmmmm

  7. Yes. And I wonder why no one of prominance is crying that Global Warming
    is dead.

    Latest MSU data show temps dipping below 2008 levels. And East Pacific
    SST`s are cooling(again).

  8. John H (16:08:06) says :

    “I wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying?

    Seems like that would have been a new cry long ago.”

    It take too much creative energy and marketing chutzpah to tax and subjugate on the basis of a declining sun. AGW is so much better for that.

  9. The first thing that strikes me when I see that top graph is the amplitude.
    To be more precise, the waning of amplitude vs time.
    I would like to see 1992 to 1997 for a comparison.
    Is this to be expected, or is this just another example of the waning amplitudes we see in flux, ssn and gcr’s (last 2-4 mos)?
    I am reminded of the behavior of a complex piece of equipment as the batteries slowly die out.
    Those 3 data sets behavior is attention-getting.
    Add TSI to the list and it gets in your face.
    Really would like to hear from Dr. Archibald on this.

  10. Leif Svalgaard has chart, updated daily, showing a slight move up in TSE as well as a more pronounced uptick in F10.7 flux:

  11. REPLY: There’s uptick is in 10.7cm flux (magenta) I don’t see much if any of an uptick in the TSI (dark blue) – Anthony

    I see that, too. The amplitude falls of there as well.
    What you might see on a oscilliscope hooked to a radio signal as the transmitting object goes beyond the range of reception.
    Take that graph, run a straight line from the latest midpoint back across to the left. What do you see?

  12. All our fears and complications
    Can be pushed away with us
    Let’s not let it fade away
    ‘Cause the memories of sunshine’s gone away (sunshine’s gone away)
    And these tears inside our heart are too afraid
    Tell me what should I say (what should I say?)
    To ever bring’ em back my way
    Is it much to late to say I’m sorry now?

  13. You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
    You make me happy when skies are gray
    You’ll never know dear, how much I love you
    Please don’t take my sunshine away

  14. I know that Leif’s SORCE graph looks like it has an upturn in TSI, but I submit it is due to the way that the mean trend line is calculated. Less variance will do that.

    Here is Leif’s SORCE graph with the distraction of the trend lines removed. Note how the variance diminishes in TSI

    – Anthony

  15. As the suggested main driver of climate wanes, so does the Global Warming.
    More than just Antarctic Ice is spreading, so is the fall of Global Temps.
    Do you suppose they will snap out of it should the Sun suddenly turn orange on a clear day? I have wondered to myself about that many times.
    Exaclty what would a 180 from Global Warming 24/7 media blitz succumb to?

  16. Isn’t Leif currently listing November of 2008 as the bottom of the cycle? I thought I saw that somewhere. His graph is pretty flat but that doesn’t mean that isn’t the bottom.

  17. I wonder if there’s connections here.

    TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.

    If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.

  18. On Leif’s graph the dotted blue line is not rising; in fact toward the end it is running along the tops of the readings, instead of the middle. The solid blue line runs along the bottom, and it is rising. So why is flux rising, and the TSI is just getting more still?
    ==========================================

  19. First factor: fluctuations decreasing, both the individual ones and the multiple ones. Second factor: the line is definitely levelling out very smoothly to horizontal, and has just about reached full horizontal, cannot get any more horizontal, so it might have reached nadir and is about to turn.
    Third factor: could be wrong.

  20. Here is a zoom-in of SORCE TSI over the past 9 months.

    It seems that the lowest TSI recorded so far was July or August 2008 (which corresponds with the the lowest sunspot numbers as well).

    But there has not been any kind of substantive up-tick since and both the TSI and sunspot numbers have threatened to go lower than the July-August minimum in the past few months. So, no minimum to declare yet.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1950&STOP_DATE=2500&TIME_SPAN=6&PLOT=Plot+Data

  21. Come on dark prophet!,
    speak out again your lie,
    tell us we are doomed,
    tell us we will die,
    of warm, heat, by our sins provoked,
    old sun by your cry has been also scared
    and caused a long and deep chill instead

  22. Exaclty what would a 180 from Global Warming 24/7 media blitz succumb to?

    Make that: Exactly what event would cause the Global Warming 24/7 media blitz to fall silent?
    I can still see the pasty faces of Bush, Bernanke & Paulson as they stood before the media and explained the trouble we were in.
    There certainly will come a day of blood-drained faces for AGW if the Sun continues to fizzle. You cannot hide it, you cannot slick-talk it into action.

  23. d (16:34:39) :

    Everyone was thinking in dec 2012 when the Mayan calender ended …

    Actually, the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012, as much as it simply cycles and starts over again, as it has done 14 previous times. Mayan’s understood natural cycles very well.

  24. kim (17:02:56) :

    So why is flux rising, and the TSI is just getting more still?

    Yeah, What’s Up With That?
    Watts = Volts x Amps.
    Insufficient amperage or voltage might be a question to ask.
    Shrunken or constricted flow. Line drop. Dying battery. Corroded armature of breaks in windings.
    If the gauss values of the latest spots are any indication, there might be something up with that.

  25. I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

  26. Looks like it’s flatlining to me.

    (Shouldn’t a frantic beeping be going on in some solar hospital somewhere?)

  27. John Finn 17:25:56

    Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out. Leif is dubious about the connection because if the connection is through TSI then the magnifying effect of whatever is the connecting mechanism would introduce an unstable climate sensitivity, which we do not see.

    So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?
    =====================================

  28. “John Finn (17:25:56) : How exactly?”

    Don’t look for exact John. Even Einstein wasn’t exact.

  29. [snip – wrong thread on this – this is a political comment intended for Waxman thread]

  30. I have speculated spectral shift of TSI, but that got me nowhere, and for good reason. Amplitude is the behavior of the day, so I’ll now defer to Amps.
    Ain’t got no flow. Too contricted. Valve is jammed slighty ajar from closed.

  31. In financial charting terms the TSI ‘flatlining’ with lower peaks and higher troughs is moving into a wedge pattern and suggests a breakout, in either direction.
    I certainly don’t know if this applies to TSI pattern but time will tell.
    I must be looking at too many charts

  32. kim (17:37:34) :

    John Finn 17:25:56

    Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out. Leif is dubious about the connection because if the connection is through TSI then the magnifying effect of whatever is the connecting mechanism would introduce an unstable climate sensitivity, which we do not see.

    So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?
    =====================================
    Yes and in the mean time low temp records from 1880 are broken today.

    So what is happening?

    http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Record+cold+temperatures+Saskatchewan/1531746/story.html

  33. Adam from Kansas says:

    TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.

    If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.

    I don’t really see how your last statement follows from the rest. Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming over the last 30+ years. In fact, as kim noted above, one of the reasons that Leif is skeptical of the solar connection is that it would seem to imply a high climate sensitivity.

  34. Last summer Alaska was quite cool. Here are two articles from the Anchorage paper.

    http://www.adn.com/626/story/473786.html

    http://www.adn.com/front/story/518517.html

    It seldom rose above 60, and there was still a lot of snow visible on the Kenai mountains when I left mid September. The propane man noted in July that we were having a nice mild winter.

    With the sun going quieter and the PDO cooler, I expect an even cooler summer this year.

    OK it’s anecdotal and only one place, but it does offer a glimpse of the effects in the area they should be most pronounced.

    The good news is this should offer an observational opportunity to vastly improve our understanding of the climate and the effects of the sun.

  35. As the light of freedom fades and dims
    So does the sun.
    As the mind of science reels and swims
    So sinks the sun.
    Have mankind’s failing works and sins
    Brought down the sun?

    Have the proud who think they’ve won
    Who’ve made our science come undone
    Who’ve put our offspring in a hole
    Have they assassinated Sol?

    The sun has drifted off to sleep
    Sol cares not if we pray or weep
    He’s shut his eyes in slumber deep
    Life’s promises only our’s to keep.

  36. “These data are plotted on the same scale as the SORCE data.”
    Am I missing something? The horizontal scale sure looks different on the graphs for the two cycles.
    The x-axis covers six years in the present cycle but ten years in the previous one.

  37. Keith Minto (17:53:57) : In financial charting terms the TSI ‘flatlining’ with lower peaks and higher troughs is moving into a wedge pattern and suggests a breakout, in either direction.
    I certainly don’t know if this applies to TSI pattern but time will tell.
    I must be looking at too many charts

    Or a stock with no earnings, making losses, and not much prospect, in that slow decay to the flat line “take out” price in bankruptcy… You know, like GM, Freddie Mac FRE, AIG, City Group C all ending up near $1.x and flat lined…

    Yeah, I been looking at too many charts too ;-) but the parallels are useful!

  38. Joel 18:00:34

    Easy answer to the warming of the last quarter of the last century. It was the PDO in its warming phase. Tsonis et al have a nice study explaining the temperature variations around the steady rise from the end of the Little Ice Age by the coupling and uncoupling of natural cycles, mostly the oceanic oscillations. What we don’t know is what is causing the steady rise in temperature from the end of the Little Ice Age. What we do know is that it is not from CO2 because the rise in CO2 curve doesn’t match the underlying rise.
    =========================================

  39. Along the lines of my previous comment, it is worth looking at some of the recent papers by K.-K. Tung et al: http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/tung/publications.html (e.g., “Constraining Model Transient Climate Response using Independent Observations of Solar-Cycle Forcing and Response” or “Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface in NCEP and ERA-40 data: A linear Discriminant Analysis”. It is also worth reading what Hansen et al at GISTEMP have to say about solar irradiance in their 2008 climate summary: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

  40. Although this project just started, we should get some good data from CLARREO in a few years. Goals may change based on how the instrumentation development proceeds but CLARREO may put the “total” back into TSI. We don’t currently measure all of the solar spectrum and make assumptions about certain wavelengths. It may also help determine if TSI is closer to 1361ish or 1366ish or 1371ish (or more). I think it’s hard to say that a climate model is working well if you don’t have an accurate measurement of TSI.

    http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/about-science.html

  41. kim says:

    What we do know is that it is not from CO2 because the rise in CO2 curve doesn’t match the underlying rise.

    No? Looks like a pretty good match to me: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2782192258_e2f6b5e758.jpg with a transient climate response (TCR) of ~2 K, which is right about at the center of the IPCC range for this parameter. Of course, this comes along with caveats regarding contributions from other forcings (e.g., both positive forcings from other greenhouse gases and negative forcings from aerosols) and other sources of climate variability that makes the actual determination of a TCR or equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the instrumental temperature record subject to quite large error bars. (Better estimates comes from paleoclimate events, such as the last glacial maximum, response to volcanic eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, and…best yet…combining all of these data together.)

  42. Joel 18:25:59

    We’ve seen that graph before; the only time there is a good match is for the last quarter of the last century. Before and after that time the match is poor, particularly just lately, and for the time before your graph starts. You are displaying confirmation bias by interpreting that graph to show a match between CO2 rise and temperature rise.
    =======================================

  43. Robert Wood (16:17:13) :

    I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.

    How do they explain this remains static?

    Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.

    That is probably the biggest fraud in the models. The generally accepted effect of a CO2 doubling just due to radiative forcing is only about 1 deg C, and this is with a lot of hand-waving. To “fit” the hockey stick observations, the modelers force unsubstantiated amplifiers into the models. The biggest one is the theory that as CO2 and temperature rise, clouds disappear so the albedo rises. I’m sure there are meteorologists who can easily disprove this theory based on temperature, humidity, and CO2 variations. I don’t think that the warmer tropics have significantly less cloud cover or that the high CO2 from autumn forested areas make clouds disappear.

  44. Also, Joel, even if that graph had any validity, the 1.2K sensitivity line is a better match to the data, but then the 1.2K line suffers from an even greater mismatch before your graph begins. Nice try, even pretty slick, but it doesn’t say what you purport that it does.
    =====================================

  45. Looks like some of the downward spikes correlate to hurricanes. Can someone overlay a “storm” graph on the tsi graph? Just curious.

    REPLY: Hurricanes in no way have any effect here. This data is measured from satellite in space, the dips are sunspots like the monster dual spots in October 2003 – Anthony

  46. John Finn (17:25:56)

    Hey, I have an idea, maybe its not the .05% change in TSI that is causing all of this climate panic. After all we understand this process completely. Nope it’s clear the problem is not the local variable star. It has got to be an infinitesimal increase in a trace gas that helps make life possible that will kill us all.

    To stop this call now and for $199,999,500,000.00 we can bottle all of this nasty stuff and save the planet.

    /sarc

  47. Terry Jackson (18:06:37)

    What happens in Alaska as far as winter temps directly affects both Canada and the US, as the cold Arctic air masses develop there and plunge south and west.
    The first indication last fall was when the temps in Fairbanks plunged to -20F.
    It got steadily worse as the season wore on. I would expect more of the same this year, and progress steadily towards an even colder winter.
    Which is why I say time runs thin for AGW.
    They must surely know it. With GCR’s a year behind solar activity, next winter’s shadow looms large.
    Dead quiet solar activity hold little hope at that length of delay.

  48. Joel Shore (18:00:34) :
    Adam from Kansas says:

    “TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.

    If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.”

    I don’t really see how your last statement follows from the rest. Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming over the last 30+ years.

    Um, maybe just maybe if the sun “has enough of an effect on climate” the high cycle of solar output over those 30 years caused the rising temps and now the dropping solar output is causing cooling. It’s how cause and effect works. You know, both ways…

    In fact, as kim noted above, one of the reasons that Leif is skeptical of the solar connection is that it would seem to imply a high climate sensitivity.

    The light slowly dawns….

    God I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning…

    See, it’s like this, if the connection exists and if the high sensitivity it implies is real, then the world will be getting very very cold. It will take 20 years or so, but it will happen in a more or less direct trend. Most folks believe what they see, so while they saw slight warming for 30 years they were willing to let the AGW crowd run rampant. When they are seeing snow in places they haven’t seen in 30 years and crops are going in 2 weeks late and skiing runs an extra month, well, folks are just going to laugh their derrieres off when you try to sell them the Global Warming story.

    That is why the second statement directly follows the premiss.

    Now we don’t know what the mechanism might be, but when correlation runs both ways with very high temporal synchrony AND when the AGW thesis is not predicting (pardon me, projecting) anything with accuracy; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know AGW is toast; all it takes is Joe and Jane Six Pack sitting on a too cold beach with loads of snow in the mountains too late in the season and at the poles (rather like we have happening now…)

    So read it and weep. Old Sol is getting the last laugh. All it takes is waiting now (assuming the solar thesis is true, of course ;-)

    Now you may have 2 years to cram an agenda through, but you know, the voter is a fickle beast and ‘feeling had’ has a way of focusing folks. So I’d suggest considering just how much vengeance Joe and Jane are going to ask for when that moment comes. Overreaching usually leads to downfall…

    “AHh, Vanity, my favorite sin” (The Devil’s Advocate)…

  49. How can you have a ramping flux, but nothing else is happening?
    I’m going to keep on guessing at this in a vacuum.
    The flux is the voltage. The gauss of the spots & faculae are the amperage.
    The voltage may rise in a cycle, but rise in isolation.
    TSI, ain’t got no amperage, ain’t got no melody.
    Today, the volume on the Solar Index was minimal. Shares traded at under $1, and papers were filed to request more time until deslisting occurs.

  50. From the ACRIM website:

    “Monitoring TSI variability is clearly an important component of climate change research, particularly in the context of understanding the relative forcings of natural and anthropogenic processes. The requirements for a long-term, climate TSI database can be inferred from a recent National Research Council study which concluded that gradual variations in solar luminosity of as little as 0.25 % was the likely forcing for the ‘little ice age’ that persisted in varying degree from the late 14th to the mid 19th centuries. A centuries-long TSI database will have to be calibrated by either precision or accuracy to a small fraction of this value to be of any use in assessing the magnitude of solar forcing. ”

    (Emphasis added)

    Good to know there are still some real scientists out there.

  51. John Finn 17:25:56

    Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out.

    John Finn,

    I believe that the answer to your question is the Solar/Lunar Tides.
    I am now convinced that the small variations in Solar insulation of
    ~ 0.1 % has an effect upon the world climate but that this effect is relatively
    muted. In other words, I am asserting that if there is a mutiplicative
    factor that amplifies the effects of the small changes in solar insulation,
    it is not large.

    The model I have develop argues that, on centennial time scales, the Earth’s climate is primarily driven by a combination of changes in the
    Earth’s rotation rate and changes in the amplitudes of the lunar/solar tides.

    This model asserts that the level of solar activity, the changes in the Earth’s rotation rate and the amplitudes of the solar/lunar tides are all driven by the same underlying mechanism.

    I am arguing that the apparent synchronous variation between
    the level of solar activity and the Earth’s average temperature is just that,
    and APPRARENT synchronization. The two phenomenon just appear to
    go up and down together. They are not strongly coupled.

    Hence, my money is on the lunar/solar tides (and accompanying changes in the Earth’s rotation rate) as the link between level of solar activity and the Earth’s climate. These important linking factors negate the need to have a multiplicative factor to amplify the small changes in solar insolation.

  52. [snip – website you reference (yours) has adult content, this violates our site policy]

  53. Guillermo
    Thanks for plotting the log of variance. That decline of about 1.5 orders of magnitude lower than the previous 1996 minimum appears to be a dramatic change.
    The current cycle 23 is longer than the previous cycle 22.
    Could there be a correlation of this decline in variance with the length of the cycle?

    Note the decline in global temperature with increasing cycle length:
    Reichel, R., P. Thejll, and K. Lassen (2001), The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 106(A8), 15,635–15,641.

    It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

    This may lead to a correlation between the decline in variance with the decline in global temperature where both correlate with the length of the cycle.

    Anthony – regarding norman hasty’s comment, he may have meant the opposite – could the Forbrush dropouts be triggering storms?
    i.e. sudden reduction in TSI – gives a sudden reduction in heating – causing a spike in cooling temperature gradient. Could that trigger storms?

  54. The first comment, Jim Arndt (16:01:21) , mentioned “ Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more.”
    This idea was discussed here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

    Can someone explain in simple language what the following terms mean in the context of this thread and sunspots:
    visible
    invisible
    gone (not there)
    not gone but invisible
    disappear
    TSI
    The mentioned paper said:
    “…show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.”

    When I read the original Penn and Livingston paper the analogy I thought of was: If there is a dark stain on a white wall and I use white paint to re-paint the wall, the stain is not gone but it is invisible.

    So is the Penn & Livingston observation equivalent to a Maunder or Dalton Minimum or something entirely new? At those times did “the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra … become warmer” and invisible, or were there none?

  55. Assuming it is not TSI, the best guesses/theories I’ve seen are albedo/cosmic rays which has already been brought up, and the other is friction between the now diminished solar wind, and the atmosphere. Has not the atmosphere contracted? Meaning less surface area + less solar wind=cooler? I don’t remember if this was just thrown out as an idea by someone, or a link to a paper was offered. I don’t see a paper right off the bat in my files, so either there wasn’t one offered or I didn’t save it.

  56. Part of the confusion about F10.7 and TSI comes from the fact that people forget [or don’t know or willfully ignore – yes, such people exist too…] that what we see comes from at least two sources. There is an obvious rotational signature [the vertical lines are 27 days apart – not one month] riding on top of a slowly varying background – the lower envelope as shown by my lines. These two contributions have different physical causes [and we don’t need to go into detail here about what those causes are – the diehards can go read http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Radio-Observations.pdf ], the rotational contribution more closely linked to obvious solar activity [spots, plages, faculae, etc] while the background comes from more widespread magnetic fields [the ‘network’, ephemeral regions, coronal density (for F10.7)]. As the cycle peters out, the amplitude of the rotational component declines exponentially. As the new cycle slowly builds without any large spots yet, only the network and smallish emerging magnetic flux begin to increase, and that we see in the slow rise of the lower envelope [most clearly in the F10.7 curve]. Lumping the two components together [e.g. by showing an ‘average’ curve] is combining oranges and apples. So there is something for everybody: the rotational signal is going away, the background is rising, the meaningless average is flat-lining. Every sort of bias is supported by the data by suitable cherry picking.

  57. “We know that the sun was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle. Average global temperatures have dropped slightly over the past seven (now 8) years.”

    –Ian Clark
    -hydrogeologist and professor
    -arctic specialist
    -Department of Earth Sciences
    -University of Ottawa

  58. “None of the major climate changes in the last 1000 years can be explained by co2….. The sun is driving climate change. Co2 is irrelevant.”

    –Piers Corbyn
    -solar physisist
    -WeatherAction.com
    -‘The SuperWeatherman’

  59. Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?

  60. Leif 21:27:50

    Nice explanation for my question about why the flux curve is rising but not the TSI curve. So, will there be a clue in the rising(eventually) of the rotational component curve as to whether the spots will disappear or not? Or is that presently unknown?
    ==============================================

  61. anna v 21:34:44

    Oh, it’s gonna be clouds, alright, kim asserts confidently. But will it be cosmic rays or a mechanism like Erl is working on, or heh heh, both or neither. It is so marvelous to wonder. Especially so when one is not constrained by physical realities. Leif doesn’t know what he’s missing.
    =============================================

  62. John Finn (17:25:56) :

    I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

    FEEDBACK!!!!!

  63. anna v (21:34:44) :
    Have a look on the recent measured albedo curve.

    kim (21:51:31) :
    But will it be cosmic rays

    The measured albedo curve does not follow the solar cycle or the cosmic rays count.

  64. Bill Hunter (21:53:29) :
    “I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?”
    FEEDBACK!!!!!

    That is not explaining anything ‘exactly’. There is a 7% variation each year from July to January, which is two orders of magnitude larger than the 0.05%. Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…

  65. Some folks seem to be still trying to say TSI isn’t important because the change is so small. But the argument isn’t that this is a direct cause but that something is going on, as yet not understood, such that what the Sun does or does not do interacts with Earth and the Cosmos. There seem to be several ideas but none yet have pushed all the others aside.
    The only thing that doesn’t seem to work is a direct CO2 forcing. One only has to consider any period before or after 1976-1998. How many years does an idea have to fail before you toss it away and move on?

  66. Justin Sane (21:39:34) :
    Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?

    No, that is not a good way of running the average. The running average should be plotted at the time of the midpoint.

  67. “Pat (21:45:26) : New South Wales, Australia. Earliest snow in a decade…”

    I thought they said Australia is burning?

  68. Leif Svalgaard (21:27:50) :

    That was awesome; thanks for the link too. With the arctic sea ice recovering so dramatically, it looks like something other than CO2 is the key. I’m struggling to understand it all but you have helped a lot.

    Us amateurs are lucky that the pros are willing to take the time to post here.

  69. I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system. The beats of the system will not have much to do with the individual rhythms, there will be hills and troughs, that is the only prediction that can be made without running some sort of chaotic model ala Tsonis et al, taking in everything, from the the 7% seasonal change in the heating of the sun on the oceans to the evaporation rates,the ocean fluidity, the cosmic rays, plankton, etc. etc. It is not a simple harmonic oscillator solution. In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects, but one cannot say offhand : “cause: effect”.

  70. “Just Want Truth… (22:18:55) :

    “Pat (21:45:26) : New South Wales, Australia. Earliest snow in a decade…”

    I thought they said Australia is burning?”

    Australia usually burns during summer naturally and normally but more so when people start fires.

  71. [I]Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…[/I]

    Maybe not . . . .only one pole was getting hotter.

  72. Leif is probably right. Min probably was around Nov08 going from his data

    BUT… we`ll see over the next 3 months. If things dont start picking up RIGHT NOW, then the upturns he has in his data are just minor anomolies, and we are probably in a genuine grand minimum type event. The only part of his data that is unambiguously increasing is the 10.7 flux, and that fell last month and this month will also be lower than the Jan-Feb peak.

    What we call a “Grand Minimum” is nothing more than a SC where the SSN doesnt get above 10 or so. Maybe we passed the minimum in Nov08 as Leif has said, but nothing much more will happen for the next decade. I hope not

  73. Fuelmaker (18:54:58) :

    Robert Wood (16:17:13) :

    I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.

    How do they expalin this remains static?

    Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.

    Perhaps, albedo magnitude, as it is measured nowadays, doesn’t include drag transfer coefficient and/or photon streams from the unexposed materials below the surface after the energy has been transferred by conduction from the subsurface to the surface.

    It is a plausible explanation to your question because heat transfer in the subsurface has been often dismissed in measurements of the outgoing radiation. Until now, it has not been computed adequately, or its adequate measurement doesn’t fit into a focal idea. Kiehl and Trenberth only refer to it as “other sources”; however, the value included in their scheme related to the energy balance seems to have been deduced by simple subtraction, not from real measurements.

  74. “Various parameters appear more important than CO2, like fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”

    –Claude Allegre
    -Institute of Geophysics, Paris

  75. from Lubos Motl’s :

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/polish-nas-joined-climate-skeptics.html

    Wroclaw-Warsaw, 12 February 2009, the Polish NAS joins climate skeptics

    “1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering…. ”

    English translation at Benny Peiser’s web site :

    http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm

    In original Polish :

    http://www.kngeol.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/2.Stanowisko%20KNG%20w%20sprawie%20zmian%20klimatu.pdf

  76. Perhaps the ratio of low versus high cloud albedo is the important factor. If I understand the cosmic ray cloud seeding theory, more low clouds should form in times of reduced magnetic activity as indicated by times of sun spot minima.

  77. There is but too little C02 in Earth’s atmosphere, and it doesn’t force , it follows warming & cooling. It’s greenhouse signature is logarhyrhmic, not linear.
    As for TSI, GCR influencing albedo, those are real drivers, though they currently seem not the whole picture.
    However little they seem, their presence or abscence is postive or negative.
    Don’t forget the shrunken outer atmosphere. Surprise, surprise.
    The Earth is cooling.
    So, how do you want to describe the how & why?
    Would you say that the oceans are the biggest heat sink, but forget to mention that they too are subject to heating & cooling? Or should we treat them as if they cool or heat themselves?
    How about underwater volcanoes flipping the cold water to the surface in synch to solar languish? Are there changes to tidal forces on Earth not in sympathy to sun & moon? Gravity itself, does it play a part?
    If the solution to this mystery resides in unifying all 4 forces, it’s likely to elude at present.
    Which leaves the Sun languishing and the Earth cooling.
    G’night.

  78. Heres one I did earlier
    HADCRUT3V vs CO2 (1 year average)

    Quite a nice straight line really (it shouldn’t be of course)

    And of course it does not say which came first.

  79. “Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.”

    –Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin
    -Merited Scientist of Russia
    -fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
    -staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute

  80. GK (22:34:30) :
    The only part of his data that is unambiguously increasing is the 10.7 flux, and that fell last month and this month will also be lower than the Jan-Feb peak.

    No, no, no, no. How many times must I say this? You should look at the ‘adjusted to 1AU’ flux, not the ‘observed’ flux. The latter mainly shows that the Earth since January has increased its distance to the Sun. A constant [at the Sun] F10.7 flux will decrease 7 % from January to July. F10.7 is going UP. Here are the monthly means:
    2008 Dec 66.99
    2009 Jan 67.60
    2009 Feb 68.33
    2009 Mar 68.55
    2009 Apr 70.33 (until right now)

    And to return to the topic of the posting. Here is the standard deviation over 27-day solar rotations (over 2 weeks is too short) since 1976. I plot the standard deviation rather than its square [the variance]:

    This outs the current data a bit in perspective.

    Bill Hunter (22:34:13) :
    “Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…” Maybe not . . . .only one pole was getting hotter.
    I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…

  81. “…..a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades…. It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”

    –Boris Komitov, Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
    &
    –Vladimir Kaftan, Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Aerial Surveying and Cartography, Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, Russia

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=288314

    and

    http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf

  82. From the website where the TSI data is found:

    “Research and Applications

    Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth. These estimates extrapolate many recent detailed observations to long-term observations of fewer (or even one) measurement. For example, accurate TSI measurements from the last 25 years are correlated with solar measurements of sunspots and faculae; these correlations can then be used to extrapolate the TSI to time periods prior to accurate space-borne measurements, since the solar records extend back 100 years for faculae and 400 years for sunspots. Over this extended time range, the extrapolated TSI record can be compared with longer term records, such as tree rings or ice cores, and correlation with these allows extension of the estimated TSI to more distant times, albeit with decreasing certainty. This extrapolation is important for understanding the relationship between TSI and the Earth’s climate; yet the extrapolation begins with the comparison of solar surface features to accurate TSI measurements, a record which is currently only 25 years long.”

    So nice of them to put it in the fine print.

  83. John Finn (17:25:56) :

    “I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?”

    I think I must be missing something too. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone up by about 100ppm, which by my reckoning is about 0.01% (I may have the math wrong). And how exactly is that supposed to warm the climate enough to need to spend trillions to cure it?

  84. John Flinn,

    Are you familiar with the phrase “the area under the curve.”

    Right now there is much less area under the curve compared to the previous several cycles and it is continuing.

  85. I’m new to watching the Sun so I have a little question:
    Plages appear to be associated with the formation of sunspots. We are also getting small sun spot specks appear in these plage regions. Is it possible to have a rising cycle towards a weak maximum dominated by an increasing number of plages and low contrast (invisible?) sunspot specks?

  86. I came accross this yesterday

    http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2000/16.pdf

    It suggests that solar cycles lasted an average of 205 years during part of the last Ice Age. Don’t know its validity.

    “A cycle of 205 years has been found in the 10Be record from the GRIP ice core (Greenland) for the glacial period 25’000 to 50’000 years before present. There are clear indications that this cycle is due to solar
    modulation of the galactic cosmic radiation.”

  87. Hey Leif,

    You mentioned the 27 day solar rotation a few times in this topic. What’s the significance of the solar rotation? Isn’t the Sun relatively homogenous?

  88. Record heat in California long gone now. Back to cold in the San Francisco Area with icy winds.

  89. Robert Bateman (17:19:44) :
    Watts = Volts x Amps.

    Robert Bateman (19:36:38) :
    The flux is the voltage. The gauss of the spots & faculae are the amperage.

    The April 23, 2009 UC Berkeley report titled “THEMIS mission tracks electrical tornadoes in space”, states:

    “Earth-bound tornadoes are puny compared to “space tornadoes,” which span a volume as large as Earth and produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes, according to new observations by a suite of five NASA space probes.”

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/04/23_keiling.shtml

    How many watts is this 100,000 amperes current from Sun to Earth?

    How many volts?

    How many hours a year does a 100,000 amperes current flow into Earth from the Sun?

    Does the 100,000 amperes current cause global warming or global cooling?

    (“While these intense currents do not cause any direct harm to humans, on the ground they can damage man-made structures, such as power transformers.”)

    Could the 100,000 amperes current sporadically increase by orders of magnitude?

    What is the return circuit from the Earth to the Sun?

  90. TSI variation tends to 0. Is this something new? F10.7 flux is increasing, but very slowly.
    I can’t see how the 11 year solar cycle has a direct influence on Earth’s climate by direct solar radiation. The variation +/- 0.1% is just to small.
    The solar magnetic field is the key. This also follows the 11 year cycle. When the sun is at solar minimum activity , like now, more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere and act as seeds for cloud formation. More clouds = higher albedo = lower temperature. Vice versa at solar maximum.
    Having said that, the buffering effect of the oceans would tend to smooth out these variations. No obvious 11 year cycle of temp exists. There are variations on decadal scales, this is where the magnetic,cloud albedo effect comes in. The moving average (decades long) causes this variation.
    If the sun is quiet for a long time, this pattern is broken. I would expect the earth’s cloudiness to increase quite quickly now. Is there anyway of testing this?

  91. .

    This is a letter I have sent to the BBC (and variations of it to newspapers). It might be worth reminding readers that posting on this board, while informative fun, does not spread the message. Only writing to the media will do that.

    Helen Boaden,
    BBC Complaints Executive
    BBC London

    Dear Madam,

    Why is the BBC ignoring the fact of Global Cooling?

    Contrary to standard BBC propaganda, there has been no global warming over the last 10 years (in fact, there was a slight cooling).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend

    (In fact, a slight cooling)

    Also, why is the BBC ignoring Lord Monckton, who has just been banned from giving evidence in US Congress AGAINST Global Warming?
    News item:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/23/monckton-not-allowed-to-debate-with-gore-today/

    Lord Monckton details:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

    This is surely a newsworthy item – a ‘eccentric’ British aristocrat being banned from speaking in Congress – and yet you ignore it?

    Why?

    We all know why of course, because none of this fits the BBC’s Green agenda and propaganda. The BBC is the most biased media organisation in the world at present, and needs to be closed down.

    Sincerely,
    Ralph Ellis

    BTW, did you know that:

    There has been no global warming over the last 10 years (in fact, there was a slight cooling)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.1

    That Antarctica is cooling

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml

    That polar bear numbers are increasing

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/04/25/arviat-bears.html

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868

    Antarctic sea ice is growing, and at the greatest extent ever recorded

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.97.1

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2734

    No Sunspots recently

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list53494

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1172399/Has-sun-gone-Earths-closest-star-dimmest-century.html

    (Note the media lies here. A lack of sunspot activity caused the 17th century mini Ice Age, however our latest minimum has nothing to do with climate, and it is all manmade CO2. I have never seen such global deceit in my entire life.)

    The theory of Sunspot activity driving ALL climate change.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    Global Temperature vs Sunspot activity

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/offset:-0.1/plot/pmod/from:1978/offset:-1365.25/scale:0.2

    (red plot is temperature, green in sunspot)
    Note that the world has been cooling since 1998.

    Letter from Lord Monckton: (enclosure)
    .

  92. Late to post but.
    “The N.Pole isn’t responding.”
    Doesn’t the ice core record (that we trust for temperature values?) show the N. Pole responding to climate change later than the S. Pole?
    In addition to the excellent information given here, I suspect zeroed solar storms and reduced proton emission events permitting ozone recovery that reduces UV warming plays a (large?) part in the recent cooling.
    The reducing volume of stratospheric cloud (offset by jet trails) may be significant to ozone recovery too.
    Changing air currents must play a big role in the volume of ozone conveyed from high to low latitudes.
    I’m looking, but any more info/opinion would sure be appreciated.

    Reply: Read this post again and rethink your questions. ~ charles the moderator

  93. Ralph, you will get no joy from the BBC. Winning the lottery is more likely than an unbiased view from the taxpayer funded BBC.

  94. Phillip Bratby (00:21:51) :

    I think I must be missing something too.

    You are.

    The CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone up by about 100ppm, which by my reckoning is about 0.01% (I may have the math wrong).

    Is this relevant? The CO2 concentration has gone up by ~30% and since it’s well accepted by pretty much all scientists (including Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett etc) that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ which is responsible for the earth being warmer than it would be without it, this is possibly a more relevant figure. However, it is the climate forcing effect which is of real interest. The 100 ppm (~30%) increase in the past ~150 years results in an increased forcing of ~1.6 w/m2 – compared to the change in TSI forcing of around 0.2 w/m2 (averaged over the the earth’s surface).

    But, to all those who responded with comments about CO2, please note that I never mentioned CO2.

    And how exactly is that supposed to warm the climate enough to need to spend trillions to cure it?

  95. Recent attempts to question veracity of SSN during Maunder minimum period 1645-1700 may be out of place. From the graph

    it is more than clear there were lot of readings in the previous period 1615-1645 covering 3 distinctly visible cycles with high numbers.
    There is no reason that the observers would suddenly fail to see sunspots if they were present. It is also unlikely that London was continuously cloudy for over 50 years. Simply sunspots may not have been visible to record. It is possible that Livingston-Penn type phenomenon was active.
    I trust that there are no political motives involved to undermine Maunder period, in order to get in line with thinking of the AGW lobby.

  96. .

    >>Actually, the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012, as
    >>much as it simply cycles and starts over again

    Most ancient calendars did this, and the primary basis of the cycle was the Precession of the Equinox, which makes all the constellations cycle every 26,000 years – or one constellation ever 2,000 years or so.

    In the West the last precessional change was from Aries to Pisces in AD 10, which is why Christianity adopted the symbol of the fish as their logo, while we now stand ‘At the Dawn of the Age of Aquarius’, as they say.

    .

  97. Terry Jackson (18:06:37) :

    Last summer Alaska was quite cool. Here are two articles from the Anchorage paper………..With the sun going quieter and the PDO cooler, I expect an even cooler summer this year.

    OK it’s anecdotal and only one place, but it does offer a glimpse of the effects in the area they should be most pronounced.

    I actually think it’s reasonable to look at Alaska for signs of change. After all, it was in Alaska that the most pronounced (and immediate) warming was seen in the mid-1970s, it’s seems logical that a shift to cooling might also show up first here. See below for temperature plots of 3 Alaskan stations

    Nome:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702000000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Anchorage:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702730000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Fairbanks:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702610000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    PS ignore last paragraph on my previous post (2:44:29)

  98. Just read in a local paper that codfish population increases; this could correlate with the lower seawatertemperatures in their living areas. Therefore I would suggest to consider codfish , a temperature sensitive fish, as an indicator for de/in creasing seawatertemperatures comparable with the ARGOS seawatertemperature measurement system. Al this of course in relation with decreasing solar activity.

  99. .
    >>Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that
    >>climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address
    >>the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming
    >>over the last 30+ years.

    “Whether the Sun has an effect on climate”??
    What is up with these people? The Sun IS THE CLIMATE. Without the Sun there is no climate, just a celestial blob hovering around absolute zero, plus the odd rise to 3 degrees Kelvin when a volcano belches.

    The Sun has to be the primary driver of climate. Active Sun equals hotter planet. Quiet Sun equals cooler planet. Its not rocket science, you know.

    .

  100. So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping” effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate? I’m assuming there must be one; perhaps a few years, perhaps a decade or so.

  101. Leif, I stand corrected !! Thanks.

    As someone else asked, what is the significance of the 27 day rotational period?

    Are you saying TSI has variation from differnt sides of the Sun ? Surely not ?
    Is this due to variation in different areas of the sun, or tidal/wobble thing, or something else ? Or have I totally missed the point !!

  102. .
    >>TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5
    >>years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but TSI does not include magnetic flux, and it is the latter that has reduced considerably recently, along with TSI.

    Take a look at the second of these graphs;

    Magnetic flux is strongly linked to Sunspot activity, which is why the latter is a predictive tool to climate temperature.

    .

  103. .
    >>t suggests that solar cycles lasted an average of 205 years
    >>during part of the last Ice Age. Don’t know its validity.

    Yes, but this could be an extension of the 166-year Gleissberg cycle, which is superimposed upon the usual 11-year cycle.

    The Sun has many cycles.

    .

  104. I noticed the post from ‘anna v’ highlighting the albedo data on Leif’s site.

    What really stands out is the big dip in albedo which seems to coincide with the big El Nino event of 98, and subsequent warming. If this data is accurate then it would certainly seem to indicate a very significant driver in the earth’s climate. ie-ENSO phases.

    It would be nice to see recent data post 2005.

  105. anna v (22:32:17) : “I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system…”

    Have anyone ever opposed that?

    “In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects”

    And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?

  106. Stark graphs. Furthemore my eyes detect, if anything, an element of accelerated decline in the current minimum.

  107. John Finn (17:25:56) :

    I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

    Insulation? Those of us who live in cool climates insulate our houses to save energy and preserve indoor heat. Those who live in tropical climates sometimes “dress the heat out”. It is all about insulation.

    The clouds insulate the ground from the rays of the sun, by reflecting the radiation back into space. With a constant TSI but varying cloud coverage the effect will be a varying climate.

    We know that the sun’s magnetic field varies much more than TSI. If Svensmark is right about magnetic fields, GCR and cloud coverage …. ?

  108. The reader is now warned to put down your coffee before reading this PRESS RELEASE: Wednesday, October 20, 2004

    Got that 2004?

    One David Hathaway mentions 2010 as cycle 24 solar max. (I am not poking fun, is hard to deal with the unknown, but nevertheless is amusing in hindsight)

    “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.

    October 18, 2004: Six … long … years.”

    This puts a different complexion on the *entire* SORCE dataset as showing the sun in an abnormal state. (in case you missed the quotes, is my comment)

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15318

  109. Last significant peak of SC23 was in 2002.25 year, or 7.08 years ago. If we go back to the corresponding peak of SC22 it was in 1991.58.
    If one wishes to be utterly simplistic, it follows the present time in the sunspot cycle, all being equal, should be roughly same as 1998.66 when monthly smoothed SSN was 68 or actual SSN=92.
    In short: If SC24 was a near-repeat of SC23 then we should now have SSN at least 60+.
    If we take SC23max about 120 and assume predicted SC24max about 70 then present SSN should have been about 40.

  110. >>So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity
    >>than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping”
    >>effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate?.

    Prof Landscheidt says 7 or 8 years.

    .

  111. Back in August 2005 I posted on Climate Audit to the effect that recreationally, I had used cross-semivariograms from geostatistics to examine a number of effects, fun work from the 1970s.
    See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=320

    More fully, I was interested in variables with an annual time base, to reduce autocorrelation, so I hunted through journals like “Scientific American” for long annual time series than digitised them. The longest time series was the sunspot count, so I correlatated it with anything I could find that was reported for 50 years or more. There were measures for the fur trade of the Hudson’s Bay Company, the yield of tomatoes in California, the copper price on the NY stock exchange, American employment, USA GNP per capita and several others that I have now forgotten.

    The rationale was that in indirect ways many of these are connected, albeit indirectly and with lags, with sunlight. More light gives better crops, more trade, more prosperity, more production of other commodities. Of course, confounding factors abound.

    If it has not been done and published, I think it would be a fascinating exercise to repeat using mathematicians’ statistics of today and including more recent data.

    In my quick and crude fun analysis, I was surprised by the number of above factors that appeared correlated, some of them rather well. But then, it might have been conceptually and mathematically flawed. Correlation is not causation.

    My present thoughts are that if there is a connection between solar irradiance and earth temperature, it will show out in some of these indirect measures. A cold climate might equate with a cold economy, that type of expression.

  112. 1. Maybe not feedback, but the climate is a chaotic system and linear or pseudo- linea mathmatics don’t necessarily apply.
    2. Although the TSI change is small what about the far-extreme UV? This changes significantly more tha the visible part of the spectrum. Increase in energy deposited in the outermost region of the atmosphere surely reduces the effectiive temperatue gagdient across it (already non-linear) and so ultimately affects the heat treansfer from surface to outer space.
    3.Can we see a plot of XUV radiation vs time over several solar cyvles?

  113. Tim Channon (04:12:37) :

    From that linked press release:

    “Hathaway is an expert forecaster of the solar cycle. He keeps track of sunspot numbers (the best known indicator of solar activity) and predicts years in advance when the next peaks and valleys will come.”

    Yup.

    And…

    “But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.

    The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought. ”

    Heh.

  114. One of the joys of a bibliophile is stumbling across passages like this: the past is prologue.

    These two phrases caught my attention :
    “”that tranquil eye which knoweth not envy”.”
    “the copper brute with the firey face covered with black pimples.”

    No “black pimples” today?
    …-

    “Notes From An African Diary*

    In Africa I learned why those Scythian tribesmen, whose habits are recorded by Julian,
    reserved their sharpest arrows to shoot at the sun.

    To Julian, who was a sun worshipper, that was sacrilege.

    Had I possessed a long-range gun on the journey to Lake Chad in the late summer of 1934,
    I would willingly have sent a charge into “that tranquil eye which knoweth not envy”.

    In Africa I hated the sun with an impotent fury, the fury that made Giovanni Papini,
    before his conversion, speak of “the copper brute with the firey face covered with black pimples.”

    On the spur of the moment, Youssef ibn Avrahim and I invented epithets even more expressive of our
    helpless rage.”

    *Pierre van Paasen
    Days of Our Years
    1903-1939

  115. I also decided to check out the latest NASA press release:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_minimum09.html

    and found this…

    “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.

    Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year,” to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.”

    I believe the statements “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next.” and “No one fully understands the underlying physics of…” can aptly be applied to other areas of science e.g. numerical climate modeling…

  116. MA (04:04:36) :

    anna v (22:32:17) : “I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system…”

    Have anyone ever opposed that?

    Everyone who thinks that a direct cause:effect can be found concentrating on one of the input variables.

    “In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects”

    And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?

    I was actually thinking of the small effect of TSI changes over the sun cycle as a small input. I consider that it is already demonstrated on this blog that the CO2 effect is irrelevant. H2O now, is another question. Though the perfect analogue chaotic model would include everything.

  117. Wouldn’t it be possible for changes in albedo, that is clouds, during the seasonal change in TSI on the one year cycle(from January to July and back) to give the sort of climate sensitivity necessary to explain the variation in climate? Any potential instability from such a mechanism would be damped within months as the earth’s distance from the sun changed back.
    ==============================================

  118. Leif Svalgaard (22:18:28) :

    Justin Sane (21:39:34) :
    Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?

    No, that is not a good way of running the average. The running average should be plotted at the time of the midpoint.

    Look at it this way. Take a series that has steadily trended downward for some time. Using a 12 month average to the latest figure shows the moving average trending down to the present. But suppose at just this point in time the series turns back up and begins to steadily trend upwards. Once another 6 months of data are in, you find that a 12 month average at this point in time was higher than what you were showing using an average that came to the present. So using the endpoint resulted in a lower 12 month average than actually the case.

    With a moving average, you want data on either side of the current point.

    For once, I agree with Leif. ;)

    BTW, I’m sure there is too much cyclomania in it for Leif’s taste, but I found the Komitov paper linked to by “Just Want Truth…” to be an interesting read.

    http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf

  119. For those who have never seen this video on space weather/cosmoclimatology I’ll post the link once more :

  120. I know this is just coincidence but my back is broad enough!

    October 2007, step drop function appeared to occur in Solar output, Leif said it wasn’t unusual.
    January 2008, global temps plummet 0.6°C or thereabouts. Worst winters in 20-30 years in northern hemisphere.
    Solar Cycle 23 just won’t stop but keeps dragging out, Cycle 24 can’t get going. Nobody seems to have much of a real cluse when SC24 will start they keep extending the start dates every 6 months or so. When it does start it’s a damp squib!
    Lousey summer weather in UK. Met Office says winter 08/09 will be as mild or milder than previous winters. Arctic summer melt didn’t break records & starts showing possible recovery. Stupid Brit half-wits keep trying to sail, canoe, walk to NP to prove it’s all melted, but keep running into ice that shouldn’t be there according to the warmists, genuine & disingenuine alike!
    First October snows in 2008 for 75 years whilst UK government debates climate change bill. Coldest start to winter in UK for November for 20-30 years. 2009 coldest winter for 20 -30 years. All this is entirely in keeping with the Met Office’s understanding of Climate Change. Northern hemisphere winters significnatly colder than usual, or for around 30 years. 2009 globally cooler than 2008, 07, 06, 05 ,etc. Extended La Ninas, PDO shifts to cool phase, AMO shifts to cool phase.
    Antarctic sea-ice at greatest recorded extent. Temps in Antarctica cooler. Whether it warms or cools in Antarctica it’s still in keeping with climate models as evidence of AGW.
    Longest period for lack of Sunspots for almost 100 years since 1913. Cold weather records still being set on north American continent. Snows falling in the most unlikely places for the first time in living memory, or long periods of absence over 2007-2009.
    Sun’s magnetic field output at 50 year low since records began.
    Prof Mike Lockwood says no respite from AGW by Sun’s low output. (Expect to see hurried paper published showing Sun’s output has no effect on global climate whatsoever, never has done, never will, a best fit curve exercise.)

    Surely one of these self-opinionated, two-faced, sanctimonious, duplicitous, nose in the trough taxpayer funded politicans somewhere around the world would ask the question whether if there isn’t something in it?

    BTW I’m no expert but shouldn’t that period be the Suess Cycle @ c200years whereas the notional 88 year periodicity is the gleissberg cycle?

  121. This will be buried in the noise but it seems to be relevant to the topic. Some people claim that small changes in TSI or sunspots for that matter cannot result in larger fluctuations in the climate. Now, maybe that is correct but I see a very similar effect with low pressure discharge plasmas everyday at work. I’ll explain briefly and you can make up your own minds.

    First of all the Earth is receiving over 1300 W/m2 from the Sun everyday and this heat has been distributed into the oceans and land, though predominantly in the oceans. This has been going on for millenia and there is evidence of changes in the cycle, due to some factors, in the geological record. So we can assume that the ocean current circulation and atmospheric cycles leading to weather and climate patterns are a way to distribute the heat around and that these are not quite linear but have a non-linear complex nature.

    Okay, so now to the plasmas: In low pressure discharge plasmas (like Xenon or Argon singly charged plasmas) there is a well known phenomenon where drift waves, or acoustic wave appear and how a very small change in the input power characteristics causes this. To put this in perpective, in some types of discharge (Kaufman type) a critical parameter is the anode voltage (Kaufman discharges have an internal plasma circuit: cathode and anode). The anode voltage directly relates to the space charge in the discharge and to the plasma potential. Kaufman discharge space charge i.e. the amount of ionisation, is controlled by varying the amount of electrons (anode current) or the time they spend in the discharge (magnet current) for a given gas flow rate. This can also be changed to increase the ionisation range.
    What happens at acoustic wave onset is that the anode voltage starts with a ‘white’ noise frequency spectrum and within a small change of the magnet current (typically below 5%, which is a much smaller increase in discharge power, maybe 1%) suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency related to the electron temperature in the plasma and the size of the discharge chamber. The onset occurs very quickly, but the overall plasma energy is hardly affected, just redistributed into coherent anode voltage oscillation. The key is that the white noise can be 0.5 V peak to peak, but the acoustic oscillation is 2 volts peak to peak or more and occuring in the kHz range.
    I have produced the effect in the lab and its just a transition state in the discharge; there is nothing harmful occuring to the chamber.
    The basic point though is that a small change in input power causes a large change in behaviour because the ions in the plasma start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.

    So it the ocean circulation is coupled to the physical geometry of the Earth and there are certain resonances then this redistribution of frequencies and hence changes in climate due to small changes in the sun is perfectly feasable. An additional part is that, again using the example of plasmas, if there is a frequency in the input power it does not have to be an exact fundamental frequency of the discharge to produce acoustic oscillation but only has to have an associated coupling factor. Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa. Hence for example El Nino could be excited by much longer oscillations in the TSI ro maybe sunspots.

    If there is a sun-earth coupling then obviously is complicated and non-linear but to say that such an effect is not feasable in nature doesn’t reflect the case in plasmas where it is easily reproducable.

  122. Thanks for the SORCE data report by Guillermo Gonzalez

    When I went to the SORCE website a few weeks ago to check the TSI data and compare it to prior VIRGO satellite data, I found a major gap in the baseline between the VIRGO and SORCE TIM instrument data.

    Then I came across this note on the SORCE website:

    “Special Note on TIM (Total Irradiance Monitor) TSI Data

    “”The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.””

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=input_data_for_tsi.ion#note

    WOW! That’s a major difference and makes me question all prior non-SORCE/TIM data and their use in global warming models.

    That difference is much larger than the 1 W/m2 variance between the solar cycles as measured by the older VIRGO TSI instruments.

    If you go to the VIRGO site there is a page long, mind numbing, description of how they cobblel together data from different instruments using mathematical hammers to achieve the “final” TSI .. … Level 0 to Level 1, then Level 1 to Level 1.8, and finally from Level 1.8 to Level 2.0.

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#Data

    Clearly TIM is simpler in design, more accurate, and provides direct TSI measurement.

    A meeting in May 16, 2006 reviewed the different TSI instruments, but did not come to a conclusion rating one over the other. Open admittance that prior measurements are not as accurate as portrayed is a very sensitive scientific/political issue and silence appears safer than open debate.

    TIM is the instrument of choice for future NASA flights.

    I received this note from

    Greg Kopp -TIM Instrument Scientist Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics

    “We have been working with the TSI community on resolving these differences, starting with a NASA-organized community workshop at NIST a couple of years ago.

    Since then, we have built a new facility to calibrate TSI radiometers against a NIST-calibrated cryogenic radiometer prior to flight, and have used this facility to validate the performance of the next TIM, which will launch in early 2010 on NASA’s Glory mission. Prior to the Glory/TIM, no flight TSI instrument has been validated end-to-end for irradiance under flight-like operating conditions.”

  123. I don’t have much to add, I read other than thanks Guillermo, Anthony and Lief for the post and replies. Educational as always.

    Jeff

  124. John F. Hultquist (21:06:50) :

    The first comment, Jim Arndt (16:01:21) , mentioned Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more.
    This idea was discussed here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

    Can someone explain in simple language what the following terms mean in the context of this thread and sunspots:

    The Livingston & Penn paper doesn’t really connect to this thread. It talks about a weakening of the magnetic fields around in in sunspots that has been ongoing for more than a 11-year solar cycle, this thread concerns itself with effects involving the whole sun.

    Quick summary, but without referring back to L&P:

    visible
    Typical sunspot. Dark spot on the sun visible with a decent telescope or unmagnified viewing. (Both with appropriate filtering, of course.) The dark color is not black, it’s just an area of cooler plasma that radiates less light.

    invisible
    Area on the sun where the plasma is not cool but where the magnetic field shows there is a sunspot. I beleive the magnetic field is determined by looking at both polarization of light and “line splitting” where spectral lines are modified by magnetic fields in the area.

    gone (not there)
    Area that no longer has the magnetic signature. (It won’t have the visible signature either).

    not gone but invisible
    Area where the magnetic field has weakened enough to allow enough convection to allow the plasma temperature at the surface warm up so it no longer looks dark.

    disappear
    Have to check the context. If it’s “spots will disappear by 2015″ then it means sunspot magnetic fields will be too weak to let any spot become visible.

    TSI
    Total Solar Iradience. Usually expressed as the total watts of all electomagnetic radiation (light including IR and UV), radio – anything that warms up an absorbing target – passing through a square meter of the top of our atmosphere (or perhaps now the altitude of the satellites that measure TSI).

    The mentioned paper said:
    “…show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.”

    When I read the original Penn and Livingston paper the analogy I thought of was: If there is a dark stain on a white wall and I use white paint to re-paint the wall, the stain is not gone but it is invisible.

    A better analogy might be a dimmer switch dimming the surface of the sun, strong magnetic fields mean strong dimmer. The idea that somthing is covering the sun is not what’s going on.

    So is the Penn & Livingston observation equivalent to a Maunder or Dalton Minimum or something entirely new? At those times did “the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra … become warmer” and invisible, or were there none?

    No one knows. The main reason Science rejected the paper was that it didn’t propose a mechanism, it was just a statisical look at the interesting observations and wasn’t interesting enough for Science. It’s almost certain that this has happened in the past, but we didn’t have our current tools to observe the magnetic field part. My gut feeling is that the Dalton Minimum was just a period with weak cycles, but this might have happened during the Maunder Minimum. Check back in 70 years or so, we’ll have a much better idea of how the pieces fit.

    ——

    OT:
    Record heat in New England yesterday. I don’t see a nice table, but http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/recordbreaking.shtml lists sites Boston MA, Bridgeport CT, Hartford CT, Providence RI, Worcester MA, Albany NY, Burlington VT, Portland ME, Caribou ME, Concord NH, New York NY, Newark NJ

    More records may be set through Tuesday. All part of the warm wave that heated up California a few days ago.

  125. ralph ellis:

    “Whether the Sun has an effect on climate”??
    What is up with these people? The Sun IS THE CLIMATE. Without the Sun there is no climate, just a celestial blob hovering around absolute zero, plus the odd rise to 3 degrees Kelvin when a volcano belches.

    The Sun has to be the primary driver of climate. Active Sun equals hotter planet. Quiet Sun equals cooler planet. Its not rocket science, you know.

    Well, I guess if you change what “these people” say then it becomes easy to attack the resulting strawman and actually think that you have said something relevant. The original phrase said, “Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate…”

    Look, the fact is that the W/m^2 change in forcing from the solar variations is considerably smaller than the forcing due to changes in CO2 levels. In order to make claims that changes in the sun are still the dominant factor in the climate over the last half century, it is necessary to posit some feedback mechanism such as cosmic rays that acts selectively only on the solar forcing. (It is apparently also necessary to ignore the fact that there has been no real trend in cosmic rays over the time when the warming has occurred.)

    It is strange that the very same people who are so skeptical of positive feedbacks that act on all forcings equally are so willing to believe in positive feedbacks that act selectively on the forcing that they want to believe is most important.

    [Actually, whether or not there is a detectable temperature effect due to the 11-year solar cycle comes down mainly to the issue of damping. I.e., the changes in forcing from min to max of the solar cycle is enough to cause a detectable change in temperature with our current estimates of climate sensitivity if it happens slowly enough…but it is not clear whether these changes are detectable once the damping effects associated with the frequency of these variations in factored in…and particularly when trying to separate this from other climate variability factors.]

  126. OT but Catlin crew have come up with a new spin on the scientific ‘value’ of their jaunt.

    The purpose of the Catlin Arctic Survey is for the Ice Team of Pen Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels to gather data that will help scientists to assess how the ice is melting across the region where the expedition is drilling. In the planning stages, the team worked closely with scientists to ensure they would be gathering exactly the type of information required during their time on the ice. When the team returns in May, the role of the scientists will once again be in the ascendant. But for now, the skills that are needed are those of an experienced expedition team.

    It’s a Brave New World indeed!

  127. ralph ellis (02:10:11) :
    …No Sunspots recently
    …(Note the media lies here. A lack of sunspot activity caused the 17th century mini Ice Age, however our latest minimum has nothing to do with climate, and it is all manmade CO2. I have never seen such global deceit in my entire life.)
    The theory of Sunspot activity driving ALL climate change.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    Global Temperature vs Sunspot activity

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/offset:-0.1/plot/pmod/from:1978/offset:-1365.25/scale:0.2

    Isn’t this shooting yourself in the foot????
    Let’s assume xxx is the cause of GW and TSI is another modulation on that temp rise.
    LOW TSI (currently) = lower temperatures – apparently true at present but then this is not explaining the CONSTANT rise over the last 30 years which must be caused by xxx.
    LOW TSI has in your eyes pulled the risen temperature down to near average temps.
    In the next solar maximum, whenever that occurs say 5 years time, the reduction will be removed and we will be on a new high. So there will be a total of 15 years (10 years colling as you stated + 5 more for TSI to reach maximum) of TSI cooling. This is 15 years where xxx effect has been increasing. It’s going to be very HOT. We must find what xxx is!!!!!

    You make the assertion that TI is THE cause of temperature variation. Why does this evident 11 year cycle not appear on FFT plots of temperature.

    You then use a plot to prove this. Even this does not show the effect – Temperature shows a sinusoidal component added to a positive linear trend. The TSI shows a sinusoidal component without the trend (fortuitously over thie period you chose the TSI sinusois and the temp sinusoid are similar frequencies.

    Take a look at this plot comparing temperature vs SSN and Temperature vs CO2. Which do you think has the most significant effect on temperature?:

  128. GK (03:13:30) :
    Are you saying TSI has variation from differnt sides of the Sun ? Surely not ?

    Surely, yes. Imagine you have a huge sunspot on one side of the Sun. When that spot is facing us, TSI is smaller. When the spot is at 90 degrees [a quarter of a rotation] away from us we don’t see the spot, but we do see the enhanced brightness around the spot [called faculae] and so TSI is higher. So there is a distinct signature in TSI to the passage of a huge spot across the solar disk: first TSI goes up, then down, and finally [when the spot rotates out of view] up again.
    On http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png I have indicated the effect by an arrow pointing to a significant spot in 2008.23. The green sunspot curve was way up [relative to now, at least]. F10.7 sot up [the pink curve], but TSI had a deep minimum flanked by maxima. Since the magnetic field from that spot group takes a long time to disappear, TSI was enhanced every 27 days since then, giving rise to the 27-day recurrent peak in TSI. The amplitude of that peak has been slowly decreasing since. Around 2008.80 there was a [smaller] injection of new magnetic flux [see the green and pink curves] that has helped keeping the peak alive, but now it is clearly dying down.

  129. John Finn 17:25:56
    Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out.

    Last night I have consulted with my pillow (it means that this issue was going round and round again in my subconscious). Well; this is my “pet” theory as Dr.Leif would put it:
    Returning to BASICS It DOES has large climatic effects!
    But attenuated and/or increased by:

    Volumetric Heat Capacity

    Air =0.001297 j cm3/kg
    Water=4.186 j cm3/kg
    3227 times
    Material Thermal conductivity
    Air at 0° C 0.024 W/m K 86.24 j/m K
    Water at 20°C 0.6 W/m K 2160.00 j/m K
    25 times
    BOTH MODULATED BY CONVECTION This is where GWrs. are out of the picture

  130. Frank K. (04:50:43) :

    Tim Channon (04:12:37) :

    From that linked press release:

    “Hathaway is an expert forecaster of the solar cycle. He keeps track of sunspot numbers (the best known indicator of solar activity) and predicts years in advance when the next peaks and valleys will come.”

    Yup.

    And…

    “But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.

    The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought. ”

    Heh.

    Frank K and Tim Channon,

    Just enter the name Hathaway in the search field of WUWT.
    You will know than that you are recycling “old news”

    Hathaway here is feeded to the sharks here everytime he opens his mouth.

  131. Joel Shore

    After many years of apathy I have started looking at these climate change issues. So far I believe that the man made CO2 warming theory is weak and the AGW extremists and AGW driven politicians basically lunatics. I also don’t believe in positive CO2 feedbacks because time has shown that they have never happened. However I agree that the TSI theory doesn’t explain everything. There are other factors and in such a complex system I’d expect that to be so. I’d expect our knowledge on what is really happening to be very small (compared to what some would have us believe) yet acknowledge that much is being discovered. This is mainly due to people challenging the consensus which is patently incorrect and patently far short of enough solid information to initiate anything other than long term startegic planning. To my eyes there is no possible justification for the draconian measures proposed. There are far more important things to spend our money on.

  132. Ron de Haan (07:40:49) :

    Frank K and Tim Channon,

    Just enter the name Hathaway in the search field of WUWT.
    You will know than that you are recycling “old news”

    Yes, I know it old news, but it is good for all to review these predictions of yesteryear, in light of current events, just to emphasize the point that we don’t understand as much of the physical world as we think we do. This is a very important topic at this time as the US government is about to embark on policies attempting to “control” the climate of the earth based on incomplete evidence, controversial theories, and poorly understood physics (as expressed in the AOGCMs). And the scientists and policy makers advocating these policies are today as sure of themselves as Dr. Hathaway was back in 2004…

  133. As much as I enjoy a technical proof of what I already knew about Al Gore, and this thread is a good example; math is not required to see that the Emperor has no clothes.

    Keeping in mind that the IPCC climate models don’t know how to handle clouds, punch up channel 212 on Dish Network to get a live view of the earth from stationary orbit. Visualize the white from the clouds as energy reflected back to space and the dark areas as energy absorbed on Earth. Now if some warm monger tells you that the effect of clouds can be ignored give them all of the respect they deserve.

    If indeed fewer sunspots, cause more clouds then read this thread again and to out and buy new sweaters.

  134. Bill -Figure T_est_05 shows this longer wave, with about a 50 year period. This used the FFT to filter & re-contruct the signal.

    Fig T_est_05 shows a fairly strong amplitude. It also shows that there is a peaking about the year 2000. This peaking around the year 2000 of this and other wave would suggest that the recent warm up could be due to the re-enforcement of several waves such as the 50 and 10 year wave.

    The ~50+ year cycle seems to have a stong amplitude on both your sunspot data and east England temp.

  135. Steve:-)

    Read through the article three times & it still sounds a complete load of bovine faecal content! Absolute nonsense. Sounds like a softening up process for the doom & gloom sayers who can’t predcit/second-guess/project/have a stab at what is goingto happen, not a clue any of them!

  136. Geoff Sherrington (04:36:50) :

    The Discovery channel recently had a piece on putting small mirrors in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight to counteract AGW from CO2. Of course no one discussed the effects of reduced sunlight on crops and such. Cures in this realm could be much worse than the “disease”. Since they think of a warmer more benign climate as being such “disease”.

  137. An improved version of the comparison between temperature and TSI/CO2
    This time there is no averaging of the data.
    CO2 x axis is just the sorted PPM figures without regard to dates
    SSN/TSI x axis is again just sorted without regard to dates

    data date range is still mar 1958 to jul 2009

    Plots show that temperature is increased by
    0.00006 deg C per sun spot!
    or 0.01 deg C per CO2 ppm

  138. All I know is that something is totally whack with the maple syrup supply. There isn’t any at Trader Joe’s. At Costco a container that used to sell for under $10 is currently $32. Is Spring so late in New England that the maple syrup run has changed?

  139. Leif Svalgaard (23:27:39) :

    I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…

    If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation. It’s only when the constant deviates in some way would you expect any climate reaction. Having said that, I’m in no way hanging my hat on the current solar conditions having any effect on the recent plateauing of global temps.

    I tend to think that the recent changes in the ocean currents would smother any apparently trivial but interesting changes in solar output.

  140. OT, but to bill,

    The straightness of your CO2 versus temperature line is just a function of the logarithmic formula and where we are on the CO2 line now.

    The line is nearly straight starting in about 1985 (it isn’t before this date, it is exponential) and then it will stay almost linear till about 550 ppm (2070) and then it starts to flatten out.

    It is just a characteristic of the logarithmic formulae and the position we are at now on the chart. This is, in part, why the IPCC says the trend should be 0.2C per decade because that is the near-linear trend that occurs for this time period in the theory.

    You should convert your CO2 numbers to Ln(CO2) though – it won’t make much difference at this point.

  141. MartinGAtkins (09:25:52) :
    “I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…”

    If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation.

    You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

  142. Leif says:

    You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

    Ahhh, but these “feedbacks” also have a low-pass filter, so they are unable to see the relatively high frequency annual components …

  143. Richard Sharpe (09:45:02) :
    Ahhh, but these “feedbacks” also have a low-pass filter, so they are unable to see the relatively high frequency annual components …

    I guess one can devise a ‘feedback’ scheme that produces just what one wants to see in the data.

  144. Leif Svalgaard (07:40:23) :
    The falling amplitude of TSI should give us a very clear picture of the level of strength of sunspots/faculae. Since the end of 2008, those spots have been visibly weak and greatly diminished in contrast.
    Until we get some sort of halfway decent spots, the TSI is going to look like 80 grit sandpaper.

  145. Towards the end of Wolf Minimum in 1340s Black Death (Bubonic plague) that swept through Europe killed millions.
    In the middle of Maunder Minimum the Great Plague of London, 1665–1666, was the another major outbreak of the bubonic plague in Europe.
    The third Pandemic began in Central Asia. It spread worldwide, killing millions, into the early 20th century (Dalton minimum).
    Now Swine Flu is rearing its ugly head. Is it possible that reduction in UV radiation (normally killing the nasty germs) is contributing to the occurrence of these calamities?
    Any medics on the forum?

  146. Martin Mason says:

    I also don’t believe in positive CO2 feedbacks because time has shown that they have never happened.

    First of all, I wouldn’t call them “CO2 feedbacks” because, unlike the feedbacks that the “skeptics” are proposing to amplify solar variations, these feedbacks are not specific to the mechanism of CO2 causing the warming. They are feedbacks that occur at least roughly the same for any source of warming.

    Second of all, those who study paleoclimate generally seem to disagree with you on this point of what the past climate record shows http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 :

    Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes over the past century suggest that the average global temperature will rise by between 1.5º and 4.5ºC if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles. In their Perspective, Schrag and Alley look at records of past climate change, from the last ice age to millions of years ago, to determine whether this climate sensitivity is realistic. They conclude that the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.

  147. crosspatch (09:15:59) :

    All I know is that something is totally whack with the maple syrup supply. There isn’t any at Trader Joe’s. At Costco a container that used to sell for under $10 is currently $32. Is Spring so late in New England that the maple syrup run has changed?

    My guess is that last year’s production has run out and this year’s hasn’t made far beyond the sugar shack (there’s one small outfit just up the hill from me but I haven’t talked with the owner about the season).

    Maple syrup production is extremely weather dependent. A lot of times in New England it evens out – poor production in one area goes with a banner year in another. However, Canada is the biggest producer by far, and Quebec seemed to have a lousy year last year (50 Mlb – million pounds) and will have exceeded the 86 Mlb record with 91-100 Mlb this year. Some of that record may go with expanded tapping.

    That from http://www.country-guide.ca/east/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=98804&issue=04152009&story_id=&PC=FBC

    Very good report at http://flavorchase.tillinghastmaple.com/2008/12/07/maple-syrup-prices-rocket-up-in-2008-may-head-back-down-in-2009.aspx though it tries to predict 2009 results in 2008.

  148. Leif says

    “I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…”

    MartinGAtkins says

    If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation.

    You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

    I think it’s you that is missing the point. I wasn’t questioning that there may be a feed back mechanism. For any feed back to vary the climate then the constant must deviate. Otherwise you end up with equilibrium.

    The point I was making is that the current conditions are very unlikely to be due to the any short term drop in solar output such as we have now.

    The present change in the ocean SST’s would swamp any signal.

  149. “Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes…”

    More globaloney based on computer models. That link is a perfect example of speculation by people trolling for grant money. But when real world evidence is taken into account, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity at all to CO2: click

    So, who are you gonna believe? The planet? Or a couple of jamokes fiddling with a GCM to get the results they want?

    I’ll put my trust in the planet, over the rank speculation of these grant seeking taxsuckers. Mother Nature says, “Don’t worry.”

    Mother Nature is right.

  150. Mother Nature is right. Stepping outside… almost May and there’s yet another cold front moved through with the howling Spring winds leaving behind a perfectly sunny day with a cold bite in the air and ice in the birdbath.
    My how the years have chilled.
    Haven’t been able to project a Tiny Tim since January. Good thing I looked.

  151. You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

    Lief,

    In the interest of helping to clarify your meaning… clearly there are significant seasonal variations in climate.

    To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?

    Explaining that might help to set the context for your view on multi-year (solar cycle, etc.) differences in climate.

  152. Smokey:

    I’ll put my trust in the planet, over the rank speculation of these grant seeking taxsuckers. Mother Nature says, “Don’t worry.”

    I’ll put my trust in scientists who actually understand the difference between signal and noise in the data and who understand how to plot things so that don’t produce plots that would only be expected to show temperature (modulo noise) tracking CO2 levels if the climate sensitivity were 5X what the IPCC says it is.

  153. Leif Svalgaard (10:14:22) :

    “I guess one can devise a ‘feedback’ scheme that produces just what one wants to see in the data.”

    You guess that? Wow, you’re really going out on a limb. LOL.

    If it’s not an established fact that people devise feedback schemes produce what they want from the data, then there are no facts. Isn’t this what lies at the very core of the AGW debate?

  154. vukcevic (10:39:34) :

    “Towards the end of Wolf Minimum in 1340s Black Death (Bubonic plague) that swept through Europe killed millions.
    In the middle of Maunder Minimum the Great Plague of London, 1665–1666, was the another major outbreak of the bubonic plague in Europe.
    The third Pandemic began in Central Asia. It spread worldwide, killing millions, into the early 20th century (Dalton minimum).
    Now Swine Flu is rearing its ugly head. Is it possible that reduction in UV radiation (normally killing the nasty germs) is contributing to the occurrence of these calamities?
    Any medics on the forum?”

    I am not a medic.

    I know that some bacteria respond to UV but viruses…?

    Flu epidemics occur almost every winter.

    I think that other factors must be taken into consideration.

    What to think of reduced resistance against sickness because of malnutrition or even famine?
    This combined with the lack of basic hygienic facilities like toilets, closed disposal water systems, clean drinking water, pest control and the presence of swamps near cities.

    The bubonic plaque was caused by rats that carried flees.
    I have found an article pointing out that the bubonic plague could have caused the Little Ice Age stating that abandoned farm land was covered by trees, absorbing the CO2, thus causing the Little Ice Age.

    I don’t believe this because of the CO2 link and because it is an article from the BBC,
    but here you have it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

    I have found this other link on the web but it’s about malaria.

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol6no1/reiter.htm

  155. There is some attachment to this, but I will be more interested in just the UV portion of the spectrum. I know that typicaly UV goes down 6% durring a minimum (trying to find out what it is for this minimum, but haven’t yet). Anoter thing most of us agree on is that GCR’s go up durring solar minimum. Now a question I have is what are the possibilities that lower UV’s translate to a rise in bacteria and virus’s (UV kills these) and an increse in GCR’s translates to an increse in new strains due to mutation. Could be a double whammy for infectious disease, ala the samonella outbreaks and the new swine flu. I know at this point I have no evedence, but there seems to be a plausable working theory, thought I would share :)

  156. Three comments – 1. Just found this blog and I love it!
    2. Maple sap production (flow from the tree) is directly related to barometric pressure. 3. And if the oceans are “rising” due to global warming, why isn’t all the waterfront property on sale? After all, if the current owners of the waterfront property actually believed that there was actual global warming with subsequent consequences, they would be voting with their pocketbook and dumping the property now. Don’t you think?

  157. Ron de Haan,
    Thanks for your research. Well, well I would never…
    You have to forgive my macabre sense of humour, I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs (in case they got this global warming lark wrong), but never suspected that someone did attempt to do real science on a possible link.
    I have to be more careful in future.

  158. Stephen Wilde (11:17:28) :
    Could Leif or someone equally knowledgeable please explain why the above chart shows a TSI currently at only 1361.
    The satellite measurements by different satellites [ http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.jpg ] have varied between 1361 and 1374 simply because it is very difficult to make absolute measurements that accurate. The relative error is much much smaller.

    George Gillan (11:41:30) :
    To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?

    Summer/winter? northern hemisphere summer? The Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees, that gives you summer/winter. Nothing to do with the Sun.

  159. “I’ll put my trust in scientists who actually understand the difference between signal and noise in the data and who understand how to plot things so that don’t produce plots that would only be expected to show temperature (modulo noise) tracking CO2 levels if the climate sensitivity were 5X what the IPCC says it is.”

    Who might those scientists be? Jim Hansen? Al Gore?

  160. John Edmondson (01:55:25) :

    “If the sun is quiet for a long time, this pattern is broken. I would expect the earth’s cloudiness to increase quite quickly now. Is there anyway of testing this?”

    The amount of electricity produced by solar energy panels should be a good proxy for cloudiness. For stations which sell power back to the grid, the records should be complete.

  161. Leif Svalgaard (23:27:39) :
    [i]I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…[/i]

    I didn’t miss that Leif. So one is 100 times as strong and cycles in a year and the other cycles in maybe a 100 years?

    Maybe if the southern hemisphere were the mirror image to the northern hemisphere maybe we could compare the temperature of Moscow North to Moscow South and know what you are talking about.

  162. Joel 12:22:30

    We’ve been over this. You seem to trust scientists who find a signal in the CO2/temperature relationship that isn’t there. Get a clue, that’s a big problem.
    =========================================

  163. George Gillan (11:41:30) :
    To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?

    Leif Svalgaard (14:19:44) :
    Summer/winter? northern hemisphere summer? The Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees, that gives you summer/winter. Nothing to do with the Sun.

    Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solor Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. :-)

    Is it only the direct effect of the difference in solar radiation received, or is that effect increased by feedback, or amplified (but not by feedback), or some other mechanism?

    The point of the question being the summer/winter effect compared and contrasted with the longer term (multi-year) variances in climate. How do the mechanisms at work compare? Of course the longer cycle ocean circulation patterns would not cause the winter/summer difference, but what of the various ‘feedback’ and/or ‘amplification’ mechanisms that people keep throwing around?

    I hope I am being more clear this time.

  164. vukcevic (10:39:34) :
    Surely the 1918 ‘Spanish flu’ pandemic was not at a solar minimum and the milder 1957 ‘Asian flu’ pandemic was at the peak of a strong cycle (19)? Pandemics result from the combined action of two things: genetic mutation and recombination (including animal strains which become able to infect humans)

    MattB (13:53:55):
    UV kills by causing mutations in DNA – too many that the organism can’t repair, or changes in vital genes. I’m no expert but I think the summer/winter variation would have much greater significance than the current solar minimum, which is why flu tends to be seasonal.

  165. Bill Hunter (14:49:47) :
    I didn’t miss that Leif. So one is 100 times as strong and cycles in a year and the other cycles in maybe a 100 years?

    I’m talking about this:

    The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has. The feedbacks that produce climate trends out of the blue but no clear signal out of the red elude me. For me, it is not enough that you just state something. Explain and demonstrate quantitatively why that is in terms I [and others] can easily understand.

  166. gloria merritt (14:01:35) : “And if the oceans are “rising” due to global warming, why isn’t all the waterfront property on sale? “

    And more importantly, why would Al Gore buy waterfront property?

  167. George Gillan (15:14:59) :
    Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solar Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. :-)

    I resent strongly the insinuation that I ‘dodged’ anything. The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt, and summer/winter has nothing to do with the Sun. Perhaps this can explain it to you:

    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Seasons.shtml

  168. Ellie in Belfast
    You have to forgive my macabre sense of humour, I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs (in case they got this global warming lark wrong).
    I have to be more careful in future.

  169. I am not a scientist but read extensively on many scientific topics and understand statistics pretty well. I do not understand Lief’s explanation of how a 27 day solar radiation affects the amount of energy coming from the sun. Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations I would assume they develop randomly around the solar sphere (I understand that they develop nearer the poles and migrate to the center) and over time would develop equally at all spots, cancelling out any particular 27 rotation effect.

  170. http://americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html

    UVC radiation triggers the formation of peptide bonds between certain amino acids in the microbe’s DNA molecules. This renders bacteria, viruses and molds harmless by robbing them of the ability to reproduce.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/mutation

    Cosmic rays from space, for instance, are natural, but they are mutagenic.

    Note, I do not doubt other things at play, and this by no means should be even close to a full fledged paper on the subject. Just meant as a place for thought. There is another paper out there talking about the mutinagenic effects on men in space. In their case the effects seem mostly temporary, but then we are multicellular with a higher tolerance for such things.

  171. vukcevic (15:36:18) : I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs

    Problem is…they believe in a Goddess, GAIA, and their most exalted preaching leader is HIM, the unnamable , that fatty alien who came from nowhere and who will take all their followers to a still unknown planet free of CO2.

  172. Vukevic,
    I saw your reply to Ron de Haan when page refreshed after I hit ‘submit’. It made me smile.

  173. kevin roche (15:47:53) :
    Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations

    But it does! Both in a deep sense and in the following more trivial sense: suppose solar activity [as now] is really low and there is only big spot per year. That spot will develop at a given location and decay there, taking several months to die away. As it does, each time during a solar rotation that the spot area faces us, we’ll see enhanced emission. Like a lighthouse.

  174. Smokey says:

    “Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes…”

    More globaloney based on computer models. That link is a perfect example of speculation by people trolling for grant money. But when real world evidence is taken into account, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity at all to CO2: click

    By the way, it sometimes helps you get better comprehension of what is being said if you actually read more than one sentence. If you had read beyond that first sentence, you would have understood that the whole point of that article was to look at what the real world evidence from paleoclimate data is and then ask how it compares to what the models say. The conclusion that they reach is “the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models. “

  175. Leif Svalgaard (15:22:48) :

    I’m talking about this:

    The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has.

    I like your stated ´simple´ dilemma which even can start to be explored without detailed physics.
    To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.

  176. Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses, we have to begin taking some money from our “savings”(the seas), so these begin to cool down…
    We, of course, hope that someday, in the near future, things will improve and our “income” will return to its current levels.
    So, it is a matter of the “economics” (econos=house, greek) of energy, how it is received, how much (rather the same amount always), how much of it we save it, which are the ways to spend it, etc.etc.

  177. Leif Svalgaard (15:22:48) :

    [i]The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has. Explain and demonstrate quantitatively why that is in terms I [and others] can easily understand.[/i]

    Leif it appears to me you are one suggesting the red curve has no effect. I merely suggested that the effect has not been measured and that the frequency of the cycle in question would have an effect on how much feedback you might receive from a given cycle.

    Remove all the modifying factors then should not a TSI change of 1 over a 100 years equal a TSI change of 100 over one year? Is that well enough quantified?

    The modifying factors could well change the amplitude of the net change though, with the higher frequency cycle not obtaining the same amplitude of the lower frequency cycle because of feedbacks extending into the next phase and moderating it.

    I see that every day living at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. 50 miles inland the daily temperature range can be 60 degrees greater.

    Seems to me the red curve annual cycle is already integrated into the climate system and may well explain some of the regular water cycles we see in the oceans. . . .some of which take years to play out and exhibit all sorts of frequencies or harmonics.

    So in short I also believe the red curve has an effect. Its pretty hard to imagine how changes in TSI could have no effect. If you truly believe not perhaps you could explain how that would work. . . .some cosmic membrane that works like a water saving showerhead or something like that. . . .sounds rather cloudy.

  178. Sideliner (17:00:39) :
    To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.
    In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

    Adolfo Giurfa (17:03:57) :
    Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses…
    OK, we receive $13.61 at solar max and $13.60 at solar min…

  179. Sideliner (17:00:39) :
    To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.

    In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

    Adolfo Giurfa (17:03:57) :
    Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses…
    OK, we receive $1361.50 at solar max and $1360.25 at solar min…, and now all of the sudden we only got $1360.20, so we have to change our lifestyle…

  180. Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :
    Sideliner (17:00:39) :
    To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.

    Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

    I follow you if that was an immediate linear effect on temperature of any TSI change. But is this what we are discussing? Sorry, I am confused. Are we on the same ´timescale´page for this particular issue? Need to clarify that.

    Due to the timezone diff I have to jump into horizontal soon, so I have not looked up the graphs; From top of my head – Isn´t the average global temperature slightly lower during the southern hemisphere summer, even if the TSI in that period is higher? Well, of course we know it is probably mostly due to the different ocean/land characteristics of the hemispheres.

    Yet again in a simple minded way [and with a lot of if´s..]; What would the immediate temperature variations be if there was no TSI variation during the year? Similarily, if the TSI oscillation was shifted half a year with the highest peak during northern hemisphere´s summer? And subsequently the effect on longer-term climate for these cases?

  181. In my haste, oops.
    The 1913 graph goes from zero to 500 on the Y axis.
    The 2008 graph goes from zero to 450 on the Y axis.
    I’ll fix it later.

  182. Leif Svalgaard (15:31:24) :

    George Gillan (15:14:59) :
    Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solar Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. :-)

    I resent strongly the insinuation that I ‘dodged’ anything. The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt, and summer/winter has nothing to do with the Sun. Perhaps this can explain it to you:

    http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Seasons.shtml

    Leif, I apologize, I didn’t mean ‘dodge’ as strongly as it obviously came across. It’s obvious that I have failed to communicate effectively, for which I also apologize. I’ll make one last try and then drop the matter to avoid wasting your time:

    I am not seeking to understand the earth’s seasons, I already do understand them. Of course, without the effect of the sun’s radiation, there would be no summers or winters as the hemispheres angle toward or away from the sun. What I am attempting is to offer the seasons as a comparison for the effects of received solar radiation as it varies. In northern hemisphere winter the NH effectively receives less solar radiation than in NH summer due to the more oblique angle to the sun. Is summer warmer than winter because:

    a) Just the direct result of more solar radiation in the hemisphere.
    b) More SR plus some feedback mechanism.
    c) More SR plus some amplification mechanism.
    d) Some other mechanism or combination.

    If the increase in received solar radiation (on the hemisphere) is by itself inadequate to explain the increase in temperatures that occur in summer, then perhaps one or more other mechanisms are at work (locally, within the hemisphere). Presumably, the effect of those mechanisms can be estimated by accounting for the direct effect of the increased received solar radiation in summer and subtracting that from the total observed effect.

    You have pointed out many times on this site that variations in globally received solar radiation (if I abbreviate as ‘TSI’ would that be correct?) are inadequate to explain climate variations over the course of sunspot cycles and beyond. I realize that some mechanisms exist globally that do not exist within a hemisphere, and that some mechanisms act on multi-year cycles but not within seasonal cycles. Still, some feedback mechanisms that are present on a global scale might also act within a hemisphere (and at a much smaller scale) during the seasons.

    I was trying to lay that out as a possible bridge between some of the questions posted and your answers to them (which were not connecting with the questioners).

    It seemed a much more obvious comparison at first, but it has turned out to be a long and tortuous road to communicate it. At this point I presume it will be of little or no help.

  183. Sideliner, Leif is asking you a rhetorical question to see if you recognise what each represents. The irradiance at 1 AU has no bearing on Earth climate because Earth is not always at 1 AU from the Sun. The distance of the earth changes because our orbit is slightly elliptical. 1 AU is merely the average distance of the Earth from the Sun. When we are closer, we obviously receive more radiation from the Sun, and when further away, we receive less.

    If we are furthest away from the sun AND polar precession has the north pole pointing away from the sun, AND solar emission is at a minimum, the Earth will receive the minimum possible irradiance. All these factors have an impact on the other line he was trying to draw your attention to and making you aware that the 1 AU irradiance line is really irrelevant.

  184. Sideliner (17:58:18) :
    I follow you if that was an immediate linear effect on temperature of any TSI change. But is this what we are discussing?

    A change in TSI does produce a change in temperature. The formula is simple dT/T = 1/4 dTSI/TSI, so a 0.05% change in TSI produces a 1/4 * 0.05% = 0.0125% change in temperature T, or 0.036 degrees K. A 7% change in TSI produces a change of 7/4% of T = 5 degrees K, which might be of the right order [although it seems a bit high still] of the change due to the changing distance to the Sun. Now, people tell me that the 0.036K should be much larger because of feedback, and I ask why the 5K would also not be a lot larger because of feedback. I get a story about time scale, about ‘its already in the climate system’, etc. But that is, to me, not an explanation. I want to know which feedback mechanisms, how much they amplify as a function of time scale, basic stuff that will allow a straightforward engineering-type assessment of what is going on.

  185. George Gillan (18:19:49) :
    Is summer warmer than winter because:
    a) Just the direct result of more solar radiation in the hemisphere.

    Yes, just like it is warmer during the day than at night.

    There are, of course, some second order effects [e.g. varying distance, different land/sea distribution, oceans currents, winds, etc], but to first order, I think it is as simple as that. If you think otherwise you will have to convince me.

  186. Dear Anthony Watts… I’d like to bring your attention to the outbreak of Swine Influenza in Mexico and United States. It’s worth a special thread because WHO is selling the idea on an “atypical” epidemic which could turns out into a pandemic. I’m living in Mexico and I could answer some doubts about this epidemic.

  187. PS. Ooops, forgot to mention this snow is 6 weeks ahead of the official start to the ski season in the region.

  188. - – –
    Ninderthana (19:44:50)
    “These important linking factors negate the need to have a multiplicative factor to amplify the small changes in solar insolation.”

    We need more of this kind of thinking.

    – – –
    Re: anna v

    Thanks for pointing out the following paper:

    Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov (2007). A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L13705.

    http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf

    The methodology is not as new as they claim, but it is good to see this application.

    – – –
    MA (04:04:36)
    “And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?”

    Don’t forget about limits.

    The problem is that sometimes too much faith is placed in ‘decompositions’, ‘corrections’, & ‘adjustments’, which can make it harder to extract finer roots. There’s a lot of mileage & important activity in fine roots. Trees depend on more than fat-root structure.

    – – –
    Joel Shore (07:08:11)
    “It is strange that the very same people who are so skeptical of positive feedbacks that act on all forcings equally are so willing to believe in positive feedbacks that act selectively on the forcing that they want to believe is most important.”

    Let’s not forget about limits.

    “[Actually, whether or not there is a detectable temperature effect due to the 11-year solar cycle comes down mainly to the issue of damping. I.e., the changes in forcing from min to max of the solar cycle is enough to cause a detectable change in temperature with our current estimates of climate sensitivity if it happens slowly enough…but it is not clear whether these changes are detectable once the damping effects associated with the frequency of these variations in factored in…and particularly when trying to separate this from other climate variability factors.]”

    This assessment seems based on cherry-picked investigative methodology.

    – – –
    Glass shatters …
    Bridges collapse …

    Micky C (MC) (06:36:54)

    ==
    “[…] suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency […]
    The onset occurs very quickly […]
    The key is that the white noise can […]”

    “[…] start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.”

    “Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa.”
    ==

    Very refreshing to see awareness of ^this magnitude.

    – – –
    Re: Steve (07:48:06)

    hilarious.
    & interesting article – thanks

    Re: Alan the Brit (09:01:06)
    good commentary on this

    – – –
    Maurice Garoutte (08:32:27)
    “If indeed fewer sunspots, cause more clouds […]”

    If it was such a straight, linear relationship …

    – – –
    Leif Svalgaard (15:31:24)
    “The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt […]”

    This would be an interesting (but not easy) generalization to challenge ….

    – – –
    Bill Hunter (14:49:47)
    “Maybe if the southern hemisphere were the mirror image to the northern hemisphere maybe we could compare the temperature of Moscow North to Moscow South and know what you are talking about.”

    ^This was a clever comment.

    – – –
    – Robinson (03:07:34) —
    “So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping” effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate? I’m assuming there must be one; perhaps a few years, perhaps a decade or so.”

    – ralph ellis (04:36:24) —
    “Prof Landscheidt says 7 or 8 years.”

    There are sensible arguments suggesting multiple (i.e. a range of) timescales (reaching up into the thousands (of years)) …with plenty of non-stationarity.

    – – –
    Bill Hunter (17:18:35)
    “Seems to me the red curve annual cycle is already integrated into the climate system and may well explain some of the regular water cycles we see in the oceans. . . .some of which take years to play out and exhibit all sorts of frequencies or harmonics.”

    Interesting – & tricky to investigate, particularly in the sociological context of (partially-misguided) undying, widespread beliefs about decompositions (particularly diurnal & seasonal ones), which can have a blinding effect, as mentioned above.

    – – –
    Carsten Arnholm, Norway (04:06:26)
    “We know that the sun’s magnetic field varies much more than TSI. If Svensmark is right about magnetic fields, GCR and cloud coverage …. ?”

    This is another one of these “elephant in the room” scenarios. Based on the various comments I see regularly posted about GCR/cloud theories, I have to wonder if some of the people [not Carsten] posting are aware of a more dominant factor: dewpoint.

    ….and to be clear: I’m not suggesting GCRs have no effect on cloud formation ….but my impression is that some will benefit from thinking about where/how GCRs fit into pictures like the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dewpoint-RH.svg

    – – –
    kevin roche (15:47:53)
    “Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations […]”

    Solar scientists refer to them as ‘active longitudes’. The sun’s average rotation period (as viewed from Earth) at the solar equator is ~27 days. (I like Leif’s lighthouse analogy.)

    There is plenty of literature on the subject – very interesting – lots of controversy in recent years since a few solar scientists [who Leif suggests occupy a parallel universe] have taken the stand that some very important (& very basic) things have been ‘overlooked’ for many decades.

    The most vocal opponents at least concede that there is merit in investigating active longitudes via twisted-reference-frames since the sun’s convective zone exhibits differential rotation (slower towards the poles).

    As for the dominant ~27 day signal (statistically significant even in the traditional, untwisted frames), no one appears to be disputing that. The first harmonic (~13.5 days) also shows up prominently in some indices.

    Leif (& Wilcox) published an important paper in 1976 that also shows a clear 28.5 day signal in HMF structure, which exhibits intermittency related to the solar cycle. (Note: This is roughly the period of solar-core rotation.)

    A variety of studies point out north-south asymmetries in features such as the exact period & persistence of signals.

    – – –
    Frank K. (05:06:10)
    “I believe the statements “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next.” and “No one fully understands the underlying physics of…” can aptly be applied to other areas of science e.g. numerical climate modeling…”

    …. and economics. Solar physics, climate science, & economics have a lot in common. (Check on the nature & details of disputes in the literature – plenty of discord & paradox.)

    – – –
    Basil (05:59:43)
    “With a moving average, you want data on either side of the current point.”

    There are contexts in which centering moving-averages on points other than window-mid-points is sensible, but any such deviation from convention is best pointed out assertively (along with rationale).

    Beware the pervasive use (some would say misuse) of the term “running” as though it is synonymous with “moving”. There is no stopping this train, so the dictionary has to bend accordingly – and we all have to read carefully to discern (&/or infer from context) what is actually meant each time we encounter the terms.

    – – –
    Adolfo Giurfa (16:03:01)
    “Problem is…they believe in a Goddess, GAIA, and their most exalted preaching leader is HIM, the unnamable , that fatty alien who came from nowhere and who will take all their followers to a still unknown planet free of CO2.

    Comments like ^this, particularly when they appear in bold, do little for the image of WUWT.

    – – –
    Re: Geoff Sherrington (04:36:50)

    A very interesting post – thank you Geoff.

  189. BTW, for those who have asked about the epidemic, viruses are sensible to UV even when they are not cells, because they have nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) and enzymes.

    The outbreak in Mexico has been the product of negligence from the federal Health authorities in Mexico.

    H1N1 is not a “new” virus because it appeared for the first time in Oregon in 1976. The virus shifted (jumped) from swine to humans due to continuous and prolonged contact between humans and pig cattle.

    The virus is sensible to antiviral therapy. The disease doesn’t kill people, but the complications generated by deficient medical attention.

    A vaccine exists, even though the CDC and WHO has decreed it wouldn’t work.

  190. >>Look, the fact is that the W/m^2 change in forcing from
    >>the solar variations is considerably smaller than the forcing
    >>due to changes in CO2 levels. In order to make claims that
    >>changes in the sun are still the dominant factor in the climate
    >>over the last half century,

    Where is the evidence that CO2 forces warming? – all I see is CO2 following warming, the Sun forcing CO2 levels.

    Conversely, while the visible spectrum of the Sun has not varied a great deal, the magnetic flux has.

    There are many routes by which these variations in magnetic flux can effect climate on Earth.

    .

  191. Leif 18:20:55

    I wonder if the feedback to the 5C warming just gets started when it is halted and reversed by the change of the season. In other words, it’s a process which gets abrupted every six months. Clouds certainly could be the intermediary, and since the feedback which would give too much sensitivity keeps getting stopped, we don’t see that signature.
    ============================================

  192. kim (19:11:04) :
    […]since the feedback which would give too much sensitivity keeps getting stopped, we don’t see that signature.

    All this is just hand waving. Feedbacks can be quantized and formalized, so many degrees for so many watts on this and that time scale. If they cannot then it is just worthless mumbo jumbo, or worse: derived by backwards and circular arguments: lemme see, how much ‘feedback’ do I need to account for this or that…

  193. Pat (18:56:12)
    I have my eye peeled for your reports.
    I watched the scene play out last year down under.
    And noted the condition in Alaska as the equinox passed in Sept.
    Now, it’s back to you down under.
    Hopefully, you live in an area that has snowplows.
    I can imagine the chaos when SF Bay area North starts accumulating snow next winter as this thing deepens.

  194. .
    >>Isn’t this shooting yourself in the foot????

    I think you misunderstand the whole argument.

    The influence of the eleven year Sunspot cycle is smoothed out via ocean storage, so the individual peaks are not readily apparent. But you can see them, just.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/scale:0.005/plot/pmod/from:1970/scale:0.5/offset:-682

    It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent: (This graph uses the geomagnetic index as a proxy for sunspot activity.)

    It is these temperature changes that force CO2 changes.

    .

  195. Robert,

    No dramas. Fortunately I live nowhere near the snow when it falls here in New South Wales.

    January is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. We’ve had a cool summer here, humid, but cooler than last year. Cool summer, cool autum, winter will be too.

    One thing I have noticed about the summer just past. We have something called the “Aussie wave” here, and it relates to flying insects, you have to continuously swipe them away from your face, hence the “Aussie wave” as it looks like you are waving to someone all the time. The summer before last was normal, ie, it was hotter than the summer just past. Lots of flies. The summer just gone, there was almost none. Too cold for them? Damn straight!

  196. Leif 19:22:53

    You want the jigsaw puzzle nearly complete before you will see it. I’m just trying to do the edges first. Might not my suggested mechanism damp the otherwise too great sensitivity? I mention this at 05:40:56, too,
    ===============================================

  197. kim at 20:03:38 and
    Leif at 19:22:53

    I think George Gillan at 18:19:49 is sniffing around this idea, too.
    ========================================

  198. Pat (19:44:01)
    No dramas, just the signposts up ahead for what is coming, and the signposts behind us for where we have been.
    W/m2 is not doing it for me.
    I am very interested in what is going on regards our Sun, and the changes we see all around us.

  199. Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :

    In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

    Because feedbacks can be both positive and negative and not necessarily linear. Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil. Your a scientist so I don’t need to explain why the rise in temperature of the water would be constant but not linear and would eventually reach equilibrium with both positive and negative feedbacks canceling each other out.

    If you increase the heat source then the water temperature would rise again until at sea level it reaches 100C. Then after that it will begin boil but the actual temperature of the water will fall slightly at the onset of boiling. This is why we put lids on our cooking pots. That is simplified example of a positive input leading to a negative result in the short term.

    It is the same for our climate. It doesn’t matter whether any heat source varies provided the variable is constant over many years. It’s only that mankind has the attention span of a goldfish that we would think any global decadal temperature trend of +/- 0.15 is in any way significant. Any slight change in solar output would have to be constant over many years before any feedbacks would react and they would be probably cumulative in both directions until a new equilibrium was reached in a time span of perhaps hundreds of years…depending on intensity of the deviation.

  200. MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :

    Speculation is free. Suppose your pot is just bellow the boiling point, and a 0.1% change in heat brings it over. Large effect from small input.

    In the earth scenario? The 6 month large heating is just at the edge to start a PDO change when the .01% yearly drop in sun heating pushes it over.

    As I said, speculation. One needs to put down the equations, all equations entering the game, and calculate. As this cannot be done with the GCM models since they are full of linear approximations for all nonlinear quantities, an analogue like the one Tsonis et all use in their ocean model, but enriched by all the equations that influence the climate of earth, has to be created and used.

  201. MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
    Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil.

    That is not a feedback situation but a directly driven process. I have a feeling that ‘feedback’ is not being used in this discussion in its correct meaning, but rather as a shorthand for whatever mysterious process we need to have operating to have things come out the way we want it to.

    kim (20:03:38) :
    Might not my suggested mechanism damp the otherwise too great sensitivity?

    You know that I’m not into ‘might not’, ‘could not’, ‘isn’t it possible’ things. If you have a process, spell out how it works, quantify it, make it real. Otherwise you don’t have anything.

  202. ralph ellis (19:34:41) :
    But you can see them, just.
    No, I cannot. Perhaps a Yogi Berra quote is needed here: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it…”

    It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent

    In the above plot of real data there is no such apparent correlation.

  203. I ask again
    Why is there no correlatuin in the TSI and temperature but there is between CO2 and temperature as shown in the following plots.

    CO2 x axis is just the sorted PPM figures without regard to dates
    SSN/TSI x axis is again just sorted without regard to dates
    data date range is mar 1958 to jul 2009

    And this lack of correlation between TSI and Temperature is shown in the FFT of the TSI and temperatures:

    Am I wrong assuming that TSI would show up SOME temperature effect in these two plots if it was an important climate forcing?

  204. ralph ellis (19:34:41) :
    It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent

    Take a look at real data. First geomagnetic activity:

    then temperatures:

    Geomagnetic activity in the 1840-1860s was comparable to the 1940-1950s and even now. The temperature in the 1850s was significantly lower than now, so no long-term trend there.

    So, both in the last 40 years and in the last 170 years there has been no correlation between temperatures and geomagnetic activity.

  205. bill (21:13:23) :
    Am I wrong assuming that TSI would show up SOME temperature effect in these two plots if it was an important climate forcing?

    You plot against SSN, not TSI, but if we make the good assumption that all solar indices are so correlated with each other that it doesn’t matter which one we use, you are not wrong. I fact, you are correct. There must be a some small TSI response, but it is buried in the noise.

  206. Okay. Can we declare TSI to be roadkill and get back to What’s Up With the Sun already?
    We’re not happening here.
    Things external to the Earth are.
    How about them?

  207. Joel Shore

    The past records that I have seen in the form of a saw tooth with CO2 following Temperature don’t indicate positive feedbacknor any runaway temperature as temperature always led CO2 back down again. I’m no climatologist but surely that shows very little or no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature but the reverse?

    Surely you must agree that the CO2 only driving temperature model iss fatally weak and that there are some very strong arguments now that support this. Do you not feel now that it may be the wrong group being called deniers?

    The general public also doesn’t believe what it now sees as political propaganda.

    In the 1990s I was convinced of the AGW argument because of a string of hot summers in the UK but I did also notice that in the tropical regions where I was working at the time it was temperatures as normal. Now I’m a sceptic, mainly because of the good science supporting the sceptical viewpoint but also because of the fraud and deceit from the politicians and political scientists.

  208. “Robert Bateman (20:32:13) :

    Pat (19:44:01)
    No dramas, just the signposts up ahead for what is coming, and the signposts behind us for where we have been.
    W/m2 is not doing it for me.
    I am very interested in what is going on regards our Sun, and the changes we see all around us.”

    15-30cm snow falls in the alpine regions of Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. Today, temperature lows were 14c below average for this time of year. Winter, still a couple of months away, is going to be an interesting one this year me thinks.

  209. Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count
    Recent attempts to question accuracy of the Maunder minimum sunspot count, are utter nonsense. This period was characterised by works of four giants of astronomy Isaac Newton, John Flamsteed, Robert Hooke and Edmond Halley. It was not a cosy club of grandees, there was great deal of rivalry and mutual criticism at the Royal Society, so it is unlikely that a ‘sloppy records’ could get through.
    Ergo: the Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count has to be considered as ACCURATE.

  210. This might not be the best place to philosophise, so pls snip if I stray.

    Climate change is expected, rather than no change with time. The degree is in question. People are probably most interested in self-interest. What does it translate to for me and my family?

    Climate change produces various levels of effect. These below are open to argument.

    The primary effects are sunlight intensity, cloudiness, wind patterns and more.

    The secondary effects are temperature, rainfall, albedo and so on.

    The tertiary effects are plant growth, sea level change, storm frequency etc.

    The quaternary effects are food shortage/surplus, insect spread, maybe disease spread, species relocations.

    At stage 5 we are looking at effects of the above on personal and corporate incomes, commodity prices and so on. Emergence of new technologies, venture capital changes.

    In stage six we have stock markets, the start of effects on national and global economies and a transition from physics to economics. Design of motor vehicles, economies of manufacture, etc.

    In stage 7 we find stockbrokers jumping out of windows, suicide rates changing, surveys of the optimism of people for future prospects, changes to school curricula.

    About stage 8 we have the flow on to crime rates, rates of imprisonment, executions. Alcohol consumption per capita changes. (Other drugs are a bit more complicated).

    Stage 9 comes to bickering and warfare.

    Stage 10 is nukem time.

    The above is simplified and not all will agree with it. The exercise to follow is not to argue differences and nuances, but simply to accept that there is a consequential set of stages.

    The further down this dependency scale one goes, the closer one comes to effects that people fear.

    So far in the Great Global Warming debate, the methods and correlations have been temperature-centric. People are not afraid of slow global temperature change. They enjoy a sharp change often when they go on vacation and the change from winter to summer is far bigger than the AGW magnitude.

    I propose that the correlations be done again without assuming any effect to be the reference effect. That is, toss as many variables as feasible into a big correlation matrix that goes back as far as the data allow for each variable, then see which factors correlate. Then look to causation. Then look to remediation if needed.

    It should emerge that it is wrong to be temperature-centric. (What a relief that would be, such freedom from known errors!). If there is a more appropriate platform, then it might benefit all to adopt it.

    It is not an easy exercise and the correct statistical treatment would need a great deal of care, so it has to have a hypothetical benefit to be worth the effort.

    The hypothesis is that a better understanding of the change of the human condition could be achieved. In the best ultimate outcome, one or more contributions to warfare might be identified, leading to reduction possibilities.

    A more modest outcome could be a demonstration that some of the remedial actions for tipping points can be thrown out of the equations.

    An outcome related to this thread would be a strong correlation between one form of solar output and the well-being of people. That’s really the bottom line. People are concerned for themselves and (limited) future generations. If they know that it’s just the natural cycles of the sun, then all would relax except a few diehards whose grants had not expired.

  211. Leif Svalgaard (18:20:55) :

    …A 7% change in TSI produces a change of 7/4% of T = 5 degrees K, which might be of the right order [although it seems a bit high still] of the change due to the changing distance to the Sun.

    Leif

    I’m not sure my thinking is right here, but it seems to me that any heating/cooling due to the earth’s elliptical orbit would be most evident at the equator, i.e. with a circular orbit the equator would receive roughly the same solar energy in January as it would in July.

    I’ve just checked a few ‘GISS’ stations at random which are located near the equator and it looks (at first glance) that temperatures throughout the year are surprsingly (to me ) constant. I haven’t done any stats so the ‘no change’ hypothesis might well be falsified. There are also problems with equatorial stations in that they are pretty sparse and there may be issues with reliability, but the AMSU raw temperatures also show the troposphere to be cooler in January than July.

    I can see the different Land/Ocean ratios in the NH/SH would be a factor and thermal inertia will dampen the amplitude compared to the solar orbital cycle. But…

    I guess what I’m asking is: Is there a global change in temp due to the elliptical orbit?

  212. .
    >>Take a look at this plot comparing temperature vs
    >>SSN and Temperature vs CO2. Which do you think
    >>has the most significant effect on temperature?:

    And here is a comparison between milk production and Hispanic population growth in the US.

    Clearly, unless the US controls its milk production, it will never get immigration from Mexico under control. The correlation is clear and irrefutable.

    .

  213. The failure of the next solar cycle to ramp up was , no doubt, Hansens tipping point remark from late 08. In other words. (hey fellow scammers, start back tracking, bring in some uhi from China for a start) Even Nasa’s funding orgy is not going to beat nature.
    regards from a cold wet Southern Oz.

  214. .

    N.B. With reference to graph correlations I posted above, the CO2 data cannot explain the Medieval Warming nor the Maunder and Dalton cooling eras – whereas the Sunspot (magnetic flux) data explains both perfectly.

    In addition, the Sunspot data has predicted the recent cooling, whereas the CO2 graphs and supporters all predicted continued warming. We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is significant in climate terms. The CO2 theory cannot explain this (and will not even admit to it!), whereas the Sun explains everything.

    And as I said before, if scientists believe that the lack of Sunspot activity caused the Dalton and Maunder ‘Ice Age’ minimums, as most seem to do – then it is explicit that sunspot activity does effect climate here on Earth. It is obvious, therefore, that the recent fall in Sun activity WILL effect our climate likewise, and the only argument should be “to what degree”.

    I think a logical answer to that question would be “to the same degree as the Maunder and Dalton minimums. If we get a similar fall in Sun activity, we will get a similar fall in temperature (minus a smidgen to keep the CO2 enthusiasts happy, of course).

    But it is clear from this that the PRIMARY driver of climate on Earth is the Sun. It is, after all, the only thing that caused weather and climate on Earth – as I said before, without it global temperatures would be hovering around 3 Kelvin.

    Ralph

  215. .

    Quote from Independent:
    Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect.
    End quote

    I could have written this myself, or perhaps I did. Congress should recite this verse (from the Gospel of Solar Forcing), before evert sitting.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html

    The article goes on:
    But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.
    End quote

    There is a clear trend here, not only of Global Cooling, but Global Cold Feet too.

    .

  216. Interesting quote from the Independent [from Ralph’s link above]:

    If the Earth cools under a quiet Sun, then it may be an indication that the increase in the Sun’s activity since the Little Ice Age has been the dominant factor in global temperature rises. That would also mean that we have overestimated the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to an increase of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial three parts per 10,000 by volume to today’s four parts per 10,000.

    Finally, some needed perspective. “Climate sensitivity” is the wild card. Lots of folks speculate on its number, and they have computer models to prove they’re right. Guesses range from under 1 to over 6. But it’s speculation. Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.

    And if the CO2 = AGW argument goes down in flames [which it will if sensitivity is a low number], then the entire human-caused global warming argument goes down with it.

  217. Leif Svalgaard (22:04:07) :
    you’re correct! I’ll dig out the TSI data and redo the plot.

    Paul Vaughan (18:58:24) :
    Micky C (MC) (06:36:54)
    “[…] suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency […]
    The onset occurs very quickly […]
    The key is that the white noise can […]”
    “[…] start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.”
    “Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa.”

    An interesting theory – If I understand correctly you are suggesting that the 11 year solar cycle is providing synchrous stimulous to an underdamped system with a resonance at an exact multiple of the 11 years. certainly not an infeasible situation. So in this case one would be looking at harmonics of 11years – 22, 44,55,66 etc.
    Looking at the plot of FFTs

    There is no evidence for 22, 33, 44 or 55years althoug above 30 years the FFT becomes limited by insufficient samples. The 31 year peak (which I think should be nearer 32) may be the only evidence that there is a stimulatred harmonic.

    It should be remembered that the harmonic needs a stimulous at the exact same time in its resonance for build up to occur (a stimulous fractionally out will damp the oscillation). It should also be remembered that TSI is not an exact 11 years but varies between 9 and 14(?) so resonance will not readily build.

    There are problems with the resonance
    1. There are lager influences that will stimulate the resonance that are not synchronous with solar effects – Eruptions and seasons

    2. I cannot see how a high frequence can stimulate a low frequency resonance. At one point in the resonance cycle it is pulling temperature to stimulate resonance and then half a cycle later it is pulling and negating the stimulous – try simulating a LC circuit in a Spice simulator – LOW freq (resonant freq/n) will stimulate resonance especially if a pulse is used But Hi freq (resonance*n) will not stimulate the resonant circuit

    3. white noise (which TSI is not) will be modified by the resonant circuit and depending on its damping factor will basically filter the resonant frequency. It will not increase its amplitude, but where does the rest of the filtered energy go???

    4. TSI modulates the suns output. A resonant “thing” cannot increase the average power it can only redistribute it.

  218. Smokey (03:43:23) :
    …Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.

    So I come back to the problem SSN== TSI does not appear in temperature outputs either FFT or Temp vs SSN. BUT temp vs CO2 shows a correlation. Why?

  219. ralph ellis (02:56:17) :
    N.B. With reference to graph correlations I posted above, the CO2 data cannot explain the Medieval Warming nor the Maunder and Dalton cooling eras – whereas the Sunspot (magnetic flux) data explains both perfectly.

    In addition, the Sunspot data has predicted the recent cooling, whereas the CO2 graphs and supporters all predicted continued warming. We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is significant in climate terms. The CO2 theory cannot explain this (and will not even admit to it!), whereas the Sun explains everything.

    I will ask then what is the sun doing that is not included in the TSI that has been causing a “Steady” wam since 1900s and has now changed to a cooling.

    Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?

  220. It is not only arctic ice that has cracks. How about this:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html

    Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.

    Do we want scientific truth as far as we know it, or do we want good PR. Nothing like the PR of a cooling sun to offset a warming arctic :).

    Micky C (MC) (06:36:54) :
    I am impressed by this effect you describe.

    The basic point though is that a small change in input power causes a large change in behaviour because the ions in the plasma start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.

    Maybe it could be used to see how small tides on the sun ( less than 2mm) could influence the plasma or even the sunspot rate and provide the missing link to what look like spurious correlations.

    We have to wait and see if there really is a grand minimum in the cards.

  221. >>We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is
    >>significant in climate terms

    And you have to factor into these global temperature graphs another significant (and often ignored) forcing factor. This is known as the AGW bias, in which every snippet of data is rounded up instead of down.

    I would estimate that half of the ‘hockey stick’ that we have been presented is the result of “AGW bias”.

    .

  222. I know its only a proxy but surely French pinot Noir Grape harvest dates would have been affected by a global little ice age (1315 to 1850) and maunder min. (1645 to 1715).

    But grape harvest dates show little sign of cold period
    1340 to 1480 and 1630 to 1690 seem about as warm as 1990s
    a cold spike at 1450
    a warm spike at 1522
    only 1740 to 1890 show harvests delayed by more than 5 days

    Perhaps they were skating on rivers in UK and Netherlands but in pinot noir country weather was not a lot different. Certainly ther were not total crop failures.
    The graph below compares central england temps and grape harvest anomalies.

  223. The problem with these kind of threads is that I spend so much time downloading interesting papers I haven’t seen! And i have no time left to use them! Big thank you, as ever.

    My thoughts:

    First and foremost all references to anthropogenic CO2 and its radiative forcing effect – remember, the latter – at about 2 watts/square metre in the atmosphere is a computed effect and already includes a water vapour feedback effect (for which there is no direct evidence) of 300% (see Lindzen’s work and Monckton’s article in the newsletter of the American Physical Society);

    Second: there is a voluminous oceanographic literature on detected solar cycles in both ocean surface temperature and depth average temperature, global and regional, including the variation over 11 years picked up by Camp and Tung at Seattle – these authors also found a spatial component of polar amplification; there is an even larger literature on paleoclimate proxies analysed for cycles – showing 11, 22 and longer harmonics;

    Third: the TSI (I am not clear if it includes UV – but if it does, the UV is probably accounting for the reduced variance as it normally varies by 8% over the 11 year cycle, compared to 0.1% for the visible spectrum – and UV is a chief suspect in climate impact via atmospheric heating effects in the polar regions that affect the location of the jetstream;

    Fourth: ocean temperatures in the tropics stay pretty constant, but show periodic pulses – ENSO, meaning the warm waters go north and south – when they go south they eventually get entrained in the circumpolar current, spun round the planet in a zone of permanent heat loss – with some build up off the Antarctic Peninsula, and do not contribute greatly to the warming signal – which is mostly in the northern hemisphere and contained in two major ocean gyres in the North Pacific and North Atlantic – westerly winds then warm Alaska and western Europe, and the warm pools also feedback to the jetstream and shift the standing wave (which can bring torrential rain to Britain, as in 2007, 2008) – check out the work of Charles Perry at the US geological survey;

    the north Pacific pool loses heat to the storm tracks that dump it in Alaska – but there is a cycle of 30 years build up and loss – that cycle ended in the autumn of 2006 and Alaska began to cool – the differential temperature between Alaska and the Beaufort Sea determines the strength of the wind-driven gyre and the whole dynamic of the Arctic basin – which has a long cycle of 70-80 years – with the latest peak melting the summer ice, but now reversing – there is no further feed-in of warm water, so I expect the cooling to continue –

    Despite the correlation to TSI (and UV) – I suspect there is an amplifier in the form of cloud – not as feedback from the warming ocean, but in the spatial distribution of cloud banks in relation to the warm pools of water – and there is the reality of long er term changes in percentage cloud – the Intl Satellite Cloud Climatology Project has up-to-date data and can be broken down to low-level reflective cloud – which has reduced by 4% over the post-1980 global warming period – quite enough to creat ‘global warming’ – indeed it dwarfs the computed carbon effect – as shown by Palle’s graphs on albedo.

    The AGW camp believe that the reduced cloud is a feedback of warming oceans and the warming oceans are caused carbon dioxide – but NASA’s experts are less convinced and rightly point out that the clouds could be primary and causing the warming

    and for Micky C

    the plasma electrics are under-researched – my intuition tells me they have a role – and Brian Tinsley at the University of Dallas has several papers suggesting this – voltages and voltage changes (shocks) can clear the air of aerosol, and several papers show that the ‘global dimming’ of the 1945-1980 period when global temperatures were low, was not caused by anthropogenic sulphur – but by a combination of cloud and natural aerosol effects, and likewise the ‘brightening’ observed thereafter – now accepted even by the IPCC, but the modellers who replicated this effect don’t draw attention to it!

    ocean heat storage data shows no increase since about 2002, just after the ISCCP and albedo data of Palle showed increased global cloud cover and reflectance – this will have contributed most to the current lowering of global temperatures – and has timelags also to land temperatures – but occurred during a solar maximum – so these ocean cycles, land cycles, solar cycles – they do not line up easily and require a more sophisticated analysis using time lags and harmonics – each ocean basin has a different cycle – for example, the current low in the PDO will also depress the amplitude of the ENSO.

    These cycles are COMPLEX and global warming and cooling is clearly MULTIFACTORAL!

    I have had a stab at explaining this complexity in a book due out in June – ‘Chill – a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory’. I estimate from all the data I have seen that the CO2 effect contributes between 15-20% to the unusual warming signal of the late 20th century – thus halving CO2 emissions by 2050 (a tall order for the global economy) will deal with 7-10% of the driving force and hence have no effect on what the climate does in this century.

  224. bill (04:07:47) :
    2. I cannot see how a high frequency can stimulate a low frequency resonance.

    High frequencies frequently excite a lower frequency resonance.
    Here is an example from a personal experience: on opening of Millennium (wobbly) bridge in London, most people, including myself were walking at 2-3 paces a second, bridge started to oscillate at its natural resonance oscillations at less then ones per second, which with feedback forced people to walk at same rate.
    If even small amount of feedback is involved then resonant synchronisation could be an important factor.
    See:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ and follow link solar current.

  225. vukcevic (00:50:58) : Ergo: the Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count has to be considered as ACCURATE.
    Cycle 24 and cycle 25 SSN curve will look almost the same in the next few years!!. (Hope it will be considered accurate by then :) )

  226. Professor Ian Plimer on SBS, here in Australia tonight, author of a book “Heaven and Earth”, speaks out at the concensus on climate change. Yay!!! The word *IS* spreading it appears.

    This guy is awesome!!!! Refering to the 4 sets of data sources which shows a cooling trend from 1998.

  227. “So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?”

    Is it possible the earths magnetic field, energised by higher solar activity may be bottling up long wave radiation?

  228. >>Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar
    >>scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?

    Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).

    Here is the plot of Sunspots vs geomagnetic activity, demonstrating a synchronicity between sunspot activity and geomagnetic activity.

    This is the GW plot, which closely follows the sunspot (and aa-geomagnetic) trends.

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    .

    With reference to the main topic of this thread, the TSI variability plot is not entirely irrelevant – even though TSI does not directly drive global warming** – because TSI variability may well be a good indicator of what the sunspot cycles are doing. I think Anthony has demonstrated an entirely plausible link between TSI variability and the base of the sunspot minima.

    Thus the TSI variability data is very useful in that it points towards the sunspot minima for 23-24 being still in the far future, and thus sunspot cycle 24 will be greatly delayed or diminished. Since sunspot activity and strength directly controls the climate, this TSI variability graph is an important indicator pointing towards a cooling trend.

    ** If the TSI suddenly dropped or rose significantly, it would indeed drive global warming/cooling – but in this case it is not the determinator of climate.

    .

  229. Leif Svalgaard (21:01:17) :

    MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
    Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil.

    That is not a feedback situation but a directly driven process. I have a feeling that ‘feedback’ is not being used in this discussion in its correct meaning, but rather as a shorthand for whatever mysterious process we need to have operating to have things come out the way we want it to.

    The feedbacks in the example I gave are both negative. One is cumulative and the other critical. As the pan heats up an increasing amount of energy is lost at the surfaces. At the point of boiling the temperature of the water falls.

    As for it being a directly driven process, then what is the sun if not the direct driver of our climate? The annual 7% oscillation is not detectable because over the thousands of years it has been going on, all feed backs are fully utilized.

    You would be able to detect the variation of the annual TSI if you removed all our atmosphere along with the water. A back of an envelope calculation tells me it would be about 7%.

  230. Hi Leif,

    Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse have joined the Sun-Temperature Cult.

    Almost as scary as the Mann-made Global Warming Cult, except the S-T guys may actually have some evidence to support their position, at least at the macro (time) scale.

    At the micro scale, I have found it difficult to determine a strong correlation, but maybe I’m looking at this incorrectly. Others (Joe d’Aleo among them) believe they have found a good micro correlation.

    Regards, Allan

    from CCNet

    TIME THE REASSESS THE SUN-CLIMATE LINK

    Benny Peiser

    There is no let up in new research findings and news reports about the extraordinary behaviour of our sun. Both the UK National Astronomy Meeting and the Swedish Research Council are addressing the sun’s prolonged inactivity that is baffling the astrophysical community. Solar researchers are readily admitting that they do not understand the mechanisms and dynamics that drive solar variability. Nor are they able to predict the timing and the climatic effects of the next solar cycles.

    Most climate researchers, in contrast, seem happy to ignore the whole quandary as the sun’s shifting activity and its terrestrial impact do not play any significant role in what is called the ‘climate consensus.’

    Solar scientists have been monitoring the sun’s activity for many years in an attempt to establish whether or not its variability is correlated with terrestrial temperature changes. Interestingly, the sun was more active during much of the 20th century than it was for the last 1000 years. Yet, as long as the terrestrial warming trend persisted, this discovery was routinely rejected as wholly insignificant.

    Now, however, the sun’s cyclical behaviour has gone into reverse. And, coinciding with its exceptional inactivity, temperatures around the world have actually begun to stall, if not to drop slightly. The arrest of the warming trend of the late 20th century at a time that solar activity is exceptionally low again raises the key question of climate science: has our star perhaps a much more dominant effect on climate change than is generally assumed?

    As David Whitehouse makes clear in The Independent today, this question can no longer be dismissed that easily. Neither can it be resolved, on way or another, in the short term. Only time and a determined effort to study and understand the sun’s behaviour will provide answers. There is no doubt, however, that a growing number of scientists are concerned that the next two or three solar cycles may coincide with low solar activity comparable to previous solar minima.

    Given the unexpected arrest of the global warming trend and the extraordinary behaviour of our sun, it is prudent to reassess the solar-climate link with extra rigour. The current climate lull provides the scientific community and the world’s decision makers with a respite. They would be well advised to spend more time and money on the study of our variable star whose intrinsic dynamics and climatic effects remain a mystery to this day.

    Benny Peiser

  231. bill (04:07:47) :

    Do your fft on monthly HadCRUT3 data since 1850 and tell us what you find.

    CET is nice because it is a longer record, but it is hardly indicative of global climate. It is just regional, and oceanic and atmospheric systems can make regional climate, especially for an island like GB, look very different than global climate.

  232. Global cooling, not warming. Oceans/water around ice caps are circulating which may explain effects from warmer water mixing in, however this is short term. More stats/proof for cooling then warming. Warming is stupid and just a hype up to create slush funds for the criminals in DC to steal from Americans to create a socialist state.

  233. Basil (07:01:02) :
    Do your fft on monthly HadCRUT3 data since 1850 and tell us what you find.

    It’s done but not with me – will post later
    This is some of the locations noted in the average FFT that I have posted before.

    A couiple show 11 year cycles but mostly in the noise.

    ralph ellis (06:18:50) :
    Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).
    Here is the plot of Sunspots vs geomagnetic activity, demonstrating a synchronicity between sunspot activity and geomagnetic activity.

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aasspot.gif

    But these are sychronouse with SSN so should show up on an FFT at the 11, 22, 33,44, 55 year positions. There is no peak at these periods so magnetism must be playing a minor role.

    Any info on solar wind over time?

  234. Basil
    I would give Bill credit for his Spectral analysis of the East England data. In his figure:

    he shows the presence of a strong 57 year cycle correlated to the sunspot activity and the east England temperature. This may not be the ~10 year cycle in this thread, but a fairly strong longer wave. If one were to filter out the frequencies above 0.02 cycles/yr (50 yr periods), two strong ~57 wave show up ( 1650-1750’s, and in the current time period).
    This is shown in the below figure:

    The spectral plot should be labeled in cycles/yr, not Hz.

  235. ralph ellis (06:18:50) :
    Here is a much better plot of the aa geomagnetic index, demonstrating that the geomagnetic activity has increased significantly over the century (and is likely to be diminishing now).

    The aa-index is wrongly calibrated. There are two errors:
    1) a jump up in 1957
    2) a change of observers in ~1937

    http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf

    Those errors especially influence the count of days above a threshold.

    The important result is that geomagnetic activity in 1845-1875 is comparable to the past 30 years, while temperatures are not.

  236. Allan M R MacRae (06:29:30) :
    Interestingly, the sun was more active during much of the 20th century than it was for the last 1000 years. Yet, as long as the terrestrial warming trend persisted, this discovery was routinely rejected as wholly insignificant.

    It is not only insignificant, it is also wrong. Solar activity in the 20th century was no higher than in the 19th and 18th centuries, while temperatures were:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf

  237. Leif 21:01:17

    The path to understanding is diffuse. Some deduce, some dream up. It is not wrong to contemplate how climate hypersensitivity might be ameliorated. It’s the big objection to TSI being the climate driver. You yourself denigrate other solar manifestations as simply not having enough energy within them.
    ==========================================

  238. It is worth noting from the SORCE data sheet that sigma with their UV sensor ranges from 12-24%. This is no doubt do to the sudden 100% swings in UV intensity associated with solar flares–absent for the past year and a half versus the 22 minimum during which flaring continued.

    As an engineer having experience creating sensors of analog data, we damp signals with large swings. This occurs prior to averaging, i.e., during measurement. Because of this even TSI at 1AU is not precisely determined but this effort will continue to improve.

    Note in addition that the energy transferred by radiation increases with frequency. Radiation intensity does not capture energy transferred.

  239. kim (08:17:20) :
    It is not wrong to contemplate how climate hypersensitivity might be ameliorated.

    It is certainly not wrong. But to evaluate this the contemplation has to move a bit forward to become a hypothesis or a theory that specifies and quantifies a mechanism. I’m all for this and am eagerly awaiting such quantification.

  240. “Solar activity in the 20th century was no higher than in the 19th and 18th centuries”

    Leif may be correct but his work supposedly proving this is not generally accepted.

  241. kim (08:17:20) :
    The path to understanding is diffuse. Some deduce, some dream up. It is not wrong to contemplate how climate hypersensitivity might be ameliorated. It’s the big objection to TSI being the climate driver. You yourself denigrate other solar manifestations as simply not having enough energy within them.

    What are these mysterious manefstations of which you speak TSI, Magnetism, solar wind and ……….

  242. .

    >> But these are sychronouse with SSN so should show up
    >>on an FFT at the 11, 22, 33,44, 55 year positions. There
    >>is no peak (temperature) at these periods so magnetism
    >>must be playing a minor role.

    As I said before, the oceans act as a temperature capacitor and smooth out any small fluctuations in solar energy forcing (through the agencies of magnetic flux, solar wind or cosmic ray cloud formation). The minimum movement time for temperature changes appears to be about 8 years.

    Thus small fluctuations, like an individual 11-year sunspot cycle, will not really show up in the temperature record, and only the larger Gleissberg cycles (88 and 166-year cycles) really have an effect.

    .

  243. vukcevic (00:50:58)

    An abrupt falloff of white-light faculae occured starting July, 2008 and continues to Dec 31, 2008. What it is doing right now I can’t tell you until the next data quarter comes in.
    The Maunder also demonstrated (by meticulous observers of the time) a distinct and abrupt falloff, though it was in Sunspots.
    There being more white-light faculae than sunspots during deep minimums (the record so far shows me this), this would be the last observable sign of activity on the Sun. If it goes, there’s nothing left but flux, and you can’t see that.

  244. .
    >>The aa-index is wrongly calibrated. There are two errors:
    >>1) a jump up in 1957
    >>2) a change of observers in ~1937
    >> http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for

    This ‘paper’ is the biggest load of cods I have ever seen. It’s central thesis is that, quote:

    “Since aa is too low, it seems possible that many K1 values were misclassified as K0″.

    In other words, the data looks wrong (too low) therefore the measurements are suspect. Thus the author will attempt to adjust the presumed errors (that are too low), to make early aa geomagnetic values the same as modern ones, and thus eliminate any perception of a solar influence on global warming!!!

    One might also speculate that we are currently witnessing a peak in the sunspot cycle, with some 150 pots a day on the surface of the Sun, it is just our measurements that are at fault, which is why we think we are at a sunspot minimum!!

    Clearly, the true answer to this ‘problem’ is that the early 20th century aa geomagnetic data appears to be low SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS LOW. The data is correct!

    The aa data was low because the sunspot activity was low. And because it was low, global temperatures were lower too. Thus the Sun is the major forcer of climate change.
    Q.E.D.

    I have never seen an era in the West for fiddling the data like this one. We are almost getting to the stage where will will emulate the Soviet grain harvest figures (the most fiddled data in the history of mankind).

    .

  245. Where is it saved the energy which comes from the sun, where is that little pink pig we used to save our coins? (hope it is not with flu :))
    Is it the “seven seas”?, if so, how is it going the earth’s current economy?
    Gwrs. say no, they have a rather gaseous pig: CO2, but when you put coins in it they just fell through…
    I think we need an economist to fix our economy or, at least, to tell us what is it ahead.
    In any case what we do not need is a black magician to scare us.

  246. MartinGAtkins (06:19:15) :
    The annual 7% oscillation is not detectable because over the thousands of years it has been going on, all feed backs are fully utilized.
    The same can be said for the solar cycle(s). But more to the point. A feedback is a process or a mechanism. Please list all the feedbacks that are fully utilized for the annual oscillation.

    You would be able to detect the variation of the annual TSI if you removed all our atmosphere along with the water. A back of an envelope calculation tells me it would be about 7%.
    Please share with us the back of the envelope calculation details [can’t be that hard as it fits on the back of an envelope], thanks.

  247. This is a factor I have yet to see anybody address with regards to the effect of the solar minimum. Could this be a contributing factor in why the Earth may cool during low solar activity?

    First, we know that we are seeing that the Atmosphere has shrunk due to the solar minimum:

    “During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm

    The diameter of the earth at the equator is 7,926.41 miles (12,756.32 kilometers).
    But, if you measure the earth through the poles the diameter is a bit shorter – 7,901 miles (12,715.43 km). Thus the earth is a tad wider (25 miles / 41 km) than it is tall, giving it a slight bulge at the equator.

    Taking the average of the diameter at the Equator and the Poles, I get 12736 km (rounded) km.

    If we look at Earth’s atmosphere at a plane perpendicular to the solar rays from the sun, we see there is an amount of light that strikes the surface, but there is a portion of that solar radiation that passes through the atmosphere around the edges of the perimeter of the earth. Lets define the amount of sunlight as that just passes through the atmosphere, without directly striking the earth, as the Earth’s “atmospheric halo”.

    Earth Atmos Diam Radius area sunlight
    sq km
    Surface Diameter 12736 0 12736 6368 127400409
    Atm Diam current 12736 1600 14336 7168 161421250
    Atm Diam “typical” 12736 1920 14656 7328 168707983

    Halo Current 34020841
    Halo Typical 41307574.3

    Difference 7286733.31

    Plugging the numbers above (by averaging day and night altitudes), we see that in a “typical” atmospheric height, we have 41,307,574 sq km of sunlight that passes through that halo. During the current solar minimum, we have 34,020,841 sq km of sunlight passing through that halo, or a reduction of 7,286,733 sq km of sunlight that no longer passes through Earth’s atmospheric halo. While these values represent current compared to “typical” heights of atmosphere, we do know that during periods of extremely high solar activity, the upper layers of the atmosphere may extend even further above the surface, and increase the amount of “atmospheric halo” that could potentially trap even more solar radiation.

    While much of that solar radiation may escape back out of the atmosphere without striking Earth, how much of it would be absorbed, and how much of an effect would that have on global average temps?

    What is also interesting to note, is that as the Earth rotates, the portion of the atmosphere in the halo at the equator would move quickly, but the halo at the poles, particularly during the equinoxes, would remain fairly constant.

    My question is for the scientists out there, has there ever been any significant research done in calculating how much more solar radiation is trapped in the fringes of this “atmospheric halo” during periods of high solar activity versus low solar activity?

  248. ralph ellis (09:52:11) :
    Clearly, the true answer to this ‘problem’ is that the early 20th century aa geomagnetic data appears to be low SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS LOW. The data is correct!

    It would be nice if it were so, but, unfortunately it isn’t. That aa is wrong in the past is now generally accepted. The detailed argument and some references can be found in section 5.3 of this paper:

    http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf

    The first note I referred you to is a first attempt to uncover why aa was too low before 1937.

  249. .
    >>It is not only insignificant, it is also wrong. Solar activity in the 20th
    >>century was no higher than in the 19th and 18th centuries, while
    >>temperatures were:
    >> http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf

    Another load of cods from Leif, I feel.

    Here he notes a difference between the Greenwich sunspot numbers (prior to 20th century) and those from Zurich – and notes reasons why the Zurich team might have made such errors. But to make amends, he add a fiddle factor not simply to the Zurich data, but to both sets of data !! Thus, at a stroke, he has managed to equalise the early data and the later 20th century data – thus eliminating any increase in solar activity.

    Like his geomagnetic data, there seems to a desire here to deny that solar activity has increased over the last 3 centuries.

    In actual fact, the variability of sunspot observation techniques is well known and already allowed for in the graphs that NASA (and others) provide. This is the ‘k’ factor, which is applied to each data set.

    In addition, groups of sunspots are the biggest factor in calculating sunspot numbers, not individual spots. These are multiplied by an arbitrary figure of 10, to produce ‘individual’ sunspot numbers. Thus the fear of many people, that modern techniques are counting more (smaller) sunspots, is largely negated. A group is classified as 10 spots, no matter how many spotlets and specks are in that group.

    Thus NASA are happy to acknowledge that there HAS been an increase in sunspot numbers in many of the cycles over the last 3 centuries.

    How sunspot numbers are calculated:

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast05apr_1m.htm

    P.S. A word of advise to Leif. Try to explain your self better and use less jargon in your papers. You might think this makes you look intelligent, but it actually makes your papers look like the ramblings of a deranged pseudo-scientist.

  250. Leif,

    How about my shot at this. You mention there being no difference in temperature due to solar variation (well that’s not exactly what you said, but is maybe how I am reading it), when in fact there is. Throughout the year, there is a difference and the order of ~4K between the high global mean and the low global mean. So there is an anual oscillation that coincides with distance from the sun. The oceans (or as I like to call it, the world’s thermal inertia) even out the temperature as best as it can, as a result temperature lags TSI by about six months eyeballing it.

    Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the T variation only accounts for ~ 60% of the TSI variation. How do I explain the other 40%. Pixie dust (It’s as good as CO2 isn’t it.) Well, maybe not really. If I had to guess (and in the face of my overwhelming lack of proof, I do), I would say that the upper few meters or less of the ocean store 60% of the heat from TSI to be released over the course of the year. The other 40% is lost to deep ocean mixing and the increased heat loss that would occur from the larger delta T between the atmoshphere and space and quite possibly some other mechanism that I have not yet thought about.

    I have no way to prove any of the following, but this would be my “pet hypothesis”. During the LIA, there was some sort of random/external negative forcing event (cosmic dust cloud, period of increase volcanic activity, extra measure of climate pixie dust, etc…) that cooled the earth by 1-3K. Over that last couple centuries, depending on when you think it ended, the earth has been playing catchup. Because of the thermal dampening effects of the ocean, that I so ineptly attempted to conceptualize above, I think that the world is only able to warm up a little bit each year in terms of mean surface temperature. There is simply too much inertia in the deep oceans for it to occur any faster.

    That being said, I’ve come to agree with you that the changes in TSI are too small to produce a meaningful change in temperature over the course of a year, or even two or three. I’m open to feedbacks, even ones based on the sun, but temperatures are not rising or falling at an extreme rate year over year, and definitely not at a rate that is going to affect me in my lifetime (and quite possibly my children’s lifetime either.)

    LB

  251. .
    >>It would be nice if it were so, but, unfortunately it isn’t. That aa
    >>is wrong in the past is now generally accepted.

    Generally accepted by Svalgaard, I am sure.

    But this is simply an extension of the fiddling that has been going on lately, just like the recent elimination of the Medieval Warming period.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

    See the video, of how the Medieval Warm Period was eliminated by the UN and other Green sympathisers.

    Do you believe the deletion MWP should be ‘generally accepted’, Leif? ~snip~

  252. L Bowser (11:25:09) :
    Throughout the year, there is a difference and the order of ~4K between the high global mean and the low global mean. So there is an anual oscillation that coincides with distance from the sun.

    This matches my estimate of 5K, so we don’t disagree on that. My point was that people claim that there are ‘feedbacks’ that amplify the 0.04K caused by the solar cycle but leaves the 5K alone. All I want to know is what those ‘feedbacks’ are, how they work, and how their effect varies with the time scale involved [e.g. a graph or equation that elucidates that].

  253. >>That aa is wrong in the past is now generally accepted.
    >>The detailed argument can be found in section 5.3 of this paper:
    >> http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf

    Again the data does fit your theory, so the data needs amending. It was Einstein who said “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts” – but I think you take this too literally.

    I expect you can also amend the Maunder Minimum to have the same geomagnetic activity and number of sunspots as the 20th century mean, if you try hard enough, but I would no believe that either.

    Ralph

  254. ralph ellis (11:19:56) :
    Another load of cods from Leif, I feel.
    Here he notes a difference between the Greenwich sunspot numbers (prior to 20th century) and those from Zurich – and notes reasons why the Zurich team might have made such errors.

    There has been indications for some time now that the early Sunspot numbers are off by 25-40%. There are the “ramblings of a another deranged pseudo-scientist”, Peter Foukal:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Foukal-F107-Rz.pdf

    It is from:
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO.15, PAGES 2909-2912, AUGUST 1, 1998

    and reads:
    Extension of the F10.7 index to 1905 using Mt. Wilson Ca K spectroheliograms
    by Peter Foukal
    Abstract. The F10.7 index provides a daily record of solar microwave emissions, which vary in rough proportion to the projected area of bright magnetic structures called plages and network, and also sunspots on the sun’s disk. The daily observations used to form the index only began in 1947. Recently, we digitized the archive of daily Ca K spectroheliograms obtained at Mt. Wilson Observatory between 1905-1984, and measured the area variations of plages and enhanced network, on these photographic plates. We calibrated these variations against the F10.7 index between 1947-1984, so we are able to construct a full-disk proxy of F10.7 extending back to 1905. The behavior of this extended index indicates that UV irradiance levels achieved near the peaks of sunspot cycles 15, 16, and 17 between 1915-1945, were 25-40% higher than would be estimated from behavior of the Zurich sunspot number, Rz.
    —————

    Instead of the Sun pumping out more UV in 1915-1945 we tend to believe that the Sunspot Number calibration is what needs to be changed [to be higher]. I’m, in fact, working with the Mount Wilson observers right now to submit a paper suggesting just that, based on their CaK data.

  255. - – –
    Re: bill (04:07:47)

    I’m still not convinced that you are aware of the limitations of FFT. It’s a useful tool, but it is just one tool in the box – the one that comes right after time-plot & scatterplot during a quick overview of some new time series …..then the analysis starts…..

    Also, I’m not sure if you interpreted Micky C (MC) (06:36:54) judiciously.
    Micky certainly shared a great post, which should help us realize the failure of our education system to ensure that each & every human being is aware of the nature of a good variety of complex phenomena. At this stage, it is actually difficult to imagine what could be more important (long-term) than getting solid courses on chaos & fractal geometry into school systems worldwide – to help break civilization’s increasingly-fatal slavery to misguided belief in linearity where none exists.

    – – –
    Peter Taylor (05:13:36)
    “[…] so these ocean cycles, land cycles, solar cycles – they do not line up easily and require a more sophisticated analysis using time lags and harmonics […]”

    Good to see a comment acknowledging that the real game is not one of simplistic wiggle-matching. [If it was, the analysis would be done/over/finished/complete….]

    – – –
    Re: Basil (07:01:02)

    The problem with global averages is that the spatial averaging destroys important signals (that are out-of-phase across sharp-gradients, for one example).

    A thorough analysis needs to consider a range of scales in both time & space (…and that can include global/annual resolution).

    – – –
    Leif Svalgaard (07:59:19)
    “The important result is that geomagnetic activity in 1845-1875 is comparable to the past 30 years, while temperatures are not.”

    I have to challenge you on this Leif. We are not dealing with a simple bivariate system. If the role of the hydro cycle in climate variations was fully understood, you might have a better case with an argument of this nature.

    – – –
    Re: Dell Hunt, Michigan (10:25:24)

    Thanks for pointing this out:

    “Boundary Between Earth’s Upper Atmosphere And Space Has Moved To Extraordinarily Low Altitudes, NASA Instruments Document” (Dec. 16, 2008)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm

    In light of analyses I performed a year ago (while investigating severe statistical errors that made their way into public policy), this story does not surprise me.

    Perhaps the people responsible for investigating mechanisms need to spend less time saying “no mechanism” and more time investigating mechanisms.

  256. ralph ellis (12:03:12) :
    Again the data does not fit your theory, so the data needs amending.
    Well, other groups [as referenced] agree that the aa-index needs amending, so we just have to take it from there.

  257. Paul Vaughan (12:30:35) :
    “Leif Svalgaard (07:59:19)
    “The important result is that geomagnetic activity in 1845-1875 is comparable to the past 30 years, while temperatures are not.”

    I have to challenge you on this Leif. We are not dealing with a simple bivariate system.

    I’m not sure what you are challenging. I was only making a statement about the data, not its interpretation. Are you challenging my statement that temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875? That would mean that you would say that the temperatures 1988-2008 were not different from 1845-1875. Perhaps that is so, but I think you won’t find many takers of that.

  258. Re: Leif Svalgaard (12:48:56)

    To reiterate:
    “If the role of the hydro cycle in climate variations was fully understood, you might have a better case with an argument of this nature.”

  259. Paul Vaughan (13:08:33) :
    “If the role of the hydro cycle in climate variations was fully understood, you might have a better case with an argument of this nature.”

    I [obviously] have no idea of what you are hinting at [repeating it three or more times won’t help]. I was only making a statement about the data, not its interpretation. Are you challenging my statement that temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875? That would mean that you would say that the temperatures 1988-2008 were not different from 1845-1875. Perhaps that is so, but I think you won’t find many takers of that.

  260. .

    >>The behavior of this extended index indicates that UV irradiance
    >>levels achieved near the peaks of sunspot cycles 15, 16, and 17
    >>between 1915-1945, were 25-40% higher than would be estimated
    >>from behavior of the Zurich sunspot number, Rz.

    You’re making this up as you go along, aren’t you?

    Your very own 2008 paper said that the Zurich data was correct from 2000 back to 1875, but now you cite evidence that it was incorrect between 1915 and 1945. But if it was incorrect in the 1900s, then this evidence negates the whole of your arguments in your Dec 2008 paper.

    So who is right, you or Foukal – you cannot both be right?
    The answer is clear, you are both wrong and there is no need to readjust the historical sunspot and geomagnetic data. Counting sunspots is hardly a dark art, after all.
    Q.E.D.

    Ralph

  261. Hello to all and apologies Anthony if this post is a little laboured. The reason for my last post and I believe it touches on a lot of what Leif talks about is that the oceanic and atmospheric dynamics appear to have, or possibly must have, a complex coupling matrix between natural bounded oscillation patterns, attractors you could call it, with input frequencies.

    Now if you go and look up ‘drift waves plasmas’ or ‘anomalous resistance’ in plasmas, which is very interesting, you will see that time and again people were able to stimuate an acoustic oscillation using an electromagnetic oscillation (either RF or a simple duty cycle in what is a d.c. power supply).

    What happens in the plasmas I was talking about is that the electrons carry the information about the anode and magnet d.c. supplies (i.e. the duty cycle). If you hook the return lines up you see the oscillation. Its normally at 100s KHz. I’ll also clarify that the anode voltage looks like white noise in the low kHz region, where over a certain power level up pops the acoustic oscillation, which then also changes in frequency slightly (like 17 to 20 kHz for example) as power is increased until you get some amazing Cantor dust interference and plasma turbulance. What happens is the resistance goes negative in the plasma for a period of time. Yes I will repeat that: negative or anomalous resistance. The VI curve inverts. Power supplies go crazy.

    Now the reason behind this is for low power the electrons dictate the current flow, but as they interact with ions, they give them a little jiggle. For a certain amount of power the ions can’t just vibrate at random (thermal background) but they have to vibrate somehow and this is dictated by the acoustic effect modified slightly with electron temperature. When there is too much power the ions are moving so much that they cause the current carried by the electrons to be frustrated and so they become the dominant carrier. But only for a while. What ensues is a kHz Predator Prey type behaviour which I can guarantee does not have a fixed FFT. It is a real visible chaotic effect replete with scaled self similarity. But then more power and suddenly its all still and back to the start

    The coupling matrix appears quite broad band so it is not so much about exact synchronous resonance as well. There’s a nice 1973 paper in Phys Rev Letts about this (I don’t have the exact ref on my home PC). Another factor is that once the behaviour starts it actively changes the input i.e. it feeds back on itself changing the input frequency characteristics and the coupling matrix. Fascinating stuff.

    So consider that it may be that the Earth’s climate patterns have coupling frequencies within certain bands but then they actively change depending on their current state. If the coupling is linked to geomagnetic or TSi it may not show up as a direct correlation; the dynamic evolution may need to be mapped.

    Of course it may be simpler: it may be based around CO2 as the driver. Just maybe not as linear as the current models assume.

  262. Leif Svalgaard (13:32:01) “Are you challenging my statement that temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875?”

    That’s not what I’m getting at. Perhaps whenever a story next appears about the long-term spatial mysteries of regional diurnal temperature range trends, we will have an opportunity to hear from some experts on the subject. My readings suggest that related knowledge is very seriously limited (and this is absolutely central to the whole climate discussion, even if it is off most radars & not the usual headline news). I hope the relevant experts will participate in such a discussion if it arises – and be honest about the limited understanding.

  263. Comment for Micky C (MC) (14:35:31)

    Thank you very much for sharing this example.

    Note for others:
    You can explore chaos independently using something as simple as the logistic equation, but be careful:

    It you don’t look at the right resolution, you will completely miss the interesting transitions. (This is an example of an instance where even a painstaking step-search algorithm can fail.)

    (Some) physical geographers & ecologists know very well about this stuff because they can substitute space for time (in some experiments) and achieve replication at a variety of resolutions and then investigate parameter estimate variations with scale.

    ….Of course we don’t get that particular type of replication in a lot of the time series we often like to discuss on this website and, as most who investigate natural time series know, the various standard assumptions about independence often arise more out of mathematical convenience than truth – people are just doing the best they can ….and not always admitting the limitations (that’s where the eye of scrutiny needs to focus).

    – – –
    Re: zolov (04:43:45)

    Have you conducted nonlinear investigations of the variety suggested by Micky C (MC) (14:35:31)?….
    “If the coupling is linked to geomagnetic or TSi it may not show up as a direct correlation; the dynamic evolution may need to be mapped.”

  264. ralph ellis (13:45:05) :
    You’re making this up as you go along, aren’t you?

    Ralph, you’ve hit the nail on the head. The great thing about the Be 10 data is that it can’t be fiddled with, as compared to the aa Index, sunspot numbers and so on.

    I strongly recommend reading Jasper Kirby’s “Cosmic Rays and Climate” which can be found at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  265. The other thing I wanted to say was congratulations to Guillermo Gonzalez on a great original insight.

    For what it’s worth, it is possible that solar minimum may not be until 2010.

  266. Leif,

    A while back – back when I actually had a little bit of time, I ran the Goode & Palle albedo against the MSI-RSS (?) mean T record. My best result was a correlation of 0.73 over the 20yrs of G&P data between the T and albedo associate delta power with a delay of 7 months or so. A sensitivity of around 0.12 K per W/m^2 was determined. I’m sure someone with some skill at data analysis could do even better than my almost back of the envelope version. I’d think that several % variation in albedo around 1998 makes for a great sensitivity measurement.

  267. L Bowser (11:25:09) :

    You responded to LS as follows:

    How about my shot at this. You mention there being no difference in temperature due to solar variation (well that’s not exactly what you said, but is maybe how I am reading it), when in fact there is. Throughout the year, there is a difference and the order of ~4K between the high global mean and the low global mean . So there is an anual oscillation that coincides with distance from the sun.

    I’d like to clarify this point. Where is the data for the ~4k difference. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference I’m just not sure it correlates with the distance form the sun. I could be wrong, though.

  268. Leif Svalgaard (21:01:17) :
    MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
    Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil.

    That is not a feedback situation but a directly driven process. I have a feeling that ‘feedback’ is not being used in this discussion in its correct meaning, …

    I agree Leif. Feed back would be to take the expanding water heated by gas and use it to contol the flow of gas.

    If expansion causes the flow of gas to increase then this is +ve feed back
    heat=expand=greater heat=even greater gas flow etc. Intability
    If expansion causes the gas flow to decrease then this is negative feedback
    heat=expand=less heat=contract=moreheat etc. Stability

    Basil (07:01:02) :
    Do your fft on monthly HadCRUT3 data since 1850 and tell us what you find.

    No 11 year cycle and no 22 and no 33 and no 44
    but 9.1 15 21 and a biggy at 68 years

  269. vukcevic (14:08:38) :

    Ron de Haan,
    Thanks for your research. Well, well I would never…
    You have to forgive my macabre sense of humour, I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs (in case they got this global warming lark wrong), but never suspected that someone did attempt to do real science on a possible link.
    I have to be more careful in future.

    vukcevic,
    If we leave the fear of God out of the picture and perform research on any hint possible, in the end we will get our answers.

    Don’t forget that Al Gore used Malaria in support of his Global Warming scare and it took a person like Moncton to debunk his story.

  270. Pat (19:44:01) :

    “Robert,

    No dramas. Fortunately I live nowhere near the snow when it falls here in New South Wales.

    January is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. We’ve had a cool summer here, humid, but cooler than last year. Cool summer, cool autum, winter will be too.

    One thing I have noticed about the summer just past. We have something called the “Aussie wave” here, and it relates to flying insects, you have to continuously swipe them away from your face, hence the “Aussie wave” as it looks like you are waving to someone all the time. The summer before last was normal, ie, it was hotter than the summer just past. Lots of flies. The summer just gone, there was almost none. Too cold for them? Damn straight!”

    Pat,
    What do you tell me, no flies in Australia anymore?
    I think I am going to book a ticket!

  271. ralph ellis (13:45:05) :
    Your very own 2008 paper said that the Zurich data was correct from 2000 back to 1875, but now you cite evidence that it was incorrect between 1915 and 1945.

    It won’t hurt you to actually read that paper. To ease you over the hump here is a statement from the paper:
    “we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005] as he struggled with learning how to construct the sunspot number. Subsequent observers have striven to match Waldmeier, so in order to remove the 1945 discontinuity [and be consistent with modern counts] we must increase the pre-1945 Rz by 17.5%”.
    Other evidence [Ca K and geomagnetic data] suggest a jump of 20% and 23%. So a good average is about 20%. Going further back in time [as also described in the paper] shows that a 40% increase in called for before ~1890.

    So, this is not ‘made up as we go’.

    cba (16:06:35) :
    A while back – back when I actually had a little bit of time, I ran the Goode & Palle albedo against the MSI-RSS (?) mean T record. My best result was a correlation of 0.73 over the 20yrs of G&P data between the T and albedo associate delta power with a delay of 7 months or so.

    Yes, there is no doubt that albedo and temperature are [causally] correlated. The albedo is, however, not correlated with the solar cycle.

  272. “Ron de Haan (16:57:59) :

    Pat,
    What do you tell me, no flies in Australia anymore?
    I think I am going to book a ticket!”

    Crickey no! We still get plenty of bugs and a fair number are splattered across the front of my car, but what I saying is that this last summer was noticeable for the absense of flies, even the natives (I didin’t have to steal a loaf of bread to get to Australia) I work with commented on it too. During summer this year we had a cold snap a little before the summer peak. The summer was pretty weak (Cooler, poor weather, ie, no “blue dome sunny hot days” etc) compared to previous summers. We had about a two week period where we had “normal” hot days, they were humid due to weather patterns further north, but no way near as hot the previous few years indeed. Coincidence (With NH record colds)? Not sure, we’ll find out very soon and much sooner than Al Gore’s prediction that the Arctic will be ice free in 5 years.

  273. David Archibald (15:56:14) :

    For what it’s worth, it is possible that solar minimum may not be until 2010.

    Looks very probable to me, Dr. Archibald. Very probable.
    The white-light faculae from Greenwich and the latest from Ergebrisse indicate a bar to me of at least 2010.
    I am waiting for someone to dig into this with me.
    Any takers?

  274. Paul Vaughan (14:42:05) :
    “Are you challenging my statement that temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875?”

    That’s not what I’m getting at.

    Then where is the challenge? All I said was temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875, and you challenge that…
    Be specific, for once.

  275. Re: Leif Svalgaard (18:12:50)

    To reiterate:
    “Perhaps whenever a story next appears about the long-term spatial mysteries of regional diurnal temperature range trends, we will have an opportunity to hear from some experts on the subject. My readings suggest that related knowledge is very seriously limited (and this is absolutely central to the whole climate discussion, even if it is off most radars & not the usual headline news). I hope the relevant experts will participate in such a discussion if it arises – and be honest about the limited understanding.”

  276. Leif Svalgaard (18:00:07) “Yes, there is no doubt that albedo and temperature are [causally] correlated. The albedo is, however, not correlated with the solar cycle.”

    The more interesting questions involve dynamical nonlinear relations.

  277. Leif Svalgaard (18:00:07)
    “[…] we must increase the pre-1945 Rz by 17.5% […]
    Other evidence [Ca K and geomagnetic data] suggest a jump of 20% and 23%. So a good average is about 20%. Going further back in time [as also described in the paper] shows that a 40% increase in called for before ~1890.”

    My reading list is long, but I am curious (in the meantime while I plow through it) to know if these proposed adjustments are as linear as this quote makes them sound.

  278. Paul Vaughan (18:30:05) :
    To reiterate:
    “Perhaps whenever a story next appears about the long-term spatial mysteries of regional diurnal temperature range trends, we will have an opportunity to hear from some experts on the subject. My readings suggest that related knowledge is very seriously limited (and this is absolutely central to the whole climate discussion, even if it is off most radars & not the usual headline news). I hope the relevant experts will participate in such a discussion if it arises – and be honest about the limited understanding.”

    I can read, reiterating doesn’t do anything for me. Maybe it works for you, so:
    reiterate:
    “Then where is the challenge? All I said was temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875, and you challenge that…
    Be specific, for once.”

    You seem to be saying that your reading suggests to you that temperatures in 1845-1875 were similar to what they have been the past 30 years. Yes or No?

  279. Paul Vaughan (18:40:28) :
    My reading list is long, but I am curious (in the meantime while I plow through it) to know if these proposed adjustments are as linear as this quote makes them sound.

    Calibration errors are usually linear and this one in particular is. The Figure on page 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
    shows the linear relationships. Linear within the limits of the noise [and that is all we can say].

  280. Leif Svalgaard (20:11:39) :
    The Sun is not quite asleep, there is a SC23 spot just south of the solar equator, and some SC24 spots on their way in the North…

    And another [or perhaps more] at disk center…

  281. Re: Leif Svalgaard (18:51:04) & (19:42:56)

    My definition of “temperature” is broad – i.e. cognizant of spatiotemporal heterogeneity & the effects of summary methods – not only as a result of rigorous formal training, but also as a result of continuous hardening through practical experience.

    Perhaps the best way to achieve resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no effect on “temperature”.


    I would also be curious to hear of any comments you might offer regarding possible connections between insights from Sturrock’s work (on neutrinos & solar core rotation) and the intermittent large-scale HMF pattern you (& Wilcox) found.

    I recently had a look at Sturrock’s 2009 Solar Physics article [similar to the arxiv paper in your response to Nancy Smith (19:32:19)] and found it interesting. I also dug up the following [sci-news article with a rather interesting twist] when tracing some of the history of related developments:

    Stanford Online Report – News – Jan. 28, 1998
    “Twenty-eight day cycle found in ghostly solar neutrinos, team says”

    http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/news/1998/january28/neutrinos.html

  282. There was also that large explosion on the back side a few days ago.

    The sad outlook for science matters is being demonstrated in this thread with the controversies with Leif. Matters that should be thrashed at the level of peers in conferences, real peer review, are being half digested by us hoi polloi and regurgitated on the internet waves because of this politicization of science.

    The hockey stick debunked on a world stage has not just brought down the hockey stick but has introduced an enormous suspiciousness of motives for any scientific endeavor at the moment connected with climate but soon to inundate all disciplines.

    :(

  283. Robert Bateman (21:09:42) :

    A spot on whose radar?

    The 23 is a small spot at 3:30 on both the visible and the magnetogram. Others are activities on the magnetogram at the moment.

    Even though I have not been convinced that the maunder minimum and the LIA have a causative correlation, I still look at the sun everyday with a hope of seeing activity. I suppose subconsciously I am afraid there might be a correlation, and who needs a LIA. I would not cut my nose to spite my face.

  284. Paul Vaughan (20:53:01) :
    Perhaps the best way to achieve resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no effect on “temperature”.
    At this point it is a simple question of data. You had a chance to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and you give me mumbo-jumbo instead… ;-(


    I would also be curious to hear of any comments you might offer regarding possible connections between insights from Sturrock’s work (on neutrinos & solar core rotation) and the intermittent large-scale HMF pattern you (& Wilcox) found.

    I’m not so sure the neutrino stuff holds up [time will tell], but there is at least several coincidences centered around the ‘28.5 day feature’. It was first noticed in 1972:

    Interplanetary Magnetic-Sector Structure, 1926-1971
    L. Svalgaard, Danish Meteorological Institute, Geophysical Section, Copenhagen, Denmark

    The influence of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field on the geomagnetic field at high latitudes is used to study the long-term behavior of the sector structure during nearly four solar cycles. It is found that the rotation period of the sector structure varies from about 28.5 days in the beginning of a solar cycle to 27.0 days in the end. Also it is shown that short-lived sectors rotate more slowly than long-lived ones.

    Citation: Svalgaard, L. (1972), Interplanetary Magnetic-Sector Structure, 1926-1971, J. Geophys. Res., 77(22), 4027–4034.

  285. Leif Svalgaard (09:59:18) :

    MartinGAtkins (06:19:15) :
    The annual 7% oscillation is not detectable because over the thousands of years it has been going on, all feed backs are fully utilized.

    The same can be said for the solar cycle(s). But more to the point. A feedback is a process or a mechanism. Please list all the feedbacks that are fully utilized for the annual oscillation.

    Yes, the same can be said for the solar cycle(s) when we examine Earths climate over multidecadal periods. Primarily it is large bodies of water that smooth out the 7% annual differential in solar energy received by the earth. From there it is all the usual things we understand to govern our climate, such as humidity. cloud cover, ice bodies in all forms, vegetation and the ability of the oceans to sequester or emit gases such as CO2 and CH4. Also the amount of energy received and retained before it radiates back into space.

    None of the above should be confused with seasonal variations in our climate or even decadal trends. These are governed by other factors and smother the annual orbital fluctuations in the energy received from the sun. This of course is only true if annual fluctuation of solar energy received by earth remains constant.

    You would be able to detect the variation of the annual TSI if you removed all our atmosphere along with the water. A back of an envelope calculation tells me it would be about 7%.

    Please share with us the back of the envelope calculation details [can’t be that hard as it fits on the back of an envelope], thanks.

    First let me point out that the 7% annual variable is yours and not mine. If this variable is at the halfway point in each year then we have:- year= t1+t2

    t1=TSI(n)+/-7% t2=TSI(n)+/-7% therefore t=(n)+/-7%

    Monthly I think t=((n)+/-7%)/12

  286. I blinked the magnetogram and the continuum, anna, and I don’t see the match. Being the suspicious sort, I look carefully first. I’ll give a bit for rotation, but it seems rather far off. The central spot has nothing even close, so I am even more suspicious. A good whack of cosmic ray will do the trick on the 3:30 position (it’s slanted).

  287. Ok, you win, anna. 2nd MDI Continuum in and a matching magnetogram.
    Can’t be too careful with Tiny Tims and all those GCR’s flying about.
    3:30 spot.
    Are you projecting this?

  288. anna v 21:55:33

    Yes, it’s an awful conundrum and dilemma, isn’t it. The earth must get cold enough fast enough to stop this carbon nonsense in its tracks, and since I fear that isn’t happening I wish for it to get colder, faster. But millions are going to die in the coming cold and the more the faster and colder it gets. My only consolation is that my wishes will not be obeyed by nature, so no guilt accrues.
    =================================================

  289. And the sooner we stop this carbon nonsense and start adapting to the coming cold instead of trying to mitigate a warming that isn’t coming, the fewer will die. So bang I away at the keyboard. It is, in truth, a great enterprise.
    ===========================================

  290. Micky C (MC) (14:35:31) :

    The information you give us on plasma behavior is interesting, and a demonstration of chaotic behavior in coupled differential equations.

    I think that it would be hard to find a way that it could work with the oceans. With plasma you have one medium, with the earth you have the atmosphere, the oceans, the lands , each with different mobilities and heat capacities.It is the oceans that have the huge heat capacity and their currents have to be stimulated/driven by some external input. The daily and seasonal changes of heating seem to me too large with respect to changes in TSI or the minuscule effect of AG CO2, with too much heat inertia, to be able to enter such a mode. A smart graduate student might prove me wrong though :).

    I see more promise in your picture with the sun, which is a plasma after all. Maybe the small inputs of the gravitational tides could induce an amplified state. Another smart graduate student needed here too :).

  291. >>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
    >>Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005] as he struggled
    >>with learning how to construct the sunspot number.

    ???

    Even if we did, this was only one observation center, while the graphs are constructed from a combination of many. Waldmeiers was not working at Greenwich, was he.

    Ralph

  292. Predicted for tonight, Sydney’s (Australia) coldest night of the year, it’s still autum. A town in the greater Sydney area experienced it’s coldest night last night, 7c below “normal” for this time of year.

    In the alpine snow regions they’d had they best *early* start to the ski season in 50 years. SH entering winter now, lower tempeartures, early start to ski season in 50 years, lots of snow. This sounds very familiar somehow.

  293. Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24), anna v (21:36:56), kim (23:45:19) & (23:49:32), and Others

    It might take interdisciplinary understanding for us to (collectively) emerge from this economic/political/climate challenge in the best shape possible.

    A few misunderstandings along the way are to be expected – water off a duck’s back…

  294. kim (23:45:19) :
    Excellent on both your posts. Someone is yelling fire on a crowded planet, and very few are asking “where?”. Invariably, most will head the wrong direction, and perish in panic.
    The key to surviving an incident is to not panic. Those who panic are at least twice as less likely to survive, and most important, become a danger and a liability to those who are in charge of escape.
    If we are going in the LIA direction, irregardless of whether we reach that state in 1-3 decades, preparation is key. Panic is the enemy. The planet is crowded.

  295. >>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
    >>Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005] as he struggled
    >>with learning how to construct the sunspot number.

    So why not dig up Waldmeier’s drawings and recompute?
    Makes sense to me to fix the error, and leave the good data alone.
    However, if that won’t work, dig up ALL the drawings and start over.
    And have a panel spot check the recomputations at regular intervals.
    I’m quite sure there are researchers out there in need of extended employment. You can put my name in the basket.

  296. “Robert Bateman (03:53:04) :

    Panic is the enemy. The planet is crowded.”

    Yes in the first instance, and certainly *no* in the second. We certainly have crowded cities, but the planet, that is the *whole* planet, is largely void of human population.

  297. Lief,

    I admit, I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t address my post above about the increases and decreases in the “atmospheric halo” that fluctuates with the solar cycle and the possible effect that aspect may have on the amount of solar radiation that could be trapped by the atmosphere especially at the polar regions.

    Perhaps there may be something to that possible mechanism as a link between warming and solar cycle. So far, I have not been able to locate any scientific study regarding that. Perhaps you are aware of some?????

  298. “This ‘paper’ is the biggest load of cods I have ever seen. ”

    Keep reading, the noted ‘circularity’ frequents the lot. And then we hear their conclusions are toasted in observatories the world o’er.

  299. Dell Hunt, Michigan (04:57:36) :
    I admit, I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t address my post […]
    “My question is for the scientists out there, has there ever been any significant research done in calculating how much more solar radiation is trapped in the fringes of this “atmospheric halo” during periods of high solar activity versus low solar activity?”

    Sorry, that I missed it. The density of the atmosphere falls rapidly with height: by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km you go up. So at 100 km it is only 1/1000,000 of the surface density, at 150 km only 1/1000,000,000, at 200 km only 1/1000,000,000,000, at 250 km only 1000,000,000,000,000, at 300 km only 1/1000,000,000,000,000,000, and so on. So the amount of radiation trapped by such dilute matter is equally minute.

  300. Paul Vaughan (02:46:05) :
    Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24)
    A few misunderstandings along the way are to be expected – water off a duck’s back…
    what did you misunderstand?

  301. ralph ellis (01:26:55) :
    Even if we did, this was only one observation center, while the graphs are constructed from a combination of many.

    No, the method used [different from today] is the one instituted by Rudolf Wolf: There is a ‘primary’ observer [Waldmeier himself]. If he had made a count on a given day, that was the official sunspot number. If there was no count [cloudy, he was sick, etc], the count of a ‘secondary’ observer was used [suitable adjusted to that of the primary observer]. If the secondary observer did not have a count [cloudy, etc], a ‘tertiary’ observer was used [also adjusted to the primary observer], etc.

  302. >>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
    >>Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005]

    No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
    Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
    Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.

  303. Robert Bateman (09:40:39) :
    >>“we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
    >>Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005]

    No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
    Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
    Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.

    Waldmeier was not aware of the abrupt change. He did worry that his calibration might be off and fussed endlessly about it.

  304. Robert Bateman (09:40:39) :
    “we must ascribe the artificial increase of Rz after 1945 to
    Waldmeier’s inexperience [Friedli, 2005]”

    No, we don’t. Abrupt changes happen in nature.
    Besides, don’t you think Waldmeier was aware that his work reflected an abrupt change he himself observed?
    Nature does not bother to sand off rough edges to please theories.

    There are no theories here. Just simple data comparisons. The facts are these:
    1) Ca K data from Mount Wilson show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
    2) Sunspot areas from Greenwich show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
    3) The range of geomagnetic declination [controlled by solar EUV] show an abrupt change in 1945 relative to Rz
    4) The inexperienced Waldmeier took over in 1945 and was himself unsure about the calibration of Rz

    Waldmeier was not aware of the abrupt change. He did worry that his calibration might be off and fussed endlessly about it.

  305. anna v (21:36:56) :

    I think you make a very important point.

    As a layman I have tried to understand the truth about global warming/climate change as my antennae told me that those in power were perhaps being a tad misleading.

    Over the last couple of years I have also learned, thanks to the excellent work of Anthony Watts here and Steve McIntyre at CA, that scientists in this arena have perhaps been somewhat more focussed on ‘other things’ than trying to establish a sound scientific understanding of our climate.

    I find this to be enormously disappointing.

    I am, therefore, often left wondering whether I can trust anything I read anymore on this subject (even moreso in so called “peer reviewed” work).

  306. Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:18:24) & (07:42:27)

    If conceptual paradigms from other disciplines come across to you as “mumbo-jumbo” (as you say), an alternative to dishing out insults & demands (in the imperative tone) is to issue a polite request for clarification &/or elaboration.

    You have made a series of statements in this thread to which I object. This does not mean I have time to volunteer to debate every detail to your satisfaction (or at all), particularly given the nature of some of your claims and your style of engagement when conflict arises.

    The most sensible option is to let ‘misunderstandings’ (a polite term encompassing both errors & politics) become water under the bridge.

    In that spirit:

    Regarding the preliminary investigation I suggested here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/cbs-charles-osgood-on-the-sun-and-a-surprising-suggestion

    [April 24](01:19:01)

    I spent some time thinking about how to simplify the investigation without sacrificing key information – and a few questions arose.

    If your response is not a reply, I respect your choice.

    The questions:
    1) Say one eliminated all of the ‘unusable’ pixels around the edge of the solar disc, roughly how many ‘usable’ ones would remain clustered around the centre (at an instant in time)?
    2) What is the temporal resolution of the record?
    3) How long is the record?
    4) Are there serious problems with missing data?

  307. Correction to Paul Vaughan (20:53:01)

    I said:
    “Perhaps the best way to achieve resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no effect on “temperature”.”

    The more accurate statement which was intended:
    Perhaps the best way to pursue a resolution is to ask you to put forward evidence that geomagnetic activity has no relationship with “temperature”.

    Also, in light of developments in this thread I’m dropping a few assumptions about what is common knowledge. If anyone is unfamiliar with the concept “spatiotemporal heterogeneity”, please feel welcome to inquire.

  308. Paul Vaughan (12:10:09) :
    The most sensible option is to let ‘misunderstandings’ (a polite term encompassing both errors & politics) become water under the bridge.

    I don’t know what politics you are up to, but it cannot take much energy to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to my simple question. And I think that is a request for clarification/elaboration. The insult comes from your continually evading the simple answer.

    The questions:
    1) Say one eliminated all of the ‘unusable’ pixels around the edge of the solar disc, roughly how many ‘usable’ ones would remain clustered around the centre (at an instant in time)?
    2) What is the temporal resolution of the record?
    3) How long is the record?
    4) Are there serious problems with missing data?

    1) all pixels are usable. The synoptic maps are made using only the central strip from one pole to the other.
    2) 20 data points [magneto/doppler-grams] per day [typically]
    3) as you can see, several decades [since the late 1970s], with the quality degrading as you go back in time.
    4) yes and no. If there are no observations on a day or two, data from adjacent days can be used if rotated to central meridian. Long periods of missing data [upgrade of instruments and such] cannot be dealt with, but are not very important as the phenomenon is large-scale in both space and time.

  309. Leif Svalgaard (12:31:53)
    “The insult comes from your continually evading the simple answer.”

    Clarification: I perceived your question as equivalent to asking if sunspot counts are higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum (so it appeared as an insult &/or distortion-politics to which I should not yield). Water under the bridge now…


    Leif: “all pixels are usable. The synoptic maps are made using only the central strip from one pole to the other.”

    How many central meridian pixels are there? – and does that vary over time? (according to instrument changes, for example)

  310. Leif Svalgaard (07:41:22) :

    “Sorry, that I missed it. The density of the atmosphere falls rapidly with height: by a factor of 1000 for each 50 km you go up. So at 100 km it is only 1/1000,000 of the surface density, at 150 km only 1/1000,000,000, at 200 km only 1/1000,000,000,000, at 250 km only 1000,000,000,000,000, at 300 km only 1/1000,000,000,000,000,000, and so on. So the amount of radiation trapped by such dilute matter is equally minute.”

    Pretty big numbers for somebody who believes that a 1/10000th change in atmosphere composition will doom us.

    However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight pass through earths atmospheric halo during “typical” height versus the current lower atmospheric hieght that has been directly linked to solar minimum. So even a minute percentage of that would be significant, especially at the poles, where they would see more constant exposure all day particularly at the equinoxes.

  311. Paul Vaughan (13:41:44) :
    Clarification: I perceived your question as equivalent to asking if sunspot counts are higher at solar maximum than at solar minimum (so it appeared as an insult &/or distortion-politics to which I should not yield). Water under the bridge now…
    The question was: “was the temperature in the 1845-1875 time frame different from the past 30 years”? I said it was and you said you challenged that. Possible answers could be: 1) yes, 2) no, 3) don’t know, 4) meaningless question, 5) I don’t want to answer for political reasons.
    I don’t think I do what you accuse me of. There is a Danish proverb: “thief thinks everybody steals”. I don’t do politics or distortions. My views may not be correct, but they are ALWAYS seriously and genuinely meant.


    How many central meridian pixels are there? – and does that vary over time? (according to instrument changes, for example)
    each pixel is 12 arc seconds [out of 1920 pole to pole]. The strip is several pixels wide. Both of these numbers vary with time by a factor of 2 or so, both because of instrument changes [larger pixels in the past], but also because of missing data that means one must use off-central meridian data. Bottom line: many pixels.

  312. Dell Hunt, Michigan (14:09:16) :
    Pretty big numbers for somebody who believes that a 1/10000th change in atmosphere composition will doom us.
    Don’t be scared by those big numbers. Perhaps your belief in doomsday is not well founded…

    However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight
    Well, the math has to be correct in the first place. Then the physics has to be correct, that many watts per square meter?
    The upper atmosphere is, indeed, heated a lot, to a thousand and more degrees, but because the air is so thin even that is but a tiny amount of heat. The solar wind itself has a temperature of 100,000 degrees Kelvin, and the Solar corona is millions of degrees, but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.

  313. Leif Svalgaard (14:17:33)
    “I don’t think I do what you accuse me of.”

    There has been no accusation.

    Thank you for answering the questions about the data.

  314. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) “[…] but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.”

    This statement makes me curious about the fractal geometry of the surfaces.

  315. Paul Vaughan (16:08:09) :
    Thank you for answering the questions about the data.

    I wish that I would have been able to thank you for answering my question…

  316. Paul Vaughan (16:13:54) :
    Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) “[…] but you would freeze to death if placed in either environment, because the amount of heat is so small due to the thinness of the medium.”

    This statement makes me curious about the fractal geometry of the surfaces.

    Could be, except the human skin isn’t fractal [I don’t have little hands growing on my hand with littler hands on them, etc; the epidermis is quite smooth]. You will be frozen into a curious stiff.

  317. Re: Leif Svalgaard (16:38:39)

    Clarification: The point is about actual dimension vs. apparent dimension (not about temperatures). E.g. surface-filling tendency of a winding line; volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)

  318. Paul Vaughan (20:47:36) :
    volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)

    I don’t know what assumptions you are making, but it is observed fact that space is cold to a body in it and that the 100,000K solar wind does not fry the spacecraft and that meteorites are deep frozen when they hit the Earth, so no need to worry about wrinkles.

    I’m still awaiting a simple answer to my simple question.

  319. Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)

    As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.

    I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer. WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if…

  320. The tiny tim at 3:00 hours persists. I suspect if it had a cycle 24 signature it would have gotten a number by now. It is the unwanted cycle 23 left over that is ignored.

    I will keep a copy and compare it to the next numbered 24.

  321. Paul Vaughan (21:57:15) :
    Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)
    As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.
    Then I do not understand your comment as I was talking about temperature.

    I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer. WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if…

    And what is the result of your speculation?
    As clarification: I stated that the temperature in 1845-1875 was not comparable to the temperature the past 30 years. You said you challenged that. This to me, means that you disagree with me? Is this a correct statement? And where is the insult? I don’t see any and I don’t mean any.

  322. Paul Vaughan (20:47:36) :
    Re: Leif Svalgaard (16:38:39)

    Clarification: The point is about actual dimension vs. apparent dimension (not about temperatures). E.g. surface-filling tendency of a winding line; volume-filling tendency of a wrinkled surface, … (i.e. things that often get overlooked in assumptions)

    It isn’t really, the fractal dimension of the surfaces is a red herring brought in by you. In any case in the situation described it’s likely irrelevant since at the conditions in effect the mean free path is so large that the surface will be effectively Euclidean and a dimension greater than 2.0 would only accelerate the freezing if it had any effect at all.

  323. Paul Vaughan (21:57:15) :
    Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:15:20)

    As stated clearly, the point is “not about temperatures”.

    I can only speculate as to why you are badgering for an answer to an insulting question with an obvious answer.

    So you don’t know the answer…..

    WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if… arrogant know-it-alls who like to show off by using big words without saying anything of substance didn’t waste everyone’s time. I had a student like that a few years ago, everyone sussed him out, he ended up getting a D and dropping science for sociology, he could never answer a straight question (remind you of anyone?). Posts from real scientists like Leif are welcome however.

  324. Re: Leif Svalgaard (22:27:02)

    Dr. Svalgaard, thank you for the constructive comments you made earlier in this discussion.

    Regards,
    Paul Vaughan.

  325. Now I am no expert… but I can definately identify the smell of cooking when I go to a restaurant… expect in England where they just heat up the bag containing the ready meal… but i digress. Now my problem is that thanks to this site I realise just how many people are cooking the books and fiddling the figures… so thank you so much Anthony for making this possible… back to topic…

    Now what strikes me is that the point of solar minimum is being heavily sold as being behind us WHILE the graphs clearly show that the sun is getting quieter by the day… it is slowly slipping away into a coma… with just the occassional blip of activity… but the reporting of these blips is not even handed.

    Cycle 24 is being talked up.

    Daily Sun: 21 Apr 09
    A new sunspot is forming at the circled location.
    The magnetic polarity of the spot identifies it as
    a member of new Solar Cycle 24.

    Daily Sun: 22 Apr 09
    Sunspot 1015 is fading away.
    It emerged late yesterday, April 21st, with a magnetic
    imprint that identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24.
    At the rate it is decaying, the lifetime of the spot could total
    fewer than 24 hours.

    While Cycle 23 is being talked down

    Daily Sun: 28 Apr 09
    A sunspot is struggling to emerge at the circled location.
    The magnetic polarity of the proto-sunspot identifies it as
    a member of old Solar Cycle 23.

    Daily Sun: 29 Apr 09
    Yesterday’s proto-sunspot failed to coelesce into a durable sunspot.
    The sun remains blank.

    From what i have read nobody KNOWS what is going on… but their are plenty of ideas… and red faces… but somebody wants us to think that the sun has returned to “normal busy” and that there is nothing to worry about… show over.

    Is it just me?
    Can anyone else smell the cooking?

    I personally like by toast brown on both sides :-)

  326. Perhaps i should be more direct… when i read that a “proto-sunspot failed to coelesce into a durable sunspot” then my bull detectors start pinging….

    I am left wonder what is the definition of a “durable sunspot”….

    Especially when i can still see yesterdays “non-durable” tiny sunspot while the “sun remains blank”……

  327. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:11) :

    “However doing the math, based upon 1361 w m2. That change in atmosphere calculates out to be that 9,917,243,613,000,000 more watts per m2 of sunlight.”

    Well, the math has to be correct in the first place.

    Yes I realized long after I posted that it was not that wattage per m2 (my bad), but overall increased wattage that Earths Atmosphere is exposed to during “typical” times versus current solar minimum. Other than incorrectly putting the per m2 in my original post, are my calculations correct for overall extra solar radiation that passes through the atmosphere?

    So then you do the math. Using the numbers from the report (see link below) how much of that energy is trapped as the atmosphere expands vs contracts?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htm

  328. Dell Hunt, Michigan (04:58:24) :

    To visualize the inefficacy of the heat containment of air, think of the following gedanken experiment:

    Heat up an oven to 100C. Take the air out into a bag, using the vacuum cleaner in reverse. How long will the air stay hot in the bag? It is the reason we use hot water bottles and not hot air bottles. Mass is really important. And in the stratosphere there is much much less mass involved .

  329. Is it just me?
    Can anyone else smell the cooking?

    Yes. S740 was, was not, and now is back this morning on Teide GONG Image
    tdiqa090429t1154.jpg with a massive contrast of 1.06 to 1.
    Since January, these SC23 lookalikes have been popping up. I say lookalikes because at first they were justified as reversed SC24’s. After a steady diet of them, they don’t look quite like the exception rather than the rule.
    There is a point reached where normal outlying reversed polarity Sunspots have worn out thier explanation, and simple bias comes into play.
    Somewhere in between, reluctance is a better word for it.

    Returning to the contrast levels of these spots since January: An order of magnitude weaker than last year’s already diluted run. They are straining even the limits of our best ground based Solar Towers.
    If this is minimum behind us, it’s not displaying any decisive or obvious characteristics.
    The reluctant souffle has fallen.

  330. MalagaView (03:52:31) :

    Thanks for the post on topic.
    I was really hoping for a discussion on what the Sun is doing.
    I have been very disappointed of late.
    W/m2 logjams. Oy ye vay.

  331. “arrogant know-it-alls who like to show off by using big words without saying anything of substance didn’t waste everyone’s time.”

    As recalcitrant offenders perhaps we should lead a confessors circle, ‘eh, Phil.?

  332. MalagaView (03:52:31) :
    I am left wonder what is the definition of a “durable sunspot”….
    Especially when i can still see yesterdays “non-durable” tiny sunspot while the “sun remains blank”……

    Yeah, someone is struggling with some concept here. A good criterion for a ‘real’ sunspot [which endures for a few days] is if there is a penumbra. Tiny Tim’s don’t have any and probably should not be counted. On the other hand, if there are several together in a group, then there is an argument for counting them. This problem goes back 150 years. Rudolf Wolf, the inventor of the sunspot number advocated not counting the smallest spots or pores, while his assistant and successor, Alfred Wolfer, voted for counting everything he could see, small or large. Wolfer won that argument by Wolf eventually dying. Today people follow Wolfer, but multiply the count by 0.6 to make it more compatible with Wolf’s historical series. The 0.6 factor may not be correct [is too large, perhaps 0.5 would be better].

    Dell Hunt, Michigan (04:58:24) :
    So then you do the math. Using the numbers from the report (see link below) how much of that energy is trapped as the atmosphere expands vs contracts?
    Since the energy absorbed depends on the number of molecules in the atmosphere it doesn’t matter if the atmosphere expands or contracts. And the number of molecules in the upper atmosphere is so small that the tiny, tiny amount of heat they ‘trap’ has no consequence for our climate.

  333. Yes, Leif, you are right, the Tiny Tims surely have no penumbra, and the spots are so weak that the definition of umbra is sorely tested.
    The apparition today is of a sunken spot, just visible below through a fog.
    Thank you.
    I will again try to project today.

  334. Is that a sc23 spot right now? I can’t remember whick color leading is what. I should write it down.

  335. “Since January, these SC23 lookalikes have been popping up. I say lookalikes because at first they were justified as reversed SC24’s. After a steady diet of them, they don’t look quite like the exception rather than the rule.”

    It’s amusing to watch our Lights distractedly shouting at us “All is well, all is well! The Sun is behaving normally.”

    All the while, they are frantically triangulating(count this one, not that), positioning themselves to pounce at the first inkling of just how the rules may have changed.

    The funny part is the bag of grant-gold they vie for has a ghastly hole.

  336. John Finn (17:25:56) :
    I think I must be missing something.
    TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate.
    How exactly?

    ==========

    Well lets do some simple calculations:

    The Mean Surface Temperature of the Earth is quoted to be 288 degrees Kelvin.
    [ see http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface-temperature.html ]

    The average albedo of Earth is 0.37
    i.e. 63.00% of incoming solar energy contributes to warming
    [ see http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm ]

    So based on these two figures I calculate:
    1) the Earth receives 457.14285 degrees Kelvin from the sun
    2) the Earth deflects 169.14285 degrees of the input via the albedo effect.

    Now if the output from the sun drops by 0.05% then we will only receive 456.91428 degrees Kelvin.
    The albedo effect will reflect 169.05828 degrees of this input.
    And the average temperature of the earth will drop to 287.85600 degrees Kelvin.

    Thus a TSI change of 0.0005 probably causes a 0.144 degree Kelvin drop in temperature.

    Now the key point is what happens to albedo effect with a drop in temperature.
    Basically the polar caps will expand slightly and the temperate zone will shrink a bit.
    So we get more ice and less trees in Canada for example.

    This means that the albedo effect will amplify this drop in temperature by reflecting more heat. So perhaps the albedo effect increases by 0.06% and now the total temperature drop has become 0.41815 degrees
    So now we get more ice and less trees in Canada again….

    And so the small cooling cycles continue and the ice age slowly advances until
    1) The albedo effect stops amplifying the cooling change as the cooler zones get nearer the equator i.e. ever decreasing increments reach a finate limit
    or
    2) The sun wakes up and starts pumping out more heat…

    So what I am trying to say is that A LITTLE CAN GO A LONG WAY in climate terms.

  337. MalagaView (13:18:46) :
    John Finn (17:25:56) :
    “TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate.
    How exactly?”
    Well lets do some simple calculations

    Your calculation is not quite right [too complicated]. Here is a simpler way:
    dT/T = 1/4 dS/S where T is temperature and S is solar irradiance. the equation automatically takes into account albedo, gray body issues, and greenhouse effect. So dS/S = 0.05% means dT/T = 0.0125%, applied to T=288K, yielding 0.036K. Quite small and insignificant. To pump that up to what your preferred effect is, one can apply a ‘feedback’ factor to fit.

  338. MalagaView (13:18:46) :

    Well lets do some simple calculations:

    It’s ok, thanks, I know what temperature change results from a 0.05% reduction in TSI and as Leif’s calculations show, it is considerably less than the temperature fluctuations due to natural variability. Your argument implies high climate sensitivity which, funnily enough, is exactly the argument put forward by the AGW proponents.

    PS Did you not read Leif’s posts on earth’s orbit and the 7% variation in solar insolation between January and July.

  339. Solar modulated cosmic rays causing increased ice in Antarctica
    “Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009). …

    Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region.” “Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked to the Ozone Hole”
    “New research has found that despite climate change concerns, the amount of ice may actually be increasing across much of Antarctica.

    Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division’s ice, ocean, atmosphere and climate program, says outside of western Antarctica, ice levels are remaining steady or possibly increasing. …
    “In east Antarctica there may be a slight increase due to increased snow fall.”” “Ice cover ‘increasing in east Antarctica'”

    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/04/solar-modulated-cosmic-rays-causing.html

    I am in doubt if the science behind the linked article is aimed to explain the growing Antarctic Icecap without undermining the AGW/Climate Change doctrine.
    If this is the case it is yet another canard.

  340. Re: Phil. (22:40:44) & (22:59:51)

    Your focus & concerns may not match the focus & concerns of others in this thread. There is more than one dimension to the economic/political/climate/solar-science crisis.

  341. WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if the moderators blocked the comments that get personal.

    Reply: We try. Feel free to point out anything we miss. We often scan quickly, approving dozens of posts at a time. Remember, it’s volunteer work. Where’s my orange juice? ~ charles the moderator

  342. Re: Phil. (22:59:51) :
    “So you don’t know the answer…..”

    The question was as simple as asking if 1+1=2.
    Then a string of badgering for compliance.
    Adds up to pollution of this thread.

  343. Paul Vaughan (17:18:28) :
    The question was as simple as asking if 1+1=2.
    Then a string of badgering for compliance.
    Adds up to pollution of this thread.

    You could decrease the pollution by simply answering my question.

  344. charles the moderator:
    “Remember, it’s volunteer work.”

    This I did not know – thank you for sharing this comment.

  345. Phil. (22:40:44) :
    “[…] red herring […] in effect the mean free path is so large that the surface will be effectively Euclidean […]”

    This does not relate to the point I was raising.

  346. Paul Vaughan (17:18:28) :
    The question was as simple as asking if 1+1=2.
    Then a string of badgering for compliance.
    Adds up to pollution of this thread.

    You could decrease the pollution by simply answering my question.
    Let me add a polite clarification:
    You were challenging a specific statement of mine, without telling me what the nature of the challenge. Since you will not answer my question, perhaps I could politely ask you to withdraw the challenge. Or tell me why you do not wish to withdraw it [and maybe even what it was].

  347. Phil. (22:59:51)
    “Posts from real scientists like Leif are welcome however.”

    While the privilege of participating in this forum is not restricted according to profession or career-stage, it seems sensible for participants to expect a degree of civility from other participants.

    Climate is a concern for all of society – and at present the trust between the public and the science community has been partially broken (something many saw coming years ago).

  348. Paul Vaughan (17:04:49) :
    economic/political/climate/solar-science crisis.
    economic [yes]. political [maybe], climate [no] crisis, and similarly no solar-science crisis. On the contrary, solar science has never looked brighter. The sun is entering a quiet period [as predicted – with the usual dissenters, there always are], new powerful solar instruments are coming online soon [SDO, AST]. Computing power has increased to the point where we can begin to model realistically. New theoretical tools in heliosesimology are being developed. We are getting a better understanding of the meaning [as well as improved calibration] of our long-term historical data. This is a golden age for solar research. No crisis at all.

  349. Leif,
    Can you direct me to more info on:

    dT/T = 1/4 dS/S where T is temperature and S is solar irradiance. the equation automatically takes into account albedo, gray body issues, and greenhouse effect.

    I looked on your site a bit but didn’t find anything (probably due to ignorance). Thanks.

  350. Oh and Leif, you are mentioned in the June issue in Sky and Telescope in a letter to the editor (page 10)… :)

  351. charles the moderator

    You are doing a good job in keeping a level of the discussion. You cannot be expected to keep us on topic :) Like most here I like to see what Leif is saying about things in general , but I had forgotten what this challenge was !

    Had to look for it in the interest of the rest of the readers of this thread:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:48:56) :

    Paul Vaughan (12:30:35) :
    “Leif Svalgaard (07:59:19)
    “The important result is that geomagnetic activity in 1845-1875 is comparable to the past 30 years, while temperatures are not.”

    Paul: “I have to challenge you on this Leif. We are not dealing with a simple bivariate system.”

    Leif: “I’m not sure what you are challenging. I was only making a statement about the data, not its interpretation. Are you challenging my statement that temperatures the past 30 years are not comparable to what they were in 1845-1875?”

    In my view, Paul wants to say that searching for a correlation in the time spectra of geomagnetic activity and temperature is not a simple thing as there are more variables than obvious entering which might mask correlations. Or maybe that the geomagnetic activity of last century is a guess work that depends on a lot of variables. Both interpretations are trivial imo.

    We work with the data we are given. General challenges are meaningless. If we dispute the data we have to put some elbow grease and show where the data is wrong.

    Otherwise the thread has deteriorated to a game of trivial pursuit :).

  352. jonk (12:18:26) :

    Is that a sc23 spot right now? I can’t remember whick color leading is what. I should write it down.

    Even South ReVerses.
    R=Red (White on MDI Magnetogram)
    V=Violet (Black on MDI Magnetoram)
    Black leads on this spot (Violet or V on Mt. Wilson Drawing)
    BV , so the spot is SC23 (odd)
    If the were SC24 (even cycle) it would be RV, or White on the MDI Magnetoram leading.
    Remember SC Even South ReVerses in case you can’t remember which is which.

  353. The actual behavior (as far as the current data shows) of Ice Ages is a rapid plunge to, and a very slow climb out of.
    A normal solar cycle ramp is fast to max, and 1/2 rate to min.
    Opposite leaning slopes.
    Has the Earth spent more time in the Ice Ages, or Interglacials?
    Somehow, nature is trying to tell us something, whether it can be equationed out or not.

  354. alphajuno (21:28:02) :
    Oh and Leif, you are mentioned in the June issue in Sky and Telescope in a letter to the editor (page 10)… :)

    I hope it was positive.

    About the equation. This is textbook stuff that you may find many places on the internet. But, better than that, we can derive from basic physics. The starting point is that what the Earth radiates must equal what it gets from the Sun, then we can use Stefan-Boltzmann’s law: S = a T^4, saying that the radiance S is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. For a black body the constant is a = 5.67E-8. For a gray body, it is another constant [‘a’ multiplied by the ‘emissivity’ of the body which is less than 1 for a gray body], but it is still a constant. For a given albedo A, you have to multiply by (1-A), which is still a constant [the albedo can vary with wavelength so we are talking about the ‘effective’ or average albedo]. Then you have to divide by 4 because the Earth is a sphere and not a disk, but in the end you just end up with the same law S = a T^4, except the constant a now incorporate the gray body emissivity, the albedo, and the sphericity of the Earth. In the penultimate step we differentiate: dS = a (4 T^3 dT), or by dividing both sides by S [on the left] and aT^4 (which is the same on account of S = aT^4) [on the right]: dS/S = 4 dT/T, and finally by rearranging: dT/T = 1/4 dS/S. You can see that the constant conveniently disappears. We can multiply both sides by 100, then we have percentages. The final step is also important, because we calculate the percentage of the actual T which is augmented by 33K by the greenhouse effect [or whatever you wish to invoke to account for the Earth being 33K warmer than from radiation equilibrium alone]. So using T = 288K takes care of the ‘greenhouse’ effect. And there you have it.

  355. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia had it’s coldest morning today since 1957, 2.7c. Rising CO2 and record lows in both hemispheres. Hummm…..

  356. - – –
    Re: anna v (22:23:07)

    You’ve picked up on some of what happened, but not the lead-up series of comments that triggered the challenge, nor my immediate (right off the bat) suggestion that we leave the topic for another day to avoid going off-topic.

    The other point I would add is that we are all volunteers. The minute personal attacks start appearing, responding is no longer just a matter of addressing the science; other factors begin affecting decisions about what constitutes an appropriate response. (Note: A response is not necessarily a reply.)

    – – –
    Phil.: Despite your ill-spirited introductory ambush, your apparent lack of respect for my dozen years of formal post-secondary education, your inappropriate revelation of personal information about one of your former students, and your offensive innuendo about the social sciences, I would make an effort to turn our exchange towards something constructive if I knew your area of expertise; I consider it likely that you possess unique knowledge that will be of interest to readers, including myself.

    – – –
    Leif Svalgaard (19:06:49)
    “[…] we can begin to model realistically […]”

    I will believe this when I see it, but I both acknowledge & appreciate the value of efforts. Science funding needs to be increased by at least 2 orders of magnitude for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is the sustainable defense of civilization.

    FYI: I continue to read the solar science literature. It is fascinating.

  357. Robert Bateman (22:45:27) :
    The actual behavior (as far as the current data shows) of Ice Ages is a rapid plunge to, and a very slow climb out of.
    Other way around.

    Paul Vaughan (00:53:45) :
    the challenge, nor my immediate (right off the bat) suggestion that we leave the topic for another day to avoid going off-topic.
    I think you have gone off-topic at length with personal attacks instead of answering my simple question as to where there tha challenge lies. My question still stands.

  358. “WUWT is a great site and it would be an order of magnitude better if the moderators blocked the comments that get personal.”

    Actually, I think the moderators here at WUWT are doing very well, excluding naked hostility but accommodating the reality that reason is the slave of volition and conviction.

    Their discipline has, in fact, revealed to all that the myth of the well-mannered, ruthlessly logical, selfless ‘Scientist’ is a ludicrous characiture.

  359. gary gulrud (06:50:08) :
    the myth of the well-mannered, ruthlessly logical, selfless ‘Scientist’ is a ludicrous characiture.

    Why are you so hard on poor Jim Hansen? Perhaps a bit of civility would be appropriate…

  360. Dr. Svalgaard,
    As we have recently considered (elsewhere) possible Jupiter’s thermal imbalance, is the science absolutely certain about the Earth’s thermal balance?
    Since thermodynamics is one of the many of my weak points, I wander could you elaborate on the following:
    1. An estimate of the average global temperatures (in relation to the current) if the Earth had a cold core (say 100K or less) with current TSI.
    2. An estimate of the average global temperatures (in relation to the current) if the TSI was very low (say 5% or less of current) with the Earth’s core as present.

  361. vukcevic (08:46:40) :
    science absolutely certain
    Science is never absolutely certain.

    1.An estimate of the average global temperatures (in relation to the current) if the Earth had a cold core (say 100K or less) with current TSI.

    Since the heat flow from the Earth is so minute, I don’t think we could measure any difference. But it is not reasonable in view of current knowledge to assume that the core of the Earth is at a low temperature of 100K [I assume that is -173C and not 100,000 degrees]. It is hot inside the Earth, for three reasons: 1) radioactive decay, 2) gravitational compression, 3) left over heat from formation.

    2. An estimate of the average global temperatures (in relation to the current) if the TSI was very low (say 5% or less of current) with the Earth’s core as present.
    Less than 58K. Something close to that of Pluto. But, your train of thought here escapes me. The questions do not seem to be [even remotely] connected to the actual situation.

  362. My apologies not setting point one correctly. It should be:
    1. An estimate of the average global temperatures (in relation to the current) if one was to assume that, in a hypothetical case the Earth had a cold core (say 100K or less in contrast whatever happen to be currently) with the current TSI.
    Train of thought: An odd way of approaching problem: take two extreme cases by eliminating variables, and work towards point of balance.
    Case 2. I was expecting much higher considering that T starts going up at depths of 30m or so (?).

  363. vukcevic (10:28:30) :
    My apologies not setting point one correctly.
    The heat flow [currently is of the order of 60 milliwatts or so, compared to TSI’s 340 W/m2, so about 5000 times smaller. The temperature effect of that is 4 times smaller, so 1/20,000 of 288K or 0.014 K. But I do not understand “say 100K or less in contrast whatever happen to be currently”. This could mean A: T < 100k, or B: T < 6000K – 100K = 5900K. Which is it?

    Case 2. I was expecting much higher considering that T starts going up at depths of 30m or so (?).
    T = (S/a)^(1/4), so for S= 0.06 W/m2 and a = 5.67E-8 [SI units], we get T = 32K if TSI falls to zero. If TSI is non-zero, the temperature is higher, 58K for your case of 5%.

  364. Thanks for that.
    In interim I was using oceans (75% of the surface), and 0.1W/m2, to calculate disappointingly miserable 42K which tallies with your result.
    I suggested level of 100K to make contribution to the surface negligible (did not wish to say 0K, for obvious reason), but as calculations show would not make much difference whether one assumes 100 or 1000K as a starting point.
    Thanks.

  365. - – –
    Leif Svalgaard (06:00:48)
    “I think you have gone off-topic at length with personal attacks instead of answering my simple question as to where there tha challenge lies. My question still stands.”

    Leif, I have not launched any personal attacks, but I have responded to a few.

    People can agree to disagree respectfully. I professionally moderated online forums for years. I would have shut down the counter-policy conduct as soon as it started (and it’s not like I would have had a choice about it).

    We’re all volunteers in this forum, so we have no authority to demand answers. I suggested that we leave the matter for another day when it might be on-topic in another thread.

    I thanked you more than once for the answers you provided regarding solar science. I now thank you again for them: Thank You.

    – – –
    gary gulrud (06:50:08)
    “I think the moderators here at WUWT are doing very well”

    I agree, especially considering that they are volunteers (something I learned during this thread).

    – – –
    anna v (22:23:07)
    “In my view, Paul wants to say that searching for a correlation in the time spectra of geomagnetic activity and temperature is not a simple thing as there are more variables than obvious entering which might mask correlations. […] We work with the data we are given.”

    I will offer a few notes, in part to dispel innuendos [from others] suggesting that I might have some mysterious &/or thieving political motives:


    In following these discussions I am concerned that some participants:

    1) do not differentiate between correlation, phase concordance, & coupling.
    2) have never carefully studied the variability of parameter estimates with variation of measurement (&/or summary) scale in the context of spatiotemporal heterogeneity.
    3) do not instinctively consider (or acknowledge) the possibility of nonlinear relations.
    4) fail to acknowledge (or fail to realize) that if someone says there is a relationship, it does not mean they are suggesting causation.
    5) fail to acknowledge that there can be relationships in the absence of known mechanisms.
    6) do not distinguish randomness from chaos.
    7) do not instinctively consider lurking, conditioning, & contrast variables.
    8) have possibly never been trained in the practice of data analysis, even if they may have been trained extensively in experimental design and formal hypothesis testing.
    9) fail to emphasize the limitations of untenable assumptions.
    10) prematurely draw conclusions (i.e. before looking under every stone).
    11) fail to accurately qualify statistical interpretations and related statements.

    Something which I find of particular concern is the seeming fixation on “global average annual temperature”. It should be instinctive that important signals are masked in global averages and that diurnal temperature range is a better variable for investigating some of the topics that seem to fascinate many readers. (And note: We have data.)

    Considering the partial deterioration of the public’s trust in science due to the climate controversy, there will be ongoing scrutiny of science.

    We all have different background & experience – and this is an interdisciplinary discussion. I acknowledge the value of access to comments from people with different experience.


    I will end with a reminder of what caused me to start engaging in discussions like this one:

    I saw projections showing that daily minimum temperatures are going to overtake daily maximum temperatures. These projections were made by an organization that calls itself an “Institute for Climate Studies”. This organization is funded by a government that has implemented a substantial carbon tax. (Note: I have verified that many other jurisdictions employ the same methodology.)

    If modeled future nighttime temperatures are allowed to regularly exceed daytime temperatures, what effect does this have on forecasted mean temperatures if mean temperature is defined as the average of max & min?

    The need for transparency & audit is clear, particularly given the backlash.

  366. Paul Vaughan (14:47:31) :
    Leif, I have not launched any personal attacks
    You most certainly have, like insinuating that my polite requests for clarifications were ‘insults’ and ‘badgerings’.

    People can agree to disagree respectfully
    The problem is that you will not even tell me what you disagree with. That is most disrespectful, IMHO.

    But I realize that it may be completely hopeless to get a reasonable answer out of you, so shall stop trying for now. (Sigh).

  367. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44)
    “[…] That is most disrespectful, IMHO.”

    No disrespect is intended.
    I have tremendous respect for you.
    You are a highly esteemed member of [more than] this community.

  368. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44)
    “You most certainly have”

    I object to this statement (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).

    My thanks for your answers to questions about solar science are sincere.

  369. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44)
    “The problem is that you will not even tell me what you disagree with.”

    I object to this statement (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).


    Leif: “[…] so shall stop trying for now.”

    To be explicit: Please do not resume trying.


    Your answers to questions about solar science are valued.

  370. Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44) :
    “People can agree to disagree respectfully”
    The problem is that you will not even tell me what you disagree with. That is most disrespectful, IMHO.

    Even as you claim no disrespect was intended, I consider it very disrespectful for you to state that you challenge a statement of mine, but will not tell me what the challenge is. You will rather spend a inordinately large bandwidth complaining about me badgering you and saying that since this is all volunteer work one cannot demand to know. Where I come from it is a right to be confronted with the particulars of a challenge. Trampling that right [as you do] is most disturbing and unsatisfactory. Now, I realize that you have raised 11 points or complaints about ‘some’ participants. Would you tell me which of those apply to me in your opinion, so I can seek help or try to amend my ways?

  371. Paul Vaughan (16:22:52) :
    “The problem is that you will not even tell me what you disagree with.”
    I object to this statement (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).

    And in the end that is actually fine with me [in spite of my badgering]. It simply tells me not to take seriously any challenges issued by you [which I was doing, as is my wont], and to disregard any and all such.

  372. Leif Svalgaard (16:27:02)
    “Where I come from […]”

    Leif Svalgaard (16:55:42)
    “It simply tells me not to take seriously […]”

    Perhaps we have different cultural roots. That does not change my respect for your knowledge about solar science, nor will it ever cause me to dismiss all of your future claims in advance.

  373. Paul Vaughan (20:42:08) :
    That does not change my respect for your knowledge about solar science,
    Perhaps forgetting that my initial training was atmospheric physics.

    nor will it ever cause me to dismiss all of your future claims in advance.
    And why would someone ever even think of doing so? We are indeed from different cultures.

  374. Thanks for the explanation Leif. I was handwriting the equations to follow the logic. I still need to comprehend more but your equation seems to describe the major effect that drives temp as a function of solar radiance. I’ll probably think about it some more this weekend since I don’t probably understand as much as I’d like to right now. Intuitively, I think that there should be other factors that need to be included (like if albedo changes or water vapor can modify dT) but I haven’t come up with anything definitive yet (and may not). It may simply be an elegant equation that works throughout the universe for spherical bodies.

    The letter to the editor in S&T was favorable. It was a response to an article written on Sun and Global Warming. You were acknowledged as a person who predicted a slow beginning to a slow beginning to cycle 24 and it being a weak cycle (“the weakest in a century”) as documented in S&T July 2007, page 29.

  375. alphajuno (21:51:12) :
    I’ll probably think about it some more this weekend since I don’t probably understand as much as I’d like to right now.
    If you have any specific questions or need some further explanation, just shoot me a question. I’ll be monitoring this thread for such. The equation is not original with me, but is the ‘usual’ equation being taught [and actually works even for non-spherical bodies]. The only assumption in all of this is that the body is in radiative equilibrium, i.e. it radiates away what comes in [in the long run].

  376. Leif Svalgaard

    I am trying to understand a bit more about solar flares – I have read some basic stuff by googling but have not found a good trend analysis.

    Are data tracked and kept – I think I read somewhere that solar flares peak slightly later in the solar cycle then sunspots? If so where can I find it?

    Are they used as a predictor of cycle length?

    I understand that solar flare activity is difficult to predict – who are the leading people on this and do you know any good source material that can help me in my quest to learn more?

    Grateful as ever. Thanks.

  377. PaulHClark (09:07:32) :
    Are data tracked and kept – I think I read somewhere that solar flares peak slightly later in the solar cycle then sunspots? If so where can I find it?

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

    is a good source.

    Are they used as a predictor of cycle length?
    No, and the cycle length is a rather meaningless number, anyway. The actual activity levels are much better.

    I understand that solar flare activity is difficult to predict – who are the leading people on this and do you know any good source material that can help me in my quest to learn more?
    Flare research has taken a backseat to CME research lately, but lots of people are still doing this. Spiro Antiochos is one of my favorites [and a good friend]. google him.

  378. Error in the record:
    At (16:27:02) Leif Svalgaard quotes Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44) as saying:
    “People can agree to disagree respectfully”

    Correction:
    Paul Vaughan (14:47:31)
    “People can agree to disagree respectfully.”

    I would add:
    They can also choose to do so efficiently.
    (Freedom is practical.)

    – – –
    Leif Svalgaard (21:30:31)
    “[…] my initial training was atmospheric physics.”

    I respect this – thank you for pointing it out.

  379. Paul Vaughan (11:51:06) :
    Error in the record:
    At (16:27:02) Leif Svalgaard quotes Leif Svalgaard (15:14:44) as saying:
    “People can agree to disagree respectfully”

    No, you have not picked up on the convention used. The first level quote is done simply by using italics, like in above.
    If within the italics, there are further quotation marks they mean that they enclose a further quote (that I was quoting someone else – in casu you). So, no error, and no [silly] correction needed.

    I would add:
    They can also choose to do so efficiently.
    (Freedom is practical.)

    This makes no sense (and for clarity: I do not wish to debate this).

  380. Leif Svalgaard (14:42:52) :
    “[…] the convention used […]”

    Some of the sloppy quotation ‘conventions’ obfuscate the record. Sometimes the obfuscation appears deliberate (and for clarity: no specific accusation is being made).

    – –
    Leif: “This makes no sense […]”

    I disagree —- & I both respect and concur with your wish to not debate this.


    In this instance, we have efficiently both agreed & disagreed respectfully.

    I tentatively interpret this as a positive sign.

  381. Paul Vaughan (15:28:09) :
    Some of the sloppy quotation ‘conventions’ obfuscate the record. Sometimes the obfuscation appears deliberate (and for clarity: no specific accusation is being made).
    My convention [and what else is important when discussing my postings?] are not sloppy, but extremely consistent, to the very best of my ability. About the accusations: you cannot have it both ways.

    I tentatively interpret this as a positive sign.<
    I don’t think anybody is interested in what you consider positive. I’m not, for one.

  382. Re: Leif Svalgaard (19:17:34)

    Few of the quoting conventions I see are unambiguous for a casual reader, who might, for example, find this thread via Google search and have no idea what Leif Svalgaard’s quoting convention is. (This is not a complaint – just an observation.)

  383. Paul Vaughan (23:07:50) :
    a casual reader,
    You are not a casual reader, and furthermore, you knew the context, and you make the assumption that anybody cares about who said what.

  384. I wonder how many scientists read this blog.

    And I wonder how many decent scientists choose to not participate because:
    1.
    There is no mechanism to ensure that it will be respected if they announce that they want to drop a volley with another commenter (who they may perceive as hostile, severely biased, narrowly linear, or politically motivated, for example).
    2.
    There is no mechanism to prevent other commenters from projecting the false logic that if someone exits a volley, they have forfeited. (They may simply be sensibly steering clear of wasting their time in an exchange with someone who is ideologically entrenched, for example.)
    3.
    Ad hominem attacks are allowed (and obviously this promotes flame-exchanges).

    I am inspired to think of ways to help WUWT pull in truck-loads of money so that moderators can be paid TOP coin to ENFORCE decent standards of conduct.

    My theory is that a little gentrification of the online climate discussion would increase by an order of magnitude or more the number of decent scientists willing to comment and share their valuable knowledge.

  385. Paul Vaughan (13:40:34) :
    And I wonder how many decent scientists choose to not participate because…
    It is normal and decent scientific behavior that if a challenge is issued, the scientist challenged gets to know what the challenge is and gets a forum to rebut the challenge. In the usual Journals there are rather strict rules for how this should play out: you can submit a ‘comment’ [usually negative] on a published paper, to which the scientist being challenged has a right to rebut with a ‘reply’. The ‘comment’ and ‘reply’ will then be published back-to-back…

Comments are closed.