NASA Goddard study suggests solar variation plays a role in our current climate

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution
From the Daily Tech, Michael Andrews. (h/t to Joe D’Aleo)

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

[NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends - Anthony]


Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center,

“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes,

“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.


NOTE: for those that wish to see the original NASA Goddard article which sparked both the Daily Tech and Science Daily news stories referenced above, you can read it here:

http://erc.ivv.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html

- Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Science, Solar. Bookmark the permalink.

287 Responses to NASA Goddard study suggests solar variation plays a role in our current climate

  1. Ivan says:

    “For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change,” said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.”

    So, this is only one more It-was-Sun-since-Bing Bang-until-1977 nonsense, that should only to additionally strengthen another, It-was-Man-since-1977, nonsense.

  2. Richard deSousa says:

    NASA is pathetic. It no longer commands a high respect from the scientific community unless one counts the pro-AGWers as scientists.

  3. Nonoy Oplas says:

    NASA’s recognition of Sun-climate correlation is climate science.
    Its insistence that recent warming was mainly man-made is political science.

  4. Frank Mosher says:

    Anthony. Anything connected to NASA has a bad odor to it. That’s a shame. During the 60s, i had great pride in NASA, listening to the space launches, over the classroom intercom with schoolmates. It ia a shame that Hansen et al have brought so much discredit to a formerly highly respected agency. my 2 cents worth. fm

  5. Leon Brozyna says:

    Another “yes, but” study.

    So any study of the sun’s impact on the climate is qualified with a “that was then, this is now” sort of statement. Anything to keep alive the myth that mankind is a driver of the climate.

    Let’s all head on down to the seashore and order the waters to retreat…

  6. pkatt says:

    I think its the ultimate hubris to assume you know how to fix the system, when you don’t even understand all of the sources or sinks of Co2….

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2009

    By my figuring they don’t know where 20% of the carbon goes. So why are we so sure they know where 100% of it comes from, how long it lives in the atmosphere and how it is, or is not dispersed between hemispheres of our Earth. The ocean circulation model is about to fall.. I suspect we shall be seeing that happen on quite a few models in the next few years because what works for a warming climate, may not necessarily be true for a cooling one.

    As far as this latest solar report. They are covering their behinds just in case this minimum continues and their models cant, or won’t predict cooling.. then we can blame it on the sun. Remember when it was warming the sun had no influence, or slight influence.. but let it cool down and the sun definately has a measurable effect? Parsel tongue is what that is ..

  7. Adam from Kansas says:

    What would happen if you combined those two graphs together, both by themselves may not be perfect renditions of the temperature, but it would seem you need more than just sunspot count to find the corralation, but the activity proxies as well.

    NASA seems to be admitting that the sun controls the Earth’s climate, but their argument for AGW doesn’t make sense like the poster above, since 1977? CO2 was rising well before then and it didn’t cause any warming then!?

  8. Neo says:

    Caught a piece (circa 2007) on History Channel this afternoon where they were saying that any possible cooling from the current minimum would be outweighed by the man made contribution of CO2.

    Guess they were wrong.

  9. John F. Hultquist says:

    Well, I went to the original. The first three lines make sense:

    “The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth’s orientation shifts through the year.”

    After that it falls apart. For example, most of the statements have a nonsensical aspect to them such as this one:
    “ Right now, we are in between major ice ages, . . ”

    How do they know? Take some time to think about this.

    Or this one:
    “. . . extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output.”

    Anyone wish to parse this? History, logic, and wordsmithing all take major hits with this. Doesn’t anyone know how to play this game?

  10. MJ says:

    The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

    Industrial Revolution?? Looks like NASA has a very short memory.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/nilef-20070319.html

    NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records 03.19.07
    “[..]Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt,” she said. “These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time.”

    A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

    “A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy,” Ruzmaikin said. “They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations.”

    The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

    The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.[..]

    I rather like that last sentence. Given that they were comparing Nile data with Northern Europe and Far East data, it would take a strange train of thought to even consider the possibility that the implications were limited to the Nile River basin.

  11. Bob Tisdale says:

    Doesn’t appear to be anything new.

  12. Anaconda says:

    @ Leif Svalgaard:

    What do you make of the, above, scientific evidence?

    Svalgaard states (paraphrase): “The Sun is not a driver of world climate.”

    While you have spent much time and effort, here, explaining why the Sun isn’t a “driver” of climate.

    This evidence contradicts your position and is easy for the layman to grasp and understand.

    When NASA states solar activity has an impact on climate (with some weasel words thrown in at the end), even the AGW proponents must shiver and quietly gnash their teeth in the private little hell of their own making.

  13. VinceW says:

    But that Science Daily article is from May 12, 2008! Hardly “new”. And why does this fine site quote articles from Daily Tech?

  14. MDR says:

    Richard deSousa (16:10:07) :

    “NASA is pathetic. It no longer commands a high respect from the scientific community unless one counts the pro-AGWers as scientists.”

    Isn’t NASA primarily an engineering outfit? Doesn’t most of its budget go toward building stuff (satellites, manned space vehicles, etc.)?

  15. Geoff Sharp says:

    I think the majority of readers of this blog attribute solar fluctuations as a big player towards climate fluctuations, the downstream processes might not be completely understood but the overall picture is clear. Now NASA is backing up and beginning to show signs of breaking away from the AGW camp.

    Some of the readers here might be interested in a long term prediction of solar activity and speculate how our climate might be shaped in the next 200 years.

    Here is a 200 year prediction of solar activity:

    http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/200predsm.jpg

  16. Ron de Haan says:

    1. According to Ian Plimer the IPCC has left microbes (we find them in the first 400 meters of the earths soil cover and 85% of the earths volcanos out of the total CO2 flux equation.

    Microbes, according to Ian Plimer are the world’s biggest emittors of CO2.
    So, as the total CO2 flux is caused by not validated causes, the human emissions become a smaller part of the total flux.

    2. A.O, Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer link low solar activity to cosmic particles penetrating the earth’s atmosfhere resulting in cloud seeding nuclea causing in creased low cloud coverage responsible for enhanced cooling.

    3. Earlier NASA articles about the Maunder Minimum mention

  17. Katlab says:

    Okay, so after the 900 page climate bill is passed loaded down with goodies, NASA says that global warming is correlated to solar radiance. They couldn’t have presented this study when Congress was “considering” the bill?

    I think I am having a personal Gore effect. Ever since we put in a pool in the backyard it has been cold and rainy. Sigh

  18. MartinGAtkins says:

    Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

    Now I’m confused. Do they mean skeptics as in deniers that are all in the pockets of big oil companies or skeptics that question the proposition that the current quiet period in solar activity is having any effect on current climate conditions?

    I don’t think I’ve had such a serious identity crisis since the emergence of my first pubic hair.

  19. Ron de Haan says:

    3. Earlier NASA articles about the Maunder Minimum mentions the following possible causes of cooling:

    If energy from the Sun decreased only slightly, why did temperatures drop so severely in the Northern Hemisphere? Climate scientist Drew Shindell and colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies tackled that question by combining temperature records gleaned from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and the few measurements recorded in the historical record, with an advanced computer model of the Earth’s climate. The group first calculated the amount of energy coming from the Sun during the Maunder Minimum and entered the information into a general circulation model. The model is a mathematical representation of the way various Earth systems—ocean surface temperatures, different layers of the atmosphere, energy reflected and absorbed from land, and so forth—interact to produce the climate.

    When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.

    The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter. (When the NAO is positive, winter storms track farther north, making winters in Europe milder.) The model results, shown above, illustrate that the NAO was more negative on average during the Maunder Minimum, and Europe remained unusually cold. These results matched the paleoclimate record.

    By creating a model that could reproduce temperatures recorded in paleoclimate records, Shindell and colleagues reached a better understanding of how changes in the stratosphere influence weather patterns.

    See: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122

    I know the Shindell theory is debunked but the current NASA publication is to pathetic for words.

    NASA has become an AGW PR Bureau financed by the US tax payer.

  20. David L. Hagen says:

    The “new research study” refers to DailyTech May 12, 2008. Is this correct, or is there a 2009 NASA study?

    REPLY: Joe D’Aleo sent me the link today, and I hadn’t covered it here before. – Anthony

  21. Paul Tonita says:

    When has NASA ever denied that solar variation plays a role in our current climate?

    Visit the GISS website, and enter the term “solar variation” and observe the 100,000 + hits the search engine returns from the NASA domain.

    This is not exactly new information.

    What’s up with that anyways…

  22. Pamela Gray says:

    There is a difference between energy source and source of temperature variation. Given that, I sometimes think we are talking about the same thing…kinda. But let’s be sure. Can we agree on the following 4 points.

    1. The Sun provides the warmth for an otherwise cold planet (good thing too). It varies only a little bit regarding its impact on Earth’s noisy temperature.

    2. The noisy variations, as in gees its colder than a witch’s tit in Canada or Texas is on fire, are Earth bound.

    3. But what about data trends? Can we cancel out the “weather” noise to find a different data signal, such as would be caused by CO2 or Sun variations?

    4. The “data” refers to the observed historical temperatures, not the future modeled temperature.

    When data is statistically smoothed or drawn in a linear trend line, are you looking at a statistical trend (which has no meaning in terms of a different cause), or an extracted (weather noise canceled out) signal different than weather noise? Depends on your algorithm. The trouble with canceling out weather noise is that it is not random. It has its own trends and cycles, long and short. So simply canceling weather noise out by creating a statistically derived smoothed trend or linear trend is not an extracted signal of CO2 or Sun. Until we understand the extent of oceanic oscillations on weather, we cannot say that a statistical trend of weather noise is related to something other than oceanic oscillations and its related weather noise. This holds true for both Sun and CO2.

    If you disagree, tell me how the up or down trend, thought by you (the reader and whichever side you are on) to be CO2 or Sun, is anything other than a statistical artifact of noisy, long and short oscillating, weather? As I understand it, a linear line is nothing but a statistical trend of the noise, meaning weather, and the average is nothing but a statistical average of the noise, meaning weather. It cannot be anything else.

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, at least they are starting the Derriere Cover… somebody knows they have a problem…

    From the “Summer of 68″ department:

    It was 68F on my patio this afternoon. Again. In “summer”….

    I’ve also noticed that it is very overcast in the mornings, clears off mid day, then we get high wispy clouds with a few lower cumulus again in the evenings. There is a daily cycle to the clouds that I don’t remember from before… By June, it was Clear Blue Sky and HOT. From first sun till last.

    OK, so this is intensely anecdotal… but it does cause me to wonder if anyone has looked into the daily pattern of cloudiness? If it’s 10% or 20% more cloudy until 10am to 4pm but “normal” in the middle and the measurements only measure the middle, it will never show up in the numbers (but it will be a heck of a lot cooler mid day…).

    So does the Svensmark theory testing look at average cloud all day, cloud at a point in time, cloud at high noon, what?

    Still waiting for something to harvest from my garden… almost have a ‘summer squash’ big enough, but everything else is laughing at me (except for some winter onions and a bit of cabbage / kale left over from winter…)

    And yes, I’m writing this from my living room since it’s too cold to sit out on the patio right now (at about 6 pm that ought to be beer and BBQ time…)

  24. rbateman says:

    If NASA is willing to go to the effort to research the writings and history on climate, it means they are having a sort of internal debate going on.
    I say give them a break, let them sort it out thier own way.
    Throw Hansen a Tea Party.
    The Nile, eh? Why, those clever Egyptians were into more than just Pyramids & Temples. Ra.

  25. RoyFOMR says:

    OT- but, sadly, relevant I think. I’m currently watching the BBC Parliament channel (Yup, I’m sad, move on)- and the debate is about Energy and Climate Change Questions. The Government bench (El Gordonistas) has about six or seven bodies present while the opposition (of all shades) have maybe 3 times that number.

    Folks , we’re talking 30 out of about 650 elected “for the people and by the people” corpses who have deigned that the end of the world as we know it is worth turning up for! Mind you, I’ve more respect for these 30 corpses than the 620 blood-sucking zombies whose priorities (thanks to the Daily T) are divided between self-preservational, fiscal-audit obfuscation and sheer scientific ignorance.
    Thank you, UK politicians for displaying to the world and prosterity that you’re a bunch of self-snips!!!

  26. rbateman says:

    Pamela Gray (17:51:10) :

    I’ll toss in tidal heating from Sun & Moon on Earth as a baseline candidate.
    The temperature of the Earth at a depth sufficient enough to remove all external sources. Establish a gradient from suface down to baseline. Go from there.

  27. Bob Wood says:

    I’ve noticed that every evening when the sun goes down, so does the temperature. Maybe I should write a paper on that!

  28. Mike Kelley says:

    I am very frustrated with my government. They are planning to jack the cost of all our energy sources to slow “global warming”, and our forecast here in Montana calls for rain turning to snow on Saturday and Sunday. It may be time for a revolution.

  29. Robert Wood says:

    Frank Mosher @16:20:21

    NASA lost its way a long time back, during the ’70s when the cut-backs were made and the space shuttle was developed. After the success of Apollo and Spacelab, they lost their way, aided by political interference.

    However, the planetary exploration program is still a source of pride for NASA; and, given the right political leadership, they can re-scale the Moon and do good things there. Then to Mars. But, not with the current institutional bureaucracy and political leadership.

  30. Mike Lorrey says:

    Excuse me, but 1.3 watts per square meter is 1% of 1361 watts per square meter, not 0.1%

    Thats a order of magnitude difference in warming.

  31. Robert Wood says:

    John F. Hultquist @16:37:48

    “. . . extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output.”

    “May have been partly responsible for the little ice age” apart from the Blue Parrot denial of this statement, it is an astounding admittal by NASA that ther WAS A LITTLE ICE AGE! This is osmething that the warmmonegers deny.

    “..may reflect cyclic or irregular changes…” Well, talk about having cake and eating!! The changes were cyclic, or maybe irregular. Well, what else could they be??? Stochastic? No, that’s irregular. Seasonal; cyclic. They’ve just about covered all bases with this phrase.

  32. Jim Cripwell says:

    Surely, the way the sun controls our climate is through it’s magnetic field.

  33. VG says:

    Looks like using f17+f13 corrections satellite channels has resulted in a realistic correction to ice extent data. In fact Arctic ice has been within NORMAL SD since mid 2008! Maybe that massive correction done around mid 08 (subject of a post on WUWT) was a mistake after all…
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    reason NORSEX usually adjusts data very quickly if errors found. They haven’t for 48 hrs now…

  34. Mike Lorrey says:

    That NASA page has a comment submission form at the end, but apparently they dont actually display any comments, despite stating moderation rules. Who are they moderating for?

    Also, they continue to claim the LIA was restricted to Europe, when we know from speleotherms that the LIA happened as far away from Europe as New Zealand (A. Lorrey, 2008).

    I would say this article is a typical piece of damage control spin.

  35. Just Want Results... says:

    Maybe certain people can ease up on Piers Corbyn and Henrik Svensmark now.

  36. Craig Moore says:

    There is SNOW forecasted for Montana this weekend. Where’s the warming? http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=59427&wuSelect=WEATHER

  37. Paul Tonita says:

    Mike Lorrey says:

    “Excuse me, but 1.3 watts per square meter is 1% of 1361 watts per square meter, not 0.1%

    Thats a order of magnitude difference in warming.”

    You may wish to check your math on this. Likely you will wish you had double checked before clicking submit comment.

  38. Paul R says:

    Geoff Sharp (17:09:54) :

    I think the majority of readers of this blog attribute solar fluctuations as a big player towards climate fluctuations, the downstream processes might not be completely understood but the overall picture is clear. Now NASA is backing up and beginning to show signs of breaking away from the AGW camp.

    I don’t see it that way, I see NASA producing a study in which the mathemagical variables have been adjusted to conclude that solar variation accounts for 0.1 of a degree Celsius in temperature change in the Earths climate. With this insignificant linear mathemagical result the finger is firmly pointed back at the political objective. AGW.

  39. Gary Pearse says:

    I wouldn’t be too heartened by this paper. I think this is a bit of sidewinding to be able to explain the temporary “interuption in rampant AGW”. It is not even a gradual change in direction, but rather a way to be able to pull this story out when we argue that the models aren’t working, CO2 is going up but its getting colder out. I’ve been noticing this shift for the last 2 years: HADCentre folks admonishing the press from getting too hyped up; Climate Change instead of Global Wqrming; moving from the “were all dead in 100 months” to “there could be a 20 year cooling period then we all drown” and even Monbiot now saying “get off the polar bears and ice caps already – there are already 300,000 people in poorer countries dying each year from global warming”.

    Remember these guys have all been taking lessons from the advertising and image making agencies who are telling them “if you don’t get off the nutty edge, you won’t get your message across to reasonable people”,”don’t make hard deadlines like the crazy people who crop up every generation carrying signs telling us that the world is going to end in two weeks” “don’t use scary words, don’t say trainloads of death”. The annoying thing is it is going to take 30 to 40 years now before we can say “got ya”. And that is how this whole thing is going to go – the ground shifting, the goal posts moved, the rules changed, hell they may all tell us by 2050 that they’ve been trying to tell us for years that we would be freezing to death in July in both hemispheres.

    Next time I want to find a post for discussing the problems with the “scale of things” and what should be done about it – I think that has to be cleared up in no uncertain terms (eg. replacing a coal-fired power plant with a solar panel on your privy)

  40. smallz79 says:

    Well, atleast they are not flat out denying now. Anyone know what’s going on in Europe. Is the “consenses” winning over there or is there hope? Not that I am less concerned here in America, but I think we have a little hope here. I have googling and can’t seem to find anything in mainstream media, even Fox, about the NIPCC’s latest meeting and it’s release of the full report/ summary report. I was wondering if any body has found anything?

  41. smallz79 says:

    When will Not Evil Just Wrong be released in full, as well as State of Fear movie?

  42. Mike Abbott says:

    Anthony, these Daily Tech articles you post continue to lose credibility. They always exaggerate what the underlying article or study actually says. To your credit, you posted a link to the actual NASA article so your readers can decide for themselves. In this case, the Daily Tech headline is deceiving. It reads, “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming.” I believe the NASA article actually says solar activity is only “partly responsible” for past climate change. That’s a significant difference from “responsible.”

    Furthermore, the NASA article says the effect of solar activity is only 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. That has been agreed upon by both sides of the debate for a long time. The bottom line is, I don’t think there is anything new here.

  43. Mike McMillan says:

    We’re asked to believe that although CO2 is an insignificant percentage of the atmosphere, it has a large positive “feedback” multiplier that lets it affect temperature to the tune of several degrees, yet the main, almost Only, source of heat on the planet, can’t make more than 0.1°C difference.

    Back of the envelope figgerin’ says 1,361 watts/m² of solar energy gives us a temperature of roughly 288 K. A 0.1% increase of input should produce a 0.29 K increase in temp, almost three times what they’re offering.

    Must be some hidden, unexplained cosmic constant Negative feedback in the equation somewhere. Darned if I can find it.

  44. kim says:

    Per Cent is per one hundred, so of the thirteen hundreds, one and a third w/msq is 0.1%. This per stuff makes everything so confusing. Less than a millenia ago arabic numerals replaced Roman ones for accounts. They used abacuses and such like.
    ==================================

  45. Mark Wagner says:

    They only included TSI.

    Even despite the tremendous evidence, they still don’t acknowledge indirect (magnetic) effects. It’s well documented that it affects cloud cover (even if we don’t know exactly how–yet) and well documented that cloud cover affects temperature. Even TAR and 4AR acknowledge indirect effects…right before they proceed to ignore it.

    But let’s not let facts get in the way…

  46. evanmjones says:

    “ Right now, we are in between major ice ages, . . ”

    How do they know? Take some time to think about this.

    They know because of the Milankovitch cycles, one thing they can actually predict.

  47. Just Want Results... says:

    “E.M.Smith (17:55:44) : It was 68F on my patio this afternoon. Again. In “summer”….”

    And how about that cold wind here in the San Francisco Bay Area!

  48. rbateman says:

    Robert Wood (18:43:16) :

    Yes, NASA’s planetary exploration & science is a crowning achievement.
    The planetary climates they found should help them to unravel some of the mysteries of our own planet’s climate. In the broader sense of the entire Solar System, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be doing that.
    Unfortunately for NASA, Hansen jumped the gun.
    That too can be corrected.

  49. Just Want Results... says:

    “”RoyFOMR (18:01:07) : The Government bench..about six or seven bodies… the opposition (of all shades) have maybe 3 times that number.

    Folks , we’re talking 30 out of about 650 elected…””

    Politicians are yawning at global warming just like the public is.

  50. Just Want Results... says:

    “” Bob Wood (18:12:55) :

    I’ve noticed that every evening when the sun goes down, so does the temperature. Maybe I should write a paper on that!””

    Settle down Bob—there may not be a strong enough correlation there!

    LOL

  51. Just Want Results... says:

    ““ Right now, we are in between major ice ages, . . ”

    How do they know? Take some time to think about this. “”

    We do have the geologic record. The past happened in the past. So there’s evidence of it laying all over the place.

    100 years from now, saying what it will be like then— if we should believe those predictions or not—there’s something we need to think about.

  52. rbateman says:

    The end of the 14th Century saw widespread & global climate disasters.
    China (pricing swings leading up to famine & identical to events in Europe).
    Toltecs collapse by invading barbaric Aztecs.
    Expansion of Polynesia came to a sudden end (unusually cold period).
    In Africa, the great Mali Empire collapsed and trading with Europe ceased.
    And in Europe all the way into the Slavic lands the 14th century was an unqualified disaster.

    see A.T. Wilson – Isotope Evidence for Past Climactic and Environmental Change. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1980) 241-50.

  53. hunter says:

    GISS’s director needs to be told about this.

  54. hunter says:

    Mike Abbott,
    FYI,
    The solar effect on climate is 100%.
    No solar = no climate

  55. FredG says:

    I know anecdotal accounts don’t mean much, but I gotta tell you that this time last year, I was swimming at our pool every weekend.

    It’s too cold so far this year…

  56. Madman says:

    Yes, our regular contributor Leif Svalgaard has generally said that he is sceptical that the sun is a driver of climate on earth. To echo another commentor here, perhaps Leif could discuss this viewpoint in an article here. While of course correlation is not causation, it does give one pause to see that the greatest solar minimums in the Age of the Telescope correlated with decreased temperatures over at least some part of the globe.

    Craig

  57. John F. Hultquist says:

    evanmjones (20:00:06) :

    ““ Right now, we are in between major ice ages, . . ”

    How do they know? Take some time to think about this.

    They know because of the Milankovitch cycles, one thing they can actually predict. ””

    Here’s the rub: A person wins a very large lottery jackpot, then says, “I’m going to continue playing until I win again.” The law of probability will assure us that if the person lives and plays long enough then after the first jackpot he or she is “between major” jackpots. But until that second big win the statement is not true.

    It’s worth pointing out that the Milankovitch cycles alludes to a theory with a few problems:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    . . . lists six.

  58. Benjamin P. says:

    Man o man, lots of NASA bashing going on here! There is more to NASA than just their climate stuff…how about those little Mars rovers?

    @ E.M.Smith (17:55:44) :

    “It was 68F on my patio this afternoon. Again. In “summer”…”

    We almost set a record high today and yesterday, almost 15 degrees above “normal” where I live.

    @Mike Lorrey (18:49:41) :

    “Excuse me, but 1.3 watts per square meter is 1% of 1361 watts per square meter, not 0.1%

    Thats a order of magnitude difference in warming.”

    Try your math again.

  59. evanmjones says:

    But, John, Milankovitch cycles are not the lotto. They are predictable, and I would dare to say unalterable.

    Yes, the theory is tied up with positive feedback issues, and there is the 41k vs. 100k. issue and we can’t be sure of inclination’s role, but it’s clear we are in an interglacial.

    Man o man, lots of NASA bashing going on here!

    Well, we’ve been down on GISS ever since the start. With good reason.

  60. pkatt says:

    Katlab (17:15:26) :

    Okay, so after the 900 page climate bill is passed loaded down with goodies, NASA says that global warming is correlated to solar radiance. They couldn’t have presented this study when Congress was “considering” the bill?

    This bill has not passed. It has gotten out of one committee but has not been voted on by the main house or senate. Word is they do not have enough to pass it.. I suggest a letter to your congressmen letting them know you dont support it. House.gov and senate.gov both have resources to look up your congressmen and contact them. Its important that they know what we do and dont want.

  61. John A. Jauregui says:

    To get a feel for the economic cost of our “collective” insanity with regard to AGW, read the Daily Reckoning’s assessment.

    “The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: The Waxman-Markey bill that has been making its rounds on the Hill appears to be the most expensive proposal to hit Congress since the financial crisis. Chris Mayer points out who he thinks will be the winners and losers in this legislation. Read on…

    Waxman-Markey Whacks Industry
    by Chris Mayer
    Gaithersburg, MD

    The so-called Waxman-Markey bill snaking its way through the greasy halls of Congress looks likes the most expensive thing to hit the economy since the financial crisis began. Even the normally mild- mannered Wall Street Journal called it “one of the most ambitious efforts to re-engineer American social and economic behavior in decades, presenting risks and opportunities for a wide array of businesses from Silicon Valley to the coal fields of the Appalachians.”

    First off, the stated objective of cutting carbon emissions by 83% by 2050 will go down in history as outrageous – akin to when Who drummer Keith Moon drove his Lincoln Continental into the pool at the Holiday Inn. I think members of Congress must be smoking the same thing Moon was.

    To show you how patently ridiculous such a goal is, I turn to Questar’s CEO – a man with the unfortunate name of Keith Rattie. Questar is an oil and gas company. Rattie is an engineer. He has been in the business since the 1970s. He walks us through the basic math in a speech he made at Utah Valley University on April 2 called “Energy Myths and Realities.” Rattie uses Utah as an example:

    “Utah’s carbon footprint today is about 66 million tons per year. Our population is 2.6 million. You divide those two numbers and the average Utahan today has a carbon footprint of about 25 tons per year. An 80% reduction in Utah’s carbon footprint by 2050 implies 66 million tons today to about 13 million tons per year by 2050. If Utah’s population continues to grow at 2% per year, by 2050, there will be about 6 million people living in our state. So 13 million tons divided by 6 million people equals 2.2 tons per person per year.

    “Question: When was the last time Utah’s carbon footprint was as low as 2.2 tons per person? Answer: Not since Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Wasatch Valley and declared, ‘This is the place.’”
    “The worst-case scenario here is that the U.S. simply won’t be making steel at some point in the future. The plants will all go to Brazil. China is already the biggest steel producer in the world.”

    You can extend this math over the whole country – a growing mass of 300 million people. To meet the Waxman-Markey bill’s goals would mean we have to go back to a carbon footprint about as big as the Pilgrims’ at Plymouth Rock circa 1620.

    So I think the bill is absurd. I think it is also a great blow to what is left of American industry. But who cares what I think? As the great Jeffers wrote, “Be angry at the sun for setting/ If these things anger you.” This is the way the world works. Politicians do dumb things. We have to play the ball where it is. And that means we have to figure out who wins and who loses.

    Here are some thoughts along those lines…

    Agriculture. Agriculture, for whatever reasons, is exempt from the new rules. So farmers don’t have to worry about those manure pools out back or the flatulent cows emitting methane all over God’s green meadows. Those big tractors? Burn up that diesel!

    Agriculture is a winner by virtue of not losing, like a hockey team that skates to a tie.

    Steel. Big loser. U.S Steel, AK Steel and even foreign steel companies with US operations all get a big kick in the family jewels on this one. Steelmaking emits all kinds of carbon dioxide. The worst-case scenario here is that the US simply won’t be making steel at some point in the future. The plants will all go to Brazil. China is already the biggest steel producer in the world. Now we just handed the country a bunch of new business.

    Avoid big steel in the US.

    Utilities. Mostly losers. Under the bill, utilities will have to get 12% of their electricity from renewable sources. That means they are going to spend money buying windmills and solar panels. For some of the coal utilities, this is bad news – even though they caught a break when the government made a change to let coal have carbon permits for free to start off with. Gas utilities are better off, as they emit less carbon, but since coal gets some free carbon allowances upfront, their advantage will not be as big as I made out in my letter to you a month ago. (See, the problem with writing about potential legislation is the rules change every week.)

    Still, I’d avoid coal producers or coal utilities. They wear big targets on their backs and can’t do much about it, except spend a lot of money. Bad for shareholders. There may be some very good ideas on the picks-and-shovel angle for coal, though. For example, a number of companies will sell equipment to clean up coal. And of course, the solar and wind guys are big winners.

    Oil refiners. Losers. This is an industry in which it is hard to make money most of the time as it is. Now, under the new bill, refineries are really screwed. Basically, they are on the hook for about 44% of US carbon emissions. They would be among the biggest buyers of carbon emission allowances. I think with one stroke of the pen, the US government just made the US refining industry that much smaller. Lots of these older refineries will just have to close. US imports for gasoline will rise.

    I think the refinery industry already sees the writing on the wall. This is one reason why Valero, the biggest US refinery, has been quick to get into the politically favored ethanol business. It’s also expanding overseas.

    Avoid the refineries.

    Trading desks. Winners. It figures. As if the government doesn’t help financial firms enough, it is going to hand them a nice tomato in trading carbon credits. The head of Morgan Stanley’s US emission trading desk said: “Carbon, while relatively small, is a critical piece of our commodities offering.” So some financial firms with trading desks in carbon get a nice little payday.

    To sum up, this is only the beginning. At the end of the day, this obsession with carbon footprints means that Americans are going to have to pay a lot more for products that use fossil fuels. It means we are going to pay a lot more for energy. Obama and his crew can draw up whatever fantasies they want, but they can’t repeal the laws of economics, which, like forces of nature, win out every time.

    Regards,

    Chris Mayer
    for The Daily Reckoning”

  62. maksimovich says:

    Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt (2009),

    Solar Trends and Global Warming,

    J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2008JD011639, in press.

  63. dennis ward says:

    The planet has been warming since man-made greenhouse gases have been added to the atmosphere. This does not prove it is the cause. On the other hand it is a for more reliable theory to account for current global temperatures than the link to solar activity, which has been moving in exactly the opposite direction for 30 years or so.

    We have been in a period of low sunspot activity for a while yet global temperatures have not plummeted. In fact they are higher than the 1990-1999 average.

    /// The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999. ///

    For the last 4 billion years the sun has been warming up. Yet temperatures today are much lower than they were in the age of the dinosaur. Explain that, if anybody really believes the sun is the biggest factor?

    Also it is far hotter at the centre of the earth than at the surface of the sun. And which is closer to us?

  64. SteveSadlov says:

    … and may be on the verge of inciting the ultimate survival challenge yet experienced by civilized Man.

  65. TonyB says:

    Dennis Ward 22 56 43

    You have raised some intersting points, one of which has always been at the back of my mind. That concerns the warmth at the centre of the Earth, does it have any impact on temperatures?

    It periodically finds its way to the surface as a by product in the form of volcanic eruptions-statistically insignificant, below oceans-probably more significant especially if it is under ice covered seas.

    Is what lies a few miles beneath our feet of any impact whatsoever on either surface or on sea temperatures? I have no opinion either way and know discussion on possible impact of volcanoes on ice levels is not encouraged over at CA. Consequently I am merely asking the question in the hope that someone can point me to information that gives a conclusive answer either way.

    Tonyb

  66. Geoff Sharp says:

    dennis ward (22:56:43) :

    The Sunspot counts might be declining but the last 3 cycles are still way above average for the last 400 years. Give it time, there are lag factors involved.

    I will leave the other Gems in your comment for others to have fun with.

  67. David Corcoran says:

    Stop calling attention to the huge flaming ball of gas in the sky! It has NOTHING to do with how warm we are! The consensus of scientists all agree. We’d be just as warm with out it.

    From Dennis Ward: “it is far hotter at the centre of the earth than at the surface of the sun. And which is closer to us?”

    Great point. Sun… HA! Who needs a sun to stay warm! Quite right Dennis, Earth is all we ever needed. Don’t know why we keep orbiting that silly, innefectual thing anyway!

    /sarcasm off

  68. len says:

    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/06/04/200-year-solar-cycle-prediction/

    Anthony, I think this post by Geoff deserves a bit more circulation. It is topical since he dabbles in the prediction game.

  69. rbateman says:

    We have been in a period of low sunspot activity for a while yet global temperatures have not plummeted. In fact they are higher than the 1990-1999 average.

    Starts at the poles/locales and works it’s way over time.
    Warms up the same way.
    Check out the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

    For the last 4 billion years the sun has been warming up
    An enigma.
    Geologic record shows the Earth cooling down.
    That would be an inverse correlation.
    How do you work that one?

  70. Alan the Brit says:

    Smallz79;-)

    You won’t get much in the British msm. Our once noble, respected, & admired institutions have been infiltrated by eco-activists, like the sleepers of old communism days, the coup is all but complete. Every major organisation is the same. Decent is quoshed, silenced, shut down. Its almost like one of those fantasy sci-fi movies where everyone knows, but mustn’t say, its against the faith, the dogma. Any decent is offically put down as cranky, fools, lunies, trouble makers, etc, & of course the classic put down, said with utter exasperation, “I can’t bevlieve there are still people like you out there!”. All we get is yet another yawning weekly guilt-trip saga diet of the whales are dying, the dolphins are dying, the fish stocks have run out, the polar bears are drowning, the rain forests are dying/disappearing/gone, ban red meat, ban all meat, eat nothing but vegetables, don’t smoke, stop drinking alcohol, ban salt, ban anything, ban everything, its all dangerous, etc, etc. Anything that can be linked to AGW is promoted with great zeal. We had a small Earth tremor a little while ago, it was nationl news, & even somebody – hopefully tongue firmly in cheek – related to AGW, which promted an formal denial. That’s what the UK is like now. Truly.

    I said a while ago, that an article by David C Archibald regarding quiet solar cycles 24 & 25 leading to a cooling Earth was posted on the UK Treasury website, + another similar one added a year or so later. The site was revamped recently & guess what? Yep, the articel has gone, nowhere to be found, it didn’t exist. I dare say the Treasury will have no record of such an article ever having been posted on its site. Good job I printed it off then. Your F.o.I Act is far more powerful than ours, use it to the full I implore you!

    Of course we’re are bashed about population growth by the likes of “Sir Jonathan only have two children because they are a drain on the planet Porrit”, why he & his cronies are having ago at western Europe & North America is any bodies guess, probably because they haven’t the guts to go to “guilty” countries & lecture them about it all, because they jolly well know what the result would be. It has been known for many, many years, that population growth in wealthy western democratic nations will be relatively low, with very unlikely doubling of population. Unlike nations such as China, India, & Brazil, just to name 3. I learned about this when I was at college, nothing new here.

    As to attitudes here, I suspect most are doubtful, especially when the old arguements about “control” bubble to the surface. What we hardly ever get, is open decent about the causes of Global Warming & Climate Change because such powerful institutions (eg The Met Office) are complicit for reasons given before. The Debate Is Over! The Coup Is All But Complete! Having said that, I like others have noticed a slight change in attitude again from such quarters as TMO. Dr Vicky Pope saying people shouldn’t stir up catastrophe arguments & the like, & that Arctic sea-ice melt could be from natural causes when she was curiously silent about this when the rhetoric was being flung in all directions. Cracks are there but they are small.

    Anyway they’ve got Deep Thought now so they’re happy!

    Moderator, pl snip as req’d as it is OT!

  71. John Finn says:

    From the article

    Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes,

    “The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

    Which means that, in 2012, we can expect global temperatures to be 0.1 deg higher than they are currently – all other things being equal.

    Also from the article

    According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

    But as has been mentioned on this blog on a number of occasions, the earth receives ~7% more solar energy in January than it does in July. Yet global temperatures at the surface and in the troposphere are higher during July than January. This suggests that factors such as Land/Ocean ratio are more dominant.

    Anyone looking for an alternative to GHGs as a reason for the post-1975 warming – I’d try the oceans.

  72. Alan the Brit says:

    Apologies for the bad spelling!
    AtB

  73. rbateman says:

    Also it is far hotter at the centre of the earth than at the surface of the sun. And which is closer to us?

    And you’ll get nowhere near either one.
    You will perish somewhere below 13,000 ft into the Earth from the stifling heat, provided the rock bursts don’t get you first.
    And you’ll be burned to a crisp millions of miles from the Sun, providing you can go fast enough to spiral in by defeating the orbital velocity of 66,705 mph.

  74. press says:

    Dennis lets get some perspective here. If the sun was the size of a standard table-tennis ball IE. 40mm, then the earth would be approx. .36mm ( a pin prick ) in diameter at a distance of 4.2 meters ( width of a room ). Try it out on your lounge floor and then tell me if the sun is irrelevant.

    The heat outflow of the earth is estimated at 44 terawatts. the surface area = 510 million sq km or 510 million million sq meters. therefore total heat outflow is in the region of 0.08 watts per sq meter. Sorry but that’s not going to do anything to surface temperatures.

  75. Arthur Glass says:

    ” Isn’t NASA primarily an engineering outfit?”

    I recall a waggish comment to the effect that NASA’s current mission is to funnel taxpayer dollars to software companies.

  76. dennis ward (22:56:43) :

    [...]

    For the last 4 billion years the sun has been warming up. Yet temperatures today are much lower than they were in the age of the dinosaur. Explain that, if anybody really believes the sun is the biggest factor?

    Also it is far hotter at the centre of the earth than at the surface of the sun. And which is closer to us?

    The Earth’ surface has not been steadily cooling down for the last 4 billion years. Over the Phanerozoic Eon (~600 million years or since the Cambrian) the Earth’s average surface temperature has been relatively stable…Generally averaging ~22 C. Four times during the Phanerozoic, the Earth has dropped into “ice ages” in which the average surface temperature dropped. This is known as the “hothouse” or “greenhouse” and “icehouse” cycle. Earth’s icehouses occur about once every 130 million years (Shaviv and Veiser have attributed this cycle to the Cosmic Ray Flux). Three of the four icehouses were very cold (U. Ordovician, Pennsylvanian-L. Permian and Cenozoic) one icehouse was relatively warm (U. Jurassic-L. Cretaceous) …LINK

    I don’t know why the first three icehouses came to be; but the current one is fairly well understood. It began in the Oligocene when Antarctica was nearing the end of its plate tectonic journey to its current location. The Antarctic ice sheet began building…And the Earth started to undergo episodes of glacial advances and retreats. The frequency of these glacial cycles increases throughout the Neogene. During the U. Pleistocene the glacial/interglacial frequency has been about 130,000 years; with the glacials lasting considerably longer than the interglacials. This record of Cenozoic glacial cycles is literally “written in stone.” The Milankovitch correlation may not be perfect; but it is very good.

    We are living in an icehouse or an Ice Age. We just happen to be enjoying an interglacial.

    Regarding the heat of the Earth’s interior…The Earth was once a ball of molten rock (Hadean Time). Over the Earth’s first 3 to 3.8 billion years, the surface cooled and solidified. The interior of the Earth differentiated (Crust, mantle, outer core, inner core). The heat at the “center of the Earth” is mostly the result of radioactive decay (although pressure does play a role). That heat drives very large convection cells in the mantle…The convection cells drive plate tectonics. Some of that heat is “vented” through volcanoes and mantle plumes. The heat of the Earth’s interior plays a very minimal role in heating the atmosphere. However, very large volcanic eruptions do play a role in climate change by putting large volumes of aerosols and dust into the Stratosphere and blocking sunlight. These volcanic winters are the result of the Earth’s interior heat preventing the Sun from warming the Earth.

  77. Moderator…Please close my blockquote after “And which is closer to us?” in this post…

    Dave Middleton (03:44:34) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    dennis ward (22:56:43) :

    [...]

    For the last 4 billion years the sun has been warming up. Yet temperatures today are much lower than they were in the age of the dinosaur. Explain that, if anybody really believes the sun is the biggest factor?

    Also it is far hotter at the centre of the earth than at the surface of the sun. And which is closer to us?

  78. Arthur Glass says:

    ” This suggests that factors such as Land/Ocean ratio are more dominant.”

    How can one factor be ‘more dominant’ than another? That is like saying that one truth is more true than another.

    That said, given that dry land warms and cools much more readily than do the oceans, the much larger ratio of land area to ocean in the northern hemisphere does account for the fact that globally, January is colder than July despite the fact that the earth is at perihelion during January.

  79. Arthur Glass says:

    “For the last 4 billion years the sun has been warming up.”

    In the bullpen?

  80. Alex says:

    The sun may not drive the earth’s climate DIRECTLY, but the very fact that we don’t know everything about the climate of Earth or the sun is a good enough reason to devote research and attention to understanding the possible connection between the sun and climate.

    The very basic principle that one of the commentators stated with regards to the sun providing warmth during the day is a good starting point, and quite a good indication that there is some sort of potential relationship.
    To say that there is absolutely no link or a negligible/insignificant link between the sun and climate and claiming that all whose research indicates that the sun may have a major part in influencing the climate directly OR indirectly are amateurs who have fake, biased, uncorrected data is anti-scientific and dismissive.

    I am currently typing in a cold dark room, with no open curtains, in the middle of winter and I can feel the difference when I walk out the front door into the sun’s rays. I can feel the radiation hitting my skin and the warmth it generates. This may sound trivial or irrelevant but surely the laws of common sense dictate that there must be at least an ounce of possibility that the nearest star to us is what drives life and the non-living fundamental processes of the Earth’s surface which life depends on, and that studying its changes may explain some of the phenomena we witness and how they respond to the changes.
    Research currently indicates that oceanic currents are the direct drivers of climate; but what is the driver of the oceanic currents?
    Think of it as a domino effect.

  81. Arthur Glass says:

    I’m afraid that my notion of the Center of the Earth has been engrammed into my brain by the 50-year-old movie based on the Jules Verne classic and starring Pat Boone and James Mason. What a combo!

    There is a character in Verne’s novel, an ‘Icelandic alchemist’ named Arne Saknussen. With that name, he might very well be expected to post on WUWT.

  82. E.M.Smith says:

    pkatt (16:29:25) : I think its the ultimate hubris to assume you know how to fix the system, when you don’t even understand all of the sources or sinks of Co2…. [...]By my figuring they don’t know where 20% of the carbon goes.

    While chasing down the whole C12 vs C13 thing I came to the same conclusion. Folks are just making stuff up about where the carbon goes (and comes from). They have no way of knowing. The kicker for me was the folks who just recently discovered fish make carbonate rock pellets that they poo out… So here’s this whole billions of pounds process nobody counted before…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

  83. Anaconda (16:46:21) :
    What do you make of the, above, scientific evidence?
    This evidence contradicts your position and is easy for the layman to grasp and understand.

    If you follow the discussion, both NASA and I agree that the solar influence is of the order of 0.1 degrees, which is but a small modulation of the long-term variations which are ten times as large.

    Mike McMillan (19:41:32) :
    Back of the envelope figgerin’ says 1,361 watts/m² of solar energy gives us a temperature of roughly 288 K. A 0.1% increase of input should produce a 0.29 K increase in temp, almost three times what they’re offering.
    Back of the envelope calculation gives a quarter of your figure, namely 0.07 degrees, close to ‘what they offer’. This is so because of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that say that radiation increases with the fourth power of temperature, so each percent of temperature rise gives four percent radiation increase [and vice versa].

  84. tja says:

    “They [Milankovitch cycles] are predictable, and I would dare to say unalterable.”

    The problem is that they don’t ever repeat in the same way. As the moon moves away from the earth, its effect on the earth’s spin is modified, and so the earth’s wobble changes in an arrow of time sort of way, never going back to what was. Milankovitch cylcles are not the complete answer, but obviously, when summer is longer at the poles, and coincides with the closest approach to the sun at one or the other, this is going to affect climate. To argue otherwise is to really be a “denier”.

    Continental drift also operates over Milankovitch time scales, as does variation in cosmic ray flux as we orbit the galaxy. To expect one influence to dictate the climate is folly.

  85. Paul R says:

    Alex (04:09:37) :

    To say that there is absolutely no link or a negligible/insignificant link between the sun and climate and claiming that all whose research indicates that the sun may have a major part in influencing the climate directly OR indirectly are amateurs who have fake, biased, uncorrected data is anti-scientific and dismissive.

    Yeah well what you have stated here makes far too much sense to be considered scientific, in the modern sense. It contains logic.

  86. Fred Middleton says:

    NASA – 1958. A beginning of ‘rocket focus’ with government and research (like Manhattan Project) to propel aeronautics-space flight (significant behind the wings research for military application). President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned of mega industrial complex political connections.

    A youthful sci-fi space-dreamer hitting the library scientific pamphlets on the 60′s trip to the moon set the seed of dream shattering. There were engineer skeptics of committing such money and focus (life support systems) on essentially a dead-end rocket program. Once there, no more direction without backtracking. The moon landing is still the banner of man exploration.

    NASA became a prostitute to grant-government funding. Let the scientists do the science. NASA should have remained the trucking manager, science to do the scientific payload, etc. Common Sense=? NOAA=?

  87. Pamela Gray says:

    I can’t believe I have to resort to this example, but apparently it is so. Turn on a burner on your stove. Hell, kick it up to high. Put pan on. Heat it up good and hot. Now remove pan for same amount of time that it was on the stove (be sure to leave the burner on). Cools down doesn’t it. Is it the burner that cools it down or the fact that you removed it from the burner? Does the Sun cool us down at night by turning itself off or the fact that that side of the Earth removed itself from the Sun? Does the Sun heat us up during the day again by turning itself on again or the fact that that side of the Earth has now placed itself towards the Sun? The Sun is the burner left on when the pan was removed and then place back on the burner. The pan is the Earth rotating its surface on and off the direct rays of the Sun. The day and night temperature variation is an Earth-bound source.

    That said, I have no quibble with the .1% variation in temperature caused by the Sun.

  88. timetochooseagain says:

    I’ve kinda lost interest in the solar stuff. Yeah, it is important and can’t be left out, but it is just one more example of a systematic factor to account for.

    Until we can deal with spontaneous variations in clouds, everything else is handwaving (look ma, correlations!).

  89. KW says:

    Which NASA guys are these? GISS guys or no?

    Some claims from NASA say the sun has effects on climate. Others say it has no effect!

    OK GUYS, WHICH ONE IS IT? Can we please decide or come to a consensus already? Hah.

  90. Pamela Gray (06:42:39) :
    That said, I have no quibble with the .1% variation in temperature caused by the Sun.
    You should, as the percentage is only a quarter of that because of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law: dT/T = 0.25 * dS/S. Resulting in 0.07 C degree variation which is on par with the 0.1 C claimed. And which we’ll not have a problem with.

  91. Tenuc says:

    From the article it looks like NASA have at least taken small step away from AGW as the only factor effecting recent climate change – lets hope this can be turned into a big step for mankind.

    My view is that the sun is a major driver of climate change, both now and throughout history. More research needs to be done to find mechanisms which drive climate change on earth and the rest of the planets in our solar system, as the extra 1.3 watts per square meter of energy emitted during periods of high solar activity aren’t enough to explain anywhere near the observed temperature change.

    Here’s a few ideas about what these ‘hidden’ drivers could be – please add any more to the list which you think could be relevant…

    Quiet Sun Effects:-
    Energy from extra cosmic radiation hitting earth and seeding more clouds.

    Different types of cloud formed which provide earth with better ‘umbrella’ effect, but which still allow cooling via BB radiation.

    Radiation of sun drops off after a long period of inactivity (re-using Pamela’s stove analogy, if you have an halogen hob, the pan continues to boil for a few minutes after you’ve turned off the ring).

    Reduced high energy particle energy impacting earth.

    Stormy Sun Effects:-
    Fewer cloud formations generated which allow transmission of more energy from sun to earth.

    Clouds types which do form let more energy through, but block BB radiation.

    Cause strong magnetic coupling with earth which concentrates electricity in the plasma which makes up the solar wind, thus delivering more energy to earth in form of electricity.

    Massive solar events deliver high level energy from solar flares as X-rays, gamma ray bursts, neutrinos etc.

    Any other ideas (no matter how wacky) would be more than welcome.

  92. Alex says:

    Paul R: Modern science could be evidence of ‘devolution’! Simple logic perhaps.. but indeed simple logic can prove to be very useful and answer many questions however informal or trivial it may appear.

    Pamela Gray: The Earth isn’t flat ;)! I see what you mean, but take an egg or a nice steak or some strips of bacon and put them in the pan, what heats the food on the pan and denatures the protein? The burner of course!
    Turn up the dial, the oil becomes less viscous, things start to burn; turn the dial down, things cool down abit and take longer to fry.
    The real question is how much dial adjustment is sufficient enough to induce a change that the salmonella or other prokaryotes on the food notice and deem as extreme! The scale is all wrong though… the distances, relative sizes, intelligence of bacteria…
    I wouldn’t say that removing the pan from the burner is a good representation of the earth rotating to face away from the sun. This pan exercise would represent the entire Earth shifting away from the sun, to recieve no solar radiation, as the pan recieves no radiation whilst it is put aside, but the Earth is being constantly bathed in solar energy on one side.
    Apparently if the sun were to “switch off” for 5 seconds the land would freeze over in a matter of hours and become like Pluto, but the oceans would not due to the ability of the water molecule to store heat and release it slowly. (This shows that the atmosphere is not nearly as effective at moderating temperature as the oceans.)
    I must say, I don’t really like this example!

  93. Rick, michigan says:

    What do they put in fire suppression units? That is right, carbon dioxide!!

    All of our CO2 pollution is PUTTING THE SUN OUT!!! We need to get rid of oil NOW before more damage is done and the SUN GOES OUT!!

  94. MikeN says:

    Go to realclimate, and it is taken as fact that there is no ten year cooling, and no reduction in ocean heat levels. What charts are you looking at to say that there is a ten year cooling, and why isn’t that good enough for them?

  95. Nasif Nahle says:

    David Corcoran (00:57:11) :

    Stop calling attention to the huge flaming ball of gas in the sky! It has NOTHING to do with how warm we are! The consensus of scientists all agree. We’d be just as warm with out it.

    No? Turn off the Sun and see what happens… Hah!

    @Leif…

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist to give the example of the turned-off-Sun, given the deconstructive corcoran’s assertion.

  96. JamesG says:

    From the article:
    “Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun’s surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.”

    Now ok they use the caveats of “may have” and “partly” but can anyone tell us what else might have been responsible for the Little Ice Age apart from the Sun It has long appeared obvious that the Sun is the smallish trigger for what was clearly a 100% natural event and something else (oceans/clouds/albedo/whatever) provide the amplifications, just as the ice ages cycles were also natural events triggered by solar forcing and just as our current solar downturn has coincided with a pretty nippy pair of Winters. All this must surely add up to more than 0.1C if you care to actually notice the lack of any other obvious correlation or mechanism for these events. Clearly CO2 has had nothing to do with any of it. And whatever natural event caused the LIA, the reversal of that natural event must perforce be the cause of much of the 20th century trend. That much is even often admitted by mainstream climateers (though just as quickly denied again when I remind them of their own words). Just how long does it take for a scholarly mind to see the bleeding obvious anyway? When the funding for the science fashion of the day dries up I’d suggest.

  97. Smokey says:

    MikeN (08:43:11) :

    Go to realclimate…

    No thanx, I’d rather get my facts from the web’s “Best Science” site. Compare WUWT to RC: click

    RealClimate will never be credible as long as they censor opposing views. And they censor inconvenient comments all the time. Sucks to be them.

  98. JamesG says:

    Even leaving the sun out of it entirely, if one is stating that the CO2 regime started in earnest in 1980, and again this NASA team restated it as have many other climateers, then the entire 20th century trend upwards is automatically mostly from natural causes. That leaves very little left to be attributed to CO2 and the longer the flat spot continues (thanks to more natural variation) then the less you can blame on CO2. The only argument left then is the “in the pipeline” handwave which presumes that heat can hide from us in the oceans and then suddenly burst free to cause thermageddon. What a laugh!

  99. Nasif Nahle says:

    A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:

    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg

    You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling. See how the sea level also has been lowered as the power of the Sun diminishes. We took into consideration the extraordinary faintness of a young Sun so we’ve started our graph with an icehouse era followed by a warmhouse era with the resultant rising of the sea level.

    Actually, the Sun began dimming its power in the Devonian, some 380 million years ago, after a generous increase of its activity.

  100. Alex says:

    Interesting question JamesG; what else could have caused the LIA? Some people have said that the temperature record has shown no real LIA; but looking at anecdotal: What caused the Thames to freeze over? And the venetian canals? Glacial pack ice extending to Great Britain, New York harbour freezing over etc?… Debates over temperature data aside, these events did in fact happen so what caused them?

  101. MikeN (08:43:11) :

    Go to realclimate, and it is taken as fact that there is no ten year cooling, and no reduction in ocean heat levels. What charts are you looking at to say that there is a ten year cooling,

    This chart. The R^2 of a linear trend-line for the last 10 years is 0.0321 (AKA insignificant). The average monthly anomaly over the last 10 years is 0.2 C. Using 2 standard deviations, the range of natural variability is -0.11 to +0.51 C. Over the last ten years, 1 month was “unnaturally” warm and 4 months were “unnaturally” cool.

    and why isn’t that good enough for them?

    No climate crisis -> Far less research $$$ for gov’t & academic climate “scientists”.

    QED

  102. rbateman says:

    And when that pan is on the stove, is the output of the stove entirely directed at the pan?
    Take that same stove outside (remove heat source from box !)
    How’s the timing now?
    Open the window next to the stove.
    Repeat experiment and note changes.
    The Earth’s atmosphere and anything that can alter it will open or close the window next to the stove, thereby making for a change in your dinner plans.

  103. Tim Clark says:

    E.M.Smith (17:55:44) :
    OK, so this is intensely anecdotal… but it does cause me to wonder if anyone has looked into the daily pattern of cloudiness? If it’s 10% or 20% more cloudy until 10am to 4pm but “normal” in the middle and the measurements only measure the middle, it will never show up in the numbers (but it will be a heck of a lot cooler mid day…).

    The best I can do for you is the raw daily numerical data for the western states, including one (CA) the other 49 hope will secede. When you’re finished deconstructing Gisstemp, start your new project at:

    http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ ;~P

  104. George E. Smith says:

    Well wouldn’t you know it. I’m sure if you look down through the recent threads that are still visible; you will discover where I detailed the sunspot counts at least back to cycle #5 citing Willie Son’s book, and offering the average sunspot counts since cycle 15-16 era as evidence of at least a correlation between solar activity, at least as manifested by sunspot numbers and the recent period of admittedly somewhat warmer temperatures.

    No I didn’t claim, and still do not claim; this as a CAUSE of that recent warming; just as evidence of an association for those who protested they couldn’t see any 11 year or 22 year temperature variation link. Neither can I, and I wouldn’t claim such exists. The first graph at the top of this report pretty much agrees with the data in Dr Soon’s book which I drew from.

    Then if you throw in Dr Svensmark et al’s thesis of cosmic ray/solar cycle linkage; you have at least a mechanism for causality; or at least a partial causality.

    Now I came up with my belief of this sun temperature linkage; basically with nothing more than a stick on a desert island sandy beach, and those sunspot cycle curves, and my knowledge of cosmic rays; and a belief that water is in control of the whole thing via cloud cover modulation.

    So I don’t need NASA to reaffirm what I came up with by myself; but it is encouraging to know that others are seeing similar linkages.

    This data; along with John Christy’s paper on the Argo buoy data (Jan 2001 Geophysical Research Letters; and Wentz et al’s paper “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring” Science July-7 2007 comprise the tool kit which I believe is sufficient to unmask Arrhenius, and his absurd thesis of “Climate sensitivity”, and CO2 caused global warming.

    So I am convinced that the realists will win the day eventually; and hopefully before powerful fools do actual real damage to humanity and this planet. In the process we will probably learn a lot more of the physical linkages, that control these processes. Maybe one day “Climatology” will actually morph into a science.

    George

  105. Nasif Nahle says:

    George E. Smith (10:18:38):

    This data; along with John Christy’s paper on the Argo buoy data (Jan 2001 Geophysical Research Letters; and Wentz et al’s paper “How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring” Science July-7 2007 comprise the tool kit which I believe is sufficient to unmask Arrhenius, and his absurd thesis of “Climate sensitivity”, and CO2 caused global warming.

    Absurd and arbitrary “climate sensitivity”. Adhered to experimental data, I’ve not derived those 5.35 W/m^2 for a gas which partial pressure in the atmosphere is 0.00034 atmo, which its absorbency is 0.001, and its total emittancy is 0.423 W/m^2.

  106. Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
    A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
    You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.

    The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.

  107. David Reese says:

    It is easy (or convenient) for some to conclude that an observed 0.1 % variation of TSI during a contemporary solar cycle is proof that the sun’s abient oupt of 1361 watts/m^2 is frozen in time and therefore the sun has a negligable connection to climate variation. This is similar to measuring the ocean tide high marks and low marks for several months and concluding that the sea level could not possibly been at a lower level than the contemporary low mark.

    What data do the deniers of solar terrestrial climate influence have that shows that the ambient level of the sun does not vary with a cycle time of many centuries? What data do they have that shows periods of higher sunspot and magnetic activity are not associated with a higher ambient output level of the sun?

    Sarcasm is not data!

  108. Neo says:

    Isn’t this the same result that the US Army reported about 2 years ago ?

  109. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:22:53) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :

    The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.

    I’m talking about normal fluctuations of the solar power:

    “You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”

    Thus, we can attribute the changes of global climate throughout the geological timescale to intrinsic and inherent factors of Earth (besides and secondary to the Milankovitch Cycles) which are not related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for the physics reasons to which I have alluded here, in some university forums and in Biocab’s website.

    On this aspect, I have considered other factors like external operators of Earth’s climate, like extrasolar cosmic radiation, for example. But you and I have discussed the latter issue in other forums and it has been weary; we could discuss it again if you wish to start a dialogue on this issue.

  110. David Reese (11:29:11) :
    What data do the deniers of solar terrestrial climate influence have that shows that the ambient level of the sun does not vary with a cycle time of many centuries?

    The Total solar Irradiance (TSI) has several sources. The first and most important is simply the temperature in the photosphere. The hotter the sun, the higher the TSI. Some spectral lines are VERY sensitive to even minute changes in temperature. Livingston et al. has very carefully measured the line depth of such temperature-sensitive lines over more than 30 years spanning three solar cycles [Sun-as-a-Star Spectrum Variations 1974-2006, W. Livingston, L. Wallace, O. R. White, M. S. Giampapa, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 657, Issue 2, pp. 1137-1149, 2007, DOI; 10.1086/511127]. They report “that both Ca II K and C I 5380A intensities are constant, indicating that the basal quiet atmosphere is unaffected by cycle magnetism within our observational error. A lower limit to the Ca II K central intensity atmosphere is 0.040. This possibly represents conditions as they were during the Maunder Minimum [their words, remember]. Within our capability to measure it using the C I 5380A line the global (Full Disk) and basal (Center Disk) photospheric temperature is constant over the activity cycles 21, 22, and 23″. I have known Bill Livingston [and White] for over 35 years and he is

    Since the 1960 we have known that the sun’s surface oscillates up and down [with typical periods of ~5 minutes]. These oscillations are waves very much like seismic waves in the Earth [caused by earthquakes] and just as earthquake seismic waves can be used to probe the interior of the Earth, they can be used to probe the solar interior. There are millions of such solar waves at any given time and there are different kinds (called ‘modes’) of waves. The solar p-modes are acoustic [sound waves] normal modes. One could imagine a frequency increase with an increasing magnetic field, due to the increase in magnetic pressure raising the local speed of sound near the surface where it is cooler and where the p-modes spend most of their time. Of course one can also imagine higher frequencies may result from an induced shrinking of the sound cavity and/or an isobaric warming of the cavity. Another kind is the solar f-modes that are the eigenmodes of the sun having no radial null points [i.e. asymptotically surface waves; again I apologize for the technical mumbo-jumbo]. From the solar cycle variations of p- and f-modes [and we have now enough data from the SOHO spacecraft to make such a study] we now have an internally consistent picture of the origin of these frequency changes that implies a sun that is coolest at activity maximum when it is most irradiant. Now, how can that be? How can a cooler [overall, including the cooler sunspots, for instance, as the temperature of the non-magnetic areas of the sun didn't change] sun radiate more? It can do that, if it is bigger! The change in the radius of the Sun from minimum to maximum is about 1 km. Goode and Dziembowski (Sunshine, Earthshine and Climate Change I. Origin of, and Limits on Solar Variability, by Goode, Philip R. & Dziembowski, W. A., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, vol. 36, S1, pp. S75-S81, 2003) used the helioseismic data to determine the shape changes in the Sun with rising activity. They calculated the so-called shape asymmetries from the seismic data and found each coefficient was essentially zero at activity minimum and rose in precise spatial correlation with rising surface activity, as measured using Ca II K data from Big Bear Solar Observatory. From this one can conclude that there is a rising corrugation of the solar surface due to rising activity, implying a sun, whose increased irradiance is totally due to activity induced corrugation. This interpretation has been recently observationally verified by Berger et al. (Berger, T.E., van der Voort, L., Rouppe, Loefdahl, M., Contrast analysis of Solar faculae and magnetic bright points. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 661, p.1272, 2007) using the new Swedish Solar Telescope. They have directly observed these corrugations. Goode & Dziembowski conclude that the Sun cannot have been any dimmer [e.g. during the Maunder Minimum] than it is now at activity minimum.

    Foukal et al. (Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T., A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science, vol. 306, p. 68, 2004) point out the Sun’s web-like chromospheric magnetic network (an easily visible solar structure seen through a Ca II K filter) would have looked very different a century ago, if there had been a significant change in the magnetic field of the sun supposedly increasing TSI. However, there is a century of Mt. Wilson Solar Observatory Ca II K data which reveal that the early 20th century network is indistinguishable from that of today.

    For these [and other reasons] we believe that significant changes in the ‘ambient’ solar output have not been demonstrated and that it therefore is premature to ascribe significant climate change to non-observed changes in the Sun.

    What data do they have that shows periods of higher sunspot and magnetic activity are not associated with a higher ambient output level of the sun?

    But it is, all of 0.1%

    Sarcasm is not data!
    Neither is anger and frustration over AGW.

  111. Peter Plail says:

    Ron de Haan’s comment earlier about microbes got me thinking – is there any evidence that the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 during the 20′s in the US due to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages (hence no fermentation products from alcohol brewing) had any effect on temperatures?

    Maybe this could solve the problem now – perhaps the west should ban alcohol and leavened bread. Should play well in the Middle East :-)

  112. Tenuc says:

    Quote:’Leif Svalgaard (11:22:53) :
    On this aspect, I have considered other factors like external operators of Earth’s climate, like extrasolar cosmic radiation, for example. But you and I have discussed the latter issue in other forums and it has been weary; we could discuss it again if you wish to start a dialogue on this issue.’ end Quote

    I think we are missing something major regarding solar forcing and would like to have a list of hypotheses about how the clear link between solar activity and global temperature can happen with the apparent small increase in solar energy hitting our planet?

    One of the many things I’ve thought about is the effects of extra cosmic radiation and I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this please, along with any ideas of how this could catalyse other possible significant climate processes.

    All ideas more than welcome from anyone, no matter how tenuous they may seem.

  113. Nasif Nahle (12:53:54) :
    “The Sun has increased its radiative output throughout geological time and has not dimmed or decreased.”
    I’m talking about normal fluctuations of the solar power

    There is no evidence for such fluctuations aside from what we see the last few centuries.

    Tenuc (13:38:00) :
    I’ve thought about is the effects of extra cosmic radiation and I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this please, along with any ideas of how this could catalyse other possible significant climate processes.
    This is the current ‘orthodoxy’ of sun/climate connections and everything one says will be met with fierce resistance from the cult members. But here are my thoughts:
    1) cosmic ray flux [CRF] varies [inversely] with solar activity
    2) CRF is supposed to work its magic through changing the albedo which should then vary as the solar cycle [cf. 1]
    3) such variation is not observed
    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
    5) climate has varied over time

    For these reasons the CRF hypothesis is weak and does not IMHO form a firm basis on which to stand in the fight against AGE, if that is one’s goal, or as a viable explanation of climate change.

  114. Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :
    does not IMHO form a firm basis on which to stand in the fight against AGE
    The ‘E’ and ‘W’ are next to one another on my keyboard :-)

  115. maksimovich says:

    Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
    “A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
    You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”

    Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth

    David W. Schwartzman* & Tyler Volk†

    AN important question in the Earth sciences is the role of the biota in the chemical weathering of silicate rocks, which affects atmospheric CO2 and therefore climate1-10. No comprehensive study of biotic influences, however, has quantitatively examined the climatic consequences were weathering to take place under completely abiotic conditions. Here we calculate that if today’s weathering is 10, 100 or 1,000 times the abiotic weathering rate, then an abiotic Earth would be, respectively, approx15, 30 or 45 °C warmer than today.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v340/n6233/abs/340457a0.html

    This has been understood for a long time
    eg http://openlibrary.org/b/OL20223085M/cycle-of-weathering-

    We even have a “nice” mathematical model ..eg

    “The complexity of biological phenomena”

    Kolmogorov, A. N., I.G. Petrovskii, and N.S. Piskunov 1937

    A Study of the Equations of Diffusion Accompanied by an Increase in the Amount of Matter, and Its Application to a Biological Problem

  116. Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :

    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]

    I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time. Beyond just Veizer & Shaviv, I know there are some ongoing studies looking at salt formations, like this one, to identify variations in the CRF…Primarily looking for indications of past supernovae.

    If Veizer’s & Shaviv’s meteorite-derived CRF cycle has any validity, the salt studies should see a similar pattern.

  117. Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :
    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
    I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time.

    Now, don’t confuse the issue. We are talking about historical time, not millions or billions of years. Solar activity was also MUCH stronger billions of years ago, so all bets are off, when it comes to the longest view. For now, we are only discussing what we know about and what [more importantly] have relevance for the current situation.

  118. Nasif Nahle says:

    maksimovich (14:44:59) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:12:22) :
    “A good example on how the weakening of Sun’s power through the geological timescale has affected the Earth’s climate:
    You can notice from that graph as the Sun has been changing its power, the climate on Earth has been cooling.”

    Biotic enhancement of weathering and the habitability of Earth

    The whole thing can be taken in the opposite way. What is sure is that the Earth has oceans and a relatively-large satellite which modify its climate. We are sure that the oceans are the main regulators of the atmospheric temperature.

    On the other hand, angiosperms had to evolve under a continuous evolution of abiotic conditions, which means that those plants could not be promoters of any cooling, but that the cooling forced the evolution of angiosperms, especially when we know that changes of condenser agents happened before any biotic change.

  119. Nasif Nahle says:

    Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :

    Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :

    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]

    I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time. Beyond just Veizer & Shaviv, I know there are some ongoing studies looking at salt formations, like this one, to identify variations in the CRF…Primarily looking for indications of past supernovae.

    If Veizer’s & Shaviv’s meteorite-derived CRF cycle has any validity, the salt studies should see a similar pattern.

    Of course there have been variations of the interstellar cosmic radiation (ICR). There are cosmic clouds which are the remainders of supernovas through which our solar system travels from time to time. For example, the current cosmic cloud we are crossing now:

    Stone, E. C., et all. Voyager 1 Explores the Termination Shock Region and the Heliosheat Beyond. Science, Vol. 309, Issue 5743, 2017-2020, 23 September 2005.

    Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J. Is the Solar System Entering a Nearby Interstellar Cosmic Cloud. The Astrophysical Journal. Vol. 223; pp. 589-600. July 15, 1978. Website: http://adsabs.harvard.edu.

    D. A. Gurnett and W. S. Kurth. Electron Plasma Oscillations Upstream of the Solar Wind Termination shock. Science; Vol. 309, pages 2025 – 2027. 23. September 2005.

    Dorman, L. I.; Kaminer, N. S.; Kuzimicheva, A. E.; Khadakhanova, T. S. Increase in cosmic-ray intensity before the Forbush decrease of April 1971.
    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, vol. 20, Aug. 1980, p. 82, 83.

    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v94/i4/p1017_1

    http://www.cosmicrays.org/muon-rays.php

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JA013689.shtml

  120. Camp and Tung find a solar cycle impact of about .2 degreesK from solar min to solar max in the observations. None of the models, presumably the NASA model included managed to reproduce this:

    “Currently no GCM has succeeded in simulating a solar-cycle response of the observed amplitude near the surface. Clearly a correct simulation of a global-scale warming on decadal time scale is needed before predictions into the future on multi-decadal scale can be accepted with confidence.”

    Perhaps the reason the simple radiative calculations are exceeded is that the earth’s climate is in a regime where the water vapor pressure increases rapidly with temperature. Under representing the climate response to the key competing hypothesis to AGW does not inspire confidence in the models.

    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf

  121. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :

    There is no evidence for such fluctuations aside from what we see the last few centuries.

    And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of solar irradiance, etc. :)

  122. Nasif Nahle says:

    Dear moderators… I’d like to know how to post a pdf here. Thanks in advance for your explanation. :)

    REPLY: You have to upload it to a file service, web server, or ftp server then link to it in the comment. – Anthony

  123. Nasif Nahle says:

    Thanks a lot, Anthony… Alas, it is a third party article, so I got the service for the pdf. Here it goes:

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978ApJ…223..589V&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

  124. Ron de Haan says:

    Mike Kelley (18:28:58) :

    I am very frustrated with my government. They are planning to jack the cost of all our energy sources to slow “global warming”, and our forecast here in Montana calls for rain turning to snow on Saturday and Sunday. It may be time for a revolution.

    Yes, but it will be a counter revolution:
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Biggest_power_grab_in_the_history_of_human_kind.htm

  125. Just Want Results... says:

    Did James Hansen read this study?

  126. bill says:

    Just Want Results… (19:13:35) :
    Maybe certain people can ease up on Piers Corbyn and Henrik Svensmark now.

    Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data
    In 1991,Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen published an article in Science claiming a “strikingly good agreement”between solar cycle lengths (that is, the fluctuating lengths of the cycles undergone by the number of sunspots) and northern hemisphere land temperaturesover the period 1860–1990
    However,close analysis of the central graphs in all of these articles reveals questionable handling of the underlying physical data.
    [... etc]
    Other examples of unacceptable handling of observational data are presented by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] and Svensmark [1998].They, too, show a strikingly good agreement of solar and terrestrial data, in this case
    of the intensity of galactic cosmic radiation (representing solar activity) and total global cloud cover.Again,a close examination reveals a strange data selection. [...]
    Read it yourself here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

  127. Just Want Results... says:

    “”dennis ward (22:56:43) :

    The planet has been warming since man-made greenhouse gases have been added to the atmosphere.””

    The earth has been warming since The States beat England in the Revolution. That’s really the cause.

  128. Leif Svalgaard (15:13:59) :

    Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :
    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
    I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time.

    Now, don’t confuse the issue. We are talking about historical time, not millions or billions of years. Solar activity was also MUCH stronger billions of years ago, so all bets are off, when it comes to the longest view. For now, we are only discussing what we know about and what [more importantly] have relevance for the current situation.

    Leif Svalgaard (15:13:59) :

    Dave Middleton (14:59:58) :
    4) CRF has not varied over time, except for the obvious solar cycle variation [cf. 1]
    I’m not sure about the non-variation of the CRF over geologic time.

    Now, don’t confuse the issue. We are talking about historical time, not millions or billions of years. Solar activity was also MUCH stronger billions of years ago, so all bets are off, when it comes to the longest view. For now, we are only discussing what we know about and what [more importantly] have relevance for the current situation.

    My misunderstanding…Do you think there’s any validity to Shaviv and Veizer’s Phanerozoic CRF reconstruction?

    Maybe a little bit closer to the topic…There was a paper in Nature a few years ago, Braun et al (2005), in which the 87-year and 210-year cycles were convolved to form a 1470-year cycle that more or less matched the Dansgaard–Oeschger, Heinrich and presumably Bond events. I’ve never read the actual paper, just the abstract (I’m too cheap to subscribe to Nature). I was curious if you were familiar with their work and what your opinion was on the possibility of a solar driven ~1,500-year cycle?

  129. Ron de Haan says:

    Alex (09:12:49) :

    Interesting question JamesG; what else could have caused the LIA? Some people have said that the temperature record has shown no real LIA; but looking at anecdotal: What caused the Thames to freeze over? And the venetian canals? Glacial pack ice extending to Great Britain, New York harbour freezing over etc?… Debates over temperature data aside, these events did in fact happen so what caused them?

    Ask David Archibald, Hendrick Svensmark, Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv.

  130. Dave Middleton (20:00:12) :
    Do you think there’s any validity to Shaviv and Veizer’s Phanerozoic CRF reconstruction?
    I don’t know.

    Maybe a little bit closer to the topic…There was a paper in Nature a few years ago, Braun et al (2005), in which the 87-year and 210-year cycles were convolved to form a 1470-year cycle that more or less matched the Dansgaard–Oeschger, Heinrich and presumably Bond events.
    People like to find cycles. I knew the late Gerard Bond well and have discussed this with him. Interestingly he never claimed that the 1500 year cycle was solar. All he said was that such a cycle might be solar, and [to me] that if he had to look for where that period came from, his first suspect would be the Sun. Not that he had shown it to be the Sun.

  131. bill says:

    Ron de Haan (20:21:51) :
    Try this for a bit of debunk!
    http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

  132. davidindavis says:

    No Mr. Lorrey, I believe NASA has this one correct.
    One percent is one out of one hundred or 0.01
    1361 x 0.01 = 13.61
    One tenth of one percent is one thousandth or 0.001
    1361 x 0.001 = 1.361
    Thus, 1.361 is one tenth of one percent of 1361 as stated.
    On the other hand, the rather tortured logic and seemingly self-contradictory statements regarding past vs. present solar influence on climate made in the article suggest to me that a certain amount of anthropogenic spin had to be applied to get this post approved by Goddard management. We know all too well the mission and agenda of GISS Director James Hansen on this issue. It seems that objective science may be attempting a comeback at Goddard but hasn’t quite made it yet.

  133. Gilbert says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:05:02) :

    For these reasons the CRF hypothesis is weak and does not IMHO form a firm basis on which to stand in the fight against AGE, if that is one’s goal, or as a viable explanation of climate change.

    It wouldn’t seem to be necessary to provide an alternative to AGW to know that AGW isn’t it.

    But a couple question from a dummy. Do we know how much the sun’s intensity has changed over geological timescales and has the earth’s orbit changed over the same period?

  134. Nasif Nahle says:

    But… Why it must be anthropogenic? Carbon dioxide is not the supergas than AGWers think. 220 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2250 ppmV; some 100 million years BP it was 1330 ppmV; 10 million years ago it was 440 ppmV. There were not humans driving cars then. The concentration of CO2 has been fluctuating from almost zero to more than 7000 ppmV during the geological eras. In the Proterozoic the concentration of carbon dioxide was higher than 5000 ppmV, and the Earth was in an Icehouse period. The current concentration of CO2 prevailed during the middle and late Carboniferous; however, the change of temperature was ~ 10 °C from the end of the Mississipian throughout until the late Jurassic. Earth is not 6000 years old.

  135. Nasif Nahle says:

    Gilbert (22:38:55) :

    It wouldn’t seem to be necessary to provide an alternative to AGW to know that AGW isn’t it.

    But a couple question from a dummy. Do we know how much the sun’s intensity has changed over geological timescales and has the earth’s orbit changed over the same period?

    To know this we have to resort to the iron stained grains proxies, which Bond used to deduce the global temperatures during the Holocene. Sadly, Dr. Bond is dead.

  136. JamesG says:

    Anyone quoting Damon and Laut needs to be made aware that Lassen replied to Damon and Laut’s gross slanders, though abnormally it wasn’t allowed to be published alongside the DL’s so-called rebuttal, which would have been the normal procedure for a journal that claims to be scientific. The reply is here:
    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/sun-climate/full_text_publications/comment%20to%20eos_28_sept_04.pdf

    “In summary, Laut’s methodology consists of first writing false accusations, then totally neglecting the refutations, and finally referencing his very own claims as corroboration when publishing new accusations. This is in our view an interesting, but also the very only, conclusion that can be drawn from the article.”

    Of course whether a critique on the solar-cosmic link is actually correct is not of great importance to realclimate.org. Honest scientists would have mentioned Lassens reply.

  137. bill says:

    Nasif Nahle (22:56:57) :
    220 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2250 ppmV; some 100 million years BP it was 1330 ppmV

    first – where have these figures(and the 7000ppm usually quoted) come from? I think it is from a computer model Geocarb 3. Are these figures accurate? Is there another source?
    Second – As I have repeated many times. The world was very different at time greater than 50Mybp (it was about this time that india hit the rest of Asia. Water currents Land masses in different places, number of land masses etc. will have totally changed the climate.
    investigate this site for more info
    http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm

    10 million years ago it was 440 ppmV. There were not humans driving cars then.

    What was the CH4 doing ? Atmospheric CO2 breaks down to CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The concentration of CO2 has been fluctuating from almost zero to more than 7000 ppmV …. however, the change of temperature was ~ 10 °C from the end of the Mississipian throughout until the late Jurassic

    from 380 to 7000ppm is 4.5 doublings, allowing 1.5C per doubling gives 7C temperature rise so not unexpected.
    Also remember the second point above!

  138. Leif Svalgaard (21:04:34) :

    Dave Middleton (20:00:12) :
    Do you think there’s any validity to Shaviv and Veizer’s Phanerozoic CRF reconstruction?
    I don’t know.

    Maybe a little bit closer to the topic…There was a paper in Nature a few years ago, Braun et al (2005), in which the 87-year and 210-year cycles were convolved to form a 1470-year cycle that more or less matched the Dansgaard–Oeschger, Heinrich and presumably Bond events.

    People like to find cycles. I knew the late Gerard Bond well and have discussed this with him. Interestingly he never claimed that the 1500 year cycle was solar. All he said was that such a cycle might be solar, and [to me] that if he had to look for where that period came from, his first suspect would be the Sun. Not that he had shown it to be the Sun.

    I’ve read some of Dr. Bond’s papers…He definitely was very insightful. It’s kind of humbling to be able to discuss this topic with one of his peers. When I read papers like those of Bond’s, I realize that there’ more to geology than just trying to figure out where the oil is hidden…;-))

    As far as people liking to find cycles…Guilty as charged. That might be an inculcated inclination of geologists and geophysicists…Or climate might just be very cyclical.

    Maybe I did read the Braun paper once…Because for some reason I think that they said there was no evidence for Dansgaard–Oeschger events since the Pleistocene. The Braun paper (that made the case for the 1470-year solar cycle) was published about four years after Bond had identified Dansgaard–Oeschger- and Heinrich-like events well beyond the Holocene transgression. IIRC Bond found a Heinrich-like cooling event roughly at the start of the LIA.

  139. Ron de Haan says:

    In the meantime, the sun is spotless again.

  140. Jim Hughes says:

    Tenuc (13:38:00)

    ” I think we are missing something major regarding solar forcing and would like to have a list of hypotheses about how the clear link between solar activity and global temperature can happen with the apparent small increase in solar energy hitting our planet? ”

    The sun’s behavior varies from cycle to cycle and no two are alike. And I believe these variations, even if seemingly small, have an influence on the state of certain atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections. (Most likely by way of forcing changes in AAM variables like MT & FT torques, corriolis etc )

    Which then shows up in our global temperature trends when the dice get loaded over longer periods.

  141. Not Evil Just Wrong will be released in the Fall.
    Please visit our website for updates we are going to have a very exciting release which will involve people all over the US and Canada hosting the premiere in their homes-we’re going for a Guinness Book of Records!!

    Ann McElhinney
    Not Evil Just Wrong
    noteviljustwrong.com

    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Not-Evil-Just-Wrong/99149406252?ref=ts

    YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/Not_Evil

    Friend Feed: http://friendfeed.com/not-evil-just-wrong

    MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/noteviljustwrong

  142. Gilbert (22:38:55) :
    Do we know how much the sun’s intensity has changed over geological timescales and has the earth’s orbit changed over the same period?

    some 4 billion years ago the Sun’s luminosity was 30% lower than today and has been increasing in a regular way from then on until now and will continue to do so for several more billion years. The solar wind and the Sun’s magnetic field were MUCH stronger early on and have decreased slowly since. In the early solar system the planetary orbits were changing due to friction with the circumsolar disk from which the planets formed and also from magnetic braking. This process has long stopped and the mean orbits have been very stable, but with cyclical changes in shape and orientation due to planetary gravitational interactions, which are still happening today and likely are the main cause [through variation of seasonal solar insolation] of glaciations during ice ages.
    The above is the party line on this subject. There are no good reasons not to go along with that. We’ll learn a lot more in the coming decades and centuries from studies of other planets and moons [and cometary material] in the solar system, so the picture could change a bit as we learn, but it is IMO largely correct as far as we know today.

  143. JamesG (03:03:32) :
    Anyone quoting Damon and Laut needs to be made aware that Lassen replied to Damon and Laut’s gross slanders
    Apart from it not being Lassen that replied, the ‘reply’ is as much in the vendetta tone as it accuses the ‘slander’ to be.

    The reply’s main point is that DL:
    “attempt to throw suspicion on the authors using the wording: “Close analysis reveals questionable handling of the underlying physical data” thus implying that FCL failed to inform the readers about their procedure regarding their essential figure. The fact is that FCL made their procedure perfectly clear to the reader by specifically describing it in the text”

    However, there is no such implication. The DL comment does not fault FCL for not describing the procedure. The ‘questionable’ bit comes from the [well-described] procedure itself being questionable, i.e. the heavy filtering [that grossly decreases the number of degrees of freedom] and the mixture of filtered and unfiltered data. The latter is not correct science. The situation could have been ‘saved’ a little by plotting the unfiltered data with different [or smaller] symbols to make it immediately and visibly obvious that the data is not homogeneous. The Figure has been shown in a myriad papers by other people pushing their own agenda and the original text describing the questionable procedure was never published alongside the Figure. And that is the main [and valid] criticism.

  144. Tenuc,

    “I think we are missing something major regarding solar forcing and would like to have a list of hypotheses about how the clear link between solar activity and global temperature can happen with the apparent small increase in solar energy hitting our planet?”

    Since we are dealing with a nonlinear dynamic system, the geographical and verticle distribution of the forcing can have signficant influences on the strength of various responses. Solar coupling is biased towards the tropics, it penetrates 10s of meters into the oceans, and has strong chemical influences, UV in the production of stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, and in visible wavelengths on photosynthesis. Longer term there is even solar bleaching, and diurnal and seasonal weathering due to thermal variation. The nonlinearities are everywhere. We really need a better understand of the solar coupling to the climate and models to make sense of it. Hopefully we will have the much needed data and skillful models in a decade or so. If the next solar cycle expands the variety our experience of solar variation during the modern era, it should accelerate the process.

  145. Nasif Nahle says:

    bill (03:30:37) :

    Nasif Nahle (22:56:57):

    220 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2250 ppmV; some 100 million years BP it was 1330 ppmV

    first – where have these figures(and the 7000ppm usually quoted) come from? I think it is from a computer model Geocarb 3. Are these figures accurate? Is there another source?

    No, not from Geocarb III model, but from proxies, Geocarb covers from 570 million BP to present:

    Prothero, Donald, R. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology-Second Edition. 2004. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

    Fleet, M. E. (1998) Detrital pyrite in Witwatersrand gold reefs: X-ray diffraction
    evidence and implications for atmospheric evolution. Terra Nova: 302-
    306.

    Steve Kershaw and Andy Cundy. 2000. Oceanography. Routledge, Inc.

    Dorothy Z. Oehler et al. Carbon Isotopic Studies of Organic Matter in Precambrian Rocks. Science. 17 March 1972. Vol. 175. No. 4027. Pp. 1246 – 1248.

    You cannot ignore the disciplines of Paleontology, Geology, Paleobiology, Paleoclimatology.

    Second – As I have repeated many times. The world was very different at time greater than 50Mybp (it was about this time that india hit the rest of Asia. Water currents Land masses in different places, number of land masses etc. will have totally changed the climate. investigate this site for more info
    http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm

    I know the work of Dr. Scotese and have refered it in some of my papers. What you’re dismissing in your second point that the high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere always have followed the increases of temperature, not the opposite. We know that in some epoch the climate was warm because the carbon dioxide is degased from subsurface of ground and from oceans:

    http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg

    Now Bill, the thermal characteristics of the CO2 are not enough as to produce a change of temperature of 0.5 °C.

    10 million years ago it was 440 ppmV. There were not humans driving cars then.

    What was the CH4 doing ? Atmospheric CO2 breaks down to CO2 in the atmosphere.

    CH4 and CO2 were being captured by water. The decline of atmospheric CO2 was due to plants C4:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/600

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5689731_Oligocene_CO2_decline_promoted_C4_photosynthesis_in_grasses

    http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(07)02344-5

    The concentration of CO2 has been fluctuating from almost zero to more than 7000 ppmV …. however, the change of temperature was ~ 10 °C from the end of the Mississipian throughout until the late Jurassic

    from 380 to 7000ppm is 4.5 doublings, allowing 1.5C per doubling gives 7C temperature rise so not unexpected. Also remember the second point above!

    Epur it happened. So the 0.5 °C of the last decade warming was perfectly expected within the range of expected fluctuations during the Holocene. :)

  146. Pamela Gray says:

    Leif, I will commit .07 C degree variation to memory. I remember seeing the .1 somewhere and that one stuck in my mind. If I use 007 as my memory device, it will stick because I am such a GIRLY fan of Sean Connery.

  147. Tenuc says:

    Thanks for the responses so far regarding my request for views about why a small change in insolation can potentially have a big effect on our climate.

    I came across this interesting snippet from the NASA Earthsci site:

    ‘…the NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) determined for the first time that on average, clouds tend to cool the planet. The cloud reflection of sunlight back to space dominates over the clouds’ greenhouse effect. In fact, the planet would on average be some 20°F hotter if we removed clouds from the atmosphere. Recently, attempts have been made to combine the ERBE satellite measurements of the radiative energy balance at the top of the atmosphere with measurements of the radiation balance at the surface. The objective of this combination is to infer the amount of radiation absorbed by the intervening atmosphere. Unexpectedly, this combination implies that the atmosphere absorbs more radiation than is theoretically predicted. Are the observations wrong or is the theory? Do we understand clouds?’

    Looks like we still have much to learn. Perhaps if the dogma of AGW could be de-bunked more of the vast budget being expended on this could be spent on trying to find out what’s really going on.

  148. Nasif Nahle (17:24:10) :
    And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of solar irradiance, etc.

    As before, you are still confusing solar irradiance with solar insolation. Irradiance is what the Sun puts out, insolation is what a particular location receives. E.g. the poles have less insolation for same irradiance.

  149. Ron de Haan says:

    bill (21:21:46) :

    Ron de Haan (20:21:51) :
    Try this for a bit of debunk!
    http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

    Bill,
    Damon&Laut made a critical report in the same trend as the recent publication of a warming Antarctic. It was based on BS (Bad Science).
    You can find Svensmarks response to the Damon&Laut paper here:

    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/sun-climate/full_text_publications/comment%20to%20eos_28_sept_04.pdf

  150. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:18:22) :

    Nasif Nahle (17:24:10) :
    And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of solar irradiance, etc.

    As before, you are still confusing solar irradiance with solar insolation. Irradiance is what the Sun puts out, insolation is what a particular location receives. E.g. the poles have less insolation for same irradiance.

    Well… Put it this way:

    “And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ” :)

  151. Nasif Nahle (09:46:24) :
    “And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ”
    Repeating your confusion does not make it go away. What you are describing is ‘insolation’ not irradiance. If you are quoting from a paper without understanding it, the paper is wrong or sloppy in its wording.

    For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher than the solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out - the Sun does not know about July], and the integrated insolation at the location where the grain is depends on the length of the seasons, i.e. Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :
    For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher
    lower, of course.

  153. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :

    Nasif Nahle (09:46:24) :

    “And we will be running around the ring, again… I mean, all that stuff regarding iron stained quartz and intensity of incident solar irradiance on the soil, etc. ”

    Repeating your confusion does not make it go away. What you are describing is ‘insolation’ not irradiance. If you are quoting from a paper without understanding it, the paper is wrong or sloppy in its wording.

    For example, in July the solar insolation would be 7% higher than the solar irradiance [what the Sun puts out - the Sun does not know about July], and the integrated insolation at the location where the grain is depends on the length of the seasons, i.e. Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.

    I know perfectly the difference between solar irradiance and insolation, so don’t tell me again I confuse the terms.

    7% lower… Insolation is lower than TSI considering the angle of incidence, the density of the atmospheric layers that blocks the Earth from solar radiation, and the total amount of radiation emitted by the Sun which hits the boundary layers of the atmosphere. Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.

  154. Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
    Insolation is lower than TSI considering the angle of incidence, the density of the atmospheric layers that blocks the Earth from solar radiation, and the total amount of radiation emitted by the Sun which hits the boundary layers of the atmosphere.

    What the iron grains see is the insolation, not the irradiance. That is what this is about. You keep claiming that they see the irradiance and they simply do not.

  155. Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
    Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.

    Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se. Space weather is not sensitive to just the total solar energy output, but to other things, the most important one being the orientation of the magnetic field.

  156. Nasif Nahle says:

    @Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1. I’m analyzing the remainder decades, but I cannot mathematically dismiss the effect of solar irradiance on Earth’s climate. On the other hand, the correlation for the same decades obtained from Lean’s old database on TSI is 0.86, which is lower than considering your database.

  157. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:38:29) :

    Nasif Nahle (11:03:58) :
    Anyway, the solar irradiance is not always the same, i.e. the solar output of energy is not constant. That’s why we talk about space weather.

    Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se. Space weather is not sensitive to just the total solar energy output, but to other things, the most important one being the orientation of the magnetic field.

    The orientation of the magnetic field, the intensity of solar wind, the speed of solar wind, the amount of matter dragged by the solar wind, scintillation, solar and geomagnetic storms, the flow of charged particles, the energy carried by particles, etc.

  158. Nasif Nahle (11:46:08) :
    “Space weather has little or nothing to do with solar irradiance per se.” [...] etc.

    Again, space weather has little or nothing to do with solar luminosity [irradiance]. The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.

  159. Nasif Nahle (11:40:44) :
    @Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1.

    The decadal value is the average over ten years, so from 1880-1889 is one data point, and from 1890-1899 is another data point. The correlation between two data points [with two data points of Loehle temps] is always 1, so not so amazing.

  160. Sandy says:

    “The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second”
    Umm, what speed and mass of hamburger are we assuming?
    But I really have to ask,
    Who threw it?

  161. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:12:56) :

    Again, space weather has little or nothing to do with solar luminosity [irradiance]. The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.

    Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…

  162. a jones says:

    O.T

    L.S. The Friday effect etc, has set my whiskers twitching not least because I have seen this before in another field. Also I think I now grasp why you are uneasy in your mind.

    Unfortunately my ex colleague, also retired, who knows a lot more about this than I do is in the Antipodes visiting family for the next few weeks: but when he comes back we will put our heads together and see whether we can offer anything useful.

    Kindest Regards

  163. Nasif Nahle says:

    Sandy (12:30:03) :

    I think my previous post answers your question.

    Leif Svalgaard (12:15:26) :

    Nasif Nahle (11:40:44) :
    @Leif… Believe it or not, the correlation between the decadal TSI variation from 1880 to 1889 and 1890-1899, considering your database on TSI, and the decadal variation of temperature from Loehle’s database is 1.

    The decadal value is the average over ten years, so from 1880-1889 is one data point, and from 1890-1899 is another data point. The correlation between two data points [with two data points of Loehle temps] is always 1, so not so amazing.

    I didn’t expect you get amazed. I’ll redraw the work considering the annual averages, although I don’t think it would change a lot; for example, for the average from 2007 to 2008 the correlation is 1, also.

  164. Nasif Nahle says:

    JamesG (03:03:32):

    Anyone quoting Damon and Laut needs to be made aware that Lassen replied to Damon and Laut’s gross slanders, though abnormally it wasn’t allowed to be published alongside the DL’s so-called rebuttal, which would have been the normal procedure for a journal that claims to be scientific.

    It seems, I’ve not evidence besides I ran the same experience than Svensmark, RC was conceived to deceive its readers. It follows the pattern of religious sermons where one cannot reply to any of their allegations.

  165. Nasif Nahle (12:35:09) :
    Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…

    Completely wrong. Right now there are no flares and no CMEs, yet TSI is within 0.1% of what it was at solar maximum. The energy in the solar wind is minuscule compared to that of TSI and are in different forms and are like oranges [very very small ones, only visible though a microscope] and apples [huge ones]. But you are avoiding the issue: how do the iron grains measure the TSI outside of the Earth’s atmosphere?

  166. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (13:21:32) :

    Nasif Nahle (12:35:09) :
    Space weather has much to do with solar flares and CME: solar magnetic fields depend on the load of charged particles ejected; the same is valid for the intensity of solar irradiance, so space weather and TSI diverge by a hair’s breadth…

    Completely wrong.

    Whaaaat? Are you saying space weather is independent of CME and solar flares?

    Right now there are no flares and no CMEs, yet TSI is within 0.1% of what it was at solar maximum. The energy in the solar wind is minuscule compared to that of TSI and are in different forms and are like oranges [very very small ones, only visible though a microscope] and apples [huge ones]. But you are avoiding the issue: how do the iron grains measure the TSI outside of the Earth’s atmosphere?

    I’m not discussing the amount of energy carried by the solar wind compared with the load of energy of TSI. I’m talking about the dependence of each one on solar flares and CME. If the Sun sprouts a solar flare it’s obvious the TSI would increase.

    Regarding the correlation between TSI and the quantity and quality of iron stained grains, consider that even when the iron stained grains are proxies for calculating insolation, the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains. Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.

  167. Ron de Haan says:

    Peter Plail (13:34:14) :

    Ron de Haan’s comment earlier about microbes got me thinking – is there any evidence that the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 during the 20’s in the US due to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages (hence no fermentation products from alcohol brewing) had any effect on temperatures?

    Maybe this could solve the problem now – perhaps the west should ban alcohol and leavened bread. Should play well in the Middle East :-)

    Peter,
    Very funny.
    We all know more alcohol was produced during the prohibition than before.
    What wonders me is the fact that people today have an uncontroleble urge for banning all kinds of things.

    But I am glad I’ve got you thinking.

  168. Sandy (12:30:03) :
    Umm, what speed and mass of hamburger are we assuming?
    But I really have to ask,
    Who threw it?

    A ‘quarterpounder TM McDonald’s’ moving at the speed of the solar wind. One could quibble that the target of the hamburger shouldn’t be the Earth, but the Magnetosphere [with a hundred times the cross section] but then only a fraction [less than a tenth] of that impacts the Earth. The important thing is to get a feeling for the magnitudes involved.

  169. Nasif Nahle (13:41:34) :
    If the Sun sprouts a solar flare it’s obvious the TSI would increase.
    The increase is so minute that it is almost unobservable. Only one or two of the strongest X-ray flares have been barely observed ever to have a tiny effect on TSI: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares

    the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains.
    The orbital effects on insolation would be the bigger effect and climate as well. With many clouds [especially at high latitudes] climate itself may be an even bigger influence on the insolation, and last buy not least, the TSI changes are so minute that they cannot be observed with the error expected for the grain analysis. So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have not shown that anybody can measure TSI with the precision required from the iron grains. If you can, I’ll recommend that NASA don’t put up any more satellites to measure TSI, I’ll keep a few grains in my backyard and send them the resulting high-quality data in real time.

    Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.
    which has nothing to do with TSI either, but may introduce noise in the iron grain data to mask whatever minute solar signal you claim there is.

  170. maksimovich says:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:12:56) :

    “The energy flow of the solar wind hitting the Earth is the kinetic energy of one hamburger per second, so many orders of magnitude down from TSI it matters not a whit.”

    From a macroscopic POV that is essentially correct,however One of the peculiar aspects of complex systems is the possibility of observing phenomena at two levels as it were. One on the surface level when the phenomena take place under small variation from the certain steady state external conditions (the solar cycle),and the second level ie the deep molecular level where changes of the conditions of the system are significant.

    Eg
    Zubov, V., E. Rozanov, A. Shirochkov, L. Makarova, T. Egorova, A. Kiselev, Y. Ozolin, I. Karol, and W. Schmutz, Influence of Solar Wind on Ozone and Circulation in the Middle Atmosphere: A Model Study, Transactions of the Russian Academy of Sciences

    Abstract. A Chemistry-Climate model is used to evaluate possible consequences of the Joule heating induced by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)
    elements on the ozone concentration and dynamics of the Earth atmosphere. The Joule heating rates in the stratosphere are parameterized on the basis of the time
    series of the solar wind and IMF parameters taken from the NASA database for 1996. The results of the 15-year-long model run with the additional Joule source of heat are compared with the output of the unperturbed (control) 20- year-long model run. Both simulations are performed in steady-state mode with prescribed boundary conditions and for the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. The most significant changes were found in the lower stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). The NH lower stratospheric temperature increases by 1-3 K almost throughout the whole year with the significance level at 95% or higher. During boreal summer the changes of the ozone concentration are anti-correlated with the temperature as expected from the gas phase photochemical theory.

    During boreal autumn and spring the variations of the ozone mixing ratio can be affected also by the alteration of the meridional circulation in the stratosphere. In the
    Southern Hemisphere (SH) the additional Joule heating leads to a significant increase of the stratospheric temperature for the austral winter (~2K). The most substantial SH ozone changes (~10%) are found in the lower stratosphere during the austral spring.

  171. RiHo08 says:

    I am very poor at math so mathematical models scare me, especially when it comes to their predicting my health, wealth and well-being. Recently, two separate super computer models (Indiana & Northwestern) were in complete agreement as to the likely spread of the H1N1 virus in the USA, and were wrong by a log of 3. Several respected super computer models (MIT comes to mind) predicted the behavior of financial derivatives, and these models were wrong. Super computer models, 20 I believe, appear to drive the alarm from global warming and yet had not predicted the last 2 years satellite measured global cooling. My query then, has there been any model of climate change which predicted global temperatures over the last dozen or so years with or without factoring in CO2? Thank you.

  172. RiHo08,

    “My query then, has there been any model of climate change which predicted global temperatures over the last dozen or so years with or without factoring in CO2? Thank you.”

    There hasn’t been, but if one of the AR4 models had managed to, it would have been as wrong and meaningless as any of the models that managed to do it with CO2. All the AR4 models managed to reproduce less than one-third to one-half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming (Wentz), all had positive surface albedo biases (per Roesch) and none managed to produced the amplitude of the solar cycle response seen in the observations (per Camp and Tung).

    Your skepticism of mathmatical models is especially well placed when it comes to a nonlinear dynamic system like the climate. These are the type of systems characterized by the “butterfly effect”, but in the case of these models we aren’t worried about butterflies, but about errors larger than the energy imbalance we are trying to attribute. And with correlated errors, statistically combining ensembles of results can’t be assumed to improve their reliability. With more years of model development and more years of modern data to validate them with, perhaps the models will be useful for more than just qualitative insight. In a nonlinear dynamic system getting some statistic, like average temperature trend “right”, in the wrong way, just doesn’t count.

  173. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:02:01) :

    The increase is so minute that it is almost unobservable. Only one or two of the strongest X-ray flares have been barely observed ever to have a tiny effect on TSI: http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/Chree_Analysis_for_Flares

    Let’s put it in this way, the hen is the means by which the egg reproduces itself. We could have a flare which energy is so low that it is almost unobservable through human tech; however, the magnitude of the effect doesn’t depend on our abilities on observing it. As an association, we couldn’t observe the differences of the UV reflected by the flowers and all the same we can taste the honeybee.

    The orbital effects on insolation would be the bigger effect and climate as well. With many clouds [especially at high latitudes] climate itself may be an even bigger influence on the insolation, and last buy not least, the TSI changes are so minute that they cannot be observed with the error expected for the grain analysis. So, again, for the umpteenth time, you have not shown that anybody can measure TSI with the precision required from the iron grains. If you can, I’ll recommend that NASA don’t put up any more satellites to measure TSI, I’ll keep a few grains in my backyard and send them the resulting high-quality data in real time.

    Leif… Where did I say that the precision for measuring TSI from the examination of iron stained quartz is better than direct measurements? The examination of iron stained grains is a proxy which could give us an idea on the intensity of TSI in epochs when there were not satellites; not even there were humans. The package doesn’t come with solitary iron stained grains, there are other proxies as fossils, Beryllium, Calcium, etc., which improve our ability to understand approximately how the Sun was functioning; if not, at least how much solar radiation was striking on the surface of the ground (insolation).

    which has nothing to do with TSI either, but may introduce noise in the iron grain data to mask whatever minute solar signal you claim there is.

    And for umpteenth time I ask you, where did I say the TSI has to do with the geomagnetic field? I wrote:

    “…consider that even when the iron stained grains are proxies for calculating insolation, the intensity of the incident solar radiation on the ground surface increases if the solar radiation increases from the Sun (TSI), so the production of iron stained grains. Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time.”

    The last paragraph, “Especially, when considering that the geomagnetic field also experiences changes through time” is connected to the phrase “so the production of iron stained grains.”

  174. charles says:

    I am so friggin happy that someone finally told the truth, [an end] to Global Warming (AGW) anyway, hope they dont spin this somehow.

  175. Nasif Nahle says:

    @Leif…

    Here, a reference to iron stained grains:

    I. P. Martini (Editor), W. Chesworth. Weathering, Soils & Paleosols (Developments in Earth Surface Processes). Chapter 12, page 283-299.

  176. Nasif Nahle (16:33:12) :
    Leif… Where did I say that the precision for measuring TSI from the examination of iron stained quartz is better than direct measurements?
    The reason that we go around in circles is that you have not shown me a graph or table that shows the TSI derived from the grains. Until you do, this is non-existent. And it is not enough for me that we might, or we could, or it is conceivable, or some such. Has it been done? Where and what is the result?

  177. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:27:36) :

    Milankovich cycles, which has nothing to do with the Sun.

    One thing I have learned from Carsten’s now de bunked “falsification” of spin-orbit coupling is how much of an effect the gravity perturbation of orbits has on angular momentum.

    With the 100,000 yr Milankovich cycle which is responsible for big changes in orbit shape, we could also expect big changes in angular momentum. This could have a major impact on solar output.

  178. Geoff Sharp (19:04:29) :
    One thing I have learned from Carsten’s now de bunked “falsification” of spin-orbit coupling is how much of an effect the gravity perturbation of orbits has on angular momentum.
    First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics. Second, the Sun’s orbital momentum is precisely balanced by the planet’s angular momentum and neither has any influence on the spin angular momentum. This did not really take Carsten’s calculations to show as it was clear from simple physics [e.g. as Shirley showed], but Carsten’s calculations were important for him to understand the physics and the solidify the falsification in his mind.

    With the 100,000 yr Milankovich cycle which is responsible for big changes in orbit shape, we could also expect big changes in angular momentum. This could have a major impact on solar output.
    The cycles have to do with changes to the Earth’s orbit which are tiny compared to the orbits that matter for angular momentum. And the orbital angular momentum has nothing to do with the solar output. The use of weasel word ‘could’ does not change that.

  179. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (17:52:50) :

    The reason that we go around in circles is that you have not shown me a graph or table that shows the TSI derived from the grains. Until you do, this is non-existent. And it is not enough for me that we might, or we could, or it is conceivable, or some such. Has it been done? Where and what is the result?

    It’s a difficult task for me to create such a graph or table; however, it’s not impossible. Would you be happy if I don’t go back farther than 300 years?

  180. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :

    First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics.

    Its not rocket science….spin orbit coupling requires two components, orbital AM & spin AM. You cant toss one of them out (spin), then do a test on the other, find they match and claim its falsified. This is very poor science and I am surprised you have supported it, and while the data suggests the Sun has a varying equatorial rotation speed the door will remain open. If you think it still has merit lets see it presented properly and have it peer reviewed….I am sure you could help him.

    The cycles have to do with changes to the Earth’s orbit which are tiny compared to the orbits that matter for angular momentum.

    So you are saying that only the Earth’s orbit changes over time?

  181. Nasif Nahle (19:34:06) :
    It’s a difficult task for me to create such a graph or table; however, it’s not impossible. Would you be happy if I don’t go back farther than 300 years?
    You mean that none of the works you reference has such graph or table? Well, let’s see what you can do that they haven’t been able to or not felt the importance of doing…

  182. Geoff Sharp (20:07:19) :
    You cant toss one of them out (spin), then do a test on the other, find they match and claim its falsified.
    Yes, because there is no coupling between them.

    This is very poor science and I am surprised you have supported it,
    No, this is the correct science as has been known for centuries. And I honestly think you do not know what science is, let alone being able to distinguish good from bad.

    and while the data suggests the Sun has a varying equatorial rotation speed the door will remain open.
    There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that [just as in the Earth's] move angular momentum [or actually moment of inertia] between the equator and the poles. This does not change the Sun’s angular momentum which stays strictly constant.

    If you think it still has merit lets see it presented properly and have it peer reviewed….I am sure you could help him.
    It has been done [e.g. Shirley] and it is a non-problem and one does not get brownie points for trying to publish what is already known. And, even if we did, you either wouldn’t understand the paper or would dismiss it anyway for other reasons.

    So you are saying that only the Earth’s orbit changes over time?
    This is a blatant example of how little you know. The big planets perturb the little planets much more than the little planets perturb the big planets, and all planets dance to their mutual interactions, but none of these dance steps change the rotation of any of the dance partners, including the Sun.

  183. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (20:12:18) :

    You mean that none of the works you reference has such graph or table? Well, let’s see what you can do that they haven’t been able to or not felt the importance of doing…

    Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.

  184. Jeff Alberts says:

    This is a blatant example of how little you know. The big planets perturb the little planets much more than the little planets perturb the big planets, and all planets dance to their mutual interactions, but none of these dance steps change the rotation of any of the dance partners, including the Sun.

    What if they go from the Tango, to the Watusi, to the Funky Chicken, to the Mashed Potato (or potatoe, for Quayle fans)?

  185. Nasif Nahle (21:16:05) :
    Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.

    Or more likely that they know the precision is not high enough [and the assumptions are too many] to say anything meaningful about TSI. Which was my point from the beginning, that we don’t have any independent and precise measurements or proxies of TSI from before the sunspot era. Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity. So, it seems we need to go around the bush several more times, …

  186. Jeff Alberts (21:23:45) :
    What if they go from the Tango, to the Watusi, to the Funky Chicken, to the Mashed Potato (or potatoe, for Quayle fans)?

    Geoff should be qualified to answer this.

  187. Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :
    Leif Svalgaard (19:12:48) :

    Geoff Sharp (19:04:29) :
    One thing I have learned from Carsten’s now de bunked “falsification” of spin-orbit coupling is how much of an effect the gravity perturbation of orbits has on angular momentum.

    First of all, Carsten’s falsification has not been debunked by anybody knowledgeable about physics. Second, the Sun’s orbital momentum is precisely balanced by the planet’s angular momentum and neither has any influence on the spin angular momentum. This did not really take Carsten’s calculations to show as it was clear from simple physics [e.g. as Shirley showed], but Carsten’s calculations were important for him to understand the physics and the solidify the falsification in his mind.

    Since I have become the subject of this discussion, let me just confirm Leifs accurate description of what my calculations showed and why I performed them. The fact that Geoff apparently has an axe to grind does not influence the physics or the conclusion.

  188. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (20:22:56) :

    No, this is the correct science as has been known for centuries.

    Put it up for review then….you know it will fail because the premise is wrong.

    There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that

    You are confusing differential rotation with overall equatorial rotation.

    This is a blatant example of how little you know.

    What I do know is that all orbits vary over time. Any changes to the outer 3 jovians will affect Jupiter’s AM. What those changes are I dont know, or which direction they are moving, but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes. Whether this translates to a change in solar output is still an open issue….hence the weasel word.

  189. maksimovich says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:29:39) :

    “Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity.”

    The long term negative trend in Be10 C14 Isotopes indicate CR flux reducing at a rate of about -0.05 %/year for say the last 500 years

  190. Geoff Sharp (21:38:39) :
    Put it up for review then….you know it will fail because the premise is wrong.
    It will fail because the reviewer will [rightly] ask what is new from already published works, e.g. by Shirley at JPL [ http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf ].
    Shirley points out that:

    “The rotational velocity of a particle is proportional to the perpendicular distance of the particle from the axis of rotation; this may be obtained from V = ω × r , (1) where ω represents the angular velocity of rotation. It seems quite reasonable to apply this equation to the case of orbital revolution, by employing an appropriate value for ω and substituting R + r for r in the above equation. If we do this [...], we obtain different inertial system orbital velocities for particles found at different locations within the body of the Sun. These differences are hypothesized to give rise to material flows within the Sun, thereby altering the rotational velocities, and thus coupling the orbital and rotational motions.
    However, the use of the above equation for representing particle motions associated with the solar motion is incorrect.To see why this is so, we must recognize a fundamental difference between rotation and revolution. In rotation, the constituent particles of a subject body move in concentric trajectories with velocities that depend upon their position in relation to the axis of rotation (equation 1). In revolution, the particles of the body move in parallel trajectories with identical velocities (aside from small differences produced by the gradients that give rise to the tides). In gravitational physics, this motion is identified as a state of free fall.
    The velocity with respect to the barycentre β of the location A (or A’) is at all times identical to that of the solar centre of mass (CMS). The orbital velocities of A and CMS are identical, but their curvilinear trajectories are not concentric. In effect, each particle of the subject body revolves about its own unique centre of revolution. Thus, there can be no relative acceleration of any two constituent particles of the body of the Sun that is solely due to the revolution of the Sun about the Solar system barycentre; and the spin–orbit coupling hypothesis must be discarded.
    Juckett (2000) presents a solar spin–orbit coupling mechanism that involves a transfer of angular momentum between the orbital and rotational reservoirs. The spin angular momentum for particles may be written as l = m ω r 2. (2) Substituting R + r for r in this equation, and referring once more to Fig. 1, it is evident that the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum l for particles situated at the locations A and A’ must differ significantly. Juckett (2000) relates differences such as these to the observed variability of the solar differential rotation, suggesting that the differences in orbital angular momentum are in effect compensated by changes in the spin angular momentum. As noted in the introduction, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that something of this sort may indeed be occurring [Shirley is a strong believer in the correlations and thinks that some other mechanisms should be looked at]. However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution.
    The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modeling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in Section 2 of De Jager & Versteegh 2005). The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type.”

    “There are winds in the Sun’s atmosphere that”
    You are confusing differential rotation with overall equatorial rotation.

    ‘overall’? The equatorial rotation is at the equator. I think most solar physicists would agree that I’m somewhat on an expert on solar rotation [having published on it and actively measured it], so it is not likely that I can be so confused.

    What I do know is that all orbits vary over time. Any changes to the outer 3 jovians will affect Jupiter’s AM. What those changes are I dont know, or which direction they are moving, but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes.
    The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time, sometimes one planet contribution is more and another one’s is less to conserve the constant sum, but it is all completely balanced as Carsten showed.

    Whether this translates to a change in solar output is still an open issue….hence the weasel word.
    Since there is no coupling there is no change, and if it is an open issue as you claim, then statements such as you ‘can precisely predict solar activity centuries in advance’ are on flimsy ground indeed.

  191. maksimovich (22:13:59) :
    The long term negative trend in Be10 C14 Isotopes indicate CR flux reducing at a rate of about -0.05 %/year for say the last 500 years

    I don’t think there is any good evidence for that. First of all, the geomagnetic field is decreasing which should increase the CR flux, second [and more importantly] a high-quality ice core from
    Greenland shows no such systematic change over the past 600 year: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf [Figure 1]. There are the usual ups and downs associated with the various swings in solar activity, with about equally deep minima [corresponding to activity maxima] around 1600s, 1740s, 1790s, 1850s, 1875s, 1950s, but I see no long-term trend and the paper does not claim any. Perhaps if one corrects for the decrease in the geomagnetic field one could infer a slight decrease in the ‘real’ CRF over the interval, possibly due to a change in the interstellar flux, but that would be very speculative, and would have no bearing on the effect of the CRF as what we see is what we get.

  192. Leif Svalgaard (22:20:54) :
    but I am just showing the possibility of AM changes because of orbit eccentricity changes.
    The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time,…

    just getting the tags right.

  193. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:20:54) :

    Lets get Shirley’s work into perspective. It is VERY different to the work Carsten has done. Shirley argues the non existence of spin-orbit coupling in relation to TWO authors, namely Juckett & Zaqarashvili.

    Later he writes:

    “The disqualification of the particular hypotheses of Zaqarashvili
    (1997) and Juckett (2000) does not diminish the scientific interest of
    this problem. Evidence for the existence of some form of solar spin–
    orbit coupling has accumulated in recent years, and it is possible that
    some more successful hypothesis will in future resolve this puzzling
    conundrum.”

    You forgot to incl this part but he obviously leaves the door open. His work is in no shape or form consistent with Carsten’s work. Carsten argues that if planetary AM equals Solar AM there can be no spin orbit coupling. If your going to provide evidence at least make it applicable. I’ll say it again, present this “new evidence” properly or dont use it at all.

  194. maksimovich says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:35:16) :

    “possibly due to a change in the interstellar flux,”

    Indeed

    http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/negativetrendgcr.jpg

  195. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:38:40) :

    The AM is constant, but each planet’s contribution to the sum varies with time,…

    There is a positive from Carsten’s work for me…The individual Planet AM graphs are revealing. I am beginning to think only Jupiter matters when it comes to Solar AM, BUT the outer 3 jovians regulate the “Jupiter AM” possibly through gravity perturbations only. More work to be done.

    But if this pans out, a change in orbit eccentricity of the outer 3 could very well influence Jupiter’s AM.

  196. Geoff Sharp (22:45:46) :
    Lets get Shirley’s work into perspective. It is VERY different to the work Carsten has done. Shirley argues the non existence of spin-orbit coupling in relation to TWO authors, namely Juckett & Zaqarashvili.
    Not at all, his result and Carsten’s are precisely the same namely that there is no coupling, and the two authors are just two examples of the wrong application of the mechanisms. You sould fall in the category with Juckett [section 4].

    Later he writes:
    “The disqualification of the particular hypotheses of Zaqarashvili
    (1997) and Juckett (2000) does not diminish the scientific interest of this problem…”
    You forgot to incl this part but he obviously leaves the door open.

    He is a strong believer in the correlations, but has realized [as should you] that there is no coupling with AM.

    His work is in no shape or form consistent with Carsten’s work. Carsten argues that if planetary AM equals Solar AM there can be no spin orbit coupling. If your going to provide evidence at least make it applicable. I’ll say it again, present this “new evidence” properly or dont use it at all.
    They are precisely equivalent. Shirley shows from theory that there can be no transfer of AM between the revolution and rotation and Carsten shows from actual calculation of the AM budget that there isn’t any consistent with Shirley’s that there can’t be any. You insistence of presenting this is but a straw man. Everybody knows that the AMs balance, so no paper can be written on that. Do you think an editor would publish a paper where I demonstrate that Kepler’s second law follows from Newton’s? And if we published the calculation would you then accept that as falsification?

  197. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:29:39) :

    Nasif Nahle (21:16:05) :
    Exactly, no one of the works that I’ve read has such graph of table. Perhaps because those books doesn’t deal directly with solar physics, but with global climate, not precisely because they didn’t feel important doing it.

    Or more likely that they know the precision is not high enough [and the assumptions are too many] to say anything meaningful about TSI. Which was my point from the beginning, that we don’t have any independent and precise measurements or proxies of TSI from before the sunspot era. Even the sunspot number derived from cosmic ray count is twice removed from TSI, as the deposition of radionuclei depends on many other factors than just solar magnetic activity. So, it seems we need to go around the bush several more times, …

    Judge by yourself:

    http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg

    It’s a shame that solar physicists don’t work as fast as we do, and have a compact database on solar irradiance when the proxies are over there, at different depths underground, waiting for someone to dig and uncover them. :)

  198. Geoff Sharp (23:12:00) :
    There is a positive from Carsten’s work for me…The individual Planet AM graphs are revealing. I am beginning to think only Jupiter matters when it comes to Solar AM,

    This is a good example of how unscientific you are. The laws of gravity and mechanics work equally for all bodies, and do not allow special cases or only work for Jupiter.

  199. Nasif Nahle (23:20:06) :
    Judge by yourself:
    http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg

    Looks like a spectacular failure to me. Especially the leftmost data point.

  200. Nasif Nahle says:

    @Leif…

    Before you tell me something about the series of TSI, I’ve included your database in the graph:

    http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg

    The green line was plotted from your database. As you can see, the correlation between TSI and HSG is clear. I have the complete databases on iron stained grains and other proxies. If you wish I can send them to you via E-mail. :)

  201. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:27:48) :

    Looks like a spectacular failure to me. Especially the leftmost data point.

    Not my fault… As I’ve told you, TSI database is incomplete and solar physicists are responsible upon the failure, not me. I have the database for 10-Beryllium. You can verify that I didn’t cherry picked any figure.

  202. Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
    The green line was plotted from your database. As you can see, the correlation between TSI and HSG is clear.
    No, it is a complete failure as far as the leftmost data point is concerned, f.ex.

    My email address is well known: leif@leif.org

  203. Nasif Nahle says:

    Thanks, Leif. I already had your address; I’d just like to know if you wish that I send you the databases.

  204. Nasif Nahle (00:10:23) :
    Thanks, Leif. I already had your address; I’d just like to know if you wish that I send you the databases.
    I collect stuff.

  205. Toto says:

    Sorry to interrupt, but would you like a new idea to debate? There is a new article in Journal of Geophysical Research
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011386.shtml
    which is commented on at physicsworld.com
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39381
    “Cosmic rays offer clue to lightning”

    It doesn’t quite say this, but maybe cosmic rays have a direct effect on the amount of lightning produced. And it certainly doesn’t say there is any link with weather and/or climate, but would that be possible?

  206. JamesG says:

    Leif
    You missed the point about Damon & Laut. Regardless of the merit of Laut’s snarky criticism (and yes snark breeds snark), there must be a right to reply and the reply should have been sought and published by the journal and also mentioned by anyone who quotes D+L as a definitive refutation. Otherwise it is merely an underhand smear tactic. F-C, S and L (who wrote the 1st draft of that comment) clearly rejected in the strongest possible terms the accusations and innuendo of Laut yet nobody is ever made aware of this. Once we are aware of the reply it is then up to us to decide who is more correct and/or honest. That Laut used the phrase “further investigation reveals” when the investigation consisted of merely reading the paper where the technique was described is certainly not to his credit.

    Smoothing is obviously an issue with everyone in the climate and solar debates so the point is how significant is the smoothing to the final result and how do people react to the critiques. It’s noticeable to me that S and F-C were thereafter careful with their use of smoothing and calculated correlations on raw data. Most of the detractors of F-C and S are just prone to iffy data handling but unlike F-C and S they largely haven’t tried to improve.

  207. JamesG says:

    Leif
    In defense of Geoff Sharp, “only Jupiter matters” is not in the least implying anything about the laws of Physics only applying to one planet. It is merely noting that other contributions are relatively negligible. By contrast it is unscientific to use a strawman argument.

  208. JamesG (03:26:57) :
    In defense of Geoff Sharp, “only Jupiter matters” is not in the least implying anything about the laws of Physics only applying to one planet. It is merely noting that other contributions are relatively negligible.

    Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not ...]. The AM is mass*distance*speed. In this little table I compare Jupiter and Saturn, using units that are easy to remember (Mass wrt Earth, distance AU, speed km/sec):
    J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
    S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
    The AMa are in a ‘strange’ unit, but their relative sizes are independent of units, and you can see that Saturn’s is almost half of Jupiter’s so not ‘relatively negligible’.

    JamesG (03:04:57) :
    You missed the point about Damon & Laut.
    Regardless of the snarkiness and politics, DL’s argument is scientifically valid. The reply was concerned with publication procedure and did not try to argue that the science was correct. the mixture of smoothed and raw data is bad science.

  209. Leif Svalgaard (07:46:08) :
    “Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not ...].
    J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
    S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
    U: 14.5 19.2 6.8; AM = 1890
    N: 17 30 5.4; AM = 2750
    Sum of S,U,N is 13765 or 64% of J, so not ‘relatively negligible’.

  210. Is spin orbit coupling debunked, or still in search of a mechanism?

    Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?
    I. R. G. WilsonA,C, B. D. CarterB, and I. A. Waite

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf

    Apologies, if you were already aware of the paper. As to mechanisms, I believe I’ve read analyses that tried to attribute it to the asymetry introduced by the Sun’s equatorial bulge, or the deviation of the Sun’s equatorial plane from that of the solar system’s overall, but I can’t find those sources currently.

  211. africangenesis (10:22:03) :
    Is spin orbit coupling debunked, or still in search of a mechanism?
    they believe in the correlations [and that is OK to a point - the statistics is weak], but the authors themselves admit:
    “we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling”

  212. africangenesis (10:22:03) :
    Is spin orbit coupling debunked, or still in search of a mechanism?

    On this page (in the green box) I have explained why spin-orbit coupling is not possible, and thus not happening.
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/

    We should look elsewhere to find the driver(s) of solar activity.

  213. Nasif Nahle says:

    Carsten Arnholm, Norway (12:19:00):

    We should look elsewhere to find the driver(s) of solar activity.

    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question. :)

  214. Carsten,

    Thanx for the link. Naturally my question is, how accurate is your gravitator using newtonian gravitation. How well do the positions of the Jovian planets correspond with past records, say at the time of the discovery of Neptune? How accurate does it have to be to account for or rule out the angular momentum changes hypothesized for the solar internal dynamics?

    One of the standar assumptions is that the Sun is spherical and can be approximated by a point mass. Apparently the oblateness of the Sun can account for some of the precession of the orbit of mercury although general relativity accounts for most of it. I would expect a reciprical effect on this solar asymmetry even under newtonian gravitation.

    I note your plots are of the magnitude of angular momentum as a scalar, although in your text you mention a 3D vector formulation, so I wonder how useful the scalar plots are, other than eyeballing that the results are plaussible.

    Based on what you have provided, am I correct in assuming that you don’t take into account solar oblateness, nor any possible reciprocal effects? I think some error calculations on your methods and their size relative to the phenomenon of interest would be needed to seal any claim that spin-orbit coupling has been falsified.

  215. Nasif Nahle (14:52:45) :
    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question.
    It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.

  216. africangenesis (16:03:23) :
    Apparently the oblateness of the Sun can account for some of the precession of the orbit of mercury although general relativity accounts for most of it. I would expect a reciprical effect on this solar asymmetry even under newtonian gravitation.

    The oblateness of the Sun is so small that it does not influence the orbit of Mercury to any measurable degree and is completely negligible for the outer planets, so need not be taken into account. It was once thought that the Sun had a rapidly rotating core which would introduce several arc seconds difference with the effect of General Relativity (43 arc second/ century). Very precise measurement of solar oblateness by the RHESSI instrument has recently showed that there is no such fast rotating core, i.e that the measured oblateness of 0.010 arc seconds [out of 960] is just what be expected if the Sun had the same rotation throughout [subject to a small difference between the convection zone and the radiative interior]. so, solar oblateness can safely be neglected.

  217. africangenesis (16:03:23) :
    Apparently the oblateness of the Sun can account for some of the precession of the orbit of mercury although general relativity accounts for most of it.

    From
    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Sci/sci.space.news/2008-10/msg00012.pdf

    “”These results have far ranging implications for solar physics and theories of gravity,” comments solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “They indicate that the core of the sun cannot be rotating much more rapidly than the surface, and that the sun’s oblateness is too small to change the orbit of Mercury outside the bounds of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.”

  218. Leif Svalgaard,

    It isn’t the impact of the solar oblateness (gravitational quadropole) on the planets that I am considering. That does fall off as the cube of the distance. It is the opportunity that the solar oblateness provides for the gravitational quadropole of the solar system to impact the solar oblateness or related rotational dynamics. I don’t know how the r-cubed component factors in there. For instance, can the quadupole be thought of as located at the solar system center of mass? If so, the sun is nearly two orders of magnitude closer to that than mercury. That solar system center of mass varies from being within the solar radius to up to two solar diameters outside of it.

    My sense is that Carsten’s result of zero for missing orbital angular momentum is not accurate enough to rule out angular momentum exchange with solar rotation that might be significant enough to influence its internal mass flow and magnetic dynamics. However, I am just exploring this from first principles.

  219. africangenesis (17:41:14) :
    For instance, can the quadupole be thought of as located at the solar system center of mass?
    No, nothing is located at the solar system center of mass. There is a gravitational force between the sun and each planet that determines how the two move relative to one another. The center of mass is just the resulting sum of all the mass-weighted distances to the planets because gravity obey the superposition principle. Since the gravitational forces are between bodies very far apart, the tiny oblateness is negligible.

  220. africangenesis (10:22:03) :
    My sense is that Carsten’s result of zero for missing orbital angular momentum is not accurate enough to rule out angular momentum exchange with solar rotation
    ‘Sense’ does not beat hard, cold calculation. According to the paper you referenced:
    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS06018.pdf
    The required change in rotational speed is of the order of 0.015 microradians/sec [their Figure 8]. Since the Sun’s rotation is 3 urad/sec, the effect is a 1/200 part of the whole. Assuming that the Sun’s mass [for this calculation] is at a point 1/4 of the radius from the center, the AM is 1.75E41 [SI units]. Carsten calculates the AM to an accuracy many thousand times better than this and the numbers agree with what JPL [and 'Carl'] calculates, so there is not doubt that the effect sought [1/200 of 1.75E41] is well within reach of the accuracy of the calculation. Carsten could give you more precise numbers, although at this point it doesn’t matter how many thousands of times better the calculation is: it is simply good enough. Carsten’s calculation was really not necessary [although helped him to see the effect] as simple physics [as evidenced in the paper by Shirley I referred to - Shirley used to be a fervent advocate of the AM spin-orbit coupling, but no more] shows that there can be no exchange between rotational and orbital AM [aside from inconsequential millimeter-sized tides].

  221. Leif Svalgaard,

    Due to its distribution of mass, the solar system would definitely have a gravitational quadrupole moment viewed externally, and since the invariable plane is tilted 6 degrees to the suns axis of rotation, the quadrupole moment would be offset from that due to the rotation of the Sun.

    You are implying that the superposition principle wouldn’t allow the gravitational quadupole to also be at the center of mass, when experienced internal to the solar system. When all the jovian planets are on one side of the sun, the external layers of the sun on the far side can be analyzed as if they are outside the solar system. At times at least, there must be torque. These have to be analyzed quantitively, in association with the solar dynamo, whether it is done with a synthesized solar system quadrupole time series or the planets individually. I don’t see how a gross newtonian calculation calculation can rule out a level of angular momentum transfer that might be significant to solar dynamics.

  222. bill says:

    Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
    As you can see, the correlation between TSI and HSG is clear. I have the complete databases on iron stained grains and other proxies.

    I’ve plotted something similar but although there is a similarity of 10Be flux to TSI there is little similarity between HSG and either a 70 year average or yearly average TSI (Leif’s data)
    http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3388/tsihsg10beg.jpg

  223. africangenesis (19:12:24) :
    At times at least, there must be torque.
    For a torque to work there must be a lever arm and there is none.

    I don’t see how a gross newtonian calculation calculation can rule out a level of angular momentum transfer that might be significant to solar dynamics.
    Newtonian calculations work very well in the solar system. They are not gross. If you doubt the result, you have to quantify what transfer to expect and by which mechanism. Just saying that you don’t get it and can’t see it is not good enough. I have quoted Wilson et al. as to what change in AM they require and it is plain that such changes do not happen within Carsten’s accuracy [which is not a 'gross' calculation, but a very careful integration of the basic equations]
    The very accurate orbit calculations put very strict [and small] limits on effects not covered by them. Perhaps you should visit JPL’s site at http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons and look at the level of precision with which Newtonian mechanics works. Carsten’s is not quite that good, but almost [as the Sun & planets are the major planets].

  224. africangenesis (19:12:24) :
    At times at least, there must be torque.
    “For a torque to work there must be a lever arm and there is none.”

    There is a lever arm for tidal forces, namely the body being acted on. The ‘arm’ doesn’t work all that well when the body is a gas though, and the tidal forces are minuscule to boot, so there is not much to get from them, and in addition they only work one way [if caused by planets with an period of revolution larger than the Sun's rotation period, which is always the case], namely always to slow the Sun down, never to create cycles.

  225. Nasif Nahle says:

    bill (19:38:34) :

    Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
    As you can see, the correlation between TSI and HSG is clear. I have the complete databases on iron stained grains and other proxies.
    I’ve plotted something similar but although there is a similarity of 10Be flux to TSI there is little similarity between HSG and either a 70 year average or yearly average TSI (Leif’s data)

    That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.

  226. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (16:16:51) :

    Nasif Nahle (14:52:45) :
    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question.
    It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.

    I think it’s not; I think as Hoyle said some day, that the Sun is 36% hydrogen and 64% other elements, including that smattering of stuff that makes we up.

  227. Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
    That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.
    You should not, like F&L, plot averages and ‘absolute’ values [by which I think you mean 'instantaneous' values] on the same plot, lest you be as bad as F&L.

  228. Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made? Just a question.
    “It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.”

    I think it’s not; I think as Hoyle said some day, that the Sun is 36% hydrogen and 64% other elements, including that smattering of stuff that makes we up

    Apart from 36% not being ‘almost all’ Hydrogen, good ole Hoyle was wrong on this [you've got to update to modern knowledge, not dredge old things up on the internet]. Here is a modern table:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/suncomp.html

    Element, % of number of atoms, % of total mass
    Hydrogen 91.2 71.0
    Helium 8.7 27.1 <====
    Oxygen 0.078 0.97
    Carbon 0.043 0.40
    Nitrogen 0.0088 0.096
    Silicon 0.0045 0.099
    Magnesium 0.0038 0.076
    Neon 0.0035 0.058
    Iron 0.0030 0.14
    Sulfur 0.0015 0.040\
    etc.

  229. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (20:45:31) :

    Nasif Nahle (23:47:27) :
    That’s because you’re comparing averages of TSI with absolute values of HSG.
    You should not, like F&L, plot averages and ‘absolute’ values [by which I think you mean 'instantaneous' values] on the same plot, lest you be as bad as F&L.

    I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.

  230. Nasif Nahle (21:11:17) :
    I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.
    So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?

  231. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :

    Apart from 36% not being ‘almost all’ Hydrogen, good ole Hoyle was wrong on this [you've got to update to modern knowledge, not dredge old things up on the internet]. Here is a modern table:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/suncomp.html

    What’s worst, I took it from a book… I read everyday those figures that you’re including in your post about the Sun’s composition from academic books on astrophysics, astronomy and astronomy. What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium. :)

  232. Nasif Nahle (21:48:08) :
    the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.
    I wouldn’t call it ‘almost pure’ with 2% Helium, but you did claim that this was NOT the composition, so you learned something. My existence has not been in vain :-)

  233. Leif Svalgaard (22:14:13) :
    Nasif Nahle (21:48:08) :
    the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.
    I wouldn’t call it ‘almost pure’ with 27% Helium, but you did claim that this was NOT the composition, so you learned something. My existence has not been in vain :-)

  234. Wilson, et al, calculate:

    “If, as is more likely, it is actually the outer 2% of the Sun’s mass, rather than the Sun as a whole, that are affected, then over one Jupiter–Saturn synodic period, approximately 0.09–0.15% of the total orbital angular momentum transferred back and forth between the Sun and Jupiter would have to be subtracted from, and then added to, the rotational angular momentum of the surface layers of the Sun.”

    “We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. This is remarkable close to the velocity amplitude of the torsional oscillations seen on the surface layers of the Sun. Thus, it raises
    the possibility that the torsional oscillations seen in the outer layers of the Sun may be a product of the spin–orbit coupling between Jupiter and the Sun.”

    I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above. It probably would help if Carston can fill in with more accurate figures. Given the lower density of the outer layers of the Sun, I wonder if significantly impacting even less than 2% of the mass, and so less angular momentum transfer would be needed.

    Part of the “lever arm” would be the angular difference between the plane of the solar equator and the plane of the orbits of the planets. The effect on a gas might look like density waves, in addition the equatorial speed change. Another piece of leverage is the solar deviation from the sperical ideal itself. Shirley’s assumption of free fall did not include such quadrupole moments, and was simplistic compared to gravitational analyses such as these, which definitely find the deviation from spherical uniformity relevant.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~scheeres/reprints/CMDA_mutual.pdf

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/538/1/386/50681.text.html

    Based on the Sheeres article and other readings, it appears that the gravitatiional quadrupole moment effect is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. If the spin orbit coupling is based upon this, then the significance of the jovian planets are significantly reduced relative to their overwelming proportion of the solar system angular momentum. Given that we know the solar oblateness contributes to mercury’s orbital precession, I’ve done some calculations and normalized them to the reciprical influence mercury would have on the solar oblateness.

    Here are the relative contributions (M/d^3) of the planets with mercury being unity:

    mercury 1.0000
    venus 2.2706
    earth 1.0541
    mars 0.0319
    jupiter 2.3771
    saturn 0.1140
    uranus 0.0022
    neptune 0.0007

    Note that earths contribution is as large as mercury’s and venus’ is as large as Jupiter’s and about 2.3 times that of mercury. The other Jovian planets are less signficant. Since Jupiter dominates in Wilson’s analysis and Saturn contributes to the understanding, this relatively minor influence of Jupiter would seem to point to the phase locking with the periodicity of some internal solar dynamic with Jupiter as the reason that the solar cycle is 11 (22) years instead of correlated with Venus or some combination of the periods of Mercury, Venus and Earth.

  235. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (21:42:57) :

    Nasif Nahle (21:11:17) :
    I ‘m not… I’m comparing apples with apples, i.e. annual averages with annual averages.

    So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?

    That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete (another ring for running around?). Other proxies were stacked, but I didn’t do it, the authors did it. I’ve not used the stacked data, but the data for each year. Anyway, the plots give similar results.

  236. Nasif Nahle says:

    Here the graph including the stacked proxies:

    http://www.biocab.org/Stacked_and_TSI.jpg

    I’m sorry if the graph doesn’t make it well. I don’t publish too often at Biocab’s website.

  237. Geoff Sharp says:

    africangenesis (19:12:24) :

    I don’t see how a gross newtonian calculation calculation can rule out a level of angular momentum transfer that might be significant to solar dynamics.

    Agree….and we havent seen any of the data yet. It may be the scale but I noticed the solar AM shape around 1970 differed to Carls’ graph. AM is a calculated vector not readily available via JPL. I am currently having a go at calculating Jupiter’s AM using JPL…Carl could do this in 5 mins I suspect.

    The spin momentum also needs to be included in this work, which is probably a difficult exercise. Also I wonder if anyone has thought of a conservation of spin momentum.

    One thing is for sure…it would be scientific arrogance to dismiss spin-orbit coupling, Shirley and many others certainly have the door open.

  238. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:48:12) :

    “Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not ...].
    J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
    S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
    U: 14.5 19.2 6.8; AM = 1890
    N: 17 30 5.4; AM = 2750
    Sum of S,U,N is 13765 or 64% of J, so not ‘relatively negligible’.

    Yes very aware, but if Carsten’s Jupiter AM graph is right, the overwhelming influence is from Jupiter. I have been looking at the fluctuations in Jupiter’s AM which looks to be caused by normal gravity perturbations from the outer 3. Has anybody else looked at this?

  239. africangenesis (22:17:36) :
    “We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. [...]
    I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.
    why would you think so? Makes me distrust your judgment in general…I said 1/200 from Figure 8: 0.015 urad/s compared to rotation speed of 3 urad/s, a factor of 200. The equatorial rotation speed is 2000 m/s, which divided by 200 is 5 m/s in good agreement with the 4.3 m/s.

    Given that we know the solar oblateness contributes to mercury’s orbital precession,
    Not that we can measure: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Sci/sci.space.news/2008-10/msg00012.pdf
    “These results have far ranging implications for solar physics and theories of gravity,” comments solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “They indicate that the core of the sun cannot be rotating much more rapidly than the surface, and that the sun’s oblateness is too small to change the orbit of Mercury outside the bounds of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.”
    So, no effect, because the oblateness is so small.

    mercury 1.0000 0.20 mm
    venus 2.2706 0.46 mm
    earth 1.0541 0.21 mm
    mars 0.0319 0.006 mm
    jupiter 2.3771 0.48 mm
    saturn 0.1140 0.023 mm
    uranus 0.0022 0.0004 mm
    neptune 0.0007 0.0001 mm

    I have added to your table the height of the tidal bulge on the Sun raised by the various planets. The biggest is Jupiter’s, all of less than half a millimeter [1/50 of an inch]. Saturn is way down [1/40th] compared with the inner planets, that alone disqualifies Saturn.

    The half millimeter tides [rising and falling on a time scale of 13 days] should be compared to the million Texas-sized granules rising and falling at 500 m/s or 1800 km/hour at any given moment.

    Nasif Nahle (22:17:42) :
    “So, you have only one value pair every 70 years?”
    That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete

    What nonsense is that? We have a value every year.

    Anyway, the plots give similar results.
    I only see a handful of data points plotted for the past 400 years…

  240. Geoff Sharp (22:47:26) :
    Shirley and many others certainly have the door open.
    But emphatically points out that it is an error to claim that there is any exchange of angular momentum.

  241. Geoff Sharp (22:57:44) :
    “Except that they are not, as he knows [and if he does not ...].
    J: 318 5.2 13; AM = 21500
    S: 95 9.6 9.7; AM = 9125
    U: 14.5 19.2 6.8; AM = 1890
    N: 17 30 5.4; AM = 2750
    Sum of S,U,N is 13765 or 64% of J, so not ‘relatively negligible’.

    Yes very aware, but if Carsten’s Jupiter AM graph is right, the overwhelming influence is from Jupiter.
    What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above should that J is 36% of the whole.

    I have been looking at the fluctuations in Jupiter’s AM which looks to be caused by normal gravity perturbations from the outer 3. Has anybody else looked at this?

    Carsten [page 7]:
    http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/AM_1940_1992_20090327_r1.pdf

  242. Leif Svalgaard (23:05:59) :
    africangenesis (22:17:36) :
    “We also found that the average change in the Sun’s equatorial rotation speed is 4.3ms−1. [...]
    I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.

    why would you think so? Makes me distrust your judgment in general…

  243. africangenesis (22:17:36) :
    Based on the Sheeres article and other readings, it appears that the gravitatiional quadrupole moment effect is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. If the spin orbit coupling is based upon this, then the significance of the jovian planets are significantly reduced relative to their overwelming proportion of the solar system angular momentum.

    This is in contrast to the usual assumption that the Jovian planets [and especially Uranus and Neptune] are the major players. But the main issue is that the solar oblateness is so extremely small as to have no measurable influence even on Mercury’s orbit.

  244. Leif Svalgaard (23:21:37) :
    What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above show that J is 61% of the whole.
    My bad, the 36% should be 61%. Bigger, but hardly overwhelming.

  245. Leif Svalgaard,

    “I think this figure for the angular momentum transfer is a couple orders of magnitude smaller than your estimate above.” — me

    “why would you think so? ” — you

    It is this angular momentum calculation below that utilizes much more than just the 2% of the solar mass used by Wilson:

    “Assuming that the Sun’s mass [for this calculation] is at a point 1/4 of the radius from the center, the AM is 1.75E41 [SI units].”

  246. bill says:

    Nasif Nahle (22:17:42) :
    That’s almost correct because the TSI databases are incomplete (another ring for running around?). Other proxies were stacked, but I didn’t do it, the authors did it. I’ve not used the stacked data, but the data for each year. Anyway, the plots give similar results.

    I am sorry but I do not understand your criticism of my plot:
    http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3388/tsihsg10beg.jpg

    I have plotted yearly TSI
    I have plotted all available data for 10Be Flux from the Fuji Dome series
    I have plotted HSG for the relevant time sequence
    I have plotted the average of TSI for the 70 years preceding each HSG value.

    The 10Be flux plot lines up reasonably with the TSI (over the short overlap)
    Nothing lines up with HSG on my plots – where am I misinterpreting the data please?

  247. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (00:02:30) :

    What has that to do with Carsten’s graph? The calculation above show that J is 61% of the whole.
    My bad, the 36% should be 61%. Bigger, but hardly overwhelming.

    Your missing the point Leif, if the Jupiter graph is good I wouldnt need anything else. I would come to the same conclusions, Jupiter and the Sun are almost mirrors, I am keen to see this data reproduced from JPL.

    Have a look at the Jupiter curve….and look at a solar system viewer for the key changes, the changes look to be a product of gravity alone?

  248. Nasif Nahle says:

    bill (01:32:45) :

    I am sorry but I do not understand your criticism of my plot:
    http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3388/tsihsg10beg.jpg

    I have plotted yearly TSI
    I have plotted all available data for 10Be Flux from the Fuji Dome series
    I have plotted HSG for the relevant time sequence
    I have plotted the average of TSI for the 70 years preceding each HSG value.

    The 10Be flux plot lines up reasonably with the TSI (over the short overlap)
    Nothing lines up with HSG on my plots – where am I misinterpreting the data please?

    Mine is not a criticism, but an observation. The problem there is that you compared 70 years averaged TSI against instantaneous magnitudes of HSG. You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.

  249. africangenesis (00:22:01) :
    It is this angular momentum calculation below that utilizes much more than just the 2% of the solar mass used by Wilson:
    “Assuming that the Sun’s mass [for this calculation] is at a point 1/4 of the radius from the center, the AM is 1.75E41 [SI units].”

    The change in rotation is what Wilson and I agree on. The calculation above was just to get a number for the total AM which is what Carsten calculates. The accuracy of Carsten’s calculation is much higher than a 1/200 part of the whole, so even if we only want to apply the change of rotation to a smaller mass it is still well within his accuracy. If we posit only a change near the surface then, of course, the mass goes down [say by a factor of 50], but the distance goes up by a factor of 4, so the total change is then about one order of magnitude, rather than the two you were talking about. But, all this is irrelevant, as the error in Carsten’s calculation is much less than that. It is not correct to call it a ‘gross’ calculation.
    The issue is still one of a lack of coupling or lever arm, that furthermore must work both ways: first transferring AM to the rotation of the Sun, but then transferring it back again to the planets, as the changes are cyclic.
    For stable orbits, the orbital AM for the Sun must perfectly balance the orbital AM for the planets as total energy is conserved. Carsten’s calculation [by numerical integration that 'knows' nothing about having to conserve anything] shows that that is indeed the case.
    One can always cast doubt on the data or the calculation ['does it agree with JPL']. My cross-check showed that there was agreement. Carsten could address that again, e.g. by calculating something that JPL also calculates, e.g. the distance between the Sun and Jupiter, but I’m sure that even if those two numbers agreed perfectly, people would just say: ‘so what?’. This goes with the following post:

    Geoff Sharp (06:25:46) :
    Have a look at the Jupiter curve….and look at a solar system viewer for the key changes, the changes look to be a product of gravity alone?

    Both curves are computed from gravity alone. JPL’s just take into consideration the tiny perturbation from asteroids, comets, moons, and assorted things. Changes that are extremely minute but are needed for navigating to accuracy of meters [or kilometers in the outer solar system]. Assuming that Carsten’s and JPL’s numbers agreed. Would you then accept that there is no AM transfer to solar rotation [and to planetary rotation]? My guess is a ‘no’, but correct me if I’m wrong.

  250. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (22:14:13) :

    Nasif Nahle (21:48:08) :
    the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.
    I wouldn’t call it ‘almost pure’ with 27% Helium, but you did claim that this was NOT the composition, so you learned something. My existence has not been in vain :-)

    Hah! That’s Leif. I did never say it was not the composition. I wrote a paper where I describe the composition of the Sun. I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion. :)

  251. Nasif Nahle (07:43:28) :
    You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.
    So you say that you have only an instantaneous value of of HSG every 70 years and that you plot that against the value of TSI for just that same year? Why 70 years?

  252. Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
    I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion.
    That you are still wrong is hardly an argument that carries any weight. The issue was really whether the rest is Helium or not. I say it is, and you say it isn’t. And that is your error [apart from using the incorrect 63% when today we know better - the correct number is 71%].

  253. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:51:39) :

    Both curves are computed from gravity alone. JPL’s just take into consideration the tiny perturbation from asteroids, comets, moons, and assorted things. Changes that are extremely minute but are needed for navigating to accuracy of meters [or kilometers in the outer solar system]. Assuming that Carsten’s and JPL’s numbers agreed. Would you then accept that there is no AM transfer to solar rotation [and to planetary rotation]? My guess is a ‘no’, but correct me if I’m wrong.

    The issue is if Carsten’s graph is correct….I would suspect the subscribed “perturbation theory” might not be included, which probably only makes a small difference. This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr. I can see you dont want to engage, I will persevere on my own.

  254. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (08:00:07) :

    Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
    I still think 63% Hydrogen is almost all the stuff in Sun’s composition. The remainder elements are into the “non almost” portion.
    That you are still wrong is hardly an argument that carries any weight. The issue was really whether the rest is Helium or not. I say it is, and you say it isn’t. And that is your error [apart from using the incorrect 63% when today we know better - the correct number is 71%].

    Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! :)

  255. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (07:55:26) :

    Nasif Nahle (07:43:28) :
    You should compare instantaneous against instantaneous, or 70 years average of TSI against 70 years average of HSG.
    So you say that you have only an instantaneous value of of HSG every 70 years and that you plot that against the value of TSI for just that same year? Why 70 years?

    70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.

  256. Nasif Nahle says:

    @Leif… The remainder 29% is not pure Helium but He and other elements, like Iron, Carbon, Calcium, and all that stuff in the analysis.

  257. Geoff Sharp (08:08:47) :
    This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr.
    The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.

    Nasif Nahle (08:42:51) :
    Leif Svalgaard (08:00:07) :

    Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
    Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! :)
    How much Helium?

    Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
    70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
    Your graph had a data point only every 70 years. Make a plot of annual values of TSI and HSG. There should be at least 2×400 data points on that curve.

  258. bill says:

    Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
    70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.

    The 70 years lined up with your plot of HSG data which was 1 point per 70 years.
    I derived the data from your plot (admittedly not from data)
    http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
    this has changes occuring on the 70year boundaries.

    I have not seen yearly HSG data anywhere!

  259. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :
    Nasif Nahle (07:52:09) :
    Wow! How could I have made that arithmetic error? 71% is more than 63%!, so my almost grows. Heh! :)
    How much Helium?

    A smattering percentage of 27% mass. :)

  260. Nasif Nahle (09:23:46) :
    @Leif… The remainder 29% is not pure Helium but He and other elements, like Iron, Carbon, Calcium, and all that stuff in the analysis.
    I have rarely seem someone squirm this much. The remaining 27% is pure Helium, and the remaining 2% is all the other elements.

  261. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :

    Nasif Nahle (08:45:24) :
    70 years is the average that Bill used to plot his graph, not me. I used the values given in the database, which are annual average of HSG.
    Your graph had a data point only every 70 years. Make a plot of annual values of TSI and HSG. There should be at least 2×400 data points on that curve.

    Nope… It’s not the average of all 70 years, but the annual average corresponding to a sedimentary layer from every 70 years. When the data were stacked the author notified it was stacked data.

    bill (10:00:42) :

    The 70 years lined up with your plot of HSG data which was 1 point per 70 years.

    But they are not averages of percentages of HSG, but annual percentages.

    I derived the data from your plot (admittedly not from data)
    http://www.biocab.org/HSG_and_TSI.jpg
    this has changes occuring on the 70year boundaries.

    But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.

    I have not seen yearly HSG data anywhere!

    A shame…

  262. Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
    But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
    Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.

  263. Nasif Nahle (10:31:59) :
    “How much Helium?”
    A smattering percentage of 27% mass.

    Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :
    Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made?
    “It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.”
    I think it’s not

    And what do you think it is now? BTW, 24% of that Helium was generated all the way back at the Big Bang, as was also all the Hydrogen. Stellar evolution has since converted 5% of the Hydrogen into Helium and ‘the other stuff’.

  264. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:06:31) :

    Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
    But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
    Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.

    I won’t talk for Bond and colleagues. From the paper by Bond et al:

    “Sedimentation rates in both cores exceeded 10 cm per 1000 years, more than sufficient to resolve millennial-scale variability, and the rates were nearly constant (Fig. 2). We sampled both cores at intervals of 0.5 to 1 cm (equivalent to a resolution of 50 to 100 years), and in each sample we measured nine proxies (6).”

    The authors gave specific measurements for specific years. I’m plotting just now the data considering the exact number of years corresponding to yours and Lean’s TSI reconstructions, so the precision will be higher.

  265. Nasif Nahle says:

    Nasif Nahle (21:48:08):

    Leif Svalgaard (21:05:46) :
    Nasif Nahle (20:40:02) :
    But… How if the Sun is almost all Hydrogen-made?
    “It is not, a quarter of the Sun is helium, with a smattering of the stuff that makes you up.”
    I think it’s not

    And what do you think it is now? BTW, 24% of that Helium was generated all the way back at the Big Bang, as was also all the Hydrogen. Stellar evolution has since converted 5% of the Hydrogen into Helium and ‘the other stuff’.

    My response was: “What’s worst, I took it from a book… I read everyday those figures that you’re including in your post about the Sun’s composition from academic books on astrophysics, astronomy and astronomy. What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.” :)

    Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?

  266. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (11:06:31) :

    Nasif Nahle (10:40:13) :
    But they aren’t averages of the 70 years, but the percentages of HSG found in a sedimentary layer from 70 years ago.
    Again you are squirming. So, you have data for [say] the years 2000, 1930, 1860, 1790, 1720, 1650 and you plot that data and the TSI values for the very same years? So, you have 6 data points.

    No, I’m not squirming, you are looking for three feet to the cat knowing that it has four feet. I understand the results are amazingly contrary to what one could be expect; however, the results are there. Again, I won’t do the work of solar physicists. The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;)

  267. Nasif Nahle (11:39:51) :
    What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.”
    No, you did not, you said that you didn’t think the ‘quarter Helium’ was correct. If you like a number, just ask. And almost pure is not 29% other stuff: My drinking water is almost pure, it only has 29% sewer effluent in it…

    Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
    Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.

  268. Nasif Nahle (11:57:05) :
    The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;

    Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.

  269. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:01:31) :

    Nasif Nahle (11:39:51) :
    What I did was to push you to show the real composition of the Sun, which is, from my view, almost pure hydrogen with only 27% of helium.”
    No, you did not, you said that you didn’t think the ‘quarter Helium’ was correct. If you like a number, just ask. And almost pure is not 29% other stuff: My drinking water is almost pure, it only has 29% sewer effluent in it.

    That’s Svalgaards emerging again. :) The quarter Helium is correct, that’s right; nevertheless, I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.

    Do you believe the Big Bang is the origin of the observable Universe?
    Not just the observable, but the whole shebang.

    Aren’t we traveling to other ring? Before any conjecture on a BB which could have given origin to the Universe from nothing, it must (forcibly) be something over there; that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).

  270. Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :

    Geoff Sharp (08:08:47) :
    This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr.

    The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.

    Indeed, AM has a very clear definition, so there is no room for confusion on how to calculate it.
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/angular_momentum.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

    It seems this thread is starting to take on a life of its own, trying to replicate or compete with the “monster thread” in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/the-sun-double-blankety-blank-quiet/ …. :-)

    I can only confirm (rather than repeat) what Leif has said relating to the validity of the calculations and how I did them.

    It is indeed true that the AM must be treated as a vector quantity, anything else is incorrect. If you do, the sum of orbital AM remains constant over time, just like physics says it should. If you only compute with scalars, you get a discrepancy, as this is an incorrect approach.

    When using a vector formulation for AM, the AM scalar value can then be taken as the vector length. The AM vector directions (x,y,z in a suitable reference coordinate system) are normal to the respective orbit planes for each planet. The vector sum for the Sun+planets defines the normal of the solar system invariant plane
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/invariant_plane.html

    Anyone proposing that the sum of orbital AM is not constant might ask themselves if both the scalar value (the vector length) and the normal (the vector direction) are variable. If the scalar is not constant as it is claimed [but this is shown to be untrue], you will have to explain how the direction can remain constant, as the scalar is the length of the sum of the vectors.

    The implication for a non constant AM direction would be that the whole solar system would “wobble along” like a failing gyro, with a “variable invariant plane”. Clearly, it isn’t happening.

  271. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:10:18) :

    Nasif Nahle (11:57:05) :
    The HSG database goes so far as 35500 years ago up to date, and the TSI database only covers the ridiculous timescale of the last 308 years. Not my fault… ;

    Of course, not. But it also means that the statement that HSG is a very good proxy for TSI is on very shaky ground. Maybe it is, and maybe it is not. The ridiculously small overlap [with only 6 data points] does not allow one to make a very strong statement. It is even very likely that the climate [clouds, insolation, etc] is what really determines the HSG, rather than the Sun.

    I’ve not given my conclusions… yet. Nonetheless, it could be that proxies for TSI should include iron stained grains for covering those gaps which cannot be filled with more accurate data. Don’t tell me that it is not a scientific way of knowing approximations of TSI. At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.

    Correction to my previous post: “Aren’t we traveling onto another ring?”

  272. Nasif Nahle (13:09:06) :
    I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.
    Be careful that your bank does not adopt the same attitude towards the money you deposit in your account and will only allow you to take 71% out again, saying you have got almost all your money…

    that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
    The total energy content of the Universe may be zero, so no miracle necessary, c.f. for example http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

  273. Nasif Nahle (13:16:33) :
    At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.
    You cannot make any conclusion based on six data points [with large scatter].

  274. Nasif Nahle says:

    @Leif and other colleagues… I’ll be absent during the next hours until 11 pm. Before I quit, I want to thank you for your patience on reading my posts, and especially for questioning my assertions. I hope you all have taken some advantage from what I’m doing. I’ll be back at night. :)

  275. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (13:24:50) :

    Nasif Nahle (13:09:06) :
    I don’t accept it is the best portion of the Sun, and still thinking 71% of Hydrogen is almost all the stuff composing the Sun.
    Be careful that your bank does not adopt the same attitude towards the money you deposit in your account and will only allow you to take 71% out again, saying you have got almost all your money…

    that something is space, void, false vacuum, true vacuum, whatever it could be. I don’t believe in miracles (singularities).
    The total energy content of the Universe may be zero, so no miracle necessary…

    Hi, got back to my office few hours before the expected hour.

    Leif… Neither astrophysics nor I need of a BB for explaining the origin of the Universe:

    http://www.biocab.org/Symmetry_Asymmetry.html#anchor_29

  276. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (13:27:29) :

    Nasif Nahle (13:16:33) :
    At least, I’ve demonstrated that HSG are correlated to TSI, which was the primary objective of our dialogue.
    You cannot make any conclusion based on six data points [with large scatter].

    Of course I could make a conclusion based on six data points, particularly if there are thousands of years among the scatters and the correlation persists after those thousands of years and other proxies allows me to find the same solution. The correlation exists for those “six” data points. Nevertheless, I’ve not still got a definite conclusion. Just be patient.

  277. Nasif Nahle (18:37:08) :
    Leif… Neither astrophysics nor I need of a BB for explaining the origin of the Universe
    This is not the place to discuss this, but what you describe sounds to me like the bigger miracle…
    Of course, there is the even bigger one: “let there be light; and there was light…”

  278. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (19:18:40) :

    Nasif Nahle (18:37:08) :
    Leif… Neither astrophysics nor I need of a BB for explaining the origin of the Universe
    This is not the place to discuss this, but what you describe sounds to me like the bigger miracle…
    Of course, there is the even bigger one: “let there be light; and there was light…”

    Well… I agree with you on that this is not the place to discuss the origin of the Universe without a BB. I have to point out that there is no place in the theory for a miracle because the Universe could has been percolated into another wider Universe. It’s a matter of our scope shortness on this issue. The solution is going further from our sight after each light second.

    BTW, I’m not adhered to ID philosophy. Are you? :)

  279. Nasif Nahle (19:42:25) :
    BTW, I’m not adhered to ID philosophy. Are you?
    Of course not. No reasonable person could be. But then there are so many that are not so reasonable…

    Reply: Talk of ID, pro or con stops now. Other moderators take note ~ charles the moderator

  280. Pamela Gray says:

    What does a BB gun and the id have to do with the price of tomatoes??????

  281. alphajuno says:

    This seems too simple for the Sun:

    From the Shirley quote…

    “In rotation, the constituent particles of a subject body move in concentric trajectories with velocities that depend upon their position in relation to the axis of rotation (equation 1). In revolution, the particles of the body move in parallel trajectories with identical velocities (aside from small differences produced by the gradients that give rise to the tides).”

    Maybe you can make these assumptions when it’s a white dwarf but considring convection, gravity waves, differing rotation rates at different lattitudes (even diameter changes over time), I just can’t see how one can ignore the fact that the Sun is not a solid but treat it as a solid for the purposes of using simple equations.

    If we drove a stake into the Earth, it would follow these assumptions. If we placed a buoy on the ocean we better be able to track it because it’ll be on the move. If we have balloon that can float in the atmosphere, it’s going on a trip too. Similarly, the little solar particles are not behaving perfectly either. (I could have used a Jupiter analogy as well)

  282. Nasif Nahle says:

    Pamela Gray (20:23:40) :

    What does a BB gun and the id have to do with the price of tomatoes??????

    BB is narrowly linked to the price of tomatoes because the latter gets “boom” at an exponential rate but deflates at a linear pace, like the BB… Another coincidence between the BB and the price of tomatoes is that they follow the mainstream, i.e. consensus among experts; same as on the current state of climatology. :)

  283. alphajuno (21:01:00) :
    If we placed a buoy on the ocean we better be able to track it because it’ll be on the move.
    The considerations do not in any way depend on the Sun being solid. The tides that the Moon produces are raised [follow the laws of gravity] precisely because the ocean is a fluid [although there are also - smaller - tides in the solid Earth]. Whenever we talk about gravitational effects we really assume that the particles are free to move [as in a gas or thin fluid]. By contrast, in a solid, they are not, because electromagnetism is so much stronger than gravity that the particles cannot move, which is why I’m sitting comfortably in my char right now confounding the effect of gravity that would have my butt on the ground had the chair not been there. So, the Sun being a gas is fundamental to the assumption that gravity has the effects we calculate.

    Your post espouses a standard false argument in this discussion, along with another popular one: that the laws of gravity only applies to bodies that are ‘gravitationally bound’ to the Sun.

  284. Leif Svalgaard (21:57:41) :
    The considerations do not in any way depend on the Sun being solid. The tides that the Moon produces are raised [follow the laws of gravity] precisely because the ocean is a fluid [although there are also - smaller - tides in the solid Earth]. [i]Whenever we talk about gravitational effects we really assume that the particles are free to move [as in a gas or thin fluid].[/i] By contrast, in a solid, they are not, because electromagnetism is so much stronger than gravity that the particles cannot move, which is why I’m sitting comfortably in my char right now confounding the effect of gravity that would have my butt on the ground had the chair not been there. [b]So, the Sun being a gas is fundamental to the assumption that gravity has the effects we calculate.[/b]

    Right – But that’s my fundamental disagreement with your conclusion that the planets could NOT have an influence on the sun because their tidal effect (the movement of the sun) is so small.

    Start with a static sun, no planets. No rotation. Simple fusion reactor = Overall, the energy released by each fusion in the center is balanced by the force inwardly by gravity. The particles forcing their way out must oppose the movement of new atoms inward under gravity, and the whole may get a “boiling” movement, but nothing steady. (No steady currents or magnetic forces.)

    OK, fine. Now, rotate this model of the sun about its axis. Steady,consistant rotational movement around the sun’s centerline creates the steady magnetic loops and conter emf electric currents I see in the big electric power station generators. But the situation is “stable” after many billion years: loops of plasma conduct electric currents which rotate themselves and create magnetic fields that twist the rising plasma “bubbles” into streams and predictable, if chaotic, circulating loops.

    Add to that model the different rotation rates of the sun at the equator and poles. More complex patterns, but they could be “stable”. Streams rise “up” in elevation from the center of the sun, get twisted and bent as they loop towards and away from the equator, fall back “down” in towards the center. Fusion still is stablely balanced (overall) by the (overall, average) weight the upper sun. But is it exactly the same all the time? Or does the fusion rate change based on the amount of “looping” and inward pressure? If the fusion rate changes with time (based on the changing loops) what would be the time delay from the fusion region “up” and to the surface where it can radiate away?

    But …. Unlike my nice stable fixed-axis power plant generators, comfortably rotating as a single solid mass around a single straight axis with a convenient center of gravity on the same axis as the rotating fields and currents … the real sun is that rotating plasma (so it (the sun, the fusion center, and the rising gas streams ARE moved by gravity and all of them RESPOND to nearby magnetic fields and moving electric currents.

    Therefore, as the sun rotates every few days around an axis that is “bent” and “warped” by the net CG of the entire solar center, the currents/magnetic fields try to to follow their new path back around the new center. (They have to change: the magnetic fields are trying to “loop” but their rotation and distance from the “zero point” has moved each hour, each day, each year.) So the interior fusion center and all the rising twisting gas (plasma) streams that make the circulating currents get slowly CHANGED over time. They have to: the sun is rotating rapidly, but the axis of the overall generator it represents is moving slowly, so the net axis is “bent” from pole to equator to pole (or near-pole). The CG (some years) is near the center. Three, four (eleven ??) years later the CG is much further away and the then later still, the CG is outside the rotating mass entirely.

  285. Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:12:43) :

    Leif Svalgaard (09:55:35) :

    Geoff Sharp (08:08:47) :
    This is not about AM transfer, more about how AM is generated outside of the normal l=mvr.

    The l=mvr is the definition of AM, so there is no AM outside of that [calculated correctly as Carsten does, as a vector quantity; the number plotted is the length of the vector]. This is my point all along that you are not doing physics.

    Indeed, AM has a very clear definition, so there is no room for confusion on how to calculate it.

    Right: But the radius (distance to center of rotation of the plasma ball) is changing with time, and the circulating currents are getting deflected by their ever-changing distance from the theorectical “neutral” axis of the entire sun’s “generator” – but then that neutral axis is itself not straight (it is warped or bent) and the amount of the bend is also changing with time.

Comments are closed.