But I wonder if Dr. Habibullo Abdussamator has considered the multitude of space-age measurements since 1960 that indicate:

a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;

b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and

c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].

Has he considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in solar surface activity?

1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. “€œNeutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Deception of course would be out of order. But perhaps it was accidental – for instance bulking up the reference list without checking further than the abstracts in some cases..

It is, indeed, likely that there will be some cooling [PDO, etc], but not because of the Sun and not because of the arguments presented.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/Hartmann.pdfof

The Russian paper does not rest only on historic TSI: it involves a number of other components:

(1) A serious inspection of climate history (19 cooling periods over 7500 years) which contrasts with the almost creationist approach by the AGW camp of ignoring climate history. Taking the past climate seriously is something that sets apart the pre-AGW and skeptic scientific cultures. Pro-AGW studies such as Pollock et al.’s reconstruction from bore-holes and BACKWARD extrapolation of global temperature – to an asymptotic flat line – illustrate the contempt the AGW movement have for past climate history.

(2) The transition of the ocean heat budget from positive to negative in 2003 – well documented by several peer reviewed papers. Svalgaard has been silent on this part of Abdussamatov’s paper.

(3) Recent TSI and the current decrease in sunspots and solar output, and the delayed cycle 24. (As distinct from historic reconstructed TSI.)

(4) Several decadal and century scale empirically visible climate cycles.

All these together lead the authors to make bold and highly testable / falsifiable conclusions: climate will stay flat-ish out to 2013 then nosedive. This fulfills the Karl Popper criteria of falsifiability for a scientific hypothesis. Again in striking contrast to AGW models which their rubbery flexibility to explain everything (Popper himself pointed out that a hypothesis that explains everything actually explains nothing).

Abdussamatov’s paper survives even if figure 3 is wrong.

2013 is only 4 years away – a shorter time than many research grant timescales. Looking forward at the accuracy or otherwise of their predictions is at least as important as looking back at the TSI reconstruction which is only on out of several supporting pillars of the paper’s arguments.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010./plot/sidc-ssn/from:1900/to:2010/trend

Has anyone done a similar graph for proton flux [ not solar flux]

Monckton has done his own credibility and his cause serious damage by endorsing this nonsense, and by ‘congratulating’ Corbyn and ‘Private Enterprise’.

For once, I’ll have to agree with Paul.

some comments on individual slides:
10: stop conveniently in mid 2008, before the increases in 2009
12: from the desrciption it looks like the obsolete Hout&Schatten TSI was used. Or an early Lean.
28: stops conveniently in 1989, just before the correlation breaks down.
29: same problem. If averaged over the 60-yr SLAM [see slide 37] cycle, there are two data points with perfecr correlation
31: geomagnetic activity should show a clear 22-yr cycle too [and there is actually one; not on his plot]
32: would seem that one has to predict solar activity first one year ahead
36: the ultimate cyclomania
the rest: not weve wrong.

I say ‘snake oil’.

REPLY: Maybe not snake oil, but some variant. Perhaps “reptile balm”. I get these forecasts from him regularly, and they are so full of self promotion I can hardly stand to read them. Mostly I just press delete rather than try to wade through it. Too much noise. – Anthony

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAclimatechange.ppt

I have a desire to find variation too, but not for that reason. Should there be any, so more the better,

Mr. Corbyn: I invite you to prove me wrong.