Solar Cycle 24 Update

Guest post by David Archibald

Solar Cycle 24 is now over a year old, so it is appropriate to see how it is ramping up.

Solar Cycle 24 was a late starter, about three and a half years later than the average of the strong cycles in the late 20th century and almost three year later than the weak cycles of the late 19th century.  It was almost as late as Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum.  The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.

[Note: Solar Cycle 22 and 23 are overlaid on solar cycle 3 and 4 above to show similarity]

Plotting up the last three solar cycles relative to the Dalton Minimum, another solar minimum is not precluded by the data to date.

With Solar Cycle 23 ending up at twelve and a half years long, applying Friis-Christenson and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover, New Hampshire results in a two degree centigrade decline in the annual average temperature at this location over the expected twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2021.  Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.

About these ads

282 thoughts on “Solar Cycle 24 Update

  1. Thank you for this update on Earth’s heat source – the Sun!

    Propaganda can deceive a lot of folks, but propaganda can’t change what is.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  2. Say what you will, but I do not like the looks of the 10.7 cm data at all. The gamma rays are still off scale to the top. Unfortunately no measurements of either were available in the Dalton Minimum. We are roughly due for a de Vries minimum so we may very well be getting one.

  3. “twelve years of Solar Cycle 24, from December 2009 to late 2011.”

    Should “2011” read “2021”?

    REPLY:
    Thanks typo corrected

  4. I should correct the gamma ray statement with the C14 analysis that can be done carefully. There seems to be a bump up at the Dalton Minimum, but that is just eyeballing a chart.

  5. Wouldn’t it be nice to see climate scientists with any honesty left report this and conclude that reducing CO2 emissions may be the wrong thing to do, and in fact we should temporarily accelerate CO2 emissions to avoid a cold snap over the next couple of decades. By then we should be in a better position to move to more advanced power generation systems, such as nuclear fusion.

  6. Why does solar cycle 5 look so smooth in the first graph and solar cycle 24 looks jagged? I see that the big cycles are averages of many cycles, so they would be smoothed, but cycle 5 just looks unnaturally smooth.

  7. Aren’t there some sort of laws we can pass to prevent the possible catastrophic losses that arise from “climate change” impacts of solar cycles?

  8. I doubt if Leif Svalgaard would agree with the statement “Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.” (due to sun activity) Would appreciate hearing from him regarding this. Certainly looks like the sun would have an influence but what if it ramps up to Hathaways original prediction. This is the trouble with making predictions based on our lifetime! The universe has been around for 5 billion years LOL. BTW glad to see we are seeing some science posting back rather than “climategate” etc…

  9. Thank you, Dr. Archibald. Those charts certainly put thingsin perspective. The prospect of a 2C decline in temperature does not make me a very happy camper, especially with our governments striving mightily to combat global warming.

  10. This is so cool. Reflect for a minute the importance we place on a month by month divergence of periodic sequences to a sun that has been doing this for billions of years. Our month by month divergence is nothing compared to the stable activity of the sun over this time scale. Consider now our 20 plunges into glaciation that have each lasted over 100,000 years and our 20 periods of interglatial warming that lasts about 20,000 years.

    The issue isn’t so much what is the impact of these changes to the planet, because the planet has survived these changes, The question is what would be the impact on our current civilization (less than 7000 years old) to major switchbacks to cold, indicated by long term solar activity.

  11. You have to wonder if that drop will be expressed in the same manner as we saw this last winter, with a negative AO, and a blast thru the center and eastern seaboard of the continent. I’m hoping so, because my little northwest corner stayed warm… :-)

  12. I think we’ve already passed this cycles max and are headed towards minimum again with the new cycle magnetic polarity showing up in early 2013. We’ll probably be seeing mostly “specks” soon, again, and see 10.7 flux dip below 70 by the end of March.

  13. Very interesting and clear summary, thank you.

    Are we facing a new solar minimum? The only way to know is to live and see, correlation and extrapolation are possibilities but not certainties. One thing is certain, though: I am NOT interested in Leif Svalgaard’s opinion on anything.

  14. @Peter of Sydney (21:58:28) :

    “Wouldn’t it be nice to see climate scientists with any honesty left report this and conclude that reducing CO2 emissions may be the wrong thing to do, and in fact we should temporarily accelerate CO2 emissions to avoid a cold snap over the next couple of decades.”

    Accelerate CO2 emissions to avoid a cold snap? Are you serious? Only if you really do believe that increased CO2 levels causes global warming to the extent believed by the AGW alarmists.

  15. @Stephan

    “The universe has been around for 5 billion years LOL”

    Umm… Shouldn’t that be “14 billion”, give or take? ;)

  16. Henry @ Peter of Sydney

    Increasing CO2 will only help growth (of forests and crops) if the temp. is right.
    I don’t think that will affect global temperatures much.

    Henry @ ShrNfr

    What is the “De Vries” minimum. Have not heard about that one yet

    Henry @ ….
    Anyone dare to make a prediction about the weather during the 2010 Soccer world cup? This is in our winter, June & July < South Africa.

  17. We fault proponents of AGW for their faith in CO2 as the cause of the warming (or climate change) when there is no sufficient mechanism.

    How then can we claim catastrophic cooling based on these numbers from the Sun? What is the sufficient mechanism in this case?

  18. In the first graphic of the post is a plot of “Solar Cycle Amplitude” vs “Months after peak of previous Solar Cycles”. A plot of SC 25 is shown to date and a plot of SC 5 is shown. I can have confidence of the plot of AC 24 having accurate basic however, what is the confidence in the accuracy of the SC 5 plot? What are the + and – on the SC 5 plot?

    John

  19. Mr. Archibald, can you takes some info I have stumbled on through many papers read in the last few months. It might let you leave one possibly open which might not be in your ensemble of knowledge to date.

    Last year I noticed a 9 cycles in 100 year period in the current 1700-2009 data from SIDC when passing an eleven year simple box filter over the yearly data to remove the sine imprint. Of coarse, 1700 seems very close to the end of the preceding Maunder period. The years 1711, 1811, 1911 are all years immediately before a big rise in the smoothed graph data each century. I couldn’t answer the extra year.

    Later, just by happenstance, I found something curious from a paper on reconstruction of solar cycles dating back to some 800 B.C. Of coarse, most are Chinese observations by eye at daybreak. Logically each observation most likely is not at an inter-cycle minimum year therefore cycle length can be extracted even in this very sparse data. The paper found the cycle length not at 11.003 years but 11.16 years over this 2800 year period. Other papers have listed this 11.16 year cycle length.

    That seemed to answer why 9 by 11 equals 99 was not aligning but 9 by 11.16 equals 100.4 was, but random length-skewing seems to force alignment every ~100 years. Its as if an extra year was forced in every nine cycles of an apparent 11 year average length.

    If the Dec. 2009 cycle start you mentioned above falls apart in the following months, this could point, if a minimum is not upon us, that 2011, or nearby, could be when the next cycle actually begins. It would be stange if that happens. I know, looking at cycle 21, 22, and 23 this is two to three years out of alignment but could be why the sun is acting somewhat unusual of late. That pattern has been a curiousity to me ever since. Time will tell if there is anything to it.

    Thought you might find that curious also.

  20. Hi John Hultquist

    As we all can see, temperatures on earth depend on clouds and overcast conditions. The more clouds are formed, the more light from the sun is bend away, the cooler and darker it gets.
    The Svensmark theory holds that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) initiate cloud formation. I have not seen this, but apparently this has been proven in laboratory conditions. So the only real variability in global temperature could be caused by the amount of GCR reaching earth. In turn, this depends on the activity of the sun, i.e. the extent of the solar magnetic field exerted by the sun on the planetary system. Apparently we are now coming out of a period where this field was bigger and more GCR was bent away from earth (this is what we, skeptics, say really caused “global warming”, mostly).

    But apparently now the solar geomagnetic field is heading for an all time low.

    Look here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active/

    Note that in the first graph, if you look at the smoothed monthly values, there was a tipping point in 2003 (light blue line). I cannot ignore the significance of this. I noted similar tipping points elsewhere round about that same time.. From 2003 the solar magnetic field has been going down. To me it seems for sure that we are now heading for a period of more cloudiness and hence a period of global cooling.

    I am not sure why we donot hear much from Henrik Svensmark on his theory? Why he never gets invited on TV is a mystery to me. I would love to see him defend his theory in public.

  21. desmugblog lists “The Sun”, as a driver for climate change as one of the false concepts touted by AGW skeptics. Oh no! It appears we are supposed to write off that big yellow ball in the sky that is the source for 99.999% of earth’s heat as having anything to do with changes in earth’s global temperatures!

  22. Would current sunspots/specs been recordable during cycle 5 ramp up?
    I don’t see how one minor spot at a time can be considered “ramping up”.

  23. With the imminent launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the next decade of discovery should be most exciting as it helps track the evolution of cycle 24. Wonder how many surprises will unfold and how many theories will be revised.

  24. Henry,

    210 year de Vries cycle…

    [PDF] The Past and Future of Climate solar activity, on a 210 year (de Vries) cycle. As it is now 213 years since the beginning of the Dalton Minimum, …

    http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Climate%202009.pdf

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N23/EDIT.php

    The intensity of 210-year cycle (the de Vries cycle) is 2-4 times more than that of 90-year ones … century period coincides with epoch of 2400- and 210- year solar activity cycles enhancement. …

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000ESASP.463..521S

    http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Raspopov_2008_PPP.pdf

    http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/researcherswhopreviouslydiscoveredthebicentennialcycle.doc

  25. Also, thank you Dr. Archibald for the enlightening tie between temperature to the sun’s activity. Will make it a point to read Friis-Christenson and Lassen’s paper.

  26. A few questions.

    1. Is the cooling only going to affect the “northeast US”. Why for example did David not mention the the “high quality satellite data” (to use his words).
    2. Why did he also not mention the Armagh data which is also prominent in his previous work.
    3. Can he provide a link to the New Hampshire data.
    4. Can he also provide us with the exact data used in his scatterplot and regression. I’ve counted 14 data points – what exactly do these represent.

  27. toyotawhizguy (23:57:37) :

    desmugblog lists “The Sun”, as a driver for climate change as one of the false concepts touted by AGW skeptics.”

    If they can successfully sell mankind the concept that “it can’t possibly be the sun”, we are all at their mercy! Fits on same level as prisoners learning to love their torturers. Brainwashing.

  28. I trust the comparisons based on the Layman’s Sunspot Count over other sunspot numbers. With better technology we are now seeing spots even a teenager before a date wouldn’t find. The solar cycle comparison to the Dalton minimum is even closer using the Layman’s count.

    Further to this I would add that the correlation between solar activity and climate needs to be revisited. All three main global temperature records have been shown to be compromised. In addition there have been too many convenient adjustments to TSI and other solar activity indicators recently. Jack Eddy said “Many plugs”. The CLOUD experiment is one avenue of inquiry but I can think of a few others.

  29. From the instant post: “The last few months have seen it ramp up relatively rapidly.”

    Maybe, I’m missing something, here, but I haven’t noticed a plethora of Sunspots or a large jump in magnetic flux.

    Could somebody explain what I’m missing?

  30. Why do we count sunspots again when they re-emerge from behind the sun? The large blotch near the top of the sun has been round twice since around Xmas.

  31. I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.

  32. If memory serves me correctly, cycles always ramp-up quickly and descend slowly. 4.3yrs ascending and 6.7yrs descending.

    And according to solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center there has been a 6% reduction in the suns extreme UV wavelengths since 1996.

    My laymans brain doesn’t comprehend all that too well so maybe someone knowledgable can explain it.

  33. If Dr. Svalgaard shows up, I’d like to thank him for sharing his insights and for keeping his F-10.7 charts updated.

  34. As a non-specialist could I ask those more knowledgeable to comment on whether the Friis-Christenson approach works in multiple locations around the globe or whether it happens to be especially apposite for the NE USA.

  35. Ed Murphy (00:14:15) :
    Henry,
    “210 year de Vries cycle…”

    Within solar activity, beside the 11 year cycle, most prominent peak is at 107 years, as shown on this FFT spectrum chart by Dr. Svalgaard.

    This cycle controls most of the known and recorded anomalies. Of course if you double the 107 year period you get 214 years, very close to 210 known as de Vries cycle.
    The 107 year cycle also faithfully reproduces the Maunder minimum; its mathematical and graphical presentation can be seen here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    More anomaly charts:

    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

  36. >1. Is the cooling only going to affect the “northeast US”. Why for example did David not mention the the “high quality satellite data” (to use his words).

    because satellite data shows no noticable cooling recently.
    I think it’s because ocean area warms up during a (land) iceage, offseting the land cooling.
    Not seen this idea supported by WUWT yet, even though if UAH is correct, and records colds are indicative of the land trend, then it MUST be true.

  37. Anthony and Dr. Archibald:

    After reading Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s paper I’m a little at loss of words. Wish I had found and read that month’s ago. Seems many of the same things I’ve been posting here were in that paper written back in 1991. A bit embarrassing. The 100 year pattern mentioned above, that must be close to what the paper listed as the 80 to 90 year Gleissberg period. Seems I’ve been recreating something written some 29 years ago! I didn’t realize that (but wish someone could have clued me if they knew). Just wonder if they also tried the area under the SST curve, not the height or width as the parameter.

    One related thing that paper didn’t seem to touch on was mentioned by me in re-clarification to Leif near the bottom of the NODC revises ocean heat content.. article. It addresses the slow, decadal lag time of long term solar variation and storage or release of the excess heat in the oceans above or below the current equilibrium temperature. Probably because in 1991 they apparently only had SST readings not thick (700m) layer sea temperatures. That could be incorrect or in some paper I’m not aware of (following the “there’s nothing new under the sun” saying). Someone with proper letters needs to write an updated paper on this topic, peer reviewed of coarse.

    Think I’ll pause and find a better way to search scientific papers before jumping in. Keep it up Anthony, to many your site’s a Godsend!

  38. there is a very interesting PDF file on his website, concerning the sun’s control of the earths’ climate:

    http://www.omatumr.com/

    See “NEW: THE SUN: An Electro-Magnetic Plasma Diffuser that controls Earth’s climate” at the top of the page.

    Toolan

  39. Dr Archibald, ultimately, what does it really mean to the layman? I still predict the SH winter will be “harsher” than last year, and will continue for some years.

    Australia seems to be stuffed with people who cannot think! I really wish a shopping trolley would take over, at least it would have better concept of what is real and what hype.

    As I’ve said before, as long as cricket, tennis, footy etc etc etc is on Aussie TV, most Aussies can’t be arsed!

  40. John F. Hultquist (23:27:21) :

    We do know that long solar minimums and very low solar activity times correspond to cooler times in human history. The problem is that the exact process by which this takes place has a lot of uncertainty. L&P is a complication that suggests this Minimum lies between a Dalton and a Maunder. L&P started before SC 24 came along, by quite a few years.
    If the Climate Record weren’t so messed up, we’d know for certain when the cooling started…i.e. – coinciding with L&P??
    No, there are no hard and fast rules for cylce ramp up/ramp down. 4.3/6.7 is not etched in stone.
    Baranyi/Ludmany wrote a 1998 paper on the 22 year Solar modulation of Earth’s northern hemisphere temperatures. It’s not confined to the NE.
    The graph of SC24 is going to be a lot sharper than SC5. We can detect much fainter sunspots than 210 years ago. Back then, we didn’t count sunspots, we counted groups.

    No, I do not see this subject as being in the same pot as AGW. Nothing I know of is that bad, or seeks to install itself as the whipmaster of the Earth though deception and trickery.

  41. I’ve always been aware of and supportive of the idea that solar activity levels are linked to tropospheric temperature changes and David does excellent work on the topic.

    However we have to take note of the facts that Leif gives us and on the basis of those facts it is certainly true that the variation of solar output between active and inactive phases is very tiny and on the face of it insufficient to provide the climate variability observed.

    There are a number of potential amplification possibilities however including the Svensmark cosmic ray hypothesis, my suggestion as regards the effect of internal ocean circulations changing the rate at which energy is released to the air above and a number of proponents of amplification caused by chemical and physical processes in the upper air affecting albedo through cloudiness changes often involving changes within the ozone layer.

    Generally I favour oceanic amplification rather than amplification arising in the atmosphere because of the enormous thermal inertia of the oceans and the fact that generally tropospheric air temperatures are seen to react very quickly to sea surface changes.

    There have been attempts to suggest that the sea surface changes themselves are a result of changes in the air above which then feed back to the troposphere via the ocean surfaces but as yet I have not seen a convincing correlation to support that on longer multidecadal, century or millennium time scales but tallbloke has had a stab at that which I intend to look into more closely when time allows.

    So the question arises as to whether the phasing of high solar activity with warmer tropospheric temperatures is simply a coincidence as I think Leif would contend whilst the true climate driver is in fact the oceans which currently vary the rate of release of energy approximately in phase with solar activity levels e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active and that tends to give the possibly false impression of a causative correlation between solar activity levels and tropospheric temperatures.

    Whilst I admit that the point is unresolved I have described elsewhere the possible implications of the current timing of solar/oceanic/ tropospheric temperature phases being merely a temporary feature.

    It turns out that if the phasing of solar and oceanic cycles can change over time and if higher solar activity actually facilitates the rate of energy loss to space from an expanded atmosphere (by more than the increase in raw solar power) then there is a plausible explanation for the relatively stable climates of interglacials and the wildly swinging climates observed during ice ages.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4433#comments_top

  42. Hey Oliver

    I have enjoyed & appreciated your posts.

    I know I’m lazy – what does the PI stand for?
    I built a mock up of the Apollo Command Module out of a new washing machine carton when I was a kid – I was hooked – still am.

    Thanks Veronica, I also found his @name links http://www.omatumr.com

    But Oliver don’t keep changing your handle – I liked the Emeritus Professor AND Apollo PI one.

    Great to see this post about sun spots – I was wondering what was happening.

    Thanks Anthony and Mods … again.

  43. Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :

    “I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.”

    As I recall, NASA grants are acknowledged in these two 1972 papers:

    1. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”,
    Nature 240, 99-101 (1972);
    CODEN: NPSCA6; ISSN: 0300-8746
    http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf

    2. “The role of isotopic mass fractionation in the production of
    noble gas anomalies in lunar fines from the Apollo 15 mission”,
    Proceedings of Third Lunar Science Conf, vol. 2, 1927-1945 (1972).

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

    Both papers report evidence of extreme mass fractionation of xenon isotopes.

    Mass fractionation explains why the surface of the Sun is 91% H (the lightest of all elements) and 9% He (the next lightest element).

    The first paper also contained wevidence that meteorites formed directly from supernova debris, before isotopes made in different stellar regions were mixed.

    Both papers were unpopular at NASA and my grant was not renewed.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  44. Why was a 16 month spacing selected for the first plot? A 12 or 24 month gives years, but 16 is strange.

  45. wayne (03:06:34) :

    Anthony and Dr. Archibald:

    After reading Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s paper I’m a little at loss of words. Wish I had found and read that month’s ago. Seems many of the same things I’ve been posting here were in that paper written back in 1991. A bit embarrassing.

    OTOH, the some of the best replication work is that done by people unfamiliar with the original as they can’t be directly tainted by the original.

  46. “Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.”

    On a global scale, there is no cooling, at least not detectable in the UAH data. On the contrary, 2010 is so far the warmest year ever in the satellite record.

  47. Pat Davis..theres a few of us Aussies awake and taking notice mate:-)
    and I post WUWT to multiple people here.
    and
    some of them even read them:-)
    This has me planning to winterise my home and surrounds better for the coming years, if its a soggy as I think it will be its time well spent, if it’s not no harms done, and it will help in summer too:-)
    win , win! :-)

  48. Haven’t been here in a while…
    From what I can recall the Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper has been criticized and apparently the correlation no longer exists…

    I believe that the only fair comparison that can be made to the Dalton Minimum is with the Layman’s sunspot count.
    Currently it is matching the activity of the Dalton.

    Any updates on the L&P graphic? I heard L&P were to take some telescope time on the 24th of January 2010…

    Some reckon that maximum of SC 24 is currently occurring, one of the reasons being that a couple of regions have made it twice across the face of the visible disc, a phenomenon which is generally associated with maximum.

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/stereobehind.htm is currently showing a region that could make a third transition as sunspot 9393 did (which even had similar structure to sunspot 1035).
    Could this mean that maximum is near?
    Or do regions normally make two transitions in the 4 years pre-max?

    No doubt SC 24 will be very interesting.
    Max of 50 – 70 is quite probable.

  49. Layne Blanchard (22:59:57) :

    “You have to wonder if that drop will be expressed in the same manner as we saw this last winter, with a negative AO, and a blast thru the center and eastern seaboard of the continent. I’m hoping so, because my little northwest corner stayed warm… :-)”

    GRRrrr, and I sit here in the sunny southeast with 4″ of “global warming” still melting. So much for starting to plant new pastures this week.

    A different post here at WUWT devolved into a discussion of corn/biofuel. The USDA got rid of grain stockpiling thanks to the 1996 Freedom to farm Act. In 2008 the USDA reported “the cupboard is bare” Now, thanks to new government regs, one third of corn production in the US is for biofuels.

    http://www.europeaninstitute.org/May-2008/biofuels-once-seen-as-a-climate-panacea-now-causing-food-headaches-and-transatlantic-second-thoughts.html

    The USA grows about 25% of the world’s food and although we had a bumper corn crop we could not get it out of the fields and the quality (fungus) was lower than usual.

    Weather changes do not effect just the length of the growing season but also the health of the crop. Cool wet springs and falls are not good for growing crops and that is what we saw.

    Table 1. Unharvested Corn Production Estimates in the United States – 2010

    http://www.smallgrains.org/article.aspx?id=8778

    “….Several different types of ear rot problems are showing up in some of Ohio’s corn fields this year,…. http://corn.osu.edu/index.php?setissueID=326

    “Late season corn diseases.

    Eyespot has been the most commonly observed leaf disease on corn this season. It is more pronounced on some hybrids and more severe in corn on corn fields. Common corn rust is also becoming more visible, particularly on field edges….. Stalk rots from several species of fungi are now the primary concern from a management standpoint. Harvest poor standing fields early when possible….” http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/SWMNPEST/09news/issue7/issue7.htm

  50. @ John F. Hultquist (23:27:21) :

    “We fault proponents of AGW for their faith in CO2 as the cause of the warming (or climate change) when there is no sufficient mechanism.

    How then can we claim catastrophic cooling based on these numbers from the Sun? What is the sufficient mechanism in this case?”

    John, google Svensmark. A hypothetical — some would say proven — cause is well understood.

  51. Konrad (00:54:45) :

    “…. All three main global temperature records have been shown to be compromised. In addition there have been too many convenient adjustments to TSI and other solar activity indicators recently. Jack Eddy said “Many plugs”. The CLOUD experiment is one avenue of inquiry but I can think of a few others.”

    Can you elaborate or provide links on the “convenient adjustments to TSI and other solar activity indicators” I did not catch that part of the data manipulation.

    Thanks in advance

  52. Ray (22:41:28) :

    How does that fit with Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″? Is there an update to their graph?

    I’m not sure how often this is updated…Maybe Leif could add a date on the graph.

  53. Stephen Wilde, I am always an avid reader of your posts. Your pensive logic and reasoning are superb.

  54. I have my doubts about solar cylce 24’s shape. Since we have improved immeasurably in our ability to spot blemishes on the Sun’s face, through variuos filters and magnifications unavailable even 50 years ago, I believe we are guilty of overcounting it’s spots and we will continue to do so. We all kniow that sun specks were counted, when the face was (essentially) blank that would not have been visible years ago. I believe even though the conventions are unchanged the technology is giving rise to higher counts.

    Does any serious work go into benchmarking or are we preserving the rules, but using new tools to count?

  55. Oliver K. Manuel (04:25:32) :
    Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :
    “I am curious about the claim…”
    _________________

    Hunter: Next time we play baseball (or anything else) I’ve got dibs on him for my team.

  56. Stephan (22:39:23) :
    I doubt if Leif Svalgaard would agree with the statement “Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.”
    Yeah, it is plain silly to derive global cooling from Hanover, NH temps.

    Gary Palmgren (03:15:09) :
    Ap geomagnetic index is out for January. It is 2, same as December.
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt This is still rock bottom.

    The SWPC Ap values are not correct. Ap for January was 3.1. Still low, though.

    Nick (23:42:22) :
    There is not enough data presented here to make any conclusions.
    This has never stopped Archibald…or many others…

  57. Remarkable and astounding the graph which compares solar cycle 04 with solar cycle 23. Congratulations and thanks for the update!

  58. ohn F. Hultquist (23:16:37) :

    The universe has been around for 5 billion years >> Stephan

    Try again
    If electric, it has been ALWAYS here.

  59. Leif Svalgaard (07:16:52) :
    Gary Palmgren (03:15:09) :
    Ap geomagnetic index is out for January. It is 2, same as December.
    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt This is still rock bottom.
    The SWPC Ap values are not correct. Ap for January was 3.1. Still low, though.

    Things are changing fast :-)
    The official Ap for January was just updated. The mean now stands at 3.03. You can get the latest here:

    http://www-app3.gfz-potsdam.de/kp_index/kptab.html

    http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/gifs/apindex.html

  60. When comparing to the Dalton Minimum cycles 5 & 6 remember that the spot counts back then were based on naked eye counts, and thus the more “rapid” rise of 24 might not differ from those in fact.

  61. I always wonder about the use of regression lines when “r squared” (the correlation coefficient) is low. I value of less than 0.95 indicates a trend and less than 0.9 a tendency. Less than .8 and you are approaching random scatter.

    More an indication of variability in the data set, caution should be applied when looking for causality within a linear relationship. “r squared” is just one such indicator of how indirect the inter-relation can be.

    So many factors, so much data, too little time.

  62. James F. Evans (01:14:58) :As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.

  63. Updates on the solar cycle are appreciated, but this repeated use of Hanover, NH by some of the solarists is getting old. Cherry picking one station to represent earth’s temp is worse than all the paleoclimate nonsense uncovered by Climate Audit et al.

  64. When I first saw Oliver K. Manuel’s closing I read too quickly and came away with pilot. Later I realized the PI meant Principal Investigator = the primary individual in charge of a research grant.
    I’ve just looked at one of the suggested sites he has. Rather impressive.

  65. Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :

    “I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.”

    Look for NASA Grant: NASA NGR 26-0030057

    Quote: Jack Jennings (Aus) (03:53:19) :

    “Hey Oliver

    I have enjoyed & appreciated your posts.

    I know I’m lazy – what does the PI stand for?”

    Answer: PI = Principal Investigator.

    Somewhere I may still have a very nice letter from NASA’s Administrator thanking me for being a Principal Investigator for Apollo.

    That may also explain why I was invited to Washington, DC to the National Academy of Science Building on June 26, 2008 to help celebrate the 50th Anniversary of NASA and the International Geophysical Year (IGY) that was organized by the Space Science Board.

    I publicly posed this question to the gathering – twice – much to the dismay of the NAS President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    Question for the Space Science Board

    Can the Space Science Board help NASA move away
    from the untruths that are wrecking our economy?

    • Earth is bathed in a steady flow of heat from
    Hydrogen-fusion in the Hydrogen-filled Sun.

    • Solar neutrinos from Hydrogen-fusion melt
    (oscillate) away before reaching detectors.

    • Earth’s climate is immune from cycles of solar
    activity (sunspots, flares, eruptions).

    • Therefore CO2 from our economic engines
    caused global warming.

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor and Former
    NASA PI for Apollo Lunar Studies

    http://www.omatumr.com

    REFERENCES:

    1. P. D. Jose: 1965, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”,
    Astronomy Journal 70, 193-200.

    2. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley: 1987, “Prolonged
    minima and the 179 year cycle of the solar inertial motion,”
    Solar Physics 110, 191-220.

    3. Theodor Landscheidt: 1999, “Extrema in sunspot
    cycle linked to Sun’s motion”, Solar Physics 189, 413-424.

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm

    4. O. Manuel et al: 2005, “Isotopes tell origin and
    operation of the Sun” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    [Microphones were removed from the aisle after lunch so the gathering would not be exposed to inconvenient truths.]

  66. “wayne (03:06:34) :

    After reading Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s paper I’m a little at loss of words. Wish I had found and read that month’s ago. Seems many of the same things I’ve been posting here were in that paper written back in 1991. A bit embarrassing. ”

    Heck no ! If two independent thinkers reach the same observation from the same data – but working without collusion then it gives credibility to both.
    An important principle is at stake here – results can be replicated. I just wish the same could be applied to all the climate papers published.

  67. psi (06:09:56) : Responding to 23:27:21 you wrote: John, Google Svensmark. A hypothetical — some would say proven — cause is well understood.

    My hard drive has a folder with a dozen papers by or related to the Svensmark hypothesis. You indicate “some would say proven” while I would express my view as it has not been falsified. Work in progress by Svensmark, and others, may strengthen support, or it may not. I vote on waiting. (I’ve been very busy since late Nov. so if there is something new I may have missed it.)

    With the CAGW message seemingly stalled (reported in numerous posts on WUWT over the past 3 months) I see no need to pound the drum for any idea just yet. There are plenty as suggested by Stephen Wilde @ (03:40:14) on this post and others – and by many other individuals as you know.

  68. Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:

    Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

  69. Henry Pool (05:17:05) :
    Thank you Vukcevic, I was going to ask that question, as to where we stand with that cycle.”.

    On the 107 year cycle it is zero crossing which is relevant. If you look at the equation the major occurrences happen when two components are equal in value but in antiphase.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm

    The next zero crossings is around 2022 and coincides with an extrapolated prolonged polar fields dip, which again is around the time that extrapolation of the experimental results by Livingston and Peen predict sharp deterioration in SS visibility.

    Philip T. Downman (08:23:15) :
    “Hope you will update this graph …..
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

    As long as WSO keeps updating their website, they use delayed 10 day average (current value is for 2010:01:13_21h:07m:13s , published yesterday.

    JonesII (07:42:31) :
    “As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.”

    Predictions is hazardous business if carrier or reputation depends on it even if one considers himself an expert (AGW comes to mind). In my case is none of those.

  70. Henry Pool (05:17:05) :
    Thank you Vukcevic, I was going to ask that question, as to where we stand with that cycle.”.

    The next zero crossings is around 2022 and coincides with an extrapolated prolonged polar fields dip, which again is around the time that extrapolation of the experimental results by Livingston and Peen predict sharp deterioration in SS visibility.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

  71. Wayne: You wrote, “One related thing that paper didn’t seem to touch on was mentioned by me in re-clarification to Leif near the bottom of the NODC revises ocean heat content.. article. It addresses the slow, decadal lag time of long term solar variation and storage or release of the excess heat in the oceans above or below the current equilibrium temperature.”

    Sorry I missed your comment on the OHC thread. I would have asked you to look at the following three posts in which I segment the OHC data into smaller subsets and compare them the NINO3.4 SST anomalies, the NAO, and the NPI, which appear to be the dominant factors for the rises in OHC.

    Regarding time lags, note the rise in tropical Pacific OHC in 1995 in this graph:

    That rise was caused by the 1995/96 La Nina, which had extraordinarily high trade winds. The higher the trade winds, the less cloud cover. Less cloud cover means more downward shortwave radiation to warm the ocean. The tropical Pacific OHC didn’t lag, or take many years to respond. The response was during the La Nina event, little to no lag.

    And here are the three posts I talked about above:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

    AND:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html

    AND:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    Regards

  72. Re: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

    Uh-oh.

    Excerpt (emphasis added):

    Previous Positions
    1983-1984, Visiting Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Astrophysics

    Tata? As in the (formerly known as) Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)?

    Ah-ha! Oliver K. Manuel is actually a plant from Pachauri sent to spy on us “deniers” and spew disinformation! GET HIM!!

    Seriously though, Professor Manuel, how did that short stint come about?

  73. Do the charts compensate for the recent sunspot number inflation that seems to be taking place? I refer to the fact the even sun specks and some plaque get numbers in the past 12 months or so.

    Bruce H

  74. Dr. Archibald
    Comparing SC4 & 5 to SC23 and predicted SC24 may be somewhat misleading. SC4 lasted some 16+ years, which is not the case with SC23. Further more, a number of reputable solar scientists consider that SC4 contained hidden half-cycle SC4a, but of course this is difficult to prove one way or the other.
    Jnssens http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/MSCwebEng.pdf
    Usoskin, Mursula : http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154
    Dr. Svalgaard occasionally recalls cycles SC 13.
    Using annual average it does not tell the entire story.
    I have looked into this problem and found no particular importance to it except that there is long term undulation in the amplitude, but again there are also exceptions.
    If you really whish to compare two cycles than perhaps you should look into more detail, such as intra-cycle similarity.
    SC23 has a canny resemblance to SC20 in more ways than just amplitude and duration:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm

    SC20 was followed by very high SC21, if that analogy is to work, why not also prediction by Dr. Hathaway which predicted high SC24 (possible but not probable).

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  75. Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) :
    “…Please show this on the following graph…
    http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png…”

    Hi Bob, do you by any chance have a similar graph for earlier periods please, say 200yag to date? The reason for this is that I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then? Any info would be useful please.

  76. Tenuc (11:17:00) :
    I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then?
    AGW is to blame, of course. Or perhaps, there really isn’t any correlation. It has happened so often in the past, that people find a promising correlation and go all ga-ga, and then with time, the correlation fails, because it was spurious to begin with.

  77. Thanks Oliver.

    I think I tuned in to WUWT around the time the “Weather station in Shenzhen” was first posted and have been an avid reader ever since. Whilst a lot flies over my head I’ve greatly appreciated the contributions from more knowledgeable folk – even the trolls, I’ve had to go and look up all these new terms !

    This helps me greatly to suggest to my kids that they could be reading more widely than just accepting what is shown on the front page of the newspaper.

    Whilst I don’t understand a lot of the technical stuff I value greatly the intellectual rigour which is clearly discernible.

    I liked particularly the weather station projects as the pictures really put the lie to all the techo spiel – my kids got it. But I’m loving the sunspots – it seems I’m privy to a whole new body of knowledge being developed.

    Cheers Jack

    PS I do make my kids go and look things up so thanks for your latitude.

  78. Bob Tisdale (09:10:49) :
    “………..Regarding time lags, note the rise in tropical Pacific OHC in 1995……….”

    Until the 1940-1980 period has been explained, direct Sunspot effect on the global temps is questionable, unless you introduce 40-50 years lag due to the heath transfer from Pacific to Arctic Ocean via the ocean’s conveyor belt.

    In such a case 1950-1980 cooling would be due to 1890-1930 low activity, and the present 10 year cooling would be due to low SC20 (1965-1975). This unfortunately means that in the near future temperature will be on the up again (giving AGW a welcome boost of confidence) since SC21 & 22 were relatively high.
    If that does happen, and the solar activity goes low, up to say 2040, the skeptics are out of ammunition (unless of course someone records and saves this post ?!).

  79. Leif Svalgaard (07:16:52) : Stephan (22:39:23) :I doubt if Leif Svalgaard would agree with the statement “Given some record low monthly averages in the northeast US in the recent summer, and the current cold winter, this cooling is well under way.”

    Yeah, it is plain silly to derive global cooling from Hanover, NH temps.

    Sure, Dave could have provided more examples… but that’s where the issue reliablility gets blurred.

    3342 NOAA ARGO floats worldwide

    5 years global cooling

    Plotted data from the ARGO buoys by NOAA’s Willis and Loehle (2009).

    Do you label Joe D’Aleo’s work as silly too?

  80. Stephen Wilde (12:50:36) :

    Bob Tisdale (08:54:59)

    Try this:

    from here:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

    “Saturday, January 23, 2010: Expanding upon the last post, the “sunspot integral” (accumulated departure in sunspots v. the monthly mean of 41.2 for the observational period of sunspots 1610-2009) shows good correlation with the temperature record.”

    Nice to see people taking up my ideas, even if they give no credit.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/

  81. Stephen Wilde: You wrote in reply to my comment, “Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) Try this,” and presented me with a graph of the PDO+AMO+an accumulated SunSpots composite.

    But your statement was not about the PDO+AMO+an accumulated SunSpots composite. You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    Your reply has nothing to do with your statement and my request. Let me try again.

    You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:

    Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

  82. Tenuc: You wrote, “Hi Bob, do you by any chance have a similar graph for earlier periods please, say 200yag to date? The reason for this is that I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then? Any info would be useful please.”

    SST reconstructions only go back to the 1850s, so there’s only160 years. With respect to the other portion of your question, there’s an obsolete TSI reconstruction that was created to help climate scientists explain the rise in global temperatures during the early 20th century. It’s the light gray one identified as Hoyt in the following graph from Leif Svalgaard:

    The current understanding of TSI variability is shown in red, the curve identified as Svalgaard. Its minimums show little change from one cycle to the next. So my guess is, the correlation you recall was based on an obsolete TSI reconstruction.

    The graph is from a post titled IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html

    It also ran here at WUWT.

  83. Ed Murphy (13:20:33) :

    It’s exceedingly difficult to make a convincing case to Congression Budget dept. to fund NASA manned space (and other parts of NASA) when NASA GISS has been playing with a more politically correct version of science.

    If NASA is content to have GISS and Robotic Exploration only, who am I to argue?

  84. Vuk etc (13:13:27) : The link you provided to the graphic of the Ocean Conveyor Belt…

    …is believed to have a cycle length of 1500 years. But if you know of papers that express shorter time periods, please provide links. I’ve looked and can’t find them.

    The ocean basin with the greatest multidecadal variability due to thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation is the North Atlantic. This phenomenon expresses itself in the variability in North Atlantic SST anomalies known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and its cycle length is about 60 to 80 years. Here’s a long-term (multiple century) reconstruction of North Atlantic SST from Gray et al (2004) “A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D.”

    Refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html

    Most shorter-term representations of the AMO are represented by detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies:

    Refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html

    Regards

  85. ya i don’t think that this stark rise in sunspots will last all too long, it’ll probably level off at around 40. so a weak cycle but hopefully we will see so big storms out of it at least one or two. cause i live in Houston tx so ive only seen the aurora once. that was way back in 2003 so be hopeful…..please.

  86. Bob Tisdale (13:59:18)

    Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures and according to ships logs the mid latitude storm tracks were nearer the equator at those times which in my view is a ‘fingerprint’ of cooler ocean surfaces.

    Then there is that source which said the ITCZ was nearer the equator during the LIA:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/

    and now it has moved northward again:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/

    It is well established that a warmer world is associated with more poleward tracks of weather systems so a cooler world would have more equatorward tracks.

    Now if you could show me a period of time when the ocean surfaces warmed yet the jets moved equatorward then I might concede that you have a point.

    Can you do that ?

    The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.

    That gives us the question as to whether or not that is circumnstantial or evidence of a direct causative correlation between all three variables or any two of them.

    On the basis of what Leif says about the smallness of solar variability I suspect circumnstantial at the moment.

    Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely ?

  87. Bob Tisdale (14:22:29) :
    “Vuk etc (13:13:27) : The link you provided to the graphic of the Ocean Conveyor Belt…

    …is believed to have a cycle length of 1500 years. But if you know of papers that express shorter time periods, please provide links. I’ve looked and can’t find them.”

    Yes, I have seen figure of 1590 years (or 2mm/sec), strikes me as extremely slow (normal thermal conductivity would be higher than that).
    However, I was also looking at the Gulf Stream’s surface velocity quoted at 2m/s, while below 1000m depth less then 10cm/sec, lets assume 7cm/sec =70mm/sec or 35 times faster, i.e. 1600/35 gives ~ 45 years.

    http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2a.htm

    Of course all just a guesswork, and my post was written with a bit of a lighthearted attitude (hence Vuk etc instead of usual vukcevic).

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  88. Gail Combs (06:23:33)
    I was referring to reinterpretations of reconstructions of past TSI fluctuations using proxy data. There is some discussion of this here –

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/18/scafetta-on-tsi-and-surface-temperature/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/

    It seems to me that there has been much work post 1980 that could use a thorough review after the AGW hoax dies down. Someone posted an analysis of the politics behind some of the recent papers in solar science on WUWT last year, which I can no longer find. Maybe another reader could point to this.

  89. Stephen Wilde: Regarding your 14:49:55 reply. You began with, “Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures…”

    Your statement upon which I based my request had nothing to do with the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum. You specifically used the word “currently”. I don’t believe any bloggers here at WUWT (other then yourself) would accept your interpretation of “currently” to represent the late 1600s to the early 1700s or the late 1700s to early 1800s.

    Then you shifted topics to the ITCZ. Wrong subject.

    Third try…

    Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    I replied, Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:

    I continued, Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

  90. astonerii (22:07:03) :
    Why does solar cycle 5 look so smooth in the first graph and solar cycle 24 looks jagged?
    Solar Cycle 5 is smoothed and 24 is too short to smooth yet. 24 also has a steep trajectory at the moment.

    Alexander Feht (23:10:21) :

    Green corona brightness tells us that solar maximum will be in 2015. I expect a fairly symmetrical cycle with the 24/25 minimum in 2021.

    John Whitman (23:39:46) :

    Very high confidence.

    Ed Murphy (00:14:15) :
    Thanks for the reference to the Raspopov paper. A de Vries cycle cooling is due right now, given that the last one was the Dalton Minimum 210 years ago.

    John Finn (00:25:28) :

    The mid-latitudes, say 40 degrees north and south, will have a two degree fall, reducing towards the equator.

    Armagh will have a 1.4 degree fall, based on Butler and Johnson 1996, figure 5. I recommend you look in that paper for a discussion of methodology.

    Rhys Jaggar (02:14:02) :

    It works everywhere. The northeast US is where the US has its longest temperature records.

    Gary Palmgren (03:15:09) :
    It now being one year from solar minimum, the Ap should be bottoming out and Oulu neutron count topping out.

    Patrick Davis (03:27:07) :
    What it means for the layman is 24 years of colder weather. I expect mid-latitude agricultural production to be severely affected with higher prices as a consequence, as per Herschel’s observation two hundred years ago.

    rbateman (03:36:47) :
    Bear in mind that solar polar magnetic field strength started declining in 1980.

    Leonard Weinstein (05:02:08)
    Excel chose it.

    vukcevic (10:22:03)
    No, Solar Cycle 4 was 13.6 years long.

    Ed Murphy (13:20:33) :
    There are two other good stations in the northeast US that show a correlation. One is Providence, Rhode Island. Other than those, there are no records that I have found that are long enough.

  91. Bob Tisdale (08:54:59) :

    Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:

    http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png

    Bob,

    You’d have a different perspective if you’d look at the first differences of the data. Check this out:

    The rate of change in SSN’s bottomed out in 2004, and has been rising since then. The current decadal cycle in global temperatures bottomed out in late 2006, and since the La Nina of 2007 has been on a ascending track. These decadal cycles are ~9-11 years in length. On that basis, and depending on whether we count the last peak as having occurred in 1998 or in 2002, the current warming phase in global temperature should peak within the next 12-36 months.

    The data in the image above supports what Stephen said. But it depends on getting people to think in terms of rates of change, not absolute values (anomalies or otherwise). Yes, SSN’s are still low. But the rate of change in SSN’s is rising rapidly.

    If I have your attention, I’d invite you to look at this paper by Trenberth and Caron (2001)

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=014&issue=16&page=3433

    In the abstract, they conclude:

    “At 35° latitude, at which the peak total poleward transport in each hemisphere occurs, the atmospheric transport accounts for 78% of the total in the Northern Hemisphere and 92% in the Southern Hemisphere. In general, a much greater portion of the required poleward transport is contributed by the atmosphere than the ocean, as compared with previous estimates.”

    How do you see this influencing your view that natural climate variability is dominated by ocean influences?

    I once made the comment that the influence of atmospheric processes was 1.5x more significant than ocean currents, and you asked for a source (as I recall). That was based on a “conventional” 60/40 split. This paper is saying that it is more like 3/1 in the NH, and 12/1 in the SH.

    I do not doubt that the variability in climate begins in the tropics, where solar insolation is greatest. But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward, and for this reason I think Stephen is probably on the right track in pointing to the latitudinal position (and direction, meridional vs. zonal) of the jet stream as the dominant factor in decadal variations in climate (temperature).

    Basil

  92. Interesting. I noted on the Dutch news yesterday that a number of (Dutch) scientists have reviewed their previous AGW report and now believe AGW c/would (could or would – I cannot remember) be delayed as less radiation is coming from the sun due to lower solar activity. (This is my translation of what the news reader said). A picture of the life sun was shown during this read…
    I suspect that this will be the general way out for org’s and governments to explain global cooling without getting too much eggs on their face and without damaging all those investments in green. I even think our pensions may depend a lot on the general lies of AGW to continue….
    This is what really makes this story of AGW the hottest hoax of the world. It is unbelievable. Even those of us who know the truth may have to compromise on our findings just for the sake of safeguarding our own financial future.

  93. Basil (18:42:35) :I do not doubt that the variability in climate begins in the tropics, where solar insolation is greatest. But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward,
    Would you say this is true due to the relative speed of atmospheric transport, relative to the ocean current speed. Due to the difference in mass, I’m having trouble imagining a mechanism that would work.

  94. Evans (01:14:58) wrote: “…Maybe, I’m missing something, here, but I haven’t noticed a plethora of Sunspots or a large jump in magnetic flux…”

    JonesII (07:42:31) responded: “As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.”

    I’m not much for predictions when it comes what the Sun is going to do — it seems a bit of a crap shoot — but if the Sun is nearing a “maximum”, I hate to think what the next minimum is going to look like.

    Burrrr…

  95. Bob Tisdale (17:03:20)

    Third try at getting you to understand :)

    By ‘currently’ I mean during the existing interglacial and overall on average not a specific moment of time such as a single day or even a single year.

    Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.

    The ocean surfaces from 2005 to 2009 have been releasing energy less fast than from 1998 to 2005 yet the ocean heat content has failed to increase. That clearly violates my ideas and also yours because you see a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans. Thus I suggest that the reason for that discrepancy would be the weak sun and/or increased albedo from more cloudiness.

    I don’t see your problem with that proposal since it helps to retain the value of your concepts as well as mine in the face of what looks like contrary evidence namely a reduction of ocean heat content simultaneously with a slowing of the rate of energy release from the oceans.

    As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.

    When I read the work of others I try to get behind what they are trying to say because a single error or unclear wording within a submission is not an indication that the whole submission is wrong. A lawyer learns that very early on.

    You seem to seize on a single comment that you may not agree with or which you do not like or maybe that you have not fully understood in the more general context and then fire off with both barrels.

  96. David suggests that SC24 is in acceleration mode compared with SC5. But I have to ask the question – has he aligned the two cycles correctly? If we are to refer to his graph, the alignment of the two cycles is based on matching the minimum of SC22/SC23 and SC3/SC4. May I suggest that it would be better to align the minimum of SC23/SC24 and SC4/SC5?

  97. Basil (18:42:35)

    Yes it’s down to relative rates of energy transfer between different layers of the Earth system with the troposphere sandwiched in the middle being pulled and pushed this way and that way.

    In the short term the air circulations in the troposphere carry most of the energy poleward but the long slow ocean movements set up the background trend against which the air circulation systems have to react.

    The heart of the problem is not the planet’s radiative balance as a whole but the radiative balance between individual layered components of the Earth system.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air.

    That is what we need to get a grip on to diagnose changes in the energy content of the troposphere.

    The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy variations above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?)

  98. So far concerning the current situation Leif Svaalgard has not been accurate…the sun’s lack of sunspots/activity is correlating with lower temps and freezing conditions in NH and SH especially in winter, both in 08, 09 and so far 2010. Of course it may mean nothing just a coincidence. That famous graph sunspot v temps would seems to be reverting to high correlation significance?

  99. Actually everything (temps, sun activity, cosmic ray theory etc, precipitation, clouds) that’s been happening with climate/weather for the past 3 years supports D. Archibalds previous statements and do not support Svalgaards….. (ie sun activity has no influence on climate or is this right? (his view)). Again this may be just coincidence, and Svalgaard may be correct. I predict that the NH and SH winters are going to get colder and colder for the next 3-30 years as the sun minima effect from the last 3 years kicks in further over time. Its hard to discern an effect on Summers both in NH and SH I must say.

  100. I have a question: Given where the current spots are traveling across the sun, how far into this solar cycle are we? I may be misunderstanding, but if spots get closer to the equator region of the sun later in the cycle, are starting the cycle now? or are we mid cycle? .. I hope that made sence.

  101. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) :


    David Archibald
    applying Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover…


    Apart from the poor/invalid data analysis by F-C&L anybody can by inspection see that their ‘theory’ does not hold water:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

    I don’t think you’re using the ‘correct’ filter, Leif :-)

    Though I am surprised David is employing the F-C & L calculation as I seemed to think, from his earlier ‘work’, that he favoured the Butler et al method which was used with the Armagh data. This simply plotted the 11 year mean temperatures centred on the years of solar max and solar min. I’m fairly sure it was from this method that David gave us his predictions for a 2 deg decline in temperatures in “a few short years”.

    The problem (for David) might be that we have at least 5 years data for the SC23 solar min year temperature and, since around 4 of the last 6 years have been the warmest on record for Armagh, his enthusiasm for the Butler method have been dampened somewhat.

  102. Stephen Wilde: You replied, “As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.”

    And your failure to illustrate your previous claim with the simple graph I provided you is telling.

    You wrote, “Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.”

    And I have asked you repeatedly to use the graph I provided to back your claim. You don’t. If the data verified what you’ve written, you would have used that graph and discussed the rises and fall of global SST anomalies in response to the variations in solar activity.

    You replied, “The ocean surfaces from 2005 to 2009 have been releasing energy less fast than from 1998 to 2005 yet the ocean heat content has failed to increase. That clearly violates my ideas and also yours because you see a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans.”

    I suggest you return to my posts on ENSO and find where I have written that I see “a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans.” Please find the post, because any discussion of energy discharge and recharge would be limited to the tropical Pacific Ocean, not “the oceans” in general, and would have been limited to discharge during El Nino events and recharge during La Nina events. Outside of the tropics, my writings are discussions of SST responding to ENSO-induced changes in atmospheric circulation, or to the ENSO-induced redistribution of warm waters by ocean currents, or, specific to the North Atlantic, in response to the AMO.

    And just in case you believe that the tropical Pacific OHC responds to the solar cycle, I’ll put that to rest also. A blogger at my website commented that rises in tropical Pacific OHC occurred at solar maximums. This was not supported by data, so I replied, I’ve added scaled sunspot numbers to the graph of Tropical Pacific OHC vs NINO3.4 vs Sato Index data:

    The anomalous rise in OHC that occurred in 1995 happened at the solar minimum between SS#22 and SS#23. The biggest factor in that rise was the strengthening of the trade winds above normal levels for the size of the La Nina. Refer to discussion under the heading of IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON THE RECHARGE MODE OF ENSO?

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html

    You concluded your comment above, Stephen, with, “You seem to seize on a single comment that you may not agree with or which you do not like or maybe that you have not fully understood in the more general context and then fire off with both barrels.”

    I respond to comments that contradict data–in other words, that are factually wrong. You wrote in full, “So the question arises as to whether the phasing of high solar activity with warmer tropospheric temperatures is simply a coincidence as I think Leif would contend whilst the true climate driver is in fact the oceans which currently vary the rate of release of energy approximately in phase with solar activity levels e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active and that tends to give the possibly false impression of a causative correlation between solar activity levels and tropospheric temperatures.”

    So if you feel I took your statement out of context, you could pull up some graphs from somewhere and detail the claims you’ve made. If you can illustrate parts of that paragraph, that’s fine, but the portion I responded to has no basis in fact. If it had, you would have used the graph I provided you and ended the discussion.

    Stephen, this is not the first time you’ve made comments that contradict the instrument temperature record. On the “NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly” thread, just days ago, you wrote, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.” It’s tough to take that out of context. It is simply wrong. Average Global SST anomalies from 1979 to 2003 were significantly less than they are today. SST anomalies have risen over the past thirty years, which is one of the reasons this blog exists.

    FYI, I don’t search for your comments. In fact, I scroll upwards from the bottom looking for replies to me or for questions directed toward me, so, most times, I have no idea who has written a specific comment until I reply.

  103. Basil: You asked with respect to Trenberth and Caron (2001), “How do you see this influencing your view that natural climate variability is dominated by ocean influences?”

    First, thanks for the link. I don’t find any conflict. It agrees with and confirms my past discussions that El Nino events are the means by which the earth redistributes heat from the tropics to the poles. And I would also have to say that it confirms my presentations that ENSO-induced changes in atmospheric circulation cause rises and falls in temperature outside of the tropical Pacific.

    You wrote, “But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward, and for this reason I think Stephen is probably on the right track in pointing to the latitudinal position (and direction, meridional vs. zonal) of the jet stream as the dominant factor in decadal variations in climate (temperature).”

    I believe the papers/news articles/press releases Stephen presents to confirm the latitudinal variability of the jet stream indicate the poleward movement of the jet stream is a response to warming of the tropics.

    Basil, you know as well as I do that climate reasponds to a multitude of coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, so attempting to isolate one from the other is complex and most likely futile. But the second most dominent natural cause of year-to-year variations in global temperatures is ENSO, ( first place goes to volcanic aerosols which can and do overwhelm ENSO events) and as my posts indicate, there are multiyear aftereffects of strong ENSO events which influence decadal changes in global temperature.

    Good to hear from you, Basil. Been a while.

  104. Basil: You wrote, “You’d have a different perspective if you’d look at the first differences of the data. Check this out,” and provided this link:

    Do you have link to the source of the graph?

    Regards

  105. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) :
    “David Archibald
    applying Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover…
    Apart from the poor/invalid data analysis by F-C&L anybody can by inspection see that their ‘theory’ does not hold water:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf”

    There is a reasonable correlation between temperature anomaly (CET 1700-1900, GT 1900-2000) and the Geomagnetic field at the location of its highest intensity in the Northern hemisphere.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm

    The transfer mechanism (if does exist) is as yet unknown; ergo applying the strict science standards, it counts for very little.

  106. jinki (01:02:08) :

    Good point. That might be the thing to do when we revisit this in a years time or so.

  107. Bob,

    I put the graph together myself last night.

    In the upper two panels are SSN data. In the lower two panels are monthly HadCRUT3 global temperature anomalies. Left panels are the “raw” monthly numbers, seasonally differenced, i.e. the value for any given month, less the value 12 months earlier. Seasonal differencing is a way of tracking what is happening to annual rates of time on a monthly basis. The right panels are smooths, using Hodrick-Prescott smoothing. For a longer view, the two smooths plotted together look like this:

    I think this shows a connection between cyclical variation in global temperature, and the sunspot cycle. But there are issues with it, in that there are phase shifts (and more if you go back prior to 1950). But I think that there is a ready explanation for the phase shifts, in that the global temperature cycles are influenced by the lunar nodal cycle. In a nutshell — and I do not think there is any great disagreement with our POV in this — the amplitude of the cycles originates (is “caused” by) the solar cycle, but the frequency is the result of a complex interaction between the solar cycle and the lunar nodal cycle. If you look carefully at the left axis in the latest image, you’ll see that the variation in rate of change of global temperature over these cycles is of an order of magnitude that Leif has said could be attributed to variation in solar irradiance: just eyeballing the graph to estimate the average peak and trough of the blue line, I put the average peak to trough at ~0.05C, and I believe Leif’s theoretically derived estimate is 0.07C.

    How’s this for a theory? Variation in solar insolation over the course of a solar cycle, in the tropics, “seeds” a cyclical process that is further modulated by the lunar nodal cycle. ENSO is the result. You can then have ENSO doing its various teleconnections to other parts of the globe, and whatever else takes place to distribute the variation in energy poleward, creating various natural climate cycles. Even if ENSO is a proximate cause for other various teleconnections and natural climate variation, you are still lacking a specific cause for ENSO. I think that the luni-solar influence could provide that specific cause.

    Basil

  108. Basil (04:54:51) :
    I put the average peak to trough at ~0.05C, and I believe Leif’s theoretically derived estimate is 0.07C.
    There MUST be, and is, such a variation of about that magnitude.

  109. Basil (04:54:51)

    I agree with that. Not sure about the scale of the lunar aspect as a forcing agent but open to persuasion so I’ll read up on it. I’ve deliberately left the oceanic side of things a bit vague at this stage tending to just refer to the thermohaline circulation but lunar movements could have an impact on that.

    In my cautious opinion Bob appears to lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.

    The ENSO phenomenon is just a staging post in the constant flow of energy from sun to sea to air then to space. There is variability in the rate of flow and the timing of variations at every stage not just in the ENSO phenomenon.

    Until he can accommodate that into his ideas he will not ‘get’ what I say and we will continue to generate confusion.

  110. Stephen Wilde: You wrote, speaking about me, not to me, “Until he can accommodate that into his ideas he will not ‘get’ what I say and we will continue to generate confusion.”

    I understand precisely what you write. It’s very difficult to misinterpret when you write something as factually wrong as, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.”

  111. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:52) : | Reply w/ Link

    David Archibald
    applying Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to the temperature record of Hanover…
    Apart from the poor/invalid data analysis by F-C&L anybody can by inspection see that their ‘theory’ does not hold water:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

    Hi Leif

    I have the impression that in the plot above it is the anomaly of the following cycle that is being displayed. If I am not wrong, do you keep the same convention in your plots? Do you have anything written to accompany them?

    anna

  112. Basil: Thanks for your explanation of how you created the graphs. I asked for the source because I’ve plotted the monthly change in sunspot numbers and the monthly change in global SST anomalies in the past (without the seasonal difference). I’ve never posted them because they illustrated little to no correlation:

    The dominant factor is, of course, ENSO, illustrated in a comparison of monthly changes in global SST anomalies versus scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies:

    With respect to the seasonal difference you use, I assume that you’re applying this to the temperature data, but not the sunspot data. Is this correct?

    Regards

  113. The Euros must be deeply confused. Either Wallace’s Farmer or Farm Journal was hoping that ethanol production could be ramped up to 8% from 6% of the corn crop. That is a lot less than 1/3.

    Meanwhile in Iowa there is a lawsuit by a town against a grain elevator due to the hill of corn rotting beside it. This is common throughout the midwest.

  114. anna v (08:53:26) :
    ….

    Hi Leif

    I have the impression that in the plot above it is the anomaly of the following cycle that is being displayed. If I am not wrong, do you keep the same convention in your plots? Do you have anything written to accompany them?

    anna

    Ok, Anna – solar cycle 20 ended in 1976. It lasted 11.5-12 years.
    1. Which data point corresponds to the temperature reading for that cycle? 2. What data was used to determine the temperatures?
    3. How was the temperature calculated, i.e. is it the mean of the following cycle or something different?

  115. Basil: A note about the “seasonal adjustment” you used. I just compared the monthly change versus your method that has been “seasonally differenced, i.e. the value for any given month, less the value 12 months earlier”. It does not change the shape of the curves, just the amplitude. It also creates a 12-month lag, but that’s minor. In order to get the same amplitude from the two curves, I had to scale the “seasonally adjusted” data by a factor of 0.08333. Here’s the comparison:

    So the seasonal adjustment really only smoothes out the monthly change data and amplifies it. It also adds a bit of confusion to the subject, unless you show that it really does not change the basic curve.

    And with respect to the graph you provided…

    …you offered an explanation for the phase shifts, in other words, for the lack of correlation. An alternate explanation that’s just as plausible is that there is no direct cause and effect.

    Regards

  116. anna v (08:53:26) :
    Do you have anything written to accompany them?
    I have explained this plot many times. One more time:
    1. you can define the length of a solar cycle two ways: from max to max or from min to min. The blue curves show those lengths with a symbol plotted halfway between max and max and min and min.
    2. the pink curves shows the average temp anomaly [HADCRU..] over the cycles, again plotted halfway.
    3. the scatter plot below the first Figure shows how the pink points correlate with the blue points [pink open circles]. The square of the correlation coefficient is R^2 = 0.0324, thus NO correlation.
    4. One might argue that the correlation is obscured by the clear upwards trend in dT (dashed pink line) [although that upwards trend was the point of F-C&L], and that a clear correlation would emerge if one removed the trend, so the green diamonds in the first Figure is the blue points minus the trend.
    5. The second Figure shows that the green points [green filled circles] are very weakly correlated [R^2 = 0.2041] with the cycle length. With so few data points a R^2 of 0.2 is not considered significant, but is one absolutely wants to attach significance to it [people here peddle all kinds of dubious correlations, so why not this on :-) ], the correlation is positive, i.e. longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.
    6. In my opinion the whole thing is not substantiated. On top of that F-C&L used a 5-point smooth, so it is impossible to say what the value of the length of ‘cycle 23′ to use in their ‘relationship’ would be for cycles until after cycle 25, or for SC24 until after cycle 26. So to say that because SC23 was long, it follows that temps must be cool the past cycle or now is plain nonsense if it would be based on F-C&L.

  117. pkatt (02:56:12) :

    I have a question: Given where the current spots are traveling across the sun, how far into this solar cycle are we? I may be misunderstanding, but if spots get closer to the equator region of the sun later in the cycle, are starting the cycle now? or are we mid cycle? .. I hope that made sence.


    Yes, you make sense.
    Has the butterfly diagram on this page enough data to answer your question?

    http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/DPD/index.html

  118. Bob, would you please stop repeating a comment which I made in relation to which I have already admitted a slip. I accepted in an earlier post that I had not realised how much higher the SSTs were in the years 1998 to 2005 as against the build up to the peak that occurred from 1979.

    I have already pointed out that I should have referred to the average size of the SST anomalies between 1998 and 2005 as against the period 2005 to 2009.

    On the basis of that comparison my initial assertion was correct. The latter period was clearly one of reduced rate of energy loss from the oceans as compared to the former period.

  119. We should take a cue from King Canute, and instead of commanding the tides to obey us (or Algore) instead command the sun to obey, and the earth climate to stop varying.

    Wait, i know…. more taxes can do that if we just send them to the IPCC. Sorry for the oversight. My bad.

  120. Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 4 11:26),

    Thanks

    longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.
    I thought that the conclusion from the Hanover NH plot is that a longer cycle is a precursor for having a colder cycle next.
    The only reason I am intrigued by this datum is that if the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis holds then this would be the expected result: a longer period with high albedo therefore a cooler next cycle.

    6. In my opinion the whole thing is not substantiated. On top of that F-C&L used a 5-point smooth, so it is impossible to say what the value of the length of ‘cycle 23′ to use in their ‘relationship’ would be for cycles until after cycle 25, or for SC24 until after cycle 26. So to say that because SC23 was long, it follows that temps must be cool the past cycle or now is plain nonsense if it would be based on F-C&L.
    I can see that the smoothing by F-C&L would obscure any issue.

    Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle, testing on the hypothesis that longer cycles mean higher albedo ( not necessarily only galactic, I have been intrigued by the plankton-UV-cloud connection too).

  121. Anybody out there feel the 6.0 shaker 35 mi off the Eureka, Ca coast?
    That’s 2 in the last month.
    Seismic/Tectonic frequency of occurence/level of magnitude is increased in times of low solar activity.
    Any theories?

  122. anna v (12:56:31) :
    “longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.”
    I thought that the conclusion from the Hanover NH plot is that a longer cycle is a precursor for having a colder cycle next.

    What I’m pointing out is that Hanover NH is anomalous and the that global dT [if you think there is such a thing - I do] data shows otherwise.

    The only reason I am intrigued by this datum is that if the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis holds then this would be the expected result: a longer period with high albedo therefore a cooler next cycle.
    But actual measurements of the albedo shows that it does not correlate with the solar cycle.

    Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle
    That information is in my plot already.

  123. Stephen Wilde: Let’s drop back to your comment to Basil, in which you wrote about me, not to me. You wrote, “In my cautious opinion Bob appears to lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.”

    I know I’ve provided these three links to you on at least one occasion, but let me try again:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html

    and

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html

    and

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html

    If you were to read and comprehend what is written in those three posts, and in the papers and addition posts linked to them, you would find that I do not “lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.” Much of the content of those posts and in my numerous posts about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events are discussions about the impacts of ENSO outside of the tropical Pacific.

    In other words, your “cautious opinion” is contradicted by my writings.

  124. Bob,

    In my humble opinion your multiyear after effects don’t cut it.

    The energy flow into the oceans from the sun and out of the oceans to the air both seem to be variable.

    The energy flow from sea surface to tropopause seems to be variable.

    The energy flow from stratosphere upwards to space seems to be variable.

    You are analysing merely the filling in the sandwich namely from ocean surface to tropopause.

    This is an honest opinion with no desire to annoy you but it is how I see it.

  125. tata (13:22:44) :

    Where has it been the hottest to offset a very cold NH winter on land, to produce the warmest January ever??

  126. I do not think there is a meaning in averaging the global temperature because it is the energy that is important, and the energy from temperature transformation is not linear, goes like c*T^4 where c depends on the material, has a spectrum dependence and can vary from the black body constant by as much as 25% . In addition the surfaces of the earth are fractal, so simple geometric integration is out.

    Ditto for averaging anomalies and then deriving energy balances from these averages.

    There is a meaning in local temperatures, if the gray constant does not change, because they can be translated to heat measures for that specific location.

    I accept that Leif has shown that the correlation of sun cycle length with global temperature anomalies is non existent. Nevertheless there exist local plots that show some correlation.

    It is easy to lose a correlation seen in localized data in averaging over the globe. Let me give a simple example, ( I am not pushing it as dogma :) )

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html

    The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. UV light also gives sunburn to humans.

    The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP, which some scientists believe helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS.

    DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.

    Now if we average clouds over the year( when it is summer in the north it is winter in the south and vice versa) this effect will disappear in the multiplicity of factors that make clouds and will not be seen as an effect of plankton.

    We do not have such a long and clear record of the albedo to be able to talk of correlations with sun cycles at the moment. What is more to the point is that the albedo generation system is also chaotic, a lot of interdependent factors add up to create the albedo so one should never really expect a one to one correlation for any input, and certainly not on values averaged over the globe.

  127. anna v (00:40:12) :

    I agree with some of points raised:
    – global temperature averaging is misleading.
    – any correlation should be looked for in the regional temperature records.
    – some years ago I wrote that the world oceans are possibly largest constant producers and absorbers of CO2 (volcanoes are only irregular blips). Phytoplankton plays major role, and its reaction to the solar radiation could be a significant factor. Regular rise and fall in the CO2 levels trough eons has a periodicity pattern and it is possible that could be linked to the solar periodicity.

  128. anna v (00:40:12) :
    What is more to the point is that the albedo generation system is also chaotic, a lot of interdependent factors add up to create the albedo so one should never really expect a one to one correlation for any input, and certainly not on values averaged over the globe.
    We measure the albedo by looking at Earthshine on the Moon. Now if it doesn’t make sense to compute a global temperature or albedo, that will make the Svensmark cosmic ray theory non-falsifiable as it posits a connection chain like this: GCR=>clouds=>albedo=>temp
    A direct test of the GCR theory has recently been carried out http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf
    “[1] Currently a cosmic ray cloud connection (CRC) hypothesis is subject of an intense controversial debate. It postulates that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) intruding the Earth’s atmosphere influence cloud cover. If correct it would have important consequences for our understanding of climate driving processes. Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no
    response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any
    altitude and latitude.”
    But perhaps ‘global cloud cover’ is also meaningless :-)
    I would define global properties as the integral over the globe divided by the surface area. And this can always be done.

  129. Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 5 06:40),

    We measure the albedo by looking at Earthshine on the Moon.

    Yes, but for very few cycles.

    Now if it doesn’t make sense to compute a global temperature or albedo, that will make the Svensmark cosmic ray theory non-falsifiable as it posits a connection chain like this: GCR=>clouds=>albedo=>temp

    I am not saying that it makes no sense to compute a global energy flux per m^2. Energy is what is conserved and of course it can be averaged. So of course the GCR hypothesis can be falsified if there is no change in the albedo.

    Albedo impacts on energy and if it is averaged over the globe by earthshine then that would be an ok global measure. I was thinking from the down side on cloud creation in general where many processes enter.

    I will read the reference and see if I understand it :).

  130. Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “In my humble opinion your multiyear after effects don’t cut it.”

    Which is fine, Stephen, because once again your opinions contradict the instrument temperature record evidence.

  131. Stephen: You wrote, “You are analysing merely the filling in the sandwich namely from ocean surface to tropopause.”

    Then apparently you’ve missed reading the numerous posts with the discussions about ENSO-induced variations in tropical Pacific cloud amount that cause changes in Downward Shortwave Radiation. You’ve missed the discussions of how La Nina events not only recharge the tropical Pacific OHC, but also redistribute the warm water released from the Pacific Warm Pool by El Nino events. You’ve missed the discussions of how ENSO-induced changes in Hadley Circulation, Walker Circulation, wind stress, etc., change surface temperatures remote to the tropical Pacific. Apparently you’ve missed a lot.

  132. As a home project, I have plotted all post-1700 sunspot cycles together and aligning them all with the start of cycle-23. On this basis, the post-Dalton cycle-9 to cycle-10 transition in 1856 seems to match the current cycle-23 to cycle-24 transition data fairly well also.

  133. Leif Svalgaard (06:40:56) :

    You use Earthshine upon the Moon to determine albedo, but how do you account for massive artificial light emanating from billions of streetslights?
    Are you only checking the Moon during New Moon events?

    I can tell you that Earthshine used to be a phenomenon best viewed within 2 days of New Moon. That was 30-40 years ago. Today, you can clearly make out the major features on the un-sunlit side of the moon well past 1st Quarter (& before 3rd Quarter).
    That has to be a complication.

  134. Bob Tisdale

    All the phenomena you list relate to events from ocean surface to tropopause so my comment was correct.

    My ‘opinions’ fit the long term historical temperature records rather well. That would be because I started with the observations and formed a scenario to fit.

    A large proportion of the historical record involves a 1000 year cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to MWP to LIA to Modern Maximum. Then there is the 60 year oceanic cycling (can you suggest a term for that, other than PDO ? ). Then the interannual ENSO phenomena.

    There is planty of chaotic variability within the system to disrupt correlations on multidecadal or even century time scales but any climate description has to be capable of accommodating those longer term 500 / 1000 year cycles and preferably also the large discrepancy between ice age climate instability and interglacial relative climate stability.

    As I say, your perspective is too short and limited to the ‘sandwich filling’ from sea surface to tropopause.

  135. Quote: Simon Filiatrault (04:02:12) :

    “Nice info from NASA on the Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission”

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list26348

    Yes, Simon, cold weather and snow have remarkably improved common sense at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), NASA Headquarters, NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, and the University of Colorado.

    From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”

    From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”

    From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises an falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”

    From NAS: According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.

    From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

    From Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

    Leif may be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

    Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.

    I am grateful to the weather, to Anthony Watts and to everyone here for encouraging NAS, NASA, and NRL to re-examine old dogmas. It would be great if we could also get DOE scientists to reconsider their dogma about N-N interactions.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  136. Oliver K. Manuel (12:48:48) :
    Lika Guhathakurta
    Judith Lean
    Tom Woods
    Dean Pesnell

    Leif may be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

    I know that everyone you ‘quote’ knows that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.

    Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that neutron repulsion is the energy source
    This has been denied by the all correctly interpreted evidence for the past 70 years, so the DOE doesn’t feel any pressing need to walk over that old ground.

  137. Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “My ‘opinions’ fit the long term historical temperature records rather well. That would be because I started with the observations and formed a scenario to fit.”

    As repreatedly illustrated, your opinions contradict the historic instrument record.

    You wrote, “A large proportion of the historical record involves a 1000 year cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to MWP to LIA to Modern Maximum.”

    The posts, my posts, that you dispute explain the warming over the past 30 years, and they discuss multiyear processes of a few individual ENSO events, but now you, somehow, attempt to introduce “1000 year cycling” to those discussions.

    You wrote, “As I say, your perspective is too short and limited to the ’sandwich filling’ from sea surface to tropopause.”

    And your need to redirect from the topics at hand is telling.

  138. Oliver K. Manuel (13:07:55) :
    May you not be the last one on the sinking ship!
    So from the safety of your floating boat, you can demonstrate your superior understanding by doing a little calculation for us:
    1) we know [and hopefully that includes you] what the total luminosity of the Sun is.
    2) you know [so you say] the exact reaction rate of your neutron generator [since you say that it matches exactly the observed output].
    3) by dividing 1) by 2) you can calculate for us [right here - in your next posting] how many neutrons there are.
    4) by multiplying that by the mass [which Ill presume you also know] of a neutron, you can calculate [right here - your next posting] the total mass of that neutron star. So, ‘prove to us that you’re no fool, walk across our swimming pool’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb_9uH-ELJE

  139. Leif Svalgaard (07:21:13) :

    A very nice paper. Thanks.
    If you know of any study that has managed to calcualte the amount of nighttime light escaping from Earth (due to outdoor lighting) I’d be most interested in it. Others have noted the increased ability to detect Earthshine on the Moon past 1st quarter/prior to last quarter. If it’s not outdoor lighting, something else is going on.

    Actually, Leif, wouldn’t it be better to send some sensors to the Moon, and measure the Earth from there?
    (Shameless plug for a NASA Mission).
    Only 250,000 mi., a hop, skip & a jump away.

  140. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (15:51:56) :
    “So from the safety of your floating boat, you can demonstrate your superior understanding by doing a little calculation for us.”

    I have done already that in several papers, Leif:

    1. “Earth’s heat source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

    2. “”The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856

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

    3. “Isotopes tell origin and operation of the Sun”, AIP Conference Proceedings 822 (2006) 206-225

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0510001

    Or you are welcome to join the discussion group that Kirt Griffin formed and moderates, “”Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,” neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com

    Subscribe: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/neutron_repulsion/join

    http://tinyurl.com/y8gr422

    Or e-mail: mailto:neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  141. Oliver K. Manuel (18:33:16) :
    “So from the safety of your floating boat, you can demonstrate your superior understanding by doing a little calculation for us.”
    I have done already that in several papers

    They are unintelligible, so do it here, please, where we can the Master for clarifications as he lays it out for us.

  142. rbateman (17:07:19) :
    Actually, Leif, wouldn’t it be better to send some sensors to the Moon, and measure the Earth from there?
    The best is to place a sensor at L1 to ‘stare’ at the Sun, the Earth, and a constant star [there are those], at the same time.

  143. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (19:11:16) :

    “They are unintelligible, so do it here, please, where we can the Master for clarifications as he lays it out for us.”

    Leif, everything beyond your old dogma is unintelligible to you.

    Fortunately others associated with NASA are learning.

    Perhaps those quoted in the NASA news report can help you grasp that you are clinging to a sinking ship:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list1073366

    “For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.”

    “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”

    “The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise,” says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity.”

    I wish you well, Leif, but you may be “too full” to learn.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  144. Oliver K. Manuel (19:55:04) :
    Leif, everything beyond your old dogma is unintelligible to you.
    So, in this way you cover up the deficiencies of your ‘papers’. You had your chance and you just blew it, big time.

    ET (19:59:36) :
    Constant stars…do they have planets?
    Probably not. As a vigorous stellar wind [i.e. stellar activity, i.e. variability] seems to be necessary in planet formation.

  145. Bob,

    All my works including most of my posts in this thread refer to the whole range of climate variability from ENSO events, through PDO phase shifts (or whatever you prefer to call them) to multicentury shifts from MWP to LIA et al and even the differences between ice ages and interglacials.

    I have pointed out that any lack of correlation is mainly in the shorter time scales where chaotic variability has a larger effect proportionately.

    The historic temperature record is grossly inadequate for understanding the entirety of the system. At the very least oone has to involve proxy records and preferably also verbal historical records from past civilisations.

    As I say, my scenario if even only partly correct would explain a great deal.

    Your expert analysis of short term ENSO phenomena does not entitle you to be so dismissive of my work.

    I am puzzled by your determination to dismiss what I say because I do not see it as derogating significantly from your findings.

  146. Stephen Wilde: “The historic temperature record is grossly inadequate for understanding the entirety of the system.”

    If claims cannot be verified by the historic instrument record, they are speculation. Also, as stated above, you repeatedly make statements that contradict the record.

    You wrote, “I have pointed out that any lack of correlation is mainly in the shorter time scales where chaotic variability has a larger effect proportionately.”

    Hmm. You suggest that the instrument record is too short to show the correlations. Then how do you know the correlations exist? Please provide links to papers that discuss this lack of correlation during the instrument record and that show longer-term correlations in reconstructions.

    You wrote, “Your expert analysis of short term ENSO phenomena does not entitle you to be so dismissive of my work.”

    I comment here at WUWT when you make comments that contradict the instrument record. Or if it’s your other work, please feel free to link the posts at Climate Realists that you feel I’m contradicting or attacking.

    Recall, Stephen, on this thread, this conversation started with my response to your comment in which I wrote…

    XXXXXXXXXXXX

    Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:

    Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

    XXXXXXXXXXXXX

    You still have offered nothing to back that claim and it’s approaching a week since you made it.

  147. Bob Tisdale

    I said this previously

    “Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures and according to ships logs the mid latitude storm tracks were nearer the equator at those times which in my view is a ‘fingerprint’ of cooler ocean surfaces.

    Then there is that source which said the ITCZ was nearer the equator during the LIA:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/

    and now it has moved northward again:

    It is well established that a warmer world is associated with more poleward tracks of weather systems so a cooler world would have more equatorward tracks.

    Now if you could show me a period of time when the ocean surfaces warmed yet the jets moved equatorward then I might concede that you have a point.

    Can you do that ?

    The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.

    That gives us the question as to whether or not that is circumnstantial or evidence of a direct causative correlation between all three variables or any two of them.

    On the basis of what Leif says about the smallness of solar variability I suspect circumnstantial at the moment.

    Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely ?

  148. Stephen Wilde (10:00:40) :
    The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.
    This is not a fact, e.g. smack in the middle of the MWP we find the Oort Grand Minimum in solar activity.

  149. Leif,

    OK, I should say that on average for most of the time cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity coincide.

    As I have said before what matters is the interaction whereby there is a constantly shifting balance between the separate solar and oceanic cyclical influences and that does not preclude occasions where the pattern breaks for a while.

    The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles. Part of my submission is that the solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently so the Oort minimum during a warm period would just be an example of that.

    Perhaps one of the reasons that we are not getting a coherent climate overview is the failure to appreciate that in such a complex system there are countercyclical events that do not disprove the underlying relationships.

    It’s like the PDO positive phase enhancing El Nino and suppressing La Nina on average over time. It’s still possible to get a whopping La Nina in a positive phase and vice versa. That would not disprove the otherwise clear 30 / 60 year phase shifts.

  150. Stephen Wilde (11:49:45) :
    Perhaps one of the reasons that we are not getting a coherent climate overview is the failure to appreciate that in such a complex system there are countercyclical events that do not disprove the underlying relationships.
    The reason is that the correlations are spurious and we don’t make progress as long as we cling to them. If we from a correlation between A and B, predict the behavior of B from A, and the prediction fails, you advocate that instead of falsifying the correlation, the phase just changed. That would make the theory non-falsifiable and hence hardly science.

  151. Leif Svalgaard (12:23:08)

    No.

    You just have to appreciate that in a complex system there will always be occasions when longer term correlations that are truly suggestive of the underlying relationships will fail to hold.

    The answer is to take longer period averages. My suggestions would be falsified if certain events were seen to occur such as :

    i) movement of air circulation systems equatorward at a time of warming ocean surfaces and an absence of a powerful Arctic Oscillation.

    ii) warming of the troposphere at a time of cooling ocean surfaces and an active sun

    iii) cooling of the troposphere at a time of warming ocean surfaces and a quiet sun.

    iv) a failure of the upper atmosphere to respond to increased solar activity by ejecting more energy to space as per recent SABER observations

    v) the interglacial climate swings becoming as severe as ice age climate swings without a change in the phasing of solar and oceanic cycles

    There would be other ways to falsify my suggestions if one were to work through all the possibilities.

    If you wish to do so please see if you can come up with such real world observations that do not fit the broader long term picture at all rather than just pointing to short term lack of correlation.

    Just as spurious correlations are to be avoided so must one avoid being misled when a failure to see a correlation serves only to hide the underlying truth.

  152. Stephen Wilde (14:40:27) :
    You just have to appreciate that in a complex system there will always be occasions when longer term correlations that are truly suggestive of the underlying relationships will fail to hold.
    ‘Truly suggestive’ is not science unless you can put a [quantitative] theory behind it. Anyone of your points could be due to yet other unknown causes, so do not qualify as real tests.

    long term picture at all rather than just pointing to short term lack of correlation.
    The point is that the lack of correlation is precisely with the long-term variations. There is no shortage of short-term correlations: just today it rained a bit, and sure enough there is a significant spot on the Sun. I’ll keep track of that correlation over the next few days and report when it breaks down.

  153. All this fighting seems rather pointless.The truth of the matter is it’s probably far too early to make any real statements about solar cycle 24, and comments are probably best left until September 2010 at the earliest. This post by Archibald seems lightweight and hollow, not up to scratch. Archibald is paid to find oil afaik, so it’s probably in his interest to claim against AGW.
    All the people with their pet theory (and they are all pet theories until someone really understands what’s going on with the Sun and I’ve yet to be convinced they do) are starting to wear me down. “It’s the planets and their alignments’ ‘it’s orbit’ ‘it’s the sun spot cycle’
    Solar cycle 24 may well be a slow starter and we may well be on the verge (or not) of a super minimum. Science just seems to have fallen to the level of mud slinging and insults, rather than solid arguments which can be demonstrated. Science is a testament to what we can know even though we are fallible.
    We’ve forgotten that if we are wrong, that shows something as well, and that we progress. There is no fault in being wrong. We often are. Just learn from it.

  154. “The point is that the lack of correlation is precisely with the long-term variations”

    Leif, you have previously conceded that there is some correlation between lower solar activity on multicentury time scales such as on average a less active sun during the LIA and on average a more active sun during the recent Modern Maximum.

    It must be implied that you accepted the point because you then asserted that such correlation as there might be was simply coincidence.

    I accepted your suggestion that it might merely be coincidence as a reasonable proposition and have suggested that if it was just a coincidence then the solar and oceanic cycles must be independently variable and I have explored the implications of that.

    As it happens such independent variability has the potential to explain a number of puzzling observations.

    You cannot now row back and assert, as you do, that there is no correlation at all.

    There is a fault in your general logic. You pick and choose as it suits you.

    You say that correlations are spurious but deny that a lack of correlation can also be spurious. You can’t have it both ways.

    You cannot say that a correlation means nothing but that a lack of correlation is conclusive which is what you habitually do.

    In a complex system both correlation and lack of correlation have the ability to be equally spurious.

    Correlation is not a particularly useful tool in a complex system.

    Instead I have proposed an actual mechanism which has some predictive value. To rebut my proposals it is not enough to bleat that correlations or lack of them do not support me. I have given a few of many ways that my proposals can be falsified but you have chosen not to pursue them.

  155. Stephen Wilde (01:48:19) :
    Leif, you have previously conceded that there is some correlation between lower solar activity on multicentury time scales such as on average a less active sun during the LIA and on average a more active sun during the recent Modern Maximum.

    I cannot make sense of that statement. Correlation between what? The last part looks like a tautology: the Modern Maximum is the more active Sun. What do you mean precisely?

    If you mean that the Sun was less active during the LIA than during the recent global warming period, then I have accepted that a dT of less than 0.1C would be expected. This is not a correlation but simple physics based on radiation balance [in = out].

  156. Leif Svalgaard (04:58:33)

    The Modern Maximum is also being used as a term for the apparent temperature peak of the late 20th Century. There appears to be a correlation between the warmer troposphere and the more active sun just as there appears to have been a broad correlation between the LIA and the less active sun.

    The sun produced less energy during the LIA which was a cooler time.

    The sun seems to have been more lively during the MWP (apart from the Oort Minimum) which was a warmer time.

    I have accepted your proposition that the difference in solar intensity was too small to make the observed difference. Therefore I have accepted your point that any correlation there might have been was most likely coincidental.

    However there is a correlation (even if only coincidental) despite the imperfections caused by chaotic variability and the interaction of many other second order variables other than the primary forcings of sun and oceans.

  157. Stephen Wilde (06:47:52) :
    Therefore I have accepted your point that any correlation there might have been was most likely coincidental.
    However there is a correlation (even if only coincidental)

    And what shows it is coincidental is that the ‘correlation’ breaks down for the Oort minimum in the middle of the MWP. What you seem to be saying is that that breakdown confirms that the later ‘correlation’ is significant.That a lack of correlation at some times, confirms the correlation at other times. I say it shows that the correlation is spurious. I guess we can’t resolve this in any way.

  158. Leif,

    You and those in the federal agencies supporting pseudo-science [NASA and NAS] “cannot make sense” of any statement or any experimental data [http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704] that contradicts the absurd notion that Earth’s heat source is a giant Hydrogen-fusion reactor composed of element # 1 (H) and element #2 (He) – the two lightweight elements that cover the top of the Sun’s atmosphere – 91% H and 9% He.

    Astronomy and astrophysics at NASA and NAS have remained frozen in the time period of the early 1950s – a half century ago – when the Hydrogen-bomb first exploded.

    Recently NASA acknowledged that “For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm

    A spokesperson from NASA Headquarters even admitted that “The sun is a variable star” and Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory noted the ” ‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron” !

    Unfortunately scientists associated with the Solar Dynamics Laboratory will probably also be unable to “make sense” of any observations unless DOE (Department of Energy) scientists are first forced to admit that:

    a.) They were wrong to report that solar neutrinos from H-fusion oscillate away, and

    b.) Neutron repulsion is a greater source of nuclear energy than H-fusion or U-fission [http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf] .

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  159. Oliver K. Manuel (07:41:56) :
    Recently NASA acknowledged that “For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.”

    This has nothing to do with Ball of Hydrogen or Neutron Stars, but is about the variability of the Sun [mostly at the surface where we observe it]. And is not a new and unorthodox idea [that is just the usual NASA hype]. Here is what Abbot said about that in 1913: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Abbot-Variation-Sun.pdf

    I’m amazed at your ability to twist and misunderstand things so badly [unless it is just tactics]. And you still didn’t rise to answer my questions here [on this blog] with other than just blather.

    The DOE don’t give a hoot about your pseudo-science. Nor should they.

  160. Leif,

    I think it is now just a matter of terminology. We each seem to mean something slightly different by the term ‘correlation’. Your usage is more specific than mine, probably because of your more scientific background.

    The Oort minimum and other failures in the general appearance of correlation are supportive of any such correlation being coincidental with both solar and oceanic cycles varying independently, sometimes supplementing each other’s effects and at other times offsetting each other but the oceanic effect being far more powerful.

    Both the smallness of solar variability and the occasions when the correlation fails point towards independent solar and oceanic cycle variability.

    However I haven’t yet given up on the idea that some aspect of solar variability other than raw power output does disproportionately affect climate and lots of sceptics continue to seek such a phenomenon.

  161. Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
    However I haven’t yet given up on the idea
    This is somewhat backwards. If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it. I grant you that 98% of the human population don’t adhere to that…

  162. Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
    We each seem to mean something slightly different by the term ‘correlation’.

    A classic study ~a hundred years ago by Yule showed that there is a very strong correlation [in your sense of the words - perhaps] between mortality and the number of couples married in Anglican Churches, truly suggestive of the danger of such folly. This correlation has since broken down, which some may see as further evidence of said danger.

  163. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:27:21) :

    “If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it.”

    When will you start, Leif? Would you like to address the data that Professor Stig Friberg and I summarized on the composition of the solar interior at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology, Big Bear Lake, California [European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348]?

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1

    Just start with the data in Figure 1 [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101] and work your way to the data in Figure 6 [Journal of Radio-analytical & Nuclear
    Chemistry 252 (2002) 3-7].

    Don’t overlook the data in Table 1 [Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on Origin of Elements in the Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000) 279-287].

    Good luck, Leif.

    You will learn a lot if you actually start to practice what you preach!

    Oliver K. Manuel

  164. Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
    Good luck, Leif.
    None of this is supportive of your claims.
    To gain some credibility you can start with simply answering my questions.

  165. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:59:21) :

    “To gain some credibility you can start with simply answering my questions.”

    No, Leif, I will not waste my time spoon feeding your inflated ego!

    You can read published, peer-reviewed papers like everyone else.

    Or you can simply ignore the data and cling to your childish illusion of a Hydrogen-filled Sun!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  166. Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
    “If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it.”
    In one of your ‘papers’ you list as a test of your claim:
    “6. Look for excess heavy elements in the fast-moving solar wind, e.g., from the Sun’s poles.”

    Measurements show the well-known effect that heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] in the fast solar wind from the poles:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA000358.pdf

    So, you fail right there.

  167. Oliver K. Manuel (09:38:20) :
    No, Leif, I will not waste my time spoon feeding your inflated ego!
    You waste already a lot of your [and everybody else's time with your false claims].

  168. We currently have a lot of weak-contrast sunspots (by direct observation).
    So I am assuming that the L&P effect is still very much on track.

  169. Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
    Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :

    Stand firm. I’m following both of you thoughts and are rather impressed with your thoughts. Every path in physics which can be followed, dead-end or not, is proper. As a system analyst for most of my working life I have always learned more by the dead-ends and mistakes.

    Both of you, wish I could write with your clarity!

    Stephen, have you read Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper? Might you accept a deeper and between the lines view of his paper which directly addresses the “correlations” themselves batted about above and how the correlations are damaging climate physics itself?

    Just ask.

  170. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (09:38:50):

    “Measurements show the well-known effect that heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] in the fast solar wind from the poles: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA000358.pdf

    1. Your strained sentence structure betrays your motives: “. . . heavier elements [like Si and your favorite Fe] are depleted [i.e. no excess] . . .”

    2. I have known some of the authors of the nonsense paper that you cite for many years – a paper that ignores solar mass fractionation and falsely claims that empirical evidence of solar mass fractionation can be explained away by considering the first ionization potential (FIP).

    3. The Wind spacecraft observed that successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of ~10, ~100, and ~1,000 respectively in solar energetic particles relative to those at the solar surface [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111–L114]

    http://epact2.gsfc.nasa.gov/don/00HiZ.pdf

    4. It has long been known that lightweight isotopes are less abundant in solar flares than in the solar wind ["The Origins of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations" (Kluwer/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, 2000) 285-293]

    http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/iso_book.pdf

    Long before Climate-gate, NASA was training and funding an army of “scientists” to distort and manipulate solar data, Leif, to try to protect the illusion that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.

    But the Standard Solar Model of a H-filled Sun is obsolete. Solar neutrinos from H-fusion do not magically oscillate away. And ultimately the truth will out.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  171. Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :

    And Oliver, your theory seem to be the better path. The neutron-neutorn repulsion, brilliant. Will have to investigate the atomic weight sorting to better understand your theory. I will, in time. You have already given the links to the other papers above. I do think our sun is a variable star. I’m more concerned why across a half billion year T graph there are plus and minus four to five degree variances, the big drops.

  172. Oliver K. Manuel (13:36:00) :
    nonsense paper that you cite for many years – a paper that ignores solar mass fractionation and falsely claims that empirical evidence of solar mass fractionation can be explained away by considering the first ionization potential (FIP).
    I give up. They report direct measurements

  173. Quote: wayne (13:37:14) :

    “And Oliver, your theory seem to be the better path. The neutron-neutorn repulsion, brilliant.”

    Thanks, Wayne.

    Students enrolled in Advanced Nuclear Chemistry (Chem. 471) in the spring semester of 2000 – Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke and Bing Zhang – contributed to the development of the “Cradle of the Nuclides” (below) that first revealed repulsive interactions between neutrons in the rest mass data of every nucleus with two or more neutrons.

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

    Already we knew that iron (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Sun, and we knew that iron (Fe) – the ash of nuclear reactions – could not explain the solar neutrinos, solar-wind H, and solar energy that pours from the solar surface.

    Each of these products is quantitatively explained by a series of nuclear reaction that are triggered by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core.

    Again, thanks for your kindness.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  174. Oliver K. Manuel (14:00:24) :

    On a light note:

    You know little of me of coarse. I’m a person who reads scientific papers as a hobby. Have read 10,000, well maybe not so high but 1000’s I’m sure, from Los Alamos, Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Harvard, CERN, Brookhaven, MaxPlanck, you name it. I stick mainly to astronomy, astrophysics, math, computer science areas. Oh, yeah, cosmology. Just listen to a four day lecture on dark matter and dark energy from CERN. Enlightening. I rarely accept things at face value, I’m a skeptic at heart. There is an old saying, I’m probably just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. That meaning I am spread across so many areas I tend to make mistakes in logic now and then, especially when jumping into an unfamiliar area of science. I blame it on my age and lack of books on the shelf and letters behind my name, and in reality because it is difficult to find if a paper has true merits or not on the web.

    Your proposition of neutron-neutron repulsion came to mind last week when I had to help my granddaughter build a model atom. Copper I think we chose. Clothes hangers and marbles. But assembling the nucleus I thought of your paper. Do the neutron repulsions also have hand in proton-neutron configuration of the nucleus itself? Seems would have a play in radioactivity also. Have you carried the theory into those areas?

  175. wayne

    I’ll have a look at Miskolczi’s work but I’m trying to keep my climate description ‘pure’ by working from first principles and real world observations.

    Working out a scenario that fits known physics and accounts for as many diverse observations as possible seems to me to be the way to go.

    In a complex system, correlations and a lack of correlations are both equally potentially misleading as to the primary underlying processes.

  176. Stephen Wilde (15:16:35) :

    That is exactly why I thought you should read it. Not to accept it. Just to take his thoughts in the paper and apply them directly to some of your thoughts being explained above. Complex, yes, very in fact! My view may be a little deeper than that. The core question tied to his paper is something like “does a thermodynamic system, of any scale, when the input and output are out of balance, in reality re-balance at a maximum rate and therefore in minimum time”. Now that smells like proper physics. Apply that to your view of currents. (and keep in mind the emissivity and conductivity of the components of a planet’s complex climate system)

  177. Stephen Wilde (15:16:35) :

    Could also add “at a maximum rate and therefore in minimum time, all other local physical effect preserved and respected of coarse by proper physics laws”.

  178. Another key question is “can a thermodynamic system, of any scale and complexity, ever increase in total energy and therefore temperature if input does not increase.” I can see output decreasing therefore slowing cooling, but can it actually increase and gain thermal heat? Especially in the case of a hot rock in a void near absolute zero as the planets.

  179. Quote: wayne (15:14:41) :

    “On a light note:

    Your proposition of neutron-neutron repulsion came to mind last week when I had to help my granddaughter build a model atom. Copper I think we chose. Clothes hangers and marbles. But assembling the nucleus I thought of your paper. Do the neutron repulsions also have hand in proton-neutron configuration of the nucleus itself? Seems would have a play in radioactivity also. Have you carried the theory into those areas?”

    Yes is the answer to your questions, except the last one.

    I am an experimentalist, not a theorist.

    a.) Empirically the N-P interaction is strongly attractive .

    b.) N-N and P-P interactions are equal and repulsive, except for an additional repulsive force between + charges on each P.

    N-emission occurs spontaneously up to A ~ 150 amu. Then spontaneous fission starts to occur.

    I suspect that attractive N-P interactions form the nuclear core for A ~150 amu and neutrons are concentrated in the nuclear core. Hence spontaneous fission.

    Please read: “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy” [Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98] to see how nuclear rest mass depends on the number of N-P, N-N and P-P interactions.

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

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  180. Stephen Wilde: Replied to Wayne, “I’ll have a look at Miskolczi’s work but I’m trying to keep my climate description ‘pure’ by working from first principles and real world observations.”

    But if your real world observations do not rely on data, are they really real world observations?

  181. Oliver K. Manuel (17:28:09) :

    Your right. I was an astronomy lab assistant (for fun, an elective) and I kept the astronomy book, copyright 1969. The elements in meteorites is correct but no mention of the core of the sun, I mean not at all. Never even noticed that. In grade school we leaning the reason why we had drills under out desks, I just blindly assumed the sun was hydrogen thermonuclear based. I now get your point clearly.

    Here is but a wild guess, the evenness of atomic numbers, that’s the maximum possible binding energy per nuclide. And does it have a geometry base, as one neutron with twelve more packed around, hex.. can’t find the proper term, for iron’s nucleus core. Answer in some other post if you detect me there. We are a little, no way, OT.

  182. Quote: wayne (19:31:02) :

    “Here is but a wild guess, the evenness of atomic numbers, that’s the maximum possible binding energy per nuclide.”

    Elements with even atomic numbers have greater nuclear stability and generally more isotopes than elements with odd atomic numbers.

    The history of this 1917 discovery by Harkins [ Journal American Chemical Socociety 39 (1917) 856-879] is discussed in the paper, “Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete.”

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410569v1

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    PS – Hydrogen has an odd atomic number, #1.

  183. Stephen Wilde: Let me try to summarize our discussion on this thread, and draw a conclusion for myself. Back on Feb 2, you wrote in your 03:40:14 comment, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”

    I linked a graph of global SST anomalies versus sunspot number and asked you to illustrate the effect. Link to graph:

    We exchanged arguments. Then in your Feb 8 (10:00:40) comment, you link the following heliogenic web page:

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/

    And you conclude with, “Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely?”

    Let’s put aside the summary for a moment. Perhaps you should have noted in your initial comment (and should note in future comments) that you were (are) discussing variability on a multi-century timescale. Your failure to make that distinction in your comments leads your readers to assume any time period, which can cause them to misunderstand and misinterpret your research. But since you later contradict yourself, I do not find that I “dismiss broader perspectives unwisely.”

    Now let’s look at the closing sentence of the abstract of the paper referred to in the heliogenic link you provided. The second to last sentence of the abstract of the Sachs et al (2009) paper “Southward movement of the Pacific intertropical convergence zone AD 1400–1850” reads, “A colder Northern Hemisphere at that time, POSSIBLY RESULTING FROM LOWER SOLAR IRRADIANCE, may have driven the intertropical convergence zone south.” [Caps are mine for emphasis.] So the authors don’t conclude that there is a correlation between Northern Hemisphere temperature and lower solar irradiance, just that there is a possibility.

    Back to the summary: In that same Feb 8 comment you wrote, “The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.”

    Leif took exception to that comment, pointing out the Oort Grand Minimum occurred during the MWP, and your reply included, “The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles. Part of my submission is that the solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently so the Oort minimum during a warm period would just be an example of that.” You continued with, “Perhaps one of the reasons that we are not getting a coherent climate overview is the failure to appreciate that in such a complex system there are countercyclical events that do not disprove the underlying relationships.”

    Your statement, “The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles”, suggesting that ocean cycles can and do have a dominant impact on global temperatures, and your statement, “solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently”, contradict your previous contentions. How could “…the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…” if the cycles are independent? And if the solar cycles can be out of phase with ocean cycles, you cannot conclude, “cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time”.

    All of this confirms that your generalized statements, such as “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”, are not correct on yearly, decadal, multidecadal, or multi-century timescales.

    Regards

  184. Bob Tisdale (02:59:41)

    1) All my work refers to all timescales and adequately distinguishes between the effects observed on each timescale. You chose to focus on the shortest timescales where chaotic variability and overlapping cycles tend to obscure the longer term correlations.

    2) I do not correlate lower solar irradiance with lower temperatures. I correlate lower temperatures with lower rates of energy release from the oceans and, counterintuitively a MORE active sun which appears to increase the rate of energy loss to space. However the oceanic effect is far more powerful and more than offsets the solar effects except on longer timescales.

    3) The solar and oceanic cycles do appear to vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over millennia. Whilst they are in phase there is one set of climate consequences. When they are out of phase there is a different set of climate consequences. At present they are largely in phase with a few short term exceptions arising from time to time.

    4) The 20th Century warmth coincided with a more active sun AND faster energy release from the oceans. The LIA coolness coincided with a less active sun AND ITCZ near the equator which suggests slower energy release from the oceans. The MWP coincided with a more active sun and I suggest faster energy release from the oceans. The Oort minimum would actually have enhanced the warming effect because lower solar activity appears to reduce the rate of energy loss to space. So at least since the MWP there has been a correlated cooling and warming process with all three components mostly in phase. Solar variability has only been out of phase for short periods and so has not significantly altered the primarily ocean driven tropospheric temperature changes.

    You really have not absorbed the overall cohesion of what I have been saying and your post is selective and misleading.

    I think we should end it there unless you can point to real world climate consequences such as would falsify my suggestions along the lines of the examples I gave to Leif.

  185. Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “3) The solar and oceanic cycles do appear to vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over millennia.”

    This directly contradicts the original comment you made that started this discussion. Also, the data reveals that the “solar and oceanic cycles vary independently and gradually move in and out of phase over” decades. There’s no need to discuss it on a longer time span.

    You wrote, “4) The 20th Century warmth coincided with a more active sun AND faster energy release from the oceans.”

    I find it remarkable that you can state this when the likes of Kevin Trenberth using satellite data cannot identify where the heat is going from year to year. You, on the other hand, can somehow magically conclude this over spans of decades, centuries, and millennia, without the ability to document if there have been variations in volcanic aerosols, aerosols associated with Saharan dust, low or high cloud cover, ocean cycles, ocean climate shifts, etc., or to determine the effects of these variations. To me, as I’ve stated on numerous occasions, without data to support your statements, they are nothing but conjecture.

    You wrote, “You really have not absorbed the overall cohesion of what I have been saying and your post is selective and misleading.”

    Really? Your statement that I have not absorbed your claims is unfounded and arrogant. I’ve absorbed all that needs to be absorbed, Stephen. My 02:59:41 comment is a fair (to both sides) summary of the original topic. You, however, continue to introduce new discussions to obscure the errors in your original and follow-up comments.

    You concluded with, “I think we should end it there unless you can point to real world climate consequences such as would falsify my suggestions along the lines of the examples I gave to Leif.”

    Since you provided no scientific data to support your conjecture, and since your arguments contradict themselves, there is no way or need to falsify them.

  186. Stephen Wilde (10:09:59) :
    Bob Tisdale (15:18:10) :

    Stephen, having read back through you and Bob’s conversation, I realize you might not yet ready to consider other deep paper’s concepts at this time. I see the point you made, on concentration on your hypothesis. Wish had not I injected that comment to you. And if you later want the ideas, don’t read the paper itself first but read Dr. Zagoni’s summary of his paper, it’s easier to grasp. I don’t know if his theory is correct but it contains some interesting concepts on energy flows and balances in relation to the minimum time principle applied to a planet.

    Seems Bob has spent much time listing the points he saw where some of your conjectures were questionable, and he commented back in detail. In this respect I see most of Bob’s points. You should go back and clarify you ideas a bit, put limits and be clearer of the local environment when you try to justify the exceptions. You cannot have it one way here and the other way there without detailed explanation as to when and why, backed by graphs or data. Being new to blogs I find it easy to contradict myself when commenting, while just trying to be brief.

  187. I’m puzzled that there is any dispute over the late 20th Century having been dominated by a combination of strong El Ninos and a more active sun.

    Even during the early 20th Century the sun was slowly increasing in the level of activity from earlier years and in the 30s there were again warm ocean surfaces from a positive oceanic phase.

    Bob accepts that warmer ocean surfaces release energy faster to the air.

    The satellite data has only been available since 1979.

    Solar and oceanic cycles move in and out of phase to a small degree on all timescales but over millennia they appear to go to extremes and could create the difference between ice ages and interglacials.

    wayne, thank you for your suggestions. It is helpful to have another perspective. It is indeed difficult to maintain consistency in blog posts and very easy to pick out inconsistencies in the posts of others.

    My work is much more fully set out in my articles at climaterealists.com with more evidence in support than I could ever insert into a blog thread.

    I would take seriously any real world observations that falsified my climate description. I have given examples of the types of observations that would achieve that.

    I have been asking for such examples at every stage of my developing hypothesis (or conjecture if preferred) over a period of two years now. None have been advanced.

    Neither Bob nor Leif have taken up that challenge.

    The climate is the result of a complex balancing act but one has to look at the entirety from sun to sea to air to space and not just solar or just ENSO

  188. I should also emphasise that there are at least three oceanic cycles on different timescales which I have made clear elsewhere but which may be part of the cause of Bob’s difficulty with what I say.

  189. Furthermore I have pointed out several times that the data I would need simply doesn’t exist yet.

    There has been no accurate measurement of the net latitudinal position of the global air circulation systems. Generally it is accepted that there is a basic seasonal shift and shifts greater than that have been noted but never analysed or quantified.

    Likewise the raw speed of the hydrological cycle has never accurately been measured so as to discern changes in it’s speed on average globally.

    Nor are there figures for changes in the rate of energy flow into or out of the oceans globally over time. If we had such data the ocean heat content issue would not be such a problem.

    Nor are there figures for changes in the rate of energy flow from one layer of the atmosphere to another globally over time.

    Until all that is done my suggestions cannot be confirmed or rebutted but they make sense and could explain a lot.

    All I have done is look at the data that is available and draw what to me seem to be obvious conclusions.

    Whatever anyone tries to say the whole global air circulation does clearly shift latitudinally in response to changes in average global sea surface temperatures. All I have done is to report what should be apparent to all and work it into a logical climate overview that also accords with basic physics.

    No one else seems to have bothered as far as I can tell, especially since CO2 was first blamed.

  190. Stephen Wilde (09:51:28) :
    I’m puzzled that there is any dispute over the late 20th Century having been dominated by a combination of strong El Ninos and a more active sun.

    More active compared with what? With the warmth in the 1930-50s? Or with the cold in the 19th century.

    Neither Bob nor Leif have taken up that challenge.

    For my part, it seems that your premise is wrong [so no need to take up anything].

    Here is our best guess at the magnitude of the radial component of the heliospheric magnetic field since 1835 [which is a measure of solar activity]:

    and here is more on solar activity in the past:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf

    Since the Sun has not been exceedingly more active in the last half of the 20th, but temperatures have been higher [so some say :-)] I do not see what solar activity [both sunspot count and magnetic field] has to do with anything.

  191. Leif,

    You miss the point. I have accepted the smallness of solar variability (in raw power output) from MWP to LIA to date. I reserve my position on solar variability having a greater effect via some other mechanism.

    I have accepted your contention that any correlation with warm and cool periods may well be coincidental, with both ocean and solar cycles being independently variable. That suits me at the moment but many disagree with you and I await data to resolve the issue for once and for all.

    However, whatever difference the solar variability does have can either offset or supplement the oceanic effects depending on the phasing of the two types of cycle.

    Let me get something straight here. You and Bob are experts in your fields but neither of you are the only game in town in those fields.

    I have previously said that my main problem in sorting out a plausible overall climate description is the conflicting information from different ‘experts’.

    Climatology is an infant science packed with narrow specialisms but virtually no attempt at a conceptual overview and no one is currently ‘expert’ in attempting any such overview so you will just have to live with the fact that it amuses me to ‘have a go’.

    I will adapt my climate description to accommodate what seems like sound advice as I have done with data kindly provided by you but as yet I do not see you as having the final word.

    As regards Bob I can see why he has a problem with my description of the effects of multiple overlapping cycles with varying timescales from independently variable solar and oceanic behavior and I can use his objections to refine that part of my description but the fact is that he is not seeing the essence of what I am describing and I am not going to give up just on his say so however acerbic his comments become.

    Bob’s input and yours is valuable to me and greatly appreciated however :)

  192. Stephen Wilde (14:17:20) :
    Leif, You miss the point.
    I guess I do. At least I don’t see it anywhere.

    I await data to resolve the issue for once and for all.
    that may be a LONG wait. People are still used the VERY obsolete Hoyt & Schatten TSI reconstruction as long as it fits their pet theory. This may continue for another decade or two. Other people still believe in stuff from a hundred years ago, claiming all newer astronomy is a giant conspiracy.

  193. I don’t mind how long it takes. At the moment I’m going by what you say but keeping an open mind.

    The point was that it doesn’t matter to me how big or how small the solar effect is. It has some effect (even you don’t suggest zero) and whatever that effect is then it can either supplement or offset ocean cycles depending on the timing of the solar and oceanic cycles.

  194. Stephen Wilde (14:49:07) :
    It has some effect (even you don’t suggest zero)
    So has starlight from a white dwarf that at times goes behind its binary companion briefly reducing the total energy we get from the system [it is not zero]. It is all a question of proper proportions.

  195. Stephen Wilde (09:51:28) : You wrote, “Bob accepts that warmer ocean surfaces release energy faster to the air.”

    But my posts illustrate that the primary influence on Ocean Heat Content are ENSO for most ocean basins…

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html

    …and the NOA, AMO, and ENSO for the North Atlantic…

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html

    …and the NPI for the North Pacific.
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    You wrote, “I would take seriously any real world observations that falsified my climate description.”

    It is your responsibility to present data to substantiate your climate description.

    You wrote, “Neither Bob nor Leif have taken up that challenge.”

    Refer to preceding reply.

    You wrote in a later comment, “I should also emphasise that there are at least three oceanic cycles on different timescales which I have made clear elsewhere but which may be part of the cause of Bob’s difficulty with what I say.”

    My disagreement was with your statement, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…” You have subsequently changed your tune and now say that ocean cycles and solar variability can be out of phase.

    You wrote, “You and Bob are experts in your fields but neither of you are the only game in town in those fields.”

    I beg to differ. I’m a blogger who plots data, creates animations of ocean processes, etc., and who describes what the data and animations present. I am not a climate scientist who specializes in ENSO. Just a blogger.

    Stephen, when I read a comment by a blogger–any blogger, not only you–or a statement made in a press release or paper that I know is not supported by data, I plot the data and illustrate the error.

    You wrote, “As regards Bob I can see why he has a problem with my description of the effects of multiple overlapping cycles…”

    My problem lies with your failure to rely on data to support your descriptions and your hypotheses.

  196. Bob Tisdale:

    “My disagreement was with your statement, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…” You have subsequently changed your tune and now say that ocean cycles and solar variability can be out of phase.”

    Then let me clarify that specific point.

    Look at the period from the 1600s to date. Throughout that period there has been a slow increase in solar activity, a slow drift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) northward (a fingerprint of warming ocean surfaces) and a slow increase in global tropospheric temperatures.

    The data backing that up is in the public domain and I do not need to demonstrate it ab initio.

    It is likely that going back through the MWP, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warm Period possibly as far back as the last period of ice age conditions some 10,000 years ago that pattern would be similar with approximate 1000 to 1500 year cycling of sun and ocean approximately in phase i.e. ocean surfaces normally warm when the sun is more active and overall the sun and oceanic cycles changing in tandem more or less to this day. Hence my use of the word ‘current’ which is correct in terms of that periodicity.

    Then we have the PDO periodicity on a timescale of 30 / 60 years approximately and the ENSO periodicity on timescales of 1 to 2 years.

    I have said many times that the solar and oceanic cycling can apparently move out of phase over time. That applies seperately to EACH of the three observed periodicities.

    Most of your observations are ENSO and/ or PDO based and I do accept that the term ‘currently in phase’ does not apply at this moment because currently as of today the sun is relatively inactive and the ENSO cycle is producing an EL Nino.

    I also accept that the PDO and ENSO cycles are often out of phase with the solar cycles on those two periodicities but that does not take away from the observation that under the third longer periodicity the sun and oceans are still currently in phase. All that I need to point out is that the PDO and ENSO variations whilst clearly present and often in the short term out of phase with solar activity do not negate the longer term correlation between solar and oceanic cycles.

    ENSO is the oceanic equivalent of changes in solar activity within a single cycle

    PDO is the oceanic equivalent of changes in solar activity over about three 11 year solar cycles

    The movement of the ITCZ and all the other air circulation systems from 1600 to now is a result of a longer term oceanic cycle which is the equivalent of the cycling of solar activity from Maunder Minimum to date.

    So what we can have is ENSO in or out of phase with the sun at the same time as PDO is in or out of phase with the sun at the same time as the longer term cycling is in or out of phase with the sun.

    During the period 1940’s to 1960’s the sun’s surface was very active but the oceans were negative, from 1970’s to 2000 the oceans were positive whilst the sun was active.

    However to this day the longer term cycling remains in phase despite those shorter term changes.

    So I was right to assert that the phasing changes over millennia, and that the phasing changes over decades and I would be right to assert that it changes over a year or two.

    It is necessary to consider all three periodicities and it may be there are more over longer timescales that we currently have no knowledge of but I don’t need that at this stage.

    Nor do I need to direct anyone to any more data than that which anyone even slightly aware of climate would already be well aware.

  197. Stephen Wilde (03:54:33) :
    Look at the period from the 1600s to date. Throughout that period there has been a slow increase in solar activity
    There is very little support for this. It seems much more likely that solar activity picked up very abruptly in the 18th century. The cycle that peaked in 1787 was probably even higher than the one we had in 1958.
    My problem with your statement is the unqualified ‘there has been’. There very likely has not been.

  198. Thank you Leif.

    Applying smoothing to the chart shown there in your link there is a clear upward trend from 1500 to date which is good enough to suggest the presence of a solar cycle of 1000 years or so from trough to peak.

    I never said it was a steady or regular progression and indeed it isn’t.

    I agree that the jury remains out on the size of the solar contribution to the observed tropospheric warming but, as I said before, whatever it is needs to be added to or subtracted from the undoubtedly larger oceanic forcing depending on the phases of both solar and oceanic cycles.

    Comparing variations in the effect of our sun on Earth’s atmosphere with the effect of a white dwarf’s variability seems like a bit of poetic licence don’t you think ? It’s a fair point in logical terms but daft in real terms :). Better for amusement value than for analytical purposes.

  199. Stephen Wilde (06:29:10) :
    Applying smoothing to the chart shown there in your link there is a clear upward trend from 1500 to date which is good enough to suggest the presence of a solar cycle of 1000 years or so from trough to peak.
    No, don’t look at the red curve [that is the dubious group sunspot number]. The real data is the heavy dark blue curves in the upper panel. It is derived from 14C. And shows no trend.

  200. Stephen Wilde: Regarding your 03:54:33 in general, you went to great detail to confirm that what you had originally written was wrong. Your original comment had nothing to do with the PDO, or ENSO, or variations in the ITCZ, or the LIA, or the MWP, etc. You originally wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…” and it’s wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

    You wrote, “Look at the period from the 1600s to date. Throughout that period there has been a slow increase in solar activity, a slow drift of the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) northward (a fingerprint of warming ocean surfaces) and a slow increase in global tropospheric temperatures.”

    Please provide a link to the graph you’re using as reference.

    You wrote, “The data backing that up is in the public domain and I do not need to demonstrate it ab initio.”

    Actually you do. If it’s in the public domain then you should have no difficulty linking a readily available graph on Google that shows what you claim. Those who read your comments would appreciate it, not just me. Without a graph, you could be writing fiction for all we know. And based on the graphs of the data that I’ve presented in the past that contradict your assumptions, what you write is fiction.

    You wrote, “Then we have the PDO periodicity on a timescale of 30 / 60 years approximately and the ENSO periodicity on timescales of 1 to 2 years.”

    Hmm. More fiction. Your assumed 30 to 60 year periodicity of the PDO is not supported by the MacDonald reconstruction for the last 1000 years:

    Paleoclimatological data is available here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

    The MacDonald PDO reconstruction data is here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/pdo-macdonald2005.txt

    You wrote, “ENSO is the oceanic equivalent of changes in solar activity within a single cycle.”

    Another fictional statement. This is not supported by data in any way, shape, or form. Here’s a graph that includes 3 ENSO reconstructions. Please overlay solar data to prove your point. Using the Mann data, the minimum span between peaks was 21.5 years (1831.5 to 1853), while the maximum was 39 (1902 to 1941). The average time span was approximately 27 years.

    You wrote, “PDO is the oceanic equivalent of changes in solar activity over about three 11 year solar cycles.”

    Yet another fictional statement. This is not supported by data. Refer to above graph of the MacDonald PDO reconstruction.

    You concluded, “Nor do I need to direct anyone to any more data than that which anyone even slightly aware of climate would already be well aware.”

    Really? Anyone? Slightly aware of climate?

    The misdirection didn’t work, Stephen.

    I strongly suggest that you actually study data, not fantasize about it. In the future, please furnish graphs of the data needed to support your claims. I would find it much easier than digging through my files to find graphs that contradict what you’ve written. And I’m sure the audience you’ve attracted on this thread would appreciate it also, Stephen, because what you have written and what you continue to write in your comments appears to be about the fictional climate of a fictional world.

  201. From your own links:

    “The reconstruction indicates that a
    ~50 to 70 year periodicity in the PDO is typical for the past 200 years”

    So each positive or negative phase lasts about three 9 to 11 year solar cycles. I didn’t say 30 to 60. I said 30/60 referring to the two phases totalling 60 years
    Anyway the precise length matters not to me because the solar and oceanic cycles go out of phase over time so varying lengths would fit my hypothesis.

    “When this happens for less than five months, it is classified as El Niño or La Niña conditions; if the anomaly persists for five months or longer, it is called an El Niño or La Niña “episode.” Typically, this happens at irregular intervals of 2–7 years and lasts nine months to two years.”

    Who is doing the misdirecting here ????

    And when I say ‘equivalent to’ I don’t mean that they match in length or timing merely that they are the same level of variability in terms of scale as opposed to the other levels of variability.

    Further communication here is clearly fruitless. Plenty of others see what I’m saying so I’m not concerned about your responses.

    Good luck with your future endeavours :)

  202. Leif,

    That Armagh temperature chart shows the slow temperature recovery from the LIA quite well enough.

  203. Stephen Wilde (10:46:37) :
    That Armagh temperature chart shows the slow temperature recovery from the LIA quite well enough.
    But not matching solar activity in any way. I don’t think there is any doubt that the MWP was warm, the LIA was cold and Now is warm, but there is no evidence to link that to solar variations. And would it not be cherry picking to say that Armagh shows something that CET does not?
    My criticism is about your categorical statements, e.g. ‘there has been …’

  204. Leif Svalgaard (11:12:48)

    Any link to solar variations (admittedly possibly very small on their own) has first to be filitered through the oceanic signal.

    I am satisfied that between sun and oceans the rise in temperature since the trough of the LIA can be perfectly well enough accounted for.

    I note that not everyone accords with your view that the solar effect is negligible. Your assertion that there can be no aspect of solar variability that translates into a significant climate response is itself somewhat conjectural.

    There has been warming of the troposhere since the LIA. There has been a change in the level of solar activity during that period. The ITCZ has moved northward since then and it appears that it moves when the sea surface temperatures change.

    The three phenomena are intricately linked but the size of the solar component remains open to question.

  205. Stephen Wilde (11:49:26) :
    I note that not everyone accords with your view that the solar effect is negligible.
    And in good pseudo-scientific tradition you cherry pick the opinions that match your ideas. My point is that we do not have evidence, but doubt.

  206. wayne (06:03:59)

    I’ve had a look at Miskolczi’s work now. Thanks for the pointer.

    He is saying that the Earth’s atmosphere is automatically regulated to stay at a certain optical depth such that the total of all greenhouse gases always remains the same and any necessary adjustment is achieved by a change in the quantity of water vapour.

    That suits me perfectly.

    One of my propositions is that the temperature of the troposphere is always being dragged towards the average global sea surface temperatures because the thermal inertia of the oceans is so huge.

    Thus if there were to be more CO2 in the air the water below would seek to remove the extra energy in the air to return the system to an equilibrium set by the oceans.

    The extra energy in the air cannot get into the oceans because of the evaporative barrier.

    So instead the hydrological cycle speeds up and if necessary the latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems will shift to effect that change in speed. The total amount of water vapour changes to maintain the optical depth necessary to keep the system stable with the air at the surface remaining in line with sea surface temperatures despite any extra CO2 or any other GHGs.

    That is what happens routinely to modulate the effect of warmer ocean surfaces but on a far larger scale than would be required to deal with a little CO2.

    Thus if he is right then my climate description provides the real world mechanism by which the outcome is achieved.

    Interesting.

  207. Leif Svalgaard (12:10:08)

    On the basis of our respective posts I appear to doubt more than you do.

    Your expressed certainty as to the lack of a significant solar effect is far more dogmatic than my open mindedness on the issue.

    Which of us is the greater pseud ?

  208. Leif Svalgaard (12:10:08)

    I seem to doubt more than you do.

    You are dogmatic about the absence of a significant solar contribution to changes in climate even on millennial time scales.

    I prefer to remain open minded.

    Which of us is the greater pseud ?

  209. Stephen Wilde (11:49:26) :
    Your assertion that there can be no aspect of solar variability that translates into a significant climate response is itself somewhat conjectural.
    and that is not my assertion.
    My assertion is that solar activity since the 18th century has not varied, getting systematically higher.
    Let me quote from the Muscheler paper:
    “In any case, and irrespective of the data set applied, the recent solar activity is not exceptionally high (Fig. 2). The 14C results are
    broadly consistent with earlier reconstructions based on 10Be data from the South Pole, which show that production rates around AD 1780 and in the twelfth century were comparable to those observed today”

  210. Let me quote from conclusion of the Muscheler paper:

    our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations.

    More and more scientists are coming around to this view [which is not mine alone].

  211. Stephen Wilde (12:22:59) :
    You are dogmatic about the absence of a significant solar contribution to changes in climate even on millennial time scales.
    No, I’m saying that the sun didn’t vary. Not that the non-variation has no climatic effect.

  212. Stephen Wilde (12:19:48) :
    my open mindedness on the issue.
    you do not seem open minded on the possible lack of effect having declared several times that you are ‘convinced’ there is an effect.

  213. Stephen Wilde: You replied, “You were right to engage in science rather than communication.”

    This is a science blog, Stephen. I present data and describe it. You offer conjecture.

  214. If ever there was a need to understand what causes Ice Ages and Interglacials, Science has clearly been handed the ball.
    If it’s not the Sun or anything to do with the Sun, the prospect of civilization not knowing what hit it looms large. AGW only works in one direction. That won’t do.
    If the answer lies in natural oscillations, then the next Ice Age hangs by the merest of threads. We’re 10,000 yrs overdue. Mere statistics are useless for a road map.
    I’m not hearing any good theories or avenues of research beyone Svensmark.
    If he goes down we’re totally in the dark.
    Are you 100% certain there is nothing left unsearched?

  215. rbateman (16:47:02) :
    the next Ice Age hangs by the merest of threads. We’re 10,000 yrs overdue.
    It has already begun, but it takes 100,000 years to get all the way to the bottom, so we have lots of time to adapt [or whatever we decide to do].

  216. Leif Svalgaard
    “It has already begun, but it takes 100,000 years to get all the way to the bottom, so we have lots of time to adapt [or whatever we decide to do].”

    Kind of depends on the spikes down and back… and the location on the globe. People in certain parts of the planet might not have lots of time, like the poor people in Mongolia this year for an example.

  217. rbateman (16:47:02) :
    “If ever there was a need to understand what causes Ice Ages and Interglacials, Science has clearly been handed the ball.”
    “I’m not hearing any good theories or avenues of research beyone Svensmark.”

    You don’t think the Milankovitch cycles are part of a good theory? It seems pretty successful to me. Not sure how the question ties into the discussion here, though.

  218. rbateman (18:05:25) :
    what tells you that it has already begun?
    We had the climate optimum several thousand years ago and the insolation [calculated using Milankovic's theory] has already been duly decreasing. The climate also has its own minor swings [for all kinds of reasons] so there will be bumps [ups and downs] on the way down. The record sort of speaks for itself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
    On a time-sale of 100,000 years a few centuries either way don’t make any difference so I don’t think the climate last few centuries have been much driven by the Milankovic cycles.
    There are even people that believe that we have managed to ‘stave off’ or delay the onset a bit by land-use and AGW.

  219. rbateman (18:05:25) : Leif Svalgaard (17:44:14) : “Leif, what tells you that it has already begun?”

    I don’t know what he’s going to say… but my entire right leg tells me it has begun. It was broken near the hip and my heel is basically gone, and I have other foot, ankle and knee damage. I fell trying to cut a tree off my cabin in north central Arkansas after the once in a lifetime January 2009 ice storm. Arkansas is pretty far south, really.

    Over at Dalton minimum repeat goes mainstream:
    Leif Svalgaard (09:15:07) :
    Pascvaks (09:01:25) : Are we yet on our bumpy way down the mountain to the deep cold of the next glacial period?

    “Yes we are, but it will take 100,000 years to hit the bottom, so lots of time for fun and games.”

    Well that’s nice to have all this time to participate in fun and games if you haven’t been permanently crippled or even killed by a once in a lifetime ice storm during a downward spike.

  220. Ed Murphy (18:58:04) :
    I don’t know what he’s going to say… but my entire right leg tells me it has begun. It was broken near the hip and my heel is basically gone, and I have other foot, ankle and knee damage.

    Sorry to hear that, Ed. Be careful with all that outdoor stuff.
    O/T [but some other post had a reference]: we have no shortage of fog here in the SF Bay Area. A small plane in morning fog collided with a power pole ['tower'] and left a considerable area without power all day. Fog is still here. Gimme some global warming.

  221. People suggest that CO2 has no effect but TSI changes may be the cause of warming

    To get things in perspective here is a plot of TSI and CO2 with 0 in both scales included.

    If CO2 is a green-house gas, and if GHG presence cause the earth to be warmer than without GHGs then looking at the plot CO2 may possibly have caused warming. Conversely The plot also showsTSI changes to beinsignificant (a couple of pixels on this plot).

  222. dick chambers (19:36:18) :
    Conversely The plot also showsTSI changes to beinsignificant (a couple of pixels on this plot).
    Try to place the temperature in Kelvin on the plot too.

  223. Leif Svalgaard (19:12:36) :

    The Alps I pointed out to you when you were here look like somebody went overboard with a can of Miracle Whip. Full-grown trees buried 1/4 to 1/3 of thier height. The fog has been horrible here, too.

    What bugs me about the way down on the Ice Age scale is sudden ups & downs. It was nice when things were very stable the last 30 yrs.

  224. Stephen Wilde (12:16:18) :

    … all greenhouse gases always remain the same and any necessary adjustment is achieved by a change in the quantity of water vapor.

    That’s what I gathered from the paper. Co2 and ch4 cannot flex their concentration or state. Their concentrations are basically a constant. Water vapor on the other hand is everywhere and has three possible states and is at ~30 times the concentration in the atmosphere. So which would have the primary hand in balancing the energy coming in and going out while meeting TD laws? If water vapor, the troposphere would be the primary driver therefore basically constant as a whole.

    Seems perfectly logical but still trying to get to the bottom as to how exactly this physically occurs. My educated guess is: through all processes and at all times simultaneously via proper physics at their own limited local rates. To a programmer, a plex structure of effects interacting with all other physical effects, each obeying the pertinent local laws (i.e. a mathematical graph). The one with the greatest rate would of course dominate in the flux.

    If Anthony or Dr. Spencer will ever answer back, I have written an article I wish to post that plays right into the Miskolczi paper’s conjecture. It is about a small factor, about one-half to one percent that is very real and which all papers seem to be overlooking in the atmosphere and GHG radiation interactions. Your calculations could be affected also. Without this factor you would always come up with a slightly warmer Earth than with this factor applied. That is from an area I am versed.

    I’m a little out of my area concerning a few branches of climate science. My life of learning has been in physical sciences, and though interrelated, when it gets into some specific branches, it is out of my league for the moment.

    I’ll be happy to review your paper (assuming at climaterealists.com) when I get a moment if you will accept possible points or criticisms. And your right, it is hard to handle all of this information while it is flowing by so fast!

  225. rbateman (21:02:26) :
    What bugs me about the way down on the Ice Age scale is sudden ups & downs. It was nice when things were very stable the last 30 yrs.
    There are also 19,000 and 23,000 and 40,000 year cycles together with the 100,000 year cycle, so combined it can be quite complex, plus the variations not driven by the M cycles [if any]. Climate change is a fact of life. Stable climate is unusual and will not last.

  226. Stephen Wilde (12:16:18) :

    I am going to translate into physics terms trying always to make your hypothesis correct, if possible. However, you need to answer one big question before I translate so we are on the same wavelength.

    Assuming CO2 does cause an increase in temperature in the troposphere, does the CO2 effect redistribute the energy already in the atmosphere between the troposphere and the upper layers, or does it cause a warmer Earth as a whole? Of coarse you cannot have a warmer Earth as a whole without either having a warmer sun or decreasing the summed albedo-like effects. Kirchhoff’s law. Period. Have you ever been able to imagine some way that CO2 acts as an albedo-like effect keeping some of the sun’s radiation from the system except by increased cloud coverage? What is your viewpoint, choice one, or two? (The answer affects how I translate your words in post 12:16:18)

  227. dick chambers (21:22:49) :

    I’ve seen a lot of strange graphs, but I’ve never seen anybody insist on having the y-axis extend down to zero, no matter what.

    What is inspiring you to do this?

  228. Stephen Wilde (12:16:18) : crx to: wayne (23:58:56) :
    My bad! A boolean state error :) Should have read:
    Have you ever been able to imagine some way that CO2 acts as an albedo-like effect retaining more of the sun’s radiation into the system except by a decrease in cloud coverage?

  229. Leif Svalgaard (21:13:26) :

    Stable climate is unusual and will not last.

    I couldn’t agree more, and as NASA planetary probles have shown, the condition is not confined to the Earth.

  230. wayne (01:08:34)

    C02 appears to hold more energy than various other gases and so delays the rate of transmission back out into space. I have seen it suggested that once CO2 is carrying the extra energy it radiates upward as much as downward and so would help to reduce the amount of solar energy getting into the oceans but I wouldn’t know how to quantify that.

    Thus it slows down the rate of energy transmission upwards and so adds energy to the layer in which it is situated, mostly the troposphere and perhaps reduces the amount of energy getting into the oceans by blocking some of the solar shortwave. That blocking process would be an albedo like effect and would offset at least partially the increase in energy in the system caused by the delay in loss of energy to space.

    In doing all that CO2 tries to create a divergence in temperature between surface air and ocean surface but cannot increase the temperature of the ocean bulk because CO2 only radiates longwave IR which fails to penetrate past the sea surface and just increases evaporation instead.

    The extra evaporation and enhanced convection speed up the hydrological cycle creating more cloud and rainfall which actually goes on to to reduce total global humidity (water vapour then spends a little less time in the air) until the optical depth is restored to that which is dictated by the temperature of the ocean bulk via it’s interaction with the sun.

    I’m still trying to refine the concept and find the best verbal description so your feedback is welcome. I’m not yet satisfied that I’ve got it exactly right but the idea seems to fit reality so far.

  231. Suranda (05:58:58) :
    Rippling waves in the northern part of the Sun as well (is this a new phenomenon?):
    These are artifacts in the data. Not real phenomena.

Comments are closed.