First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years

On the bright side, Sahara desert expansion might slow down or even reverse.

I am in two minds about this. One the one hand it appears (if I have my interpretation correct) that we are headed for a couple of decades of rather cold weather and that this is going to have some detrimental effects on global health and food production etc.
On the other hand it appears that a new mini ice age is about the only think that will convince people that Gaia of Warming does not exist and that we should return once again to scientific reasoning.
I think that we have been lucky that the Church of CAGW picked the late 20th century to pull this scam. If this had all kicked off as we were entering a few of decades of warming there would be no way to refute their mad computer generated claims since logic and scientific method have both been well and truly banned from the battlefield.

PaulR – you’ve got it backwards. The Sahara expands during cold periods and contracts during warm periods. Not only will the Sahara expand, the SW US, Australia, and other areas at the intersections of Midlatitude arid zones, Mediterranean zones and Subtropical arid zones, will be in dire straits, with megadroughts rife.

David Archibald has not been timid suggesting a big step down in in solar activity. He predicted this current cycle would be much less active, and he was right: The NASA prognosticators (who get paid to prognosticate) were saying, “Eh, it will be about the same as the last one” But even David Archibad was thinking Dalton-like minimum – This looks more and more like a Maunder magnitude minimum. The Grand Minimum correlates strongly with colder temperatures. We live in interesting times.

Way ahead of you. That’s why I moved from Denver back to Florida a couple years ago.

We just need to work out what we are doing to cause all this reduction in Sunspot activity. No doubt modern “science” will come up with some new reason justifying a few million in research into anthropogenic sunspot manufacture or whatever.

Isn’t it time we started to paint wind-mills black. Loads of ‘free’ energy and a decreased albedo. That’s a Win-Win scenario for when the next ice-age cometh, isn’t it?

On the other hand, it’s refreshing to see the forecast of doom for once focusing on too LITTLE of something instead of too much. Oh – and something completely and totally outside of possible human influence.

Yeah, it’s about time to shift back to ice age warnings. It seems the activists have extracted just about all they can from AGW, it’s been a really nice run.
Just look at the charts.
SELL!!!

PaulR says:
January 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm

On the bright side, Sahara desert expansion might slow down or even reverse.

You have it completely backwards–during the Ice Ages (aka “cold weather”), the earth was cold and because it was cold it was dusty and because it was dusty, the dust found its way into the oceans and onto the glaciers where it was preserved for us to study.
It’s documented.

sorry, make that show to be …

Randy says: January 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Way ahead of you. That’s why I moved from Denver back to Florida a couple years ago.”
Shhhhhhhhhhh. Too many here already.

How many people is the world projected to have by 2030? Going to be real interesting on how we feed them all.
Dr. Landscheidt is proving to be quite the solar genius…

The question that immediately comes to my mind is that if the solar “conveyor belt” is predictive of activity two cycles hence, what is the conveyor belt saying now about cycle 26?
Also, while the Sahara does tend to green when climate warms (because the ITCZ migrates farther Northward away from the equator), if climate is due to cool, the Southern edge of the Sahara will begin to dry out again as the ITCZ’s maximum summer location migrates Southward.

Pamela Gray says: “How does a low cycle translate into measurably cooler temperatures on the ground?”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/stephen-wilde-co2-or-sun-which-one-really-controls-earths-surface-temperatures/
Stephen Wilde does his best to hypotheize what may be driving the cooler temperatures observed in a prolonged period where the sun is quiescent. What can’t be disputed is the cold temperatures associated with the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. I don’t think anybody ought to pretend they have got it figured out – but Stephen Wilde’s observations and theories are a good start for an answer to your question.

Oh c’mon…we all know that the Sun and its activity don’t have anything to do with climate here on Earth! It’s all the Eeeeevile gas! And SUVs! And capitalism!
/sarc

Lawrie Ayres says:
January 25, 2012 at 6:54 pm
I find myself on the horns of a dilemma; I want a cold period so the great fraud and it’s perpetraters can be destroyed once and for all but fear for the widespread disruption to food supplies that such occurrence would precipitate.
______
This kind of thinking should be a huge red flag for you and others. It shows that are not really a skeptic in the true scientific sense of the word, as a true skeptic doesn’t “want” anything in particular to happen. What this kind of thinking shows is that your thought processes are guided by some burning desire to prove your “side” right, which is of course, more politically motivated and exactly as expected for a certain segment of those who would otherwise call themselves “skeptics”, but in reality, are nothing of the sort. You give true skeptics a bad reputation.

I can only marvel at the nonchalance on this subject (feigned no doubt) of the climate scientists who’ve built their careers around the pseudoscience of global warming. They must be sweating bullets over this. What I’m not clear on is when this is supposed to kick in sufficiently to effect climate? One chart seems to show sunspots will disappear around 2015. Can someone with a better handle on this set me straight?

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“The last of DA’s graphs seems to suggest that we had a Modern Warm Period because there was also a Modern Grand Maximum in sunspots. There is compelling evidence that the latter did not exist casting doubt on the association with the former, see e.g. http:// etc”
Dr. Svalgaard:
Your latest research shows that TSI has in fact been relatively constant for over a century. Within that TSI there are varying lightbands/energy bands.
There has been speculation that UV can and does change the pattern of the NH Jet Streams, as in the potential cause/effect of the Russian heat wave of 2010.
Is there a way to also reconstruct the spectrum within the TSI of the last century in order to better project future variations in climate that may be caused by the sun?
Not to be off topic, but this is a great website where Dr. Svalgaard takes the time to answer questions directed at him. A very learned man who is kind enough to share his information with folks who have questions.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1587

At any rate, there will be minimal influence on climate [IMHO].

I can understand why you say this, after having read your remarks here and materials on your site. The interesting thing, though, is an uncanny correlation between cycle length (not magnitude) and climate. This correlation goes back well into the 1800’s and correlates to both warming and cooling (not just one small 30 year period of warming the way CO2 correlates). There definitely appears to be something going on that couples Earth’s climate with solar cycle length. I believe Svensmark has the answer but we shall see in the coming years.

Leif, in what time-frame are we likely to see an adjusted international sunspot number series published and are there any plans to flesh out the early cycles with Vaquero’s recently unearthed records?

THIS confirms the view we and others expressed two years ago (and Timo Niroma years before that) and have since re-expressed, although maybe it is a bit ‘OTT’ (or perhaps one should say UTB – Under The Bottom on this). A Russian associate, Kirill Kuzanyan eg has also (mid-last year) suggested a low solar cycle 25.
It is ODD CYCLES (and odd cycles pretty well only) which control long term world average temperatures (nothing to do with CO2, Cosmic Rays to any extent or as far as we can see to any extent EVEN cycles) so this is an important projection.
Slide 17 in our submission to the UK Parliamentary inquiry into Dec 2010 supercold (which we predicted): suggests a Dalton type rather than this projected Maunder type minimum but I would say the our uncertainties (at this stage) do not rule that out.
See slide 17 on Presentation at
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=318&c=1
I agree the data input to get the result here is probably too small to give this prediction much confidence in terms of Dalton v Maunder levels but I have to ask; whatever happened to error bars? – are they saying 7+/- 1, 7+/-7, 7+10/-5 or what?
This result will probably generate even more ‘CO2 will still make us fry’ drivel which looks like being the main Dogma (in the sense of Papal DogmaS) emanating from the CO2 delusion sect for this and coming months – see also:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9016
Thanks Piers Corbyn
WeatherAction.com

Arrg. their own way.

David Archibald says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm :
“There is another sign that the end of the Modern Warm Period is at hand”
David, for whatever reason, the temp trend of the past 14 years has been one of cooling in the upper midwest.
I don’t see that changing in the near term future.
Food production is going to be a critical issue. During the past warm period production was consistently rising. Now that it is cooling off, production variables have increased.

R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
1) the sunspot number is artificially too high [inflated] by 20 after 1945.
“Indeed, but in pointing this out, you are taking away the last best hope of skeptics who’d like to find something…anything…to pin the late 20th century warming on other than the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.”
No, he is contesting claims about proxies with evidence. That is good scientific method. If it had been applied to the Hockey Stick by reviewers, no one would have talked about a so-called “late 20th century warming.” Proxies are the only thing resembling empirical science that warmists have produced. Yet no Warmist proxies were subjected to empirical validation. Warmist climate science is entirely “a priori.”

SteveSadlov said…”Not only will the Sahara expand, the SW US, Australia, and other areas at the intersections of Midlatitude arid zones, Mediterranean zones and Subtropical arid zones, will be in dire straits, with megadroughts rife.”
Is there some sources one could look at to find out more about this?

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:19 pm
R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“4) it is therefore not correct to associate the modern warming with a [non-existent] modern grand solar activity maximum”
Indeed, but in pointing this out, you are taking away the last best hope of skeptics who’d like to find something…anything…to pin the late 20th century warming on other than the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
Which explains the hostility towards what I say. but that ‘last best hope’ is just wishful thinking [as you say ‘something….anything’]. One should not let what one wishes to happen control the science [this goes both ways…].
This is a recent invited talk http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf on sun-climate given during a Workshop in Japan for an audience of climate scientists. They didn’t like it either, as the AGW crowd also needs the sun to explain climate variations before SUVs.
————
Dr. Svalgaard,
I am embarrassed to admit I’ve not followed your work in detail, but certainly will hence forth. I would especially be interested to get your viewpoints on the connections between solar activity and climate. Through my readings and study I’ve come to the conclusion that there certainly is a modulation of climate that is correlated with solar activity at different frequencies (up to and including things like Bond events) and is connected to frequencies off the Hale cycle, but so noted by others that correlation is not causation! Also However, I am strongly convinced that the buildup of greenhouse gases over the last few hundred years is finally (perhaps since mid to late 20th century) beginning to dominate over the influence of the solar connection.
I’d be genuinely interested to hear your “big picture” perspective on these issues. Do you have such a broad stroke paper on your website?

Our large collection of climate models is going to experience a severe test (as they use the phrase “severe test”, or “stringent test”, etc.) these next few decades. It should be an exciting time for science lovers, sociologists of science, philosophers of science and all.

Personally I don’t believe Solar activity is a major direct cause of natural climate variability.
If, instead, it has more to do with the relative distances, eccentricity and/or alignment of several planets (and perhaps the Sun and Moon) in relation to Earth, then it is understandable that there may be a broad temporal correlation if such planets are also contributing to Solar activity. But their alignment with the Sun will have different timing (though perhaps similar periodicity) to their alignment with Earth. Of course astronomers could clarify all this.
This could explain the apparent lag wherein sunspots hit a maximum around 1950 and yet temperatures did so in 1998. There could easily have been a 50 year lag around the time of the Little Ice Age / Maunder Minimum also without us really noticing due to data uncertainty.
The 60 year cycle gives a better indication of possible cause, I believe, as it does appear to correlate with the Jupiter / Saturn resonance cycle which has periodicity 59.6 years. So, if planets can cause this cycle, they can also cause the ~1000 year cycle and maybe others.
Notice also how the 60 year cycle shows up when gradients of temperatures are plotted, as is done here with running monthly 30 year trends: http://climate-change-theory.com/360month.jpg
I don’t think we will ever detect a clear 60 year cycle in solar activity, so it should only be considered a broad indication of long term (~1,000 year) cycles.
Besides, nothing else in the data suggests that the current ~1,000 year cycle will collapse to a minimum within 100 to 200 years. We would expect the decline to take about 500 years after the maximum has been passed.
This is why I like the near linear trend line (slightly declining) in the above plot of rates of increase. The current rate is about 0.06 deg.C /decade, but it is declining and should start to decline even a little more (being cyclic itself) so I generally feel it is pointing to a maximum within about 100 to 200 years, after which the 500 year decline should start. This would nicely extrapolate the ~1000 year cycle as would be expected: Max in 12th century, Min in 17th century, Max in 22nd century, Min in 27th century.

R. Gates:
Welcome to the world of a skeptic. One who tries to stay current on knowledge and understands the implications of using kowledge.
My wish to you is to share it with others.

Hi, from a big fan of WUWT in the Middle East. I’m up on the Straits of Hormoz where I run a port. While it maybe hotting up politically around here, the temperatures have been freezing of late with snow on the mountain tops – We are only a couple hours north of Dubai…..
http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/it-has-snowed-once-again-in-the-uae-exactly-three-years-later-2012-01-25-1.439536

Just as I was skeptical of prediction of solar cycle 24 and global warming, I’m skeptical of this. I’ll keep my eye on it, but the only rational response to such an early prediction is skepticism and a request for more data.

It’s awful to think that we experienced universal incompetence in our observation of sunspots from 1945 right up until, umm… quite recently.
Fortunately we have people working hard to forge a new historical consensus: a recount.

Leif is mostly correct about no modern maximum, the Waldmeier factor along with other changes to the modern method have raised cycles since at least 1945. But the L&P predictions and logic is basically wrong. Both their SC24 and SC25 predictions will be found to be incorrect as it is based on bad principle. L&P have only managed to show us there are more specks during this as yet unnamed possible grand minimum. They count every speck with the same weighting as large spots, more specks drive the magnetic value down.
AMP theory which has hindcast correctly grand minima through the Holocene suggests SC24/25 will be around 50SSN each (LSC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
“This image was created by Robert A. Rohde from the published data listed below and replaces an image created by William M. Connolley. It is part of the Global Warming Art project.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
“This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde and is part of the Global Warming Art project.”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon-14_with_activity_labels.png
“This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
“All data are from publicly available sources.”
(red trace) Carbon 14 record: http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04%20files/intcal04.14c
400 years of sunspot “observations” showing peaks that need to be ironed out after 1945 if carbon dioxide is to be blamed for all the modern “forcing”:
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/images/sunspot_num_graph_sm.gif
A “forcing” applied to the low number in the current cycle might also be a good idea. Cough.
Call me a cynic.

@PiersCorbyn
“Dec 2010 supercold (which we predicted)”
I note that you also predicted a Dec 2011 supercold. Win some, lose some, eh?

R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“Indeed, but in pointing this out, you are taking away the last best hope of skeptics who’d like to find something…anything…to pin the late 20th century warming on other than the 40% rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution”
Gates, here is the BEST example of a fellow warmists of yours, who turned sceptic;
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

I have to disagree with SteveSadlov on the current state of australia at least.
LaNina periods produce much more rainfall in Australia. Most of Australia suffered recurrent drought through most of the ElNino periods culminating in more than 10 years of not quite drought ending in late 2009.
Since the end of the predominant ElNinos and the swing back to LaNina conditions Australia has had heavy rainfalls which lifted dam capacity from less than 15% in many areas to >65% by mid 2010 to >>200% by mid 2011 – remember the widespread flooding and for a third summer in a row heavy rainfall with widespread flooding in January 2012.
Also, the last major flood event in Eastern Australia occurred in a LaNina year – 1974 – with all the flood events I can recall being during LaNina conditions and all droughts during ElNinos.
Australia has no drought conditions to speak of at present – all cities’ dams have better eserves than for years and there is the high likelihood of further flooding – the last 2 weeks have delivered falls of hundreds on millimetres with up to 200 mm in less than 6 hours on the Sunshine Coast on Tuesday Jan 24.
I don’t see further reduced rainfall for Australia for some time unless we get a sharp reversal back to extreme ElNino in the future. I predict this will not happen soon.

Having long had a radio amateur’s interest in solar activity, I do hope that estimate is wrong. It’s hard enough hearing any stations as it is, through the ear-battering pollution of the shortwave spectrum by the thousands of switchmode power supplies, digital knickknacks, CFL’s and so on which now surround us, and the signals need every dB of help the sun can give.
Incidentally (and I’m not getting at Leif here, as I have great respect for genuine science), it’s been a long time irritation to me that I was only 8 in 1959, when the peak – corrected down or not – was undoubtedly a humdinger. I’ve been reading stories about impossibly long distances worked with impossibly low powers since before I got my ‘ticket; in ’71, and jealousy is a terrible thing – the worse as I’m a low power enthusiast myself.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:53 am
So, the observations are that we are losing the small spots [that make up the bulk of the sunspot number].
Then what we need is solid empirical evidence that this occurring? A comparison of past cycles with a speck ratio to spots that would have been counted by Wolf and SC24. I very much doubt this exists.

R. Gates says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Take a closed container of air at room temperature and inject into it sufficient CO2 to raise the CO2 concentration to 5,000 PPM. After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?

PaulR says:
January 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm
On the bright side, Sahara desert expansion might slow down or even reverse.
—
It reversed something like a decade ago.

I am the guy who harps on but one thing: The lowering of solar magnetic activity will at some point soon result of the permanent loss of the Solar Wind. This happened for two days in 1999:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/
The Ice Ages will then have solid science to explain their occurrences.

Can I ask a simple question which has been niggling me for a while and I haven’t found the answer. In the umbral magnetic field graph there are blue solid circles and red hollow circles some of which are more or less in the same place but in the later ones clearly separated – why and what is the difference

Sure it’s probably not TSI, but disappearing sunspots are a clue, as are the ‘large, sparse, and primarily southern hemispheric sunspots’ during the Maunder Minimum. I’m beginning to understand the ‘large and sparse’ given L-P’s work, but why ‘primarily southern hemispheric’? C’mon, Leif, find it.
===================

[Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:33 am
Now that the usual pseudo-scientists have begun to rear their heads, it is time for me to yield the forum to their nonsense, as no serious discussion can be had. I have made my points for consumption as people see best. Let then the thread deteriorate into the swamp where (solar)threads always end up.]
Great verbage. Too funny. Would you give me permission to use this quote (substituting any conflicted subject matter for solar)?

With the current government focus on CO2 caused warming, being done since it allows the government to regulate and tax more human activity, it is impossible for the government to even acknowledge the possibility of cooling, and thus prepare for it. I expect that when (not if) it comes, governments and their parasitic “experts” will blame it on CO2 somehow. In other words, they will take actions that will make it harder, in many cases a lot harder, for us to cope with the cold. When people get angry about that, they will take the usual actions, find someone, anyone, to blame. Usual result, opponents disappear in the night, foreign countries blamed with possible tensions and even wars to follow, suspensions of freedoms “for the duration of the emergency (forever), etc. It will be like the French reaction to the little ice age famines, in the name of freedom they ushered in killings and war and dictatorship. If the weather changes, blame the witches, that always works. And Jews of course, mustn’t forget to blame the Jews, tradition.
This has all happened before and will happen again (unless the wars get out of hand and nukes are used).

Leif, have you done any research on the correlation between spotless days and the climate?

Dr. Leif Svalgaard,
Can you do this layman a favor with regard to the following questions ?
1. If the TSI is constant, why do I care about cycles ?
2. Someone stated that the TSI had been “relatively” constant for the past 100 years. It is still a challenge I believe to made a detector that is both accurate at any frequency, let alone one that is flat over a wide range of frequencies. How can this statement be made with regard the the sun’s emissions over the range of DC to gamma rays, going back to 1912 ?
3. Does the solar wind have any net charge effect on the upper atmosphere or do all positively and negatively chagred particles net to zero charge ?
4. Do all these particles result in significant mass being added to the atmosphere ? Likewise,
does anyone calculate this energy input (highly energetic particle with mass) to the earth’s energy budget ??
5. By what means is the solar magnetic flux measured and what is the expected accuracy ?
Your answers appear to be measured and to the point, and in some cases patient, something many of us appreciate I am sure

Oldjim says:
January 26, 2012 at 5:42 am
Can I ask a simple question which has been niggling me for a while and I haven’t found the answer. In the umbral magnetic field graph there are blue solid circles and red hollow circles some of which are more or less in the same place but in the later ones clearly separated – why and what is the difference
___________________________________________________
The solid circles are yearly median and the hollow circles are yearly mean.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:19 pm
One should not let what one wishes to happen control the science [this goes both ways…].
This is a recent invited talk http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf on sun-climate given during a Workshop in Japan for an audience of climate scientists. They didn’t like it either, as the AGW crowd also needs the sun to explain climate variations before SUVs.

Leif,
For those scientists and advocates in the study of climate who are committed toward a certain cause [anthropogenic or solar or other] of the behavior of modern climate, I think they suffer the most fundamental of circular argumentation fallacies. They bring prior conclusions to their analyses and interpretations.
John

Looks like my little example on blockquoting lost the brackets on both sides of the “blockquote” and “/blockquote” in the third paragraph, but you can find them as the upper case comma and period, respectively. Try it out–you’ll only be embarrassed a time or two and then you’ll have it right!

Joke–Dear Leif: We might be pseudos but never underestimate the wisdom of distributed processing: …It’s what voted in Obama!
I was impressed with Brian Cox’s ‘Wonders of the Solar Sytem’. What stuck in my head was his visit to the Iguazu (sp?) River. He stated that the river (level or flow rate??) tracks sunspots. He stated that there was no known connection. I discussed it here @ WUWT and asked Lief why this was not interesting. He said correlation is not causation. While the Iguazu does, many or nearly all rivers, including the Amazon don’t. Made sense to me…but……why does the Iguazu track Sunspots?? I puzzled it but dropped it but often wondered about this. It would have to be an anomaly that only affected that particular feeder area of the Iguazu. What on earth could it be? So i’m sitting, minding my own business watching a youtube clip below. It seems that, the Hubble was having trouble with a couple of instruments….but only over Brazil/Argentina (..or in the ‘neck of the woods. NASA gave this patch which affected their instruments a name: .the Sourth Atlantic Anomaly. To prevent this, Nasa switched off the instruments while Hubble flew through the South Atlantic Anomaly. Brian Cox suggested, and it’s been discussed here, that perhaps there is a as yet unknown component linking Sunspots to precipitation. What is different about that region is that it has the weakest magnetic field on earth, So, perhaps, the phenomenon driving the Iguazu is as much to do with the Sun as it is the local oddities in earth’s magntic field. Here is the clip. The part relevant to the above is @ 00.43 and from then on. Thx..

Surprised Leif didn’t bite on Scarfetta’s recent offerring. I understand he was Japan bound but was looking forward to him getting involved.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply

I’m confused. Ok, correlation is not causation. That’s clear. But the lack of sunspots during the maunder and dalton minimums (minima?) happening to coincide with very cold climates. especially the maunder…seems quite a neat coincidence. I also note that long range forecasters I follow and respect…including Joe B. and Joe D…..use even brief low solar periods as a wild card for cold.
I note also that the sporer minimum from about 1460-1550 also coincided with cold temps. Do we have examples of a solar minimum that hasn’t been correlated with a cool climate?
.

Thanks for the reply Leif.
Leif says: “People who claim the ‘uncanny’ correlation are happy using the HadCru data [or the GISS or whatever, they don’t differ much], so I’ll just as happily use the same data to show there is no correlation [with or without a lag].”
Good answer.
Thanks M.A.Vukcevic for the graphs – Unfortunately it doesn’t help me to know that they all agree closely, as the organisations involved all are under the same auspices. We are left to assume trustworthiness from people proven untrustworthy. I asked the question because I wanted to know if Leif took that into account. It looks like he considers it’s ok if everyone’s using the same data. Thats fair enough for what I wanted to know.
Maybe its just how I’ve come to view it but, with regard to both Sun forecasting and Climate forecasting I think that the theorised variables seem to be uncomfortably stuck in the realms of supposition, and that the theorists thrive on this being the case. It all seems to be lacking in objective (dare I say ‘idiot-proofed’) science.

JJ says:
“Leif Svalgaard says:
655 AD and 2008 AD”
2008?
Give it a chance, Leif. Rome wasn’t frozen in a day.
>>>>>
That was my reaction. This seems weak to me. . I’m not smart enough to grasp the science, and that makes me humble. But I’m troubled by what appear to be pretty compelling coincidence whereby solar minima seem pretty well correlated with cold climates. How about if we look at it the other way? Generally speaking, are solar maxima correlated with warm periods?

@R. Gates You’re making the mistake of assuming that an active sun with spot activity is the normal state, since there is no recorded data from the last maximum extent of glaciation approximately 18,000 years ago, you can’t possibly know the state of the sun during this period, was it quiet? is a prolonged quiet sun a normal and frequent occurrence?
Did the Ice ages happen? if so, What in your opinion caused the ice ages?
Do you also subscribe to the alternative theory (new age drivel, picking up on Velikovsky’s “Nemesis” theory) for the frequent occurrence of ice ages on earth? from none other than one of your fellow Cagw enthusiast Richard Muller, which hypothesizes that our sun being a binary star system with a red dwarf star and as it periodically orbits closer to our sun it disturbs the Oort cloud sending comets hurtling towards the earth, and the collision of these comets cause the ice ages and extinctions.

M. A. Vukcevik: Here is a detailed 350 year long temperature – sunspot record.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-CET.htm
Make your own mind.
Could you provide us with a graph of temp vs sunspot number, with the points connected showing chronology?

About the Parana River and Sunspots:
Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River
Pablo J. D. Mauas*Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio (CONICET-UBA), C.C. 67 Sucursal 28, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina Eduardo Flamenco
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologı´a Agropecuaria, Rivadavia 1439, 1033, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Andrea P. Buccino Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio, (CONICET-UBA), C.C. 67 Sucursal 28, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina
(Received 18 April 2008; published 17 October 2008)
Solar forcing on climate has been reported in several studies although the evidence so far remains inconclusive. Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana´ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with the sunspot number, in multidecadal time scales, and with larger solar activity corresponding to larger stream flow. The correlation coefficient is r ¼ 0:78, significant to a 99% level. In shorter time scales we find a strong correlation with El Nin˜o. These results are a step toward flood prediction, which might have great social and economic impacts.
http://www.giurfa.com/reprint_parana.pdf

“And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.”
[snip]
Solar activity has been on a long-term quiet trend for almost a century. The “Modern Warm Period” (gawd, that is soooo WUWT), has been getting warmer. Using the sun-worshippers’ mantra, when the belt goes to zero, the warm turns to broil.
“The Modern Warm Period” ….. hahahahaaa ….

It’s funny, but I can’t find any warmists who are willing to take my bet that the next five years will see cooling, not warming. I don’t get it. They’re all so convinced. I have the feeling they think I’m trying to pull a fast one on them whereby they’ll lose on some unforeseen technicality.

We seem to be having a rash of “The science is not settled” admissions from folks in the field. Hansen goes back and post adjusts past observed results downwards for GISSTemp, despite vociferous claims by his disciples like Algore, of a settled science. Then Mann dismisses the Little ice age, and the mediaeval warm period, to tape up the kinks in his hockey stick handle.
Now we find out that the modern warm period was not a real modern warm period after all.
I’m most disappointed to find out that 1957/8 sunspot peak may just have been another ho hum sunspot peak, and not the all time observed record. I really thought it was neat that those who pre-planned the International Geophysical year for 1957/58 (I was there) were geniusses to pick on the biggest sunspot peak of all time; and now we know it was all a bust.
Ah well we can all look forward to some more sane period, when the science will really be settled.

Thermal lag Leif, thermal lag.

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 26, 2012 at 10:42 am
“655 AD and 2008 AD”
Ah Ha! I knew there was a 1353 year cycle in there somewhere! 🙂

JJ says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:52 am
R. Gates says:
This kind of thinking should be a huge red flag for you and others. It shows that are not really a skeptic in the true scientific sense of the word, as a true skeptic doesn’t “want” anything in particular to happen. What this kind of thinking shows is that your thought processes are guided by some burning desire to prove your “side” right, which is of course, more politically motivated and exactly as expected for a certain segment of those who would otherwise call themselves “skeptics”, but in reality, are nothing of the sort. You give true skeptics a bad reputation.
You know Gates, those are some very strong and uncharitable words you have directed at Lawrie Ayres. Do you really believe that Ayres’ comment demonstrates a lack of functional objectivity, or are you just shoring up your own poorly supported worldview by charicaturing the opposition? Red flag? Politically motivated? Bad reputation? Do you honestly believe that?
R. Gates has a small… so he make up for it by elevating his arrogant elitist front. Combining all his remarks at this blog results in a single theme: big head and little…

Article on the Vaal River and link to sunspot activity:
http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/Alexander%20-%20Causal%20linkages%20between%20solar%20activity%20and%20climatic%20responses.pdf

Leif: The cycle variation of TSI is more than a hundred times larger than the measurement error, so the cycles show up very clearly, but still only make a temperature signal of less than 0.1C.
What do you consider to be the strongest solar influence on earth climate. What other solar objects respond similarly as to ascertain it is a solar affect? What change in solar activity and to what extent would solar activity have to be to significantly modify a permanent measurable change in temperatures, given all else equal. And, what galactic influences are moderated by the sun that influence climate?

Leif: What is your opinion on the CLOUD experiment and how does it connect to our magnetic field with respect to climate. What affect does the magnetic field have on atmosphere density and global climate?
If you were to think of the many variables that could change global temperatures, how many would that be and how would they be weighted? It would seem to me that it is too chaotic with too many unknowns to be prevent any real accurate sense of future climate.

I found this link in relation to an earlier paper you published. Does it have any merit or is it just flaming?
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
REPLY: well, when they use labels like “crazed denialist” instead of addressing the science, you can be pretty sure its just flaming – Anthony

The discussion here suggests to me that the current proxy, terrestrial and satellite measurement values for TSI over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that the sun is unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts over that period. Some historical records add to the basis of the argument.
The current proxy, thermometer and satellite measurement values for GMT (Global Mean Temp) over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that mankind is unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts.
The current proxy, terrestrial and satellite measurement values for global mean atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years provides a reasonable basis for arguing that all sources of CO2 combined are unlikely to be the dominate factor in climate shifts over that period. Arguably, all sources of CO2 combined may not reasonably be expected to be a significant factor in climate shifts.
All of the above leads me to suggest that the scientific community needs significantly more research by truly independent scientists (a.k.a. skeptics), as opposed to those IPCC centric scientists who believe they are on the side of a ‘cause’ that have dominated the climate alarmism for the last +25 years.
John

Leif writes: “The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has anything to do with the sun.”
Look Doctor Svalgaard, I greatly appreciate your patience and courtesy. I respect that you’re willing to engage in a dialogue. Most scientists of the AGW persuasion don’t have the courage. Of course they’ll say they can’t be bothered to waste their time with a bunch of flat-earthers and fossil fuel shills, but the truth is they won’t debate because they’re afraid. You on the other hand are brimming with confidence. It’s a nice change.
I’ll leave it at this, doctor. In support of your thesis that solar minima do not cause a cooler climate, you’ve submitted into evidence the current relatively warm climate. You mentioned that (2008) as 1 of 2 minima not associated with cold temps. And yet you’ve also just stated that even if we do get cold…and according to the long range weather guys who’ve far and away had the most success in this area, we are engaged in that very process as we speak…. it will have nothing to do with the sun. This strikes me as attempting to have it both ways. Heads you win and tails I lose.
One sees this all the time in the AGW wars. NO matter what happens in the real world, no matter how inconvenient the data, no matter how poor the predictions, their hypothesis is always right.
The years pass and weather eventually become climate. I think we can at least agree it will be interesting to watch what happens.

pokerguy
You [Leif] mentioned that (2008) as 1 of 2 minima not associated with cold temps
=======
In the same way that the 1778 solar max is associated with conspicuous warmth, 2008 is associated with a conspicuous chill. Here’s a tip of the iceberg…
2008
Why winter no longer exists. – Express (UK), Feb, 2008
Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts – Telegraph UK, May 2008
Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years – Evening Standard, Oct 29, 2008
The Planet Gets Cooler in ’08. Say What? – Time, Dec 16, 2008
The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’ – Telegraph UK, Dec 19, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2009
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html
http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-long-will-cold-snap-last.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2010
Snow hits Mediterranean coast – BBC, 9 March 2010
Quiet Sun Puts Europe on ice – NewScientist, April 14, 2010
Alice Springs: coldest day on record – Telegraph UK , Jul 06, 2010
Antarctic cold snap kills nine in Argentina – BBC, July 18, 2010
Peru declares emergency over cold weather – BBC, July 24, 2010
Argentina Colder Than Antarctica Raises Power Imports – Bloomberg Aug 03, 2010
The UK has just endured its coldest August for 17 years – DailyMail, September 01, 2010
Snow, wind and rain whip eastern Australia – ABC, October 16, 2010
Army moves in to clear away snow in coldest December for 100 years – Daily Mail, Dec9, 2010
Tuesday coldest day ever recorded in Ireland – Irish Times, Dec 24, 2010
Coldest December in Sweden in 110 years – The Local (Sweden), Dec 26, 2010
Heavy snow grips northern China – Telegraph UK, Dec 29, 2010
Winter may be coldest in 1000 years – DailyStar (UK), Dec 30, 2010
Melbourne shivers through coldest December in years – The Age (au), Dec 31, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George E,. Smith (Jan 26, 2:02 pm),
1) thanks for being there! Your comment prompted me to look around. And I found:
2) Annals of The International Geophysical Year 1958
http://nsidc.org/rocs/archives-catalog/?p=digitallibrary/digitalcontent&id=339
— sunspot diagrams for each day in 1958 (Volume XXI, left table)

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm
The climate changes all the time. I do not dismiss the cold coming, just that it has anything to do with the sun.
———–
But neither is the climate is a random walk, and though it may be a complicated puzzle with many interrelated and dynamics pieces, just as we have slowly figured out the various dynamics that make up the operations of the human body, so too, the climate puzzle is slowly being revealed through the hard work of thousands of scientists. In term of some cold period coming– I would not count on it. A flattening of global tempersture rises does not a cold period make. All indications are that the main thrust of the 21st century will be to higher and higher tempertures with ever increasing greenhouse gases as the underlying cause.

Gates, with regards to your 21st century outlook there is something else going on besides man made GHG & CO2. Volcanic activities began picking up in 1995. Really 1991 if you want to count Pinatubo and Cerro Hudson. The stratosphere hasn’t been blasted for any multi-year period by large eruptions yet and is clear. That is completely different at lower altitudes. For example the recent Iceland volcanoes didn’t make stratosphere at all really. Same in Chile, same in most other regions. I believe the low altitude volcanic aerosols and gasses cause much of the low altitude warming.
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/explosive-volcanic-eruptions-triggered-by-cosmic-rays-volcano-as-a-3p053jxP0S

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:42 am
Geoff Sharp says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:04 am
The two cycles you compare are not taken from the same portion of the wave.
—————————————
Rational thought and ocean thermal inertia dictate that comparing one or two cycles is not reasonable. You must compare many more, say 10.
That is exactly what I have been describing. If we look at the preceding cycles you are comparing two distinctly different aspects of the Gleissberg curve (if you prefer to call it that). This is one of the fundamental flaws of your analysis (opinion).
Compare 1720-1800 to 1920-2000.
You need to compare 1820-1900 to 1920-2000 to position your chosen cycles correctly. Your logic is false. The difference is plainly visible to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. The graphs in your own referred pdf are clearly showing the same differences in trend.
I don’t wish to change your opinion, but when that opinion doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny it must be pointed out in the interests of proper science, especially as you are regarded as having some expertise on this forum. This is my only agenda.

Leif,
I overlayed the SSN graph from wikipedia over the CET graph that you referenced:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
overlay:SunCET
Open the two graphs in separate tabs, then flip between tabs.
Note the underlying correlation in trends and direction of trends, with the most extreme spikes typically aligning with cycles. Not a bad case for the sun.
Thanks.