Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?

Guest post by Matti Vooro

English: Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2011/...

Image via Wikipedia

I fully support the findings of  Jan –Erik Solheim , Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum and their very recent paper called The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24  dated February 2012. The abstract reads:

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

Before finding the above paper on WUWT, I had recently done a similar and slightly different analysis.

I took the Annual sunspot numbers for each year since 1900 and noted the solar maximums and solar minimums. I also noted all the years around the solar maximums that had sunspot numbers over say 60-70.  These solar active periods around the solar maximums can last as many as 3-5 years . Then I lagged the data by 9 years. Then I looked at the global temperature anomalies Hadcrut3gl for the all the actual years and noted the associated and lagged sunspot numbers. I then added and noted the El Nino active years using the ONI index.

I discovered that global temperatures were rising during the years around the lagged solar active period around the solar maximum and they were down during the period around the lagged solar minimum. Also there were El Ninos at the beginning or during the lagged active sun or solar active or maximum period.  In another words  the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American  west coast [and other upwelling locations] and  ultimately  contributes  to the  warming of the  EL Nino area Pacific waters  and modifies the  PDO spatial patterns  or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America .

Similar event happens in the Atlantic as indicated by the AMO. The longer solar cycles means fewer solar active periods or maximums and less heating 9 years later. A series of short solar cycles in a row will cause more frequent heating and the PDO and AMO will both turn positive or warm simultaneously causing what we now refer to as global warming. The extended global cooling happens when there are series of longer solar cycles with lower maximums.  Co2 seems to have little or negligible effect on these large natural cycles. Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.

Thus our long term climate  is all in the cycles of  sun lagged  about 9 [ 9-11]years later in its effect and  interacting with the oceans  which then in turn affect our atmosphere 9-11 year later.

Since we are now in the equivalent lagged year[2012-9=2003] and will next experience the solar effects of the decline of solar cycle #23 [the solar  period of  2000 to 2008 ], we can expect cooler weather for at least 6 years   plus another nine years   after the next  warming effect of  the  solar active period of  cycle #24 [ maximum around  2013  to 2014.] So I see no significant warming for 20 years at least [2030 earliest]. This is what ocean cycles like PDO predict and what the 60 year climate cycle predicts but now we may possibly have one of many hypothesis of how the sun does all this.

The El Nino around 2009-2010 was the effect of the last solar maximum of cycle #23 [around 200-2001].

This brief article was meant to  continue the debate about the exact mechanism of how our sun affects our global climate It does not answer all the questions and may pose others.

About these ads

192 thoughts on “Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?

  1. Mayans used to have the same problems with fitting reality into Theory, but of course on a less informed level.

  2. ” It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. ”

    Is the extra solar radiation referred to in this quote primarily due to the sun putting out more solar energy during the solar maximum or is it due to the sun’s increased magnetic fields more efficiently shielding earth from cosmic rays during the solar maximum, leading to fewer clouds reflecting sunshine back into space? [Svensmark has theorized that cosmic-ray muons create charged electrons in the atmosphere that promote the formation of molecular clusters. These clusters lead to the formation of more cloud nuclei, and thus more clouds, than would be the case if the muons were absent.]

  3. Hey, no charts? :D
    In my opinion, solar activity and ocean cycles are like quantum theory and theory of relativity in physics – describing the same from different sides but nobody managed to fit them together yet.

  4. It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic.

    Do you have evidence to support this?

    I couldn’t find any.

    I did find a paper that is relevant to the ARGO discussion. The intensity of the hydrological cycle in the tropics increases at solar maximum – more clouds and rain. Which indicates that surface water heating doesn’t occur (in response to increased solar radiation).

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/vanloon_solar.pdf

  5. If this theory will be verified in future, we will have a mechanism of climate prediction very useful and interesting.

    Anyway, we will know the real driver (the sun) but we will still remain partially ignorant on all the other elements and their influence on the earth climate.

  6. Matti: David Archibald had a post the other week on what looks to be an unlagged response between solar activity and sea level. In the comments, I offered a suggestion as to how it might be possible to square an unlagged sea level response to what seems to by a lag in the global surface temperature response of about a solar cycle, but I don’t know enough about ocean circulation properties to know if my suggestion has any plausibility. You seem to know about ocean circulation, so I’ll repaste my speculation here. Any thoughts?

    How to square this mostly contemporaneous correlation between solar activity and sea level with the 7 to 15 year lags that many other researchers have found between solar activity and temperature?

    Could make sense under the GCR-cloud theory, where solar activity reduces the formation of sun blocking clouds. That would allow more direct solar melting of ice and snow, having a particularly immediate effect on sea level, while temperature effects could somehow take longer to show up.

    Immediate melting effects might even explain WHY temperature effects take longer to show up, if the melted snow and ice have the effect of cooling the ocean surface. Freshwater is less dense, correct? So does it spread out on the ocean surface? The question then would be whether it is actually colder than the salt ocean water, which has a lower freezing point, and hence COULD be colder than the melt water in northern climes. Melting glaciers that outflow at lower latitudes would certainly cool the ocean.

    Anyone familiar with the relevant details?

    The ocean process described in the current post is quite different, but maybe not incompatible?

  7. It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe.

    I’m sorry but this statement is yet another version of the deeply unphysical “Trenberth downwelling of warm water process”. It’s wrong at every level.

    The real warming process would be to take extra warm water from the subtropics and move it towards the poles. No “downwelling of warm water” required.

  8. Apparently there are more volcanic eruptions at the solar minima, and since the long cycles are accompanied by prolonged low SS numbers and the volcanic eruptions lower the temperatures then there may be some sense to it, otherwise not.
    It also can be shown that a cycle raise temperatures by 0.1C, then the effect of a long cycle would last longer so it would neutralise volcanic factor.
    What do you suggest as mechanism for lowering the temperatures?

  9. Alec Rawls,
    You question is one I think that would interest Willis, he has one foot in the ocean and continually bathes the other.

  10. Once you realise that the Sun can heat the Earth to much higher temperatures than the supposed minus 18 C and that the solar insolation is not the miserable 170 W/sqm average 24/7 then you realise the obvious truth – the atmosphere and oceans keep the Earth’s surface cooler than it would otherwise be because air heated by contact with the surface convects to the upper atmosphere and is replaced by cooler air and so on till the Sun sets.

    The “greenhouse effect” as postulated does not exist and backradiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface as described – the turbulent convecting air and water evaporation act to reduce the surface temperature.

    Anyone who has not been hoodwinked can see the simple truth of this and evidence exists to support the explanation. This evidence is the fact the Sun can heat the Moon’s surface to well over 107 C – even sans “greenhouse gases”. If the radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface is say half that of the Solar constant – a figure the IPCC regularly quote – there is no possibility of “backradiation” increasing the Earth’s surface temperature or atmospheric temperature also – the atmosphere acts to reduce the heating during the day – therefore no “greenhouse effect” as postulated.

    At night there is no solar insolation but there is residual heat from the daytime stored in the land mass, the oceans and atmosphere. As convection slows down so does the rate of heat loss and as it radiates out to space the Earth spins and the cycle begins again.

    The greenhouse effect does not exist and is an unnecessary complication to explain an incorrect way of viewing the so called energy balance.

    Simple physics satisfactorily explains the surface temperature of Earth without any need for magical properties associated with trace gases.

  11. But the IPCC Bible says we understand all the climate (“and then ye shall know that the lord your god is c02″) , so I dont know what variations in the sun have to do with earth temperatures.

  12. For any one who doubts the impact of solar insolation on climate a student of mine undertook her doctoral work examining the historical evidence for the Kondratief cycle. She collected a number of proxies for economic activity including tin output from the Cornish tin mines from the early medieval period, battle fatalities from the 15th century and bread output from the manors of central England for the same period. There was no evidence of the 60-70 year cycle that kondratief proposed but there was a clear, medium strength cycle centered, if memory serves me correctly, around 11.4 years. The study demonstrated a close correlation with the sunspot cycle both to my satisfaction and to those of her external examiners. For a variety of reasons the research, whilst of the highest quality, was never followed up. However, those results collected some 20 years ago convinced me that although the variability in solar radiation as measured at the TOA might be small its impact upon climate, agricultural yields and the substitution of labour effort in the economy is very significant. Given this, we should be very worried about the consequences of a quiet sun on the climate and the potential loss of agricultural capacity.

    Ref: Davies, G.M., (1995) Long cycles: with particular reference to Kondratfiefs, unpublished PhD, Hartley library, Southampton, UK.

  13. I’ve studied the AMO in some detail (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO-NAO.htm ) so I find your claim about 9 year delay a bit odd and in a conflict with the known data.
    The AMO oscillates with the 9 year period (I attribute this to the lunisolar cycle’s oceans tidal effect, but have no proof), and since the SSN cycle is ~ 11 years two cycles drift in and out of phase. The effect is clearly shown in this illustration:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GISS-spec.htm

    but the phase coincidence (or the counter-phase) doesn’t correspond with either the warming or cooling periods.

  14. Posted on February 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts
    Guest post by Matti Vooro

    The abstract reads: “Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle.”

    The relevant dimension here is a frequency [1/s = Hz], not ‘a cycle in (Earth) years’. For the purposes of lower frequencies we can make use of the frequency dimension [1/year = 1 Kp *)] which is a factor of 3.155569088.8 * 10^7 smaller than 1 [Hz].
    *) Kp stands for Kepler.

    It is well known from literature that the main frequency of the sun spots is 11.196 years^-1 or 0.0893176 Kp. This frequency is not involved in the spectrum of the global climate frequencies.

    But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.

    Science and logic include a conclusion of the premises, here a correlation of a solar function and the reconstructed global Earth temperature. I do not see any scientific conclusion in the paper but an ad hoc prediction tool of low quality, avoiding the correlation of frequency shift and temperature since 1600 AD.

    Science is always looking for the truth. If it is evident that there is a connection between a solar function and the terrestrial climate, then the geometry and/or mechanism are the point of interest in climate science. Prediction tools may have its consumers, but I think the questions in climate science are more important then prophesy.

    V.

  15. This appears to me to confirm Piers Corbyn’s theory of a 22-year complete solar cycle with alternating periods of high and low world temperatures.

  16. > This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24

    Nice words. DA wrote the same, but wasn’t prepared to risk a bet on it. Are you?

    Note: the pic you took from wiki is obsolete (I’ve removed it from there). The current prediction (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml) is for a smoothed max of 96.

  17. I have been proposing a possible mechanism for a while.

    An active sun causes the polar vortices to intensify vertically but contract on the surface so that the surface pressure pattern shifts poleward.

    A change in the balance of ozone destruction/creation above 45km seems the likely culprit.

    The movement of the main cloud bands towards the poles allows a widening of the Tropical air masses and more sunlight into the oceans to skew ENSO in favour of stronger El Ninos relative to La Ninas.

    The additional energy getting into the oceans intensifies the ITCZ and the additional convective uplift along the ITCZ causes stronger anticyclonic downwelling on either side to consolidate the widening of the Tropics.

    The opposite occurs when the sun is less active.

  18. Juraj V. says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:26 am
    In my opinion, solar activity and ocean cycles are like quantum theory and theory of relativity in physics – describing the same from different sides but nobody managed to fit them together yet.
    Soon science will have to consider existence of solar activity – oceanic circulation link, but not before nonsense of the CO2 and the musings about solar cycle length (in my view irrelevant) are exhausted, the Svensmark effect is real, but I wouldn’t think that it is strong enough to account for the MWP and the LIA.
    In the North Atlantic possibility of the sun-ocean link appear to be very real as shown here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm

    Similar active process can be identified in the Pacific Ocean for the PDO and the SOI:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm

  19. I’d be interested to see how Piers Corbyn weighs in on this, if he’s given to commenting at all.

    To the best of my knowledge, he’s held as proprietary his method of providing long-range weather forecasting – for which his clients gladly pay a premium – predicated upon his interpretation of cosmological (extraterrestrial) influences.

  20. Henry@ZZZ
    Henry@Philip Bradley

    As all the balls now lie on my table the thing I would say is that it was the rise of maximum temperatures (that occur during the day) that caused the average temperature and minima on earth to rise. This implies clearly that the observed warming over past 4 decades was largely due to natural causes. Either the sun shone a bit brighter or there were less clouds. There are different theories on that. Looking at the differences between the results from the northern hemisphere(NH) and the southern hemisphere (SH), what we see is happening from my dataset is that more (solar) heat went into the SH oceans and is taken away by water currents and/or weather systems to the NH. That is why the NH is warming and that is why the SH does not warm.http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  21. Whether this theory is right or not, no-one can say. One thing that is for certain, time will tell

  22. So, what is it about increased solar activity that just warms the north pole/arctic? Because that’s all it appears to be. The southern hemisphere has done almsot no warming, and Antarctica has done nothing but cool. I doubt we’ll see 1C *global* temp drop, just a 1C temp drop at that location in the Arctic. Is it the increased magnetic activity?

  23. Connolley says:

    “Note: the pic you took from wiki is obsolete (I’ve removed it from there).”

    Well, aren’t you special, you [snip] censoring [snip]. What is the harm in leaving a picture, with a simple note that there is a more current one? Viewers can decide for themselves what is more relevant… if they are given the choice to decide.

    Once someone dons a censor’s hat, they become insufferable totalitarian wannabes. No doubt Connolley got his butt kicked regularly in school for his pompous arrogance, and is now using his position to censor anything he disagrees with on Wikipedia [which has become a risible alarmist propaganda blog regarding globaloney warming] to extend his pseudo-science narrative of CAGW.

    Isn’t it nice for Connolley that Anthony runs a censorship-free site? Even devious propagandists can post here. The downside for Connolley is that others can push back, and point out what he’s doing: deleting the posts of serious and sincere commentators, based solely on Connolley’s arbitrary and capricious whim. Despicable, no?

  24. Philip Bradley,
    Sir, the tropics are a constant self regulating heat imput to the Earths climate unaffected by the variations in the suns out put, that is why you see no signal.

    It is the temperate zones that are most affected by the varying sun as the cloud cover waxes and wanes. This gives us an increase or decrease in total heat, the weather is a bun fight to try to contain the increase or decrease in total heat in a never ending battle.

    In a rather belated manner tho’ no less important, is the poles, they suck heat from the oceans in huge quantities, the lag times of all these processes make it hard to quantify what is causing what and where.

    Now that some real science is coming out into the light of day, the where what and how and when is slowly being correlated, and the time lapse in our sluggish heat pump Earth is slowly being understood.

    That the patterns of the past can be interpreted and projected into the future, I am not positive, but if the patterns of the past are repeated in the past, they will have predictive qualities that are close to the truth.

  25. I write about solar science in my book:

    As U.S. and Russian space-program physicists took part in a tacit competition to anticipate what the Sun would do in the coming decades, the Space Race of the 1950s and ’60s was arguably being played out anew. Unlike the first time, the competition was being held out of public view, with the countries’ best physicists, Hathaway, Hansen, and Abdussamatov among them, trading blows in academic journals. This time around, the terms of the debate were not rocket-booster fuel formulae, re-entry material construction, and orbital equations, but, rather, where the planet was headed climatologically.

    Jack Eddy, at the end of his life, was paying attention to the Sun’s doings. “We’re at a prolonged minimum now, of which there have been precedents,” he said in 2008, months before his passing. “Whether we’re going to go into one of these profound minima or not, we won’t know until we get there. It might make me famous if it happens, but I don’t see that we know that it will happen.” Eddy’s work has been cited by Abdussamatov, and indeed calls have been issued for the naming of the forthcoming minimum, should it be as prolonged as some anticipate, as the Eddy Minimum. It is a matter of some irony that a Russian scientist following his research to its logical conclusion appears to have greater intellectual freedom than most of his American counterparts, with the notable exception of Jack Eddy.

    More here: http://amzn.to/yLN0Zm

  26. Bloke down the pub says:
    February 13, 2012 at 3:12 am
    Whether this theory is right or not, no-one can say.

    That there is a weak correlation between the oscillating frequency shift of the sun spot frequency and the reconstructed global temeperatures is a fact, not a theory.

    If one claims that no-one can say, he or she must know it, but that’s impossible because he or she cannot know all saying persons and their sayings in this world.

    One thing that is for certain, time will tell

    No one ever has given a proof for time. Time is a social convention, and has no reality in physics. Time cannot tell.

    What is possible that a person argue on scientific recognitions on a heliocentric climate world view instead of a geocentric climate world view.

    V.

  27. “So, what is it about increased solar activity that just warms the north pole/arctic? Because that’s all it appears to be. The southern hemisphere has done almsot no warming, and Antarctica has done nothing but cool.”

    Antarctica stays pretty much the same whatever the sun does but when the sun is active the West Antarctic Peninsula gets warmer whilst the interior gets colder. I would anticipate that when the sun is less active the Penisula gets colder but the interior gets less cold.

    As regards the Arctic it is warmed by oceanic energy content flowing right into the Arctic Circle to give much more pronounced responses to solar variability than anything seen in Antarctica.

    The Northern Hemisphere temperature response to solar variability is also enhanced by the large landmasses.

    I agree with this from wayne Job:

    “It is the temperate zones that are most affected by the varying sun as the cloud cover waxes and wanes. This gives us an increase or decrease in total heat, the weather is a bun fight to try to contain the increase or decrease in total heat in a never ending battle.”

    Latitudinally shifting climate zones and similarly shifting cloud bands is the key, in my opinion.

  28. In 2008, I wrote that atmospheric CO2 lagged atmospheric temperature T by ~9 months on a short-time-cycle (~3- 4 years – between major El Nino’s?).

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

    I also noted that CO2 lags temperature by ~600-800 years from ice core data, on a much longer time cycle..

    I postulated that there could be one or more intermediate (between 9 months and 800 years) cycles where CO2 lags temperature.

    The late Ernst Beck had already discussed intermediate lags, and thought the CO2-after-T lag was 5 years.

    This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 9 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.

    Perhaps other longer intermediate CO2-after-T lags also exist – if we have any quality CO2 data to permit analysis (pre-1958, we would probably have to use Beck’s data compilation, which has been treated with inadequate respect, imo).

    Regards, Allan

    ______________________________________

    Here is some of the discussion from 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/

    One more reference on this subject is by climate statistician William Briggs, at

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/21/co2-and-temperature-which-predicts-which/

    Thank you for your excellent summary Richard (Richard S Courtney (00:08:00)).
    Richard concludes:
    “there is no conclusive evidence that any of the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is or is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.”

    Thank you for your comments Michael (Michael Smith (00:50:58).
    Michael asks:
    “Does the temperature cycle length have an influence on CO2 lag?”

    Very good question – I think the answer is yes. Here is why:

    We understand from Vostok ice core data that there is a ~600 year lag in CO2 after temperature. The temperature cycle here is perhaps 1500 years. I have not independently analyzed any of this data.

    The work you and I have done shows a ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature. The peak-to-peak cycle length is ~3 years, in my opinion.

    Are there one or more intermediate time cycles where CO2 lags temperature? Ernst Beck has complied tens of thousands of analyses of early measurements of atmospheric CO2, and concludes that CO2 levels were much higher during the 1930’s warm period than the generally-accepted levels; CO2 dropped sharply during the cooling from ~1946 to ~1977; and CO2 increased since 1977 due to the recent warming, and is now at similar levels to the early 1940’s. Beck has suffered scorn from both sides of the climate debate, but this does not negate his thousands of data points, or prove him wrong. Time and honest data will tell the story…

    Beck believes the delay in this intermediate cycle is ~5 years. The cycle length is probably ~60-80 years.

    If Beck is right then there are at least three cycles – “a wheel within a wheel within a wheel”.

    The next question is will the current global cooling cause a decline in atmospheric CO2, or is the humanmade component of CO2 sufficiently large to overcome the natural variation which is apparently driven by temperature?

    If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you examine the CO2 records from various sites. The range of seasonal CO2 variation is ~16ppm at Barrow Alaska versus ~1ppm at the South Pole, versus an average annual increase in global CO2 of ~1.5ppm. The Northern Hemisphere seasons are clearly dominant in CO2 variations. The variation in “peak and valley” months at different locations is interesting.

    These scientific questions are truly fascinating.

    However the more important question is will the current cooling be mild or severe, as some researchers fear. It would be truly ironic if our society continued to obsess about global warming, only to face a deep freeze.

    Best regards for the Holidays!
    Allan

    Barrow CO2
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/brw/brw_01C0_mm.co2
    Mauna Loa CO2
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/mlo_01C0_mm.co2
    South Pole CO2
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/spo/spo_01C0_mm.co2

    __________________________________________

  29. > the IPCC Bible says we understand all the climate…

    You must have been reading the Apocrypha. The Authorised Version (aka AR4 WGI; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-1.html) says:

    “In the six years since the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), significant progress has been made in understanding past and recent climate change and in projecting future changes. These advances have arisen from large amounts of new data, more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in the understanding and simulation of physical processes in climate models and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges in model results. The increased confidence in climate science provided by these developments is evident in this Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

    While this report provides new and important policy-relevant information on the scientific understanding of climate change, the complexity of the climate system and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the future course of Earth’s global climate. There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid progress and it should be recognised that the present assessment reflects scientific understanding based on the peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.”

    Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?

  30. The Sun riseth and the Sun falls. The only problem is that the Sun stays where it is (almost) It is the Earth that is moving.
    It took many thousands of years for Scientists and the worlds population to realise that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Watermelons were trying to take over the world then. Not much has changed.
    Watermelons claim the Sun and Cloud has no effect.
    How many of you have spent a night out in a desert.
    On a clear Summers Day. 0 Deg C at Dawn and 50 Deg C at 2 pm.
    Add a bit of Cloud. 20 Deg C at Dawn and 30 Deg at 2 pm.
    Must be CO2 that is the culprit. Lets introduce a Carbon Tax. That will stop Global Warming.
    Oh!! It has worked. Just talking about a Carbon Tax has caused world temps to fall. “Hail to Julia”
    Now out in the Desert it is just :-
    “On a clear Summers Day. 0 Deg C at Dawn and 50 Deg C at 2 pm.
    Add a bit of Cloud. 20 Deg C at Dawn and 30 Deg at 2 pm.”

    It has just cost every Man,Women and Child $1000 each.Where has the money gone? Maybe to Greece. Or maybe Germany to help them re-commission their shut down Nuclear Reactors so the people can turn their Heaters on again. Watermelons RULE.

    Just a comment.

    Who ever designed this plant did a bloody good job.
    Ocean temps limited to 30 deg C.
    Life is in abundance. Watermelons trying to take over the world!
    Ever seen a Watermelon dropped from a 1st floor window onto concrete!

  31. This has nothing to do with the “climate”. As IPCC WG-3 Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer makes abundantly clear:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    The entire ‘runaway global warming’ scare is based entirely on the forced redistribution of the West’s wealth. Totalitrian wannabes like Connolley salivate at the prospect of digging their theiving hands into the pockets of the West’s taxpayers.

    Some day there will be a reckoning.

  32. So to explain the El NIno of 1998 Solar Cycle 22 would have to have been short with a peak around 1989. Hmmmm?

  33. I was reminded of this statement from the Soldheim et al paper:

    “For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5◦C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months”

    …when I saw this from the weather station at Svalbard:

    “Last 30 days: Average temperature was -2.4 °C, 13.4 °C above the normal. Highest temperature was 7.0 °C (08 February), and the lowest was -15.0 °C (25 January).

    Surely next year the great cooling will start? Because right now Soldheim et al are off by quite a margin.

  34. The biggest effect on a greenhouse is not how its built, but solar inputs. We are at least on the trail of the real culprit, variations in the TSI. This correlation is interesting and tied to variations in the TSI. If we will just keep digging on this spot (ha ha) we will eventually learn something.

  35. In answer to the question in the title…No. These studies do not confirm the upcoming global cooling. Measurements either confirm or falsify this hypothesis. Only verifiable data will confirm the existence of either global warming or cooling.

  36. William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:24 am
    Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?

    Ya a middle sentence in the second paragraph. It was not lead sentence nor a section title so it in fact was hidden. Stated but hidden.

  37. There is a decidedly bad smell in here, now that the noted propagandist and socialist lickspittle “William M Connelly” has deigned to grace us with his malodorous presence. It would be fun though to see a few of his remarks arbitrarily snipped for no reason other than to enrage him or make his arguments look silly. But that would be reducing ourselves to his level of discourse wouldn’t it? This should be fun to watch.

  38. Prof . William Gray proposed a 5-10 year lag between the MOC [MERIDIONALOVERTURNING CIRCULATION becoming stronger and global cooling . I recently noted that the Met Office uses a e-folding time of 4 years to account for solar effcts in their latest interannual predictions . I like the authors Jan -Erik Solheim et al noted above found little evidence that the solar effect and global temperature chnages happened in the same cycle . So I welcome their new approach. No where was this more evident than the period 1956-1960 when we had the highest sunspot numbers solar cycle but there was no significant global temperature rise . I would be the first to admit that my hypothesis may have some errors . It is but a brief analysis together with some personal comments . We all feel that the sun is the main climate driver but there is a lack of scientific papers to explain the exact mechanism of how this happens . I welcome the idea of more focus on this topic because the entire Co2 issue has gotten us all off the track and we now see global temperatures decling while Co2 contiunes to go up totally opposite to the predictions . Evidence of cooling is now clear even in Europe and Asia where the winter temperatures were supposed to go up and they have now had 3- 4 record cold winters in a row. There are even some recent studies that suggest that winters in Northern Europe and ASIA have been cooling for several decades . I have found that they have been decling since 1998 like in North America.

  39. > going to update it with his current prediction?

    Not sure what you mean. I’ve already updated the page text with the revised prediction(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_cycle_24&diff=476621223&oldid=476386997) though I don’t have much faith in it. You’ll notice that the current (unsmoothed) value is already higher than the predicted-for-2013 peak value.

    The page isn’t even semi-protected. You or anyone else can update it.

    TrueNorthist>

    Come on Shaw-y

  40. El Nino episodes occur due to cooling, from stratospheric volcano events, and from a fall in solar activity, that`s why there are more El Nino episodes through eg. Maunder, Dalton and the 1880`s. The effect is real time, with little lag, and is due to falling and lower SOLAR WIND SPEEDS, not higher irradience. Land temperatures and the polar oscillators have a direct response to the solar wind speed (higher speed streams will give rise to heatwaves, and a more positive AO) so are typically moving in the opposite direction to ENSO.

  41. John A says 12:51

    I quit reading the article when I read about the warm water going down. I just cannot see that happening either.

  42. This is just an awful, awful post. It should have never seen the light of day. Even as an 8th grade science report, I would have marked it up with so much red ink you could not have seen the black ink. Maybe it needs to be done. I don’t think the author realizes how poorly it was thought out and penned. Finally, I think this post is a grave embarrassment for it to appear at WUWT.

  43. Smokey says:
    February 13, 2012 at 3:33 am

    Tell us how you really feel, Smokey.

    BTW: I’m surprised Connolley is still allowed to use Wikipedia, much less edit it.

  44. William Connoley writes: Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?

    That is so incredibly hypocritical. There is ZERO expression of doubt in the public pronouncements of the IPCC. You guys think you know it all, you tell the world that climate science is settled and you come here, trying to destroy ànything that may cast doubt on your little religion.

    Don’t you understand that we’re trying to do the job that you guys won’t or can’t do, either because of your incompetence or ideology.

  45. William C:

    The IPCC’s problem is that they have so dishonest and so utterly unscientific, particularly in their Summary for Policymakers, that they have lost all credibility, and no sensible person wants to waste time reading their political screed. That disdain also applies to their fellow-travellers. For example, I never read wiki on climate issues.

    There is only one practical and just solution for the IPCC – abolish it!

    Read this excerpt from a WSJ article by Lindzen and note the date – June 11, 2001.

    The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

    Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…

  46. Fit six solar cycles within one cycle of the PDO, Procrustes helps. Each alternating cooling and warming phase has three solar cycles. Solar cycles alternate the shape of the peak of cosmic rays from sharp to pointed, leaving two types of one shape and one of the other in each phase of the PDO.

    Leif Svalgaard calls this a second order effect, but it is a clockwork mechanism for a solar-ocean connection, if the cycles fit, and if the shape of the peak of cosmic rays has effects on climate.

    I think I’ve never heard so loud
    The quiet message in a cloud.
    ============

  47. When thinking that the Sun might sustain the climate on Earth, it helps to have at hand precise figures of Total Solar Irradiance. A ‘constant’ according to the IPCC that varies from > 1,366.5 to < 1,365.0 Wm2 from 1981 to 2009.

    Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:

    Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
    Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
    Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria

    "The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
    Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
    The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease."

    See http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754

    "The Sun Defines the Climate", Abdussamatov 2009, is also available at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
    See also "SL-200 Solar Limbograph" (permanently mounted onboard the International Space Station), at http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/1_eng.html
    This is the instrument used by Abdussamatov to measure TSI.

  48. re 7:33, more likely, both phenomena, cloud variability and shapes of peaks, are responding to the same cause.
    ========

  49. Correcton to my 4:21am post

    This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 11 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.

  50. Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 1:56 am) wrote:
    “But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.”

    As I have explained to you before, Earth has no stationary internal ~11 year cycle. You’re making the same mistake the solar scientists make when they study differential solar rotation. More fundamental care (in the mathematical sense) needs to be exercised in selecting markers & metrics. Rather than phase-deviations from such an ARTIFICIAL clock, consider the simple time rate of change of cycle length; harmonics & beats with Earth’s internal cycles, whatever those internal cycles may be (including dominants like the day & year), are then easily generalized. Mother Earth has her own cycles; she’s not always equally receptive to father sun’s advances.

  51. Judith Curry’s conclusion about latest sun-related developments is this:
    “The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, and national funding has followed suit. There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions, I see a few signs that this situation is improving.”

  52. William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:24 am

    > the IPCC Bible says we understand all the climate…

    You must have been reading the Apocrypha. The Authorised Version (aka AR4 WGI; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-1.html) says:

    “In the six years since the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), significant progress has been made in understanding past and recent climate change and in projecting future changes. These advances have arisen from large amounts of new data, more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in the understanding and simulation of physical processes in climate models and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges in model results. The increased confidence in climate science provided by these developments is evident in this Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

    While this report provides new and important policy-relevant information on the scientific understanding of climate change, the complexity of the climate system and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the future course of Earth’s global climate. There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change. Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid progress and it should be recognised that the present assessment reflects scientific understanding based on the peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.”

    Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?

    Well, they missed a couple of things. You know, the unknown unknowns as well as a few known unknowns. Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future. One might ponder on that for awhile.

    Speaking of the 90% number I’ve been wondering why you haven’t been giving people 10-1 odds with your proposed bets? Seems only fair … or aren’t you confident in the IPCC claims?

  53. Rosco says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    One can see a strong case that in broad terms that should be the null hypothesis position as to how the climate (in broad terms) functions.

    It appears that in sufficient note is taken of the fact that the Earth is a water world and the unique qualities of water in relation to phase change and latent heat.

  54. Here’s where a very large proportion of the WUWT community can easily & dramatically improve conception…

    “The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe.”

    Just as with PDO, deeply rooted misconceptions have 99 lives.

    To develop a better handle on ocean surface currents, watch the animations here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/a-japanese-puzzle/#comment-882297



    Regards.

  55. Pamela Gray says:
    February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////
    I have not yet read the article so make no comment upon its quality.

    However, I am tempted to disagree with what you say about its publication on WUWT.

    In my experience, it is often the case that an article that I am not particularly impressed with (and I would not claim to be the all authorative judge) elicits the most interesting set of comments. Very often it is the debate that ensues in the comments provoked by the article, that are of interest and significance.

    Accordingly I am all for open debate and do not seek to stiffle any one not even those who are regarded as trolls. I want to see and consider the full spectrum of views and articles.

  56. Andres Valencia says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:34 am
    Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
    Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.

    Except that there has been no such decrease. The measurements that Abdussamatov rely on [PMOD] has been shown [e.g. slide 31 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf and conclusion on slide 33: Observed data do not support a measureable TSI
    trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008 ! ] to have uncompensated instrumental degradation.

  57. > Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future

    I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.

    > why you haven’t been giving people 10-1 odds

    Well, people are certainly welcome to come back and suggest “I accept the bet, but only if given 10-1 odds”. But so far no-one seems very interested in taking up the bet under any conditions, which suggests they don’t really believe any of these “predictions” at all. Putting up actually money is a useful way of distinguishing people who are just mouth, from those who have substance.

    > The IPCC’s problem is that they have so dishonest and so utterly unscientific

    Not as far as I know; I notice that you give no specifics. I’m happy to defend them, though I suspect that doing so would derail this topic even further. Notice how Lindzen gives no specifics either.

    > I never read wiki on climate issues

    Be careful never to leave your walled garden or you might read things that upset your preconceptions.

  58. Sober question for Matti Vooro:

    I see the words “upcoming” & “global” in the title of the article.

    Do you really think it’s sensible to extrapolate past empirical North Atlantic patterns (Solheim, Stordahl, & Humlum, 2012) to the future whole-globe under the assumption of qualitative stability?

    Not looking for a debate – just interested in understanding your perspective.

    Regards.

  59. @kim (February 13, 2012 at 7:33 am)

    It was a needle so sharp they didn’t notice it piercing. It opened radially into an array of razors so sharp, they didn’t notice it slicing. The current status of their past abstract conception: dismembered. Their awareness of this: slowly dawning.

  60. William M. Connolley
    Now I have red some of your comments, I have to conclude that our old friend R. Gates is positively most reasonable fallow.
    I wander where he’s gone to?

  61. Pamela Gray

    If you are so much wiser than the various authors noted in the article , why don’t you post your ideas on line in an article and let others also take a kick at it . It is easy to constantly post negative comments about others work and offer no better alternative ideas of their own . At least most bloggers offeralternative ideas of their own if they happen to disagree with the article .

  62. Rosco says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am

    The “greenhouse effect” as postulated does not exist and backradiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface as described – the turbulent convecting air and water evaporation act to reduce the surface temperature.

    “The “greenhouse effect” as postulated”? How is it postulated?

    Did it ever cross your mind that back radiation increases the tendency toward evaporation and convection?

  63. Paul Vaughan
    Good question .
    I used the hadcrut3 MAAT Global annual and 3 yr running average temperature chart for my analysis and comparisons and hence for my conclusuions . With respect to the PDO , I understand what it means . Surely if there is a spatial pattern of more colder water in the Pacific north east than in the Pacific north west and central Pacific it is going to have an impact on the temperatures in North America . PDO is an after effect of the Enso cycle which in turn may be a delayed effect of the previous solar cycle . North American climate impacts Europe as the atmosphere moves from west to east over the Atlantic . All these form part of the global bigger picture

  64. @Pamela Gray (February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am)

    Would you rather there be no thinking at all? And no discussion of anything? The purpose of some posts is to provoke discussion. This would be one of them.

  65. William M. Connolley says:

    February 13, 2012 at 8:11 am

    > Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future

    I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    “The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ”

    I used “exactly” and the reference uses “uneqivocally” but I think we can assume the meaning is the same.

    Given your history at Wiki (and the fact you edited this very item just last month) your response is a little strange if not downright dishonest.

  66. The distinguished sun researcher Judith Lean forecasts a 0.14 C higher GMT in 2014
    compared to 2011…. She took every cycle quoted above into account……
    ……Lets see then in 2014, which of all mentioned forecasters is the real distinguished
    forecaster and better solar observer and solar expert……
    JS

  67. “Natural cycles will always dwarf any minor warming from manmade greenhouse gases.”

    extra ordinary claims about the future demand a little proof.

    na.. no need to be sceptical when you have it all explained.

  68. >>> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability know exactly what is going to happen in the future
    >> I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC (remember, this sub-thread began with “the IPCC Bible says…” and I was carefully quoting IPCC). What you have there is a rough paraphrase of what the IPCC said: you can, just like me, follow the links if you want to know exactly what IPCC actually said.

    More importantly, “The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ” is a very different statement to “they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future”. You’ve got the “degree of certainty” right, but you’ve got “what were they certain about” completely wrong.

    The statement you quote from wiki is about climate change up to now, and attribution thereof. It says nothing about the future.

  69. To those responding to troll(s) on this thread. Please remember that Climate Science(tm) is a billion dollar a year industry, and the recipients of this largess are simply defending their stash. So don’t be too harsh… Also remember, “Green greed is good”…

  70. Paul Vaughan says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:39 am
    Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 1:56 am) wrote:
    “It is well known from literature that the main frequency of the sun spots is 11.196 years^-1 or 0.0893176 Kp. This frequency is not involved in the spectrum of the global climate frequencies.
    But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.”

    … Earth has no stationary internal ~11 year cycle.

    I do not speak of an Earth cycle; I speak of a cycle on the SUN and its frequency of 1/11.196 years and the correlation between REAL SUN SPOT FREQUENCY and TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE.
    Rest snipped.

    V.

  71. By the way, who said the following just last month (that’s right, 2012)?

    “Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today’s young people and future generations.“

    “The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet’s energy balance and stabilize climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today’s young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control.”

    The answer here.

    (Mr. Connolley may wish to update the wikipedia climate page to include this statement, preferably at the top of the article).

  72. William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:24 am

    Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?

    What’s cunning is that that or a similar statement was not carried forward to the Summary for Policymakers. (Unless I missed it.) Also, that statement is a gross understatement of what they actually said deeper into the WGI report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-3.html:

    “Key Uncertainties:

    Confidence in attributing some climate change phenomena to anthropogenic influences is currently limited by uncertainties in radiative forcing, as well as uncertainties in feedbacks and in observations.

    Attribution at scales smaller than continental and over time scales of less than 50 years is limited by larger climate variability on smaller scales, by uncertainties in the small-scale details of external forcing and the response simulated by models, as well as uncertainties in simulation of internal variability on small scales, including in relation to modes of variability.

    There is less confidence in understanding of forced changes in precipitation and surface pressure than there is of temperature.

    The range of attribution statements is limited by the absence of formal detection and attribution studies, or their very limited number, for some phenomena (e.g., some types of extreme events).

    Incomplete global data sets for extremes analysis and model uncertainties still restrict the regions and types of detection studies of extremes that can be performed.

    Despite improved understanding, uncertainties in model-simulated internal climate variability limit some aspects of attribution studies. For example, there are apparent discrepancies between estimates of ocean heat content variability from models and observations.

    Lack of studies quantifying the contributions of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase or glacier melting together with the open part of the sea level budget for 1961 to 2003 are among the uncertainties in quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to sea level rise.”

    But in the Summary for Policymakers, we find statements like this:

    “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    What’s most cunning of all is that the Summary for Policymakers says one thing (e.g., “strengthening confidence in near-term projections”) while the body of the report suggests the opposite (e.g., “attribution at scales smaller than continental and over time scales of less than 50 years is limited.”)

  73. “The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations] and ultimately contributes to the warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters..”

    El Nino episodes are due to weakening trade winds leading to a fall in Ekman pumping of the cold Humboldt current below = a lack of upwelling. Now I don`t see the trade winds being governed by solar activity 9yrs previous.

  74. William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am

    “Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC…”

    Do you mean “Errrm, that is Me, not IPCC…” ??

  75. William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am

    >>> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability know exactly what is going to happen in the future
    >> I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC (remember, this sub-thread began with “the IPCC Bible says…” and I was carefully quoting IPCC). What you have there is a rough paraphrase of what the IPCC said: you can, just like me, follow the links if you want to know exactly what IPCC actually said.

    More importantly, “The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it ” is a very different statement to “they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future”. You’ve got the “degree of certainty” right, but you’ve got “what were they certain about” completely wrong.

    The statement you quote from wiki is about climate change up to now, and attribution thereof. It says nothing about the future.

    Yes, the Wiki article directly specifies the IPCC in the references. I assumed you already knew that and may have made those attributions personally.

    Sadly, your words are somewhat confusing. I think we all know what the intent of the IPPC statements were and that they specified “very likely” in the document. In addition, if you attribute something as unequivocal and/or 90% probability based on specified historic activities and those activities are not changed, then the 90% attribution will obviously carry “in the future”. That is the ONLY logical conclusion from the IPCC statements and clearly was the way they have been interpreted by many govts. Your denial of this is quite interesting.

  76. steven mosher says:
    February 13, 2012 at 9:53 am
    …extra ordinary claims about the future demand a little proof.

    Hi Steven:
    No one can have a proof of the future, but we can make an attempt to forecast it on the basis of historic data:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm

    I’ve used 55, 70 & 90 year periods from the CET oscillations, you can test it giving you ‘a little proof.’.

    @HenryP.
    She was trilled with Kruger wild life, today was down the Cullinan at 750m below surface, then high up the viewing platform.

  77. STEVE MOSHER
    Valid Observation
    The evidence in my opinion has been staring us in the face for the last decade. The CO2 levels are rising and at their highest level in modern times and global temperatures have been flat and declining for now 10-14 years .The reduced sun activity , SST’S, AMO, PDO ,AO are in their mode indicating cooling . So who is dwarfing who? What more evidence are we looking for? maybe my use of the term ‘have always ‘ is stretching things a bit Steve, but currently I think it is true and even some of the AGW scientists have accepted this. M. LATIF, a German climate modeler even wrote about it as far back as 2008 that natural variabilty would prevail for the next decade . He even admitted that you could have two such decades.

  78. > Why don’t you check before you snark?
    Just wanted to say: William, We are impressed you are willing to come here to the talk, thank you.

    Has anyone noticed that the Solar Flux has dropped to below 100? Could SC24 be waning?

  79. I’ve studied this extensively, and I feel you are on the right track but have the wrong mechanism in mind…magnetic activity, from the AA/AP Index values, to the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field). Cosmic Rays correlate to the mechanism that alters the atmospheric state but their effect is overstated based on that correlation.

    There are many various atmospheric circulation cells over numerous ocean basins (example, the Hadley Cell) that basically act as heat pumps/distributors, but are also affected by upper atmospheric processes such as the QBO, and the Solar Wind. These “cells” modulate the tropical/global configuration of cloud cover, much of the GLAAM/tropical wind budget, and in turn, ENSO. But that is not all.

    The AO/AAO indices also are driven by the same mechanisms that alter atmospheric circulation…(Sun and QBO). The -AO allows sustainable tropical convection via a cooler upper atmosphere over the tropics, more cloud cover over the tropics/mid latitudes, less clouds/wind over the arctic. The -AO that developed in JAN allowed the current MJO wave to sustain, and cooled the globe via these mechanisms.

    It all ties back to the magnetic sun and IMF. In looking at the AP index one can see the correlation to the PDO, AMO, and AO/NAO. It is because large scale atmospheric circulation is modulated by this aspect of solar activity.

    The IMF directional value dominates the PDO and AMO. Whenever it flips south, the PDO changes phase, whenever it flips north, the AMO changes phase…the Hale cycle.

    ENSO is also driven by the Sun, and lags the AP index by 6.5 years. The El Nino of 2009-10 looks just like the AP index spike in 2003, the AP index plummeted in 2006.

    The year 2013 or 2014 will see the drop on global temps truly begin by this mechanism. The Sun’s poles will also flip in 2013, and our Sun’s “wobble” as noted in SIM theory will end in 2013. The AMO will flip in 2013. It is all coming together.

  80. Pamela, matt v., Richard, Paul

    I think “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

    The post does have serious errors of simple facts:
    “. . . ocean conveyor . . .” water “. . . reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast.”
    A few are a bit more complicated and debated (by some):
    — “extra solar radiation around solar maximums”
    — “warming of the EL Nino area Pacific waters and modifies the PDO spatial patterns or warming to put more warmer water along the west coast of North America.”

    I’m not even sure what the last quote means. The next one up is disputed, recently (Feb. 8) here on WUWT. This first item (above) is just flat-out wrong. Pamela could have pointed out the parts her teacher instincts objected to.

    The others are right, also. Open discussion is good. Alternative interpretations of unsettled issues are useful. But . . .

    “If You’re Gonna Play in Texas (You Gotta Have a Fiddle in the Band)”

  81. Smokey wrote, “Isn’t it nice for Connolley that Anthony runs a censorship-free site?”

    That’s certainly not true — I’m one of those banned, & of course there are others.

    REPLY: I count 214 comments (including this one) that come under your various alter egos of “Eric Blair”, “Erinome”, and “JeffG” Since September 2011 at your originating IP address in the Pacific Northwest.

    How you count that as “banned” must only be in your mind, whoever you are today. But do take note, our site policy specifically says that shape shifting is a no-no. So please explain why you deserve continued access when you go to great lengths to post under a series of fake names. Or would it be simpler to say your last name ryhmes with apple? – Anthony

  82. Mark Adams says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:35 am
    Has anyone noticed that the Solar Flux has dropped to below 100? Could SC24 be waning?
    No, weak cycles have shown erratic behaviour during their maximum years, e.g.

    [Link corrected to match 12:24 entry, Robt]

  83. Pamela, matt v., Richard, Paul, and Matti V.

    A follow up to my comment @ 12:06

    Fill a bathtub with very cold water –add blue dye. Add salt if you want to make it somewhat more dense. Float a piece of thin plywood (even cardboard will work) on top of the cold water. Pour hot water –add red dye — on top of the floating piece so as to NOT mix the two layers. Carefully remove the separator. Next. Use a pail or large cooking pot to lift water (the hot/red) from one end of the bathtub. Note that the cold/blue water will follow the path of the pail, moving upward, and help to fill the void.

    On the west coasts of continents winds act as the pail in the above experiment. The majority of the wind is generated in the massive subtropical high pressure (STHP) zones. The rotating Earth helps position the winds so they move the surface waters of the ocean (along these coasts) away from the land. What is underneath comes up, cold, and nutrient laden. Here are two links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling

  84. Phil says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:53 am
    “ENSO is also driven by the Sun, and lags the AP index by 6.5 years. The El Nino of 2009-10 looks just like the AP index spike in 2003, the AP index plummeted in 2006.2

    On the whole a very good comment, but I disagree with the above. You have the sign the wrong way round. The `09/10 El Nino was due a falling SW trend from early `09, you can see the same pattern with the `97/98 El Nino with the SW speed falling from late `96:

  85. matt:

    “The evidence in my opinion has been staring us in the face for the last decade. The CO2 levels are rising and at their highest level in modern times and global temperatures have been flat and declining for now 10-14 years .”

    unfortunately the climate is responding as theory predicts. Theory does not predict that the earth will warm monotonically with zero lag from the forcing. Note this study, where the author plays around with lags. The lag in the climate system to the forcing of C02 is on the order of decades and centuries. Further, the climate is driven by MORE than C02 forcing. It is driven by the sum of all forcings. If C02 goes up and solar forcing goes down, you have to understand the net.
    If C02 forcing goes up, and internal forcing ( natural variability ) goes down, you have to understand the net. Its the sum of ALL forcing that you have to look at and THEN you have to understand the lags in the system. There isnt just one lag. the responses evolves in various time domains. As I said, the theory predicts that you can and will have cooling regimes in an otherwise
    long term upward trend. Cooling regimes are not unexpected. No cooling regime can overturn basic radiation physics. However, if the current one continues or deepens, you can expect climate science to pay more attention to : clouds: aerosols and natural variability. In the end C02 and GHgs may play less of a role than our best science says, but it will play a role.

  86. Vuk.

    Your charts have never made a bit of sense to me. still dont. Suggest you work on them to make them understandable. Like do a small write up

    1. data
    2. methods
    3. results.

    Otherwise I dont have time to decipher what you think is clear.

    Bare minimum dude. I told tallbloke the same thing. I dont mind your crazy Ideas, but dear god
    present them in a way that allows me to understand what you did. To replicate what you did.
    Otherwise, dont expect me to bother

  87. The additional energy getting into the oceans intensifies the ITCZ and the additional convective uplift along the ITCZ causes stronger anticyclonic downwelling on either side to consolidate the widening of the Tropics.

    Stephen, the problem here is that its not obvious how this process gets more heat (energy) into the oceans. In fact I’d say it would result in less heat getting into the oceans. Because it will decrease the heat entering the oceans in the tropics (as the study I linked to above shows).that is within the ITCZ.

    Are you arguing the ocean heat gain is in the subtropical anticyclonic zones?

    If so, any evidence? It might show up in the ARGO data, but unfortunately the dataset is probably too short.

  88. john F. hultquist
    Thank you for your helpful comments . I was thinking of the ocean conveyor belt and upwelling areas shown in Prof Gray’s paper called CLIMATE CHANGE : DRIVEN BY THE OCEANS NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY [fig 20 and 14] . If the upwelling in the lower PACIFIC is warmer or cooler due to chnging input of water into the coveyor could this not affect ENSO that develops later at the equator ? maybe my words are not that clear . I will have to work at that.

    I dont know what your question is about the PDO . PDO is a spatial pattern and an after effect of the ENSO cycle as I explained earlier .

  89. Ulric Lyons:

    I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously, such as the El Nino of 2002-03 and 2006-07 which were both moderate. The SW speed seems to correlate better to the state of the AO/NAO on the graph you post, but that should manifest differently in many cases depending on the configuration of the QBO and the extent of the SW speed drop/increase, since spacial wind reversals at high altitudes are what the solar mechanism would operate through.

  90. Allan MacRae says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:37 am

    “This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 11 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.”

    I dont understand when you mention “This post” like that?
    Where does “this post” suggest we should be “looking for a CO2 lag” ?

    William M. Connolley says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:14 am

    “Why don’t you check before you snark?”

    Regarding Wikipedia; I would never, EVER read ANYTHING regarding climate there.

  91. steven mosher says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    Bare minimum dude. I told tallbloke the same thing. I dont mind your crazy Ideas, but dear god
    present them in a way that allows me to understand what you did. To replicate what you did.
    Otherwise, dont expect me to bother

    Mosh, you miss the point: by being obscure enough, the crazy ideas cannot fall victim to inconvenient falsification.

  92. steven mosher says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    ……..
    Hi Steven
    Here is another crazy idea:
    the rising trend in the CET is directly proportional to the winter cloudiness.

    On the page:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm

    it is just simple matter of reconstructing the CET from its 2 strongest summer and 2 strongest winter components (spring and autumn contain all four).
    Why spring and summer:

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

    the 300 year summer CET data shows oscillating but no rising trend, while winters oscillate often at different rate but this time with a rising trend.
    Summers are warmed by sunshine and cooled by clouds but in long term they even out so no rising trend either due to the solar activity (with high summer insolation at 52 N) or the CO2.
    Winters are opposite, clear skies allow night temperatures to fall drastically, more then offsetting any sunshine hours which are naturally greatly reduced anyway, due to the seasonal factor (low winter insolation at 52 N).
    Hey, more winter cloud warmer the long term CET. Simple.

  93. @Phil says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    “Ulric Lyons:
    I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously, such as the El Nino of 2002-03 and 2006-07 which were both moderate.”

    Yes you have picked up the two weakest examples, and like you note they were both moderate El Nino episodes.
    2002 does not have a falling trend, but the levels are low:

    2006 does have a slight falling trend albeit weak:

    The other two earlier examples of lack of good correlation have a logical explanation, El Chichon and Pinatubo, even M. Mann has suggested an El Nino response to the cooling effect of such eruptions. If you care to do a tally, I think you will find the argument overall in favour of what I am saying despite what you have noted. Also look at the reverse, La Nina episodes occurring at rising trends in SW speed. Earlier SW data: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_23114.gif
    And yes I agree, the rate of increase or decrease is important, but so is the duration and in which season it occurs, especially with respect to ENSO.

  94. Phil says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    “I actually disagree with that assertion, as there is no continuity for most ENSO events seen previously..”

    A falling solar wind speed trend can be seen at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09, that is a very large majority.

  95. HenryP says:
    February 13, 2012 at 9:19 am

    He postulated it, and wrote numerous papers,
    all of which I have found wanting. (lack of scientific proof)
    better read me

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

    and leave the rest behind.

    Your discussing absorption of incoming LWR. This is done at high altitude and is not a big player in warming of the lower troposphere due to transportation via convection. It would be like trying to boil water from the top down using a electric bar heater.

    You would get a different outcome if you used the heater to warm the water from the bottom up.

    Heating the water from the bottom up means the energy must travel through the body of water before surface convection and evaporation can dissipate the energy.

    Radiative reflux is a part of the process, as I indicated to Rosco.

  96. GEOFF SHARP
    You bring up a good point
    I still think that PDO represents a spatial pattern of SST anomalies in the North Pacific . Is it like an after affect of the Enso SIGNAL that lasts longer than the Enso signal ? There has been a lot of blogs and papers arguing bothsides of the coin and you sight one source that has one conclusion . If I get a chance I will research others who have stated that it is like an after effct of the ENSO cycle. Your point is accepted.

  97. matt v. says:
    February 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Thanks Matt, if you plot the two series it is also obvious that one can lead the other, but none can be said to be dominate.

    I think there are times when the PDO is an after effect of ENSO, but I also think there are times when the reverse is true. The PDO has been leading ENSO recently and I think is responsible for the current back to back La Nina. The warm water in the NW pacific (KOE) is available for ENSO to use, during that time (cool PDO) the warm water which can be transported south encourages more and stronger La Nina and fewer and weaker El Nino.

  98. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    “Here is a plot of ENSO 4.3 and 27 day solar wind speed from 1965. Not exactly convincing.”

    What is not convincing is that the roller-coaster ride of UV variation through each solar cycle matching anything in you care to mention, it makes no sense from square one. Now if you care to examine the precise expanded solar wind speed graphs that I provided above and not your squished up short one with no clear years scale on it, you can note a falling solar wind speed trend at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09. Even on your own graph the opposite movement of ENSO and SW speed is well apparent in many places, so if you cannot recognise that, I would tend to assume you are deliberately attempting to obfuscate the issue, as it runs so contrary to your own pet theory.

  99. Steve Mosher: “The lag in the climate system to the forcing of C02 is on the order of decades and centuries.”

    Whoa, where does that come from. So now we need to wait decades and centuries to falsify AGW?!? We just shell out money without ever knowing if it made a difference? Why is it that the hurdles keep getting higher and further apart?

  100. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    There is no need to get upset, I have merely provided the data, which does not lie. If you wish to draw your own conclusions you are free to do so, likewise are others now that the data is finally presented.

    UV IS on a roller coaster, but there are times when it doesn’t make it up the slope, which is the important consideration. It is also important to consider that UV is one part of a proposed mechanism that breaks up the polar vortex and induces contorted jet streams (which is just about to hit Europe again). It is not the sole driver and relies on other components like the QBO and planetary waves, so one would not expect to see a clear correlation. I have provided a table of metrics captured during the so called “great winter freeze of 2012″, check it out you may learn something. Its at the end of the following article.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236

  101. Rosco says on February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am

    The “greenhouse effect” as postulated does not exist and backradiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface as described …

    There you go again; either erecting a strawman or not understanding what is taking place …

    Which is it?

    You ppl have to be made to understand the EM nature of certain molecules, is all I can say. To continue to deny it is, well, insanity.

    Pure and simple.

    .

  102. jaypan (February 13, 2012 at 7:43 am) wrote:
    “Judith Curry’s conclusion about latest sun-related developments is this:
    “The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, and national funding has followed suit. There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions, I see a few signs that this situation is improving.””

    There are no signs whatsoever that the situation is improving. Quite the opposite. Whether by naive ignorance or malicious deception, central agencies currently appear to be dictating to the public that the abstract theoretical truth about solar-terrestrial-climate relations is a purely elastic commodity that need not accommodate the reality of geophysical data. For example, see the following 2 articles:
    1. http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/
    2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/

    The “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative, strictly inadmissible under geophysical data on the basis of absolute logic, is beyond creepy. Trust obliterated. If Dr. Curry cannot see this with ease, I would suggest (very cordially) that she strive to improve her functional numeracy.

    Regards.

  103. Are there some references that I can better understand how CME events (x-ray, solar wind) affects the energy balance on the earth? How does this energy get converted to electromagnetic energy, then eventually to heat?

  104. HenryP says: February 13, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Allan MacRae says
    We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps

    Henry@Allan
    wake up! CO2 is not a factor, in climates, period.
    ____________________

    Allan@Henry, wake up and read what I wrote.

    Hint: CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
    ____________________

    kwik says: February 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    Allan MacRae says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
    “This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 11 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.”

    Kwik: I don’t understand when you mention “This post” like that?
    Where does “this post” suggest we should be “looking for a CO2 lag” ?

    Allan@Kwik
    Quote and Hint:
    “In another words the sun really affects the atmosphere not in the same cycle but during the next cycle or about 9 years later . It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe. It reappears as warm upwelling along the South American west coast [and other upwelling locations]”

    … and releases dissolved CO2?

  105. MartinGAtkins says
    Your discussing absorption of incoming LWR. This is done at high altitude and is not a big player in warming of the lower troposphere due to transportation via convection.

    henry@Martin
    The atmosphere is a shield. There are massive absorptions going on, all the time, O3 being the leader of the pack (20-25%), leading to re-radiation (deflection) of sunlight, leading to cooling. More CO2 also leads to cooling, e.g. absorptions at 2 and 4 um. CH4 also cools the atmosphere, at between 2.2. and 2.4.
    Try to understand what I say in the footnote here.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011

    As Stephen has also suggested, (I think), a small change in the UV output of the sun, could affect the manufacturing of ozone, in the upper atmosphere, which could result in more (or less) light being thundered into the (SH) oceans, as my results for the past 4 decades clearly show:

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  106. Just so we all be clear/ ///addendum to my previous post:
    that little bit of ozone in the upper atmosphere is responsible for shielding us from 20-25% of all incoming sunlight, and note that it is the sunlight of the lowest wavelengths, i.e. the highest energy.
    So, obviously, if the ozone hole is bigger or smaller, it will affect the amount of energy being slammed into the (SH) oceans.

  107. She was thrilled with Kruger wild life, today was down the Cullinan at 750m below surface, then high up the viewing platform.

    henry@Vukcevic

    I’m glad she likes it here! whay country are you (she) from?

    Pity we are a bit near to the ozone hole here, …. in South Africa,
    she better take care….
    use lots of sun tan lotion – OR rather stay out of the sun, if that is possible.

  108. Geomagnetic storm around midnight

    http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Last24&site=tro2a&amp

    followed by two 6+ magnitude earthquakes

    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php

    within 1.5 hours of each other in different parts of the Pacific, a very rare event in itself (2 x M6+) and the first M6 eqs in last 7 days. Most worrying is the Honshu one, since it is nearly a year since the big one and it was assumed that the area may have settled for a while.

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

  109. Yes there should be some very slight cooling until about 2028, but the long-term ~1000 year cycle has yet to reach a maximum, not that it looks like being much to worry about.

    There have clearly been alternating periods of long term warming and cooling in the vicinity of 500 years each between: Roman warming, Dark Ages cooling, Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, 21st or 22nd century warming. There is some indication of this cycle before Roman times also I believe.

    We can still detect this long term trend in recorded data for the period since 1900 for example. To do so, we need to compensate for shorter periods of the order of 30 years of warming and cooling, as well as shorter solar cycles.

    All this can be done effectively using the concepts of derivatives and second derivatives in calculus. By calculating a 30 year trend every month on a moving basis we can firstly obtain a plot of the rate of change (gradient) and then we fit a logical “axis” trend to that plot. By taking this additional step we overcome “cherry picking” accusations because it makes very little difference whether the initial periods were 20, 30 or 40 years for example. The final trend line is similar.

    What this yellow line (at the foot of my Home page http://climate-change-theory.com ) . indicates is that around 1915 the rate of increase was about 0.06 deg.C per decade, but it has now declined to about 0.05 deg.C per decade. There is a reasonable probability that this yellow line will slope down more, heading for zero maybe within 200 years or so. That would indicate a long term maximum in the trend of only about 0.7 to 1.0 deg.C above the current trend, though there could be shorter-term superimposed maxima and minima maybe up to a degree above the trend. However, 500 years of cooling should follow.

  110. So, How many people are you prepared to kill because you are not prepared to supply a clean form of energy.
    HenryP
    “I hope they don’t do that.
    Not a good idea, nuclear energy.”

  111. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 13, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    “UV IS on a roller coaster, but there are times when it doesn’t make it up the slope, which is the important consideration. It is also important to consider that UV is one part of a proposed mechanism that breaks up the polar vortex and induces contorted jet streams (which is just about to hit Europe again). It is not the sole driver and relies on other components like the QBO and planetary waves, so one would not expect to see a clear correlation.”

    My astronomically based forecast for this winter (made late 2010) clearly stated that the main outbreaks of Arctic air would be from late Jan to early March, with the UK seeing hard cold in the second week of Feb, particularly from the 9th of Feb. And as you know late Jan is when the AO went significantly negative. I know solar factors must be responsible, otherwise this, and my continual forecasts for temperature deviations would not succeed so often.
    Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?

  112. This solar study seems to have ferreted out some odd people who are quoting IPCC stuff, my reading of the IPCC stuff gives me the impression that they do not believe that the sun is our sole heat giver. This Bill Connolley person seems to imaging that all sunshine iminates from the IPCC.

    The wheels of AGW are falling off, Bill it is obvious how far you have fallen, for rather than tend your flock you come here as a troll, sad really, but if at all possible it is time for you to take stock and have a good slow long look around.

  113. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am

    Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?

    I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.

    As far as ozone is concerned it is not as simple as you imply. As per Haigh the ozone levels above 45km increase during low solar and decrease below 45km. There is a steady state of this position but is subject to mixing from below via planetary waves that ultimately disturb the vortex in the north (not south) once the waves are allowed to flow. This mixing shows up at the pole after transport which is seen in the ozone levels I referenced. The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?

  114. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am

    Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?

    I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.

    As far as ozone is concerned it is not as simple as you imply. As per Haigh the ozone levels above 45km increase during low solar and decrease below 45km. There is a steady state of this position but is subject to mixing from below via planetary waves that ultimately disturb the vortex in the north (not south) once the waves are allowed to flow. This mixing shows up at the pole after transport which is seen in the ozone levels I referenced. The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?

  115. Seeing that the comments are nearly winding down , I want to thank all those bloggers who took the time to read this post and offer constructive comments and suggestions . Like I said at the very start , my purpose for writing this post was to steer the debate away from just looking at the impact of CO2 levels on global climate which I still blieve is minor when compared to the impact of natural variables and to focus more on the more likey mechanism for the solar to ocean to atmosphere transfer of solar energy and especially consider the possibilty of lag times of approximately 9 years between the solar event and the time the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere will be affected [ all the way to the Arctic] . The nine years is the approximate time it may take the oceans to receive , move and transfer the heat energy from the equator region to the higher latitudes and release it through El Nino events including 4-6 months for the atmosphere to move the heat around the globe . I may have used poor choice of words in my post and many of the bloggers correctly picked it up. I think the 1998 EL Nino ,in my opinion ,was the 9 year lagged impact of the solar max and activity of the years 1988-1992 and the 2010 EL nino was the lagged impact of the solar max and activity of the years 1999 to 2002.

    From the comments I noted that there was no agreed upon alternative mechanism posted of how the solar -ocean -amosphere link works or whether sun is the main climate maker even. Co2 levels were still suggested by some senior bloggers despite the evidence today of dropping global temperatures but rising CO2 LEVELS .Other lag times have been well documented by others like Bob Tisdale, M. A .Vukcevic and possibly others who have regularly crunched the numbers . Steve Mosher also noted the existence of several possible lag time . Based on my analysis and personal opinion I feel the risk of continued cooling for the next 20 years is more real than global warming as I see no injection of significant solar heat again until about nine years after the next solar maximum. So I see cooler weather prevailing until 203o .I welcome others writing down their concepts and posting them on WUWT . My concept may prove to be partly wrong or completely wrong but someone else reading it may come up with the correct one after reading sposts. like this The collective mind is better than a single opinion.

  116. @ Matti Vooro = matt v.

    Thanks for the article. While some sour commenters regularly push for intellectual sterility, you’re a beacon of awareness that natural recombination’s key to survival. All the best.

  117. A bit late perhaps but I do have a question. Let’s assume that the stations analysed in the Solheim paper do actually cool inover the next few years but the world as a whole continues to warm.

    Do we assume that the sun’s role in climate change is simply one of shifting weather pattterns around because that is what I think is likely the case. I don’t believe the sun changes earth’s energy budget to any significant extent so it cannot be responsible for significant warming/cooling episodes. We all recognise that there is an increase of ~0.1% in solar output from solar min to solar max which might be responsible for a global temperature increase of ~0.1 K but that’s it.

  118. JOHN FINN

    Good observation. I think the sun actually does add energy to the planet and probably more than we currently recognize even . There is no better example than the biggest El NINO on record 1n 1878. The starting point was the solar cycle # 11 which ran from 1867- 1878. the most active period was from 1869-to 1972 with the max in 1870. Aproximately 9 years later in 1878 you have one of the bigest atmosphere temperature spikes in a very short period. The temperature anomaly [hadcrut 3gl]in 1876 was -0.471 and by 1878/1879 it was around -0.148 C. By 1887 it was down to again to -.461C. The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures started to go up in1874 and also peaked in 1878 and then went down . So clearly the solar cycle #11 put energy into the Pacific ocean between1869 and 1873 which started to raise the tempearture of the Southern Pacific Ocean and the ocean around the equator region starting in 1975 and atmosphere temperature peaked by 1978 through the release of the heat from the largest El NINO one record . The globaltemperature anomalies were at the lowest during the lagged minimums at the start and end of the cycle and the highest near the maximum ,In my mind the sun is not what moves the enrgy around but is the source of the enrgy. The oceans act as a heat sink and move this heat around and release it to the atmosphere through the El Nino events [ Iam talking about major climate events ] .It takes 4- 6 months for atmosphere to move this heat around the globe after the El Nino.

  119. JOHN FINN

    A typing error in my last post . The most active period for solar cycle #11 was from 1869–1872 not 1869-1972. Also I quoted the temperature anomalies hadcrut3gl for 1876 and 1878/1879 , these were HADSST2 OCEAN temperature anomlies for the Southern Hemisphere .
    The comparable HADCRUT GLOBAL temperature anomalies for 1876 was -0.400 C and for 1878 was +0.028 C . [ big spike in temperatures when the solar sunspot number was only 3.4 ]By 1887 the atmosphere temperature spike [hadcrut3]was down to -0.386C

  120. JOHN FINN
    Here is another bit of information about the 1877/1878 super El Nino that I found on WUWT.

    ” The 1877-1878 EL Nino was the biggest event on record. The [temperature ]anomaly peaked at + 3.4 C in November 1877 and by February 1878, global temperatures had peaked to 0.364 C or 0.7 C above the background temperature of the time .”
    The only source of so much heat into the Pacific Ocean , in my judgement was the sun during the previous solar max period of 1869-1872 The issue of Co2 was not an issue then nor is it now , to me at least .

  121. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 14, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    “I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.”

    I asked for meaningful UV data.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    “The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?”

    The AO was negative all summer, and can go negative any winter regardless of QBO and ENSO phase. I used the same method as I did for last winter of course, and I got the timing bang on then too.

  122. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 15, 2012 at 11:43 am

    The AO was negative all summer, and can go negative any winter regardless of QBO and ENSO phase. I used the same method as I did for last winter of course, and I got the timing bang on then too.

    How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?

    Do you have a website that logs all your predictions so we can check, date stamped blog or similar? In the past all you have provided is words, like now when asked what mechanism you used for the forecast (Ceres?)

  123. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    “How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?”

    You should concede that it did go negative last summer rather than throw a pointless question at me. Spot the trends: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25973.gif

    “Do you have a website that logs all your predictions so we can check, date stamped blog or similar? In the past all you have provided is words, like now when asked what mechanism you used for the forecast (Ceres?)”

    What we have in common is that we both agree on solar solar forcing. You subscribe purely to UV variation and completely disregard the solar wind, and I subscribe to the solar wind but do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant. The other pivotal difference is that you merely provide hypothesis for the powers of UV but with no correlative data, and I am always providing the data relevant to the period in discussion to back my claims up, be that ENSO or the AO. I brought up the subject of my astronomically based forecasts as proof that these are solar forced events, as you also engage in this sphere of research so I thought you would appreciate that. If you are doubting that I have made such specific forecasts, well of course I can back them up, but you don`t get to see how I am doing it just now. I mean sheesh, I am not going to say cooling late Jan, bad in the 2nd week of Feb from a year back based on tea leaves !

  124. Urich Lyons

    The dips in the aa index seem to take place about the same time as solar minimums . I don’t know if there is a connection if any with the 1877/78 El Nino There was a solar minimum in 1878

  125. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    February 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    “How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?”
    ————————
    You should concede that it did go negative last summer rather than throw a pointless question at me. Spot the trends: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25973.gif

    Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter. The following NAO winter graph (very similar to AO) tells the story.

    UV was comparatively high during 1980-2000 so the polar vortex was mainly undisturbed. Solar wind went all over the place during this period.

    What we have in common is that we both agree on solar solar forcing. You subscribe purely to UV variation and completely disregard the solar wind, and I subscribe to the solar wind but do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant.

    I do not purely subscribe to UV forcing, it is one factor involved IMHO. The PDO being the largest factor. The solar wind (total) is involved in UV forcing but only plays a small role during times of auroral activity. You have not shown a correlation or mechanism between the solar wind speed and ENSO/AO etc, and by using speed only, miss many of the other functions available (density, Bz etc). You might be better off looking at the Kp index or Ap index if looking for atmospheric connections. If so proper documentation of the results is required rather than suggesting eye balling. If you need help to plot the data, just send it to me.

    Your weather predictions are meaningless unless they are documented. Start a free wordpress account and start logging them, so you can be tested.

  126. matt v. says:
    February 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    “The dips in the aa index seem to take place about the same time as solar minimums .”

    Typically around a couple of years after minimum, and also at maximum, which is usually not so deep.

  127. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    “Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter.”

    Leaving aside the vortex, you will actually find that AO is important in summer if you look at CET.
    Anyway this point started with you claiming the QBO kept the AO positive all last year, which it patently did not, so maybe we should just leave it at that before you dig yourself in more dead ends.

    “You have not shown a correlation or mechanism between the solar wind speed and ENSO/AO etc,”

    If you are having so much trouble with eye-balling the correlation, I`ll have to present you a graph then, but as you have insisted that “the solar wind does not change enough through the solar cycle”, its hard to hold much hope that you will make any sense of it.

  128. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    February 15, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    “Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter.”

    Leaving aside the vortex, you will actually find that AO is important in summer if you look at CET.
    Anyway this point started with you claiming the QBO kept the AO positive all last year, which it patently did not, so maybe we should just leave it at that before you dig yourself in more dead ends.

    The polar vortex has little influence over summer temps, the jet streams are far less effective but do come into contention occasionally, we have seen that twice here this summer. You are stretching the bow again if you consider the small dips into negative last year as anything substantial.

    There are also other factors that influence the vortices. The southern vortex is generally not disturbed by planetary waves but still experiences a modulation , also the QBO is a general influence over planetary waves but sometimes the planetary waves override the QBO. Read Baldwin et al where they clearly describe this phenomenon.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/qbo_baldwin.pdf

    If you are having so much trouble with eye-balling the correlation, I`ll have to present you a graph then, but as you have insisted that “the solar wind does not change enough through the solar cycle”, its hard to hold much hope that you will make any sense of it.

    I have already provided the graph that shows no correlation.

    No comment re your wordpress blog?

  129. Ulric Lyons says:
    (I)… do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant.

    Henry@Ulric
    Again I want to say that the difference in the UV from the sun could affect the manufacturing process of ozone in the upper atmosphere. In its turn, the ozone layer is responsible for the deflection of 20-25% of all incoming sunlight, mostly of the short wavelength (UV) type (high energy).

    My results I gathered so far, witnessed by increasing maxima, that occur during the day (light)
    as reported recently here,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/do-underwater-volcanoes-have-an-effect-on-enso/#comment-893299

    seem to suggest that, during the past 3-4 decades, more heat from the sun is coming in, by whichever mechanism, i.e. more intense sunshine, and/or less clouds and /or less ozone.

    If you think it is (increasing) solar wind that also contributes to this, (as well) , then how would that (mechanism) work? Does it perhaps prevent cloud formation, or does it push / attract clouds more towards the poles?

    seem to suggest that

  130. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    “The polar vortex has little influence over summer temps, the jet streams are far less effective but do come into contention occasionally, we have seen that twice here this summer. You are stretching the bow again if you consider the small dips into negative last year as anything substantial.”

    The AO regularly has an effect on summer temperatures, and a VERY large influence on rainfall. If it were not for the moderately negative AO last summer we would have probably had the driest year for a 80 or more years. On BBC radio 4 this morning, it was announced that the UK could face its worst drought since 1976 this year. I know when it will rain or not, do you ? Study the data and take a lesson on how observation triumphs over presumption.

    “I have already provided the graph that shows no correlation.
    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/enso_sw.png

    Your plot is junk, your ENSO line is running some months late. The plot is far too small for serious study, and you should have inverted one of the traces.

  131. HenryP says:
    February 15, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    “If you think it is (increasing) solar wind that also contributes to this, (as well) , then how would that (mechanism) work? Does it perhaps prevent cloud formation, or does it push / attract clouds more towards the poles?”

    It appears that increased solar wind speed lowers polar pressure and forces polar oscillators positive. John Daly referenced a study that was done on CME impacts and the AAO which confirmed this.

  132. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 16, 2012 at 4:36 am

    The AO regularly has an effect on summer temperatures, and a VERY large influence on rainfall. If it were not for the moderately negative AO last summer we would have probably had the driest year for a 80 or more years. On BBC radio 4 this morning, it was announced that the UK could face its worst drought since 1976 this year. I know when it will rain or not, do you ? Study the data and take a lesson on how observation triumphs over presumption.

    Once again you are stretching the bow. We are talking about Arctic frigid air moving down from the pole, rainfall is not the issue. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall with a positive AAO causing more rain on the east coast. The AAO has been positive and along with the double La Nina for the last 2 summers has provided much flooding with many dead. But the control factor is the movement of cold air from polar regions brought about by jet stream changes which still has been occurring here with a positive AAO, but on a reduced basis. There are pressure pattern changes in both hemispheres over the past few years that is producing a contorted jet stream independent of the vortex positions, but a neg AO tends to enhance the jet stream movements even further…so I think you are teaching me to suck eggs.

    Your plot is junk, your ENSO line is running some months late. The plot is far too small for serious study, and you should have inverted one of the traces.

    Nice statement from someone incapable of providing a plot. I have refined the plot to suit your requirements by stretching and more accurately aligning the datasets which were 2 months out. The overall outcome has not changed, the relationship is still very poor.

    I have also provided an alternative view with the solar wind inverted which still show many areas of neg correlation. Your correlations are weak and without mechanisms, not a strong footing for the theory. I cant see any way of further manipulating the data that will improve your wiggle matching exercise.

  133. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    “We are talking about Arctic frigid air moving down from the pole, rainfall is not the issue. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall. The AAO also has a big effect on Australian rainfall with a positive AAO causing more rain on the east coast.”

    No we were talking about the AO going -ve last Summer, and you now are saying rainfall is not an issue for our summer but it is for yours.
    With a +AAO you should have a more zonal jet stream, though it is splitting and spilling into E. Aus:

    http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250

    “I have refined the plot to suit your requirements by stretching and more accurately aligning the datasets which were 2 months out.”

    The ENSO plot is all wrong. You can`t have the 95/96 La Nina at 0.7 being the same range from neutral as the 97/98 Nino. Same again with scale of the 72 El Nino and the 73/76 La Nina. The dark background and fuzzy lines are wrecking my eyes, and the lack of ENSO neutral line and proper grid means I have to refer to decent graph to see where I am. Its a comedy of errors.

  134. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Its a comedy of errors.

    There is no point procrastinating because the data refuses to back up your statements. Whether you use actual HadSST ENSO 4.3 temperature or anomaly data sets the solar wind speed will not correlate. Get over it and move on or produce your own comparison graph proving me wrong.

  135. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 19, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    “Get over it and move on or produce your own comparison graph proving me wrong.”

    You have not proved me wrong with the graphs you have provided, but I have proved that your graphs are junk. And on the contrary, I have proved you wrong with the graph links in my last comment. Currently I am exploring the seasonal nature of the trade winds, particularly in January and July, and noting how that decides when ENSO peaks and neutral phases occur:

    and this a great help in explaining the occasional lack of good correlation between the SW speed changes, and changes in the ENSO index late in the year, such as I discussed with Phil back up the thread.

  136. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    You have not proved me wrong with the graphs you have provided, but I have proved that your graphs are junk.

    My graph is std HadSST ENSO 4.3 temp data and OMNI solar wind speed. You will need to put up or shut on this issue.

    I will await your comparison graph. Failure to do so will display your normal tactics…all rhetoric and wild hand waving without a shred of evidence.

    We are still waiting for your wordpress type website where your predictions can be logged and measured, or are you going to continue with your snake oil statements?

  137. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    The ENSO plot is all wrong.

    There are two ways of measuring ENSO 3.4 data. You can use the actual sea surface temperatures measured in the NINO3.4 area or alternatively the anomaly metrics over the same area. Both have their advantages and are closely linked, but neither show any correlation with solar wind speed data. I have shown you HadSST data for raw SST NINO3.4 which lets us compare data sets back to 1965, there is clearly no association.

    You referenced the NINO3.4 Reynolds anomaly data displayed in a Bob Tisdale graph. The anomaly data only goes back to 1982 but it is also clear that there is no connection between solar wind speed and the NINO3.4 anomaly data. The same data mismatch is displayed that shows without doubt, that solar wind speed and ENSO have absolutely no relationship.

    I have prepared another plot displaying the NINO3.4 anomaly data (same data Bob uses every month) that you referenced, and the OMNI solar wind speed data, and I have included all of your petty demands that you deem important.

    Apart from the obvious mismatch the absence of the 11 year solar cycle is clearly evident. Solar wind speed is basically flat over multiple decades and shows no correlation with any climatic record. I have been reinforcing this point to you for a least 2 years.

    Your weather predictions are based on solar wind speed…but until you log your predictions it is impossible to take you seriously, build the website, it is free and extremely easy.

  138. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 5:13 am
    “There are two ways of measuring ENSO 3.4 data. You can use the actual sea surface temperatures measured in the NINO3.4 area or alternatively the anomaly metrics over the same area. Both have their advantages and are closely linked, but neither show any correlation with solar wind speed data.”

    Yes it does, the fall and rise of the solar wind speed is a remarkable fit for the stronger El Nino`s in 97/98 and 09/10: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
    and is in anti-phase trends with ENSO for most of the record.

    “I have prepared another plot displaying the NINO3.4 anomaly data (same data Bob uses every month) that you referenced, and the OMNI solar wind speed data, and I have included all of your petty demands that you deem important.

    Sadly it is running well out of sync again with ENSO shifted well ahead of the SW plot, and I really don`t know what to make of the year numbering at the top. You have 1982, 1990, 1997 and 2005 indicated twice. I am beginning to think you have lost the plot.

    “Apart from the obvious mismatch the absence of the 11 year solar cycle is clearly evident. Solar wind speed is basically flat over multiple decades and shows no correlation with any climatic record. I have been reinforcing this point to you for a least 2 years.”

    I`m not so sure about that: http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/SOLARWIND_files/image003.png

  139. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 19, 2012 at 7:38 pm
    “..or are you going to continue with your snake oil statements?”

    I have email evidence of my winter forecast from at least 8 months back, I told you earlier I can back it up.

  140. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 6:38 am

    Yes it does, the fall and rise of the solar wind speed is a remarkable fit for the stronger El Nino`s in 97/98 and 09/10: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
    and is in anti-phase trends with ENSO for most of the record.

    Cherry picking at best. Most of the record shows no correlation.

    Sadly it is running well out of sync again with ENSO shifted well ahead of the SW plot, and I really don`t know what to make of the year numbering at the top. You have 1982, 1990, 1997 and 2005 indicated twice. I am beginning to think you have lost the plot.

    The data is solid and beyond question. It is also your referenced data. The double dates are just a function of excel because of the 27 day data. You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.

    I have email evidence of my winter forecast from at least 8 months back, I told you earlier I can back it up.

    Not nearly good enough, a proper record of all predictions is required. Build a website or be subject to future ridicule.

  141. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    “Cherry picking at best.”

    As I said to Phil above “A falling solar wind speed trend can be seen at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09, that is a very large majority.” I was taking you through slowly event by event as you seem to be a bit slow to catch on.

    “You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.”

    As you continue to present graphs with the two plots chronologically misaligned, I can safely say that is your hat, you wear it. http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png

  142. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    “Not nearly good enough, a proper record of all predictions is required.”

    A dated email is more secure, unlike a wordpress page it cannot be edited. Besides, I have no intentions of giving away regular long range forecasts for free on a web page.

  143. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    “The data is solid and beyond question. It is also your referenced data. The double dates are just a function of excel because of the 27 day data. You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.”

    Clearly you are the fool as you have presented yet another graph with the two plots chronologically misaligned: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw.png

  144. OK Geoff, now lets look at La Nina episodes, here is the plasma speed data with a proper time scale; http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_23114.gif

    and you can get the dates for each La Nina episode here:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    Now we are looking for a rising trend in plasma speed during each La Nina episode. So that`s 1964: confirmed, 1967/8: confirmed, 1970/1: confirmed, 1973/5: confirmed, 1984/5: not quite so good early `85, 1988/9: confirmed, 1995/6: poor in late `95 http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_13070.gif , 1988/2000: confirmed, 2007/8: confirmed.
    Also, roughly 2yrs from El Chichon and Pinatubo has a strong El Nino bias. And don`t forget the seasonal nature of ENSO, so one would not expect a perfect lock step correlation between the two phenomena. What we are looking for here is meaningful trends, which there are plenty.

  145. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    There was a small error that has been corrected that makes no visible difference between the two data sets. The NINO3.4 data has only 8 months recorded in the starting year of 1982 and I had assumed 12. It is also impossible (as far as I can see) to align the date labels accurately in excel using 27 day data because excel does not allow fractions in the number of categories tick marks field.

    Any fool can see there is no correlation, but lets make sure the graph is correct so that you have absolutely no complaints. You can download the spreadsheet data from

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino_omni.xls

    Now plot the data for yourself and tell me where I am wrong.

  146. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    As I said to Phil above “A falling solar wind speed trend can be seen at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09, that is a very large majority.” I was taking you through slowly event by event as you seem to be a bit slow to catch on.

    You have already said you dont like the HadSST NINO3.4 raw temperature data so we will need to start with 1982 and the NINO3.4 anomaly data. There is no falling solar wind trend (rising on the inverted data) in 86, 94, 04, 06. Just wishful thinking I think. There is also no falling trend before the 1983, 2003, 2005 and 2007 El Nino’s.

    The is also no rising solar wind trend (falling on the inverted data) before the 83-86, 88-90, 95-97, 98-02, 05, 07-09 and 10-11 La Nina periods. All La Nina periods do not show a rising solar wind beforehand. There is also complete disconnects around 94 and 03 showing large spikes in the solar wind without any noticeable change in the ENSO state.

    So you can only cherry pick the 98 and 2010 El Nino and at a stretch 92, the rest is just wishful thinking. I have circled some of the dubious areas in the following diagram.

  147. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    OK Geoff, now lets look at La Nina episodes,

    The correct way to analyze the data is to move the inverted OMNI record forward in relation to the NINO3.4 anomaly data and check for any fit.

    I have done so for 1 & 2 years, and the fit is not good. Like I said earlier it doesn’t matter how you manipulate the data the correlation is very poor.

  148. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    “Any fool can see there is no correlation, but lets make sure the graph is correct so that you have absolutely no complaints.”

    I can see straight away from the big El Nino`s you are around 8 months out off sync in that graph too, so any fool can see that you can`t put a graph together. You will not acknowledge or comment on any detail of my analysis (such as in my last comment), and you continue solely with your meme that there is no correlation, based on your duff graphs. You are wasting my time.

  149. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    I can see straight away from the big El Nino`s you are around 8 months out off sync in that graph too, so any fool can see that you can`t put a graph together. You will not acknowledge or comment on any detail of my analysis (such as in my last comment), and you continue solely with your meme that there is no correlation, based on your duff graphs. You are wasting my time.

    I have given you the spreadsheet, show me where I am wrong. I told you it is not possible to align the date labels accurately (which is of little importance). The relationship between the two sets of data is plotted correctly.

    I have already shown via the shifted data there is NO correlation. Give up Ulric or provide a graph of your own proving me wrong. It might also pay if you read back where I dealt with your comments. Weak comments are all that you have displayed, no data what so ever, try writing a paper using comments only.

  150. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    “There is no falling solar wind trend (rising on the inverted data) in 86, 94, 04, 06. Just wishful thinking I think. There is also no falling trend before the 1983, 2003, 2005 and 2007 El Nino’s.”

    1986, falling, rises very sharply and falls again: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_28090.gif
    1994 and 2004, very large falls: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
    2006 is back up thread in a comment to Phil.
    1983 is Pinatubo as explained.
    2003 actually goes -ve at May due to the SW rising, then falls from then producing Nino conditions.
    2005 spiky, but a very good falling trend.
    2007 (Jan) is the end of the 2006 El Nino, 2007 finishes on a sharp rise in SW speed producing a La Nina.

    “The is also no rising solar wind trend (falling on the inverted data) before the 83-86, 88-90, 95-97, 98-02, 05, 07-09 and 10-11 La Nina periods.”

    Now don`t start moving the goalposts on the duration of the La Nina periods:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    “The correct way to analyze the data is to move the inverted OMNI record forward..”

    Now that`s you stretching the bow as you put it, is that your get out clause for yet three more duff graphs. How many years are you out on this one ?

  151. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm
    “The relationship between the two sets of data is plotted correctly.”

    Complete rubbish, you have not provided one graph with the two plots aligned correctly.

  152. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Complete rubbish, you have not provided one graph with the two plots aligned correctly.

    Put up or shut up. Show me where I am wrong. All you have displayed is an ignorance of excel and a desperation to falsify the data because it proves your statements incorrect.

    You have the data, plot it your way.

  153. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    I have included plot dates from both sets of data that clearly show the alignment is good. The compared data is in different bucket sizes, NINO3.4 is 12 buckets per year and the OMNI data is 13-14 buckets per year making the comparison process more difficult but none the less it is accurate, data accuracy should be within 2 weeks. If you had any understanding of excel you would recognize this along with the difficulties of displaying an accurate date label.

    So I will now wait for you to agree the data is plotted correctly in relation to each other. If not you must show me clearly where it is wrong.

  154. Geoff Sharp says:
    February 20, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    “Put up or shut up. Show me where I am wrong. All you have displayed is an ignorance of excel and a desperation to falsify the data because it proves your statements incorrect.”

    You can check the alignment easiest at the peak of the `97/98 El Nino. As said earlier, the peak is late `97, exactly when the SW speed is lowest. Not one of your graphs align correctly, your latest attempt is another sad failure: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png
    And as you think there is no falling trend in SW speed in `94 and 04`, I am clearly talking to a complete idiot and refuse to continue this discussion: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif

    Ulric Lyons says:
    February 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm
    correction:
    1983 is El Chichon as explained.

  155. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 21, 2012 at 3:35 am

    You can check the alignment easiest at the peak of the `97/98 El Nino. As said earlier, the peak is late `97, exactly when the SW speed is lowest.
    I am clearly talking to a complete idiot and refuse to continue this discussion:

    You have obviously not worked with Microsoft excel and experienced some of the inherent downfalls that exist with this product. The Reynolds data I used has been corrupted when performing a zero decimal function on the date column, which looks to have rounded upward instead of removing the decimals, thus explaining the small time shift error with the NINO3.4 data. Once corrected it returns the data back to the original point of 24 hours ago.

    You can spit the dummy and take your bat, but in essence nothing has changed, you are disputing fractions as the overall picture is not changed. But I expect you to take this opportunity to point score instead of resolving the scientific method. I will prepare the amended graphs which will be little changed that continue to show solar wind speed has no correlation with ENSO.

  156. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 21, 2012 at 6:55 am

    Some 8 months out of sync is not a fraction

    I apologize for being caught out by an inconsistency with excel. As stated the decimal function rounded up the values in the NINO3.4 date column. The data I was cross checking was corrupted.

    The amended graph continues to show a non correlation between NINO3.4 anom and OMNI solar wind speed and is practically the same as the previous comparisons. You have shown no ability or willingness to provide a proper comparison between the 2 data sets which I have attempted to do in good faith, albeit it with a few hiccups along the way. I believe the latest version is accurate and I provide the spreadsheet and graph for anyone that might like to use or check, in the interest of furthering our climate knowledge.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_swind.xls

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw3.png

  157. Ulric Lyons says:
    February 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Geoff Sharp says:
    February 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Considering that you are convinced that there is correlation between the size of solar cycles and your power wave: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
    I would seek a range of alternative appraisals.

    So I will take it by your lack of criticism and refusal to supply your own data, that the amended solar wind speed vs NINO3.4 graph is correct. This should finish any claims on correlation.

    I can see you, like Leif has no understanding of the two basic principles of the powerwave. We are not permitted to discuss this theory on WUWT. Have a read of the following article which may help you understand the theory (not holding too many hopes).

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218

Comments are closed.