When will it start cooling?

Guest post by David Archibald

My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.

So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. My work on sea level response to solar activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/) found that the breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall is a sunspot amplitude of 40:

clip_image002

As this graph from SIDC shows, the current solar amplitude is about 60 in the run-up to solar maximum, expected in May 2013:

clip_image004

The two remaining variables in our quest are the timing of the sunspot number fall below 40 and the length of Solar Cycle 24. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:

clip_image006

The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has reached the level at which solar maximum occurs. It usually spends a year at this level before heading back down again:

clip_image008

Similarly, the solar polar field strength (from the Wilcox Solar Observatory) suggest that solar maximum may be up to a year away:

clip_image010

Notwithstanding that solar maximum, as predicted from heliocentric current sheet tilt angle and solar polar field strength, is still a little way off, if Solar Cycle 24 continues to shape up like Solar Cycle 5, sunspot amplitude will fall below 40 from mid-2013. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/) suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. That leaves twelve and a half years of cooling from mid-2013.

From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable.

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

387 Responses to When will it start cooling?

  1. Trevor says:

    Thanks for the update David, clear and concise as usual. Gee it will be interesting to see how this pans out, and if it does where the warmist crowd will run.

  2. Jeff M says:

    So you are saying any time now? Does this mean likley weasily seen lower values in 2013 or are we looking at 2015+ before the global averages befgin to drop? Waht are teh oveans doing? Last I heard to total heat content of the Pacific was significantly down and could be linked to the drought conditions in much of North America.

  3. Ian W says:

    “the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle.”

    What will be the effect of a 1.2º C drop in temperatures on the ‘grow line’ for food crops? Cold tends to be dry so more drought hitting grain and it looks like the Northern plain states may even get frost before the end of the month after the supposed ‘hottest July on record’ which won’t improve the soy harvest.

    Its probably a good time to increase the long term food storage.

  4. wayne Job says:

    The ocean page is showing that the oceans are not hot. The only warm water is gathered around very northern climes, much of it impinging on the arctic.

    This is not a good place for warm water to expect a long life. The temperature of the ocean off the West Coast of USA is cool to say the least. Australia is suffering a very cold winter even in tropical and sub tropical areas. I think the cooling has already started and it is only fudged thermometers that is saying different.

  5. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme… suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026.
    In his presentation at the SPD meeting in June 2012, Altrock suggests:
    “the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3″ making cycle 24 short.

  6. Roger Carr says:

    Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.” — David Archibald – March, 2008

    (International Conference on Climate Change – Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States)

  7. Bloke down the pub says:

    From the perspective of here in the UK, this year has already been cooling.

  8. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5
    Solar cycle 5 is VERY uncertain http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png so ‘almost exactly’ is not really applicable [and SC5 was not 17 years long]. SC24 may look more like cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

  9. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
    Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.

  10. Bloke down the pub

    According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730’s
    tonyb

  11. Alexandre says:

    Some 0.9ºC cooling until 2026?
    That’s a bold prediction. I wish all the media gives full attention to it and follow the results over that period. That would definetely show who knows the science around here…

  12. F. Guimaraes says:

    The solar polar field strength
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    shows that the last 3 reversals occurred on approx. 1980, 1990 and 2000, with a periodicity of ~ 10 years between them, and the inclination of the curve of the polar field with time pretty much defined the rate at which the field would evolve (up or down) into the next period- it’s a straight line at the point of reversal.
    The reversal of cycle-24 has not occurred yet and we are nearly 13 years after the last one and the rate of change of the polar field is decreasing (on the average) with time, while in the previous cycles it showed a tendency to increase when approaching the point of reversal.
    This seems to suggest that we could have to wait a lot more for the reversal to occur (if it occurs) and, similarly to what happened in the previous cycles, we would be entering a period when the polar field would stay for a long time close to zero after the reversal.
    This sounds like a grand minimum of Maunder type to me, which would also be in agreement with the initial predictions/suggestions of the original Livingston-Penn paper, which put a deadline, so to speak, in 2015 after which the sunspots would not be observed for some time.

  13. F. Guimaraes says:

    The Livingston-Penn paper I was referring to is the “unpublished” one,
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

  14. Thanks, very interesting!
    Habibullo Abdussamatov has predicted the temperature fall for around 2014.

  15. vukcevic says:

    I wouldn’t put much money on any individual cycle to cause either warming or cooling. Earth has its own faint magnetic cycles with similar ones found in the N. hemisphere temperature records:
    Earth…. 85, 50, 35, 28
    Arctic… 82, 54, 32, 25
    – AMO…- -, 64, 35, 22-26
    – CET…. 90, 55, 35, 28
    The assembly of the CET cycles is at the peak, so cooling in near future appears to be inevitable. Here is what the extrapolation (with sunspot cycles superimposed) suggests for the near future:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm

  16. Allan MacRae says:

    Good timing. I wrote the following yesterday.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/oxburghs-climate-madness/#comment-1056398

    [excerpt]

    I (we) also predicted in a separate 2002 article that global cooling would return by about 2020 to 2030.

    There has been no net global warming for 10-15 years.

    I suggest that natural global cooling is imminent, and is a far greater threat to humanity and the environment than global warming ever was.

    I see little evidence that this threat of global cooling is recognized, or that any sensible plans are being developed to adapt to it.

    Hope I’m wrong about global cooling, but I like our track record to date.

    _________

    This earlier post summarizes my serious concerns about imminent global cooling.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/missing-the-missing-summer/#comment-958620

    [excerpts]

    … In 2003 I wrote that global cooling would resume by about 2020 to 2030.

    So what happens if I’m wrong? There is some modest (NOT catastrophic) warming, and the majority of humanity actually benefits. History shows that humanity and the environment benefit during warm periods.

    And what happens if I’m right? That depends how much global cooling occurs. If cooling is moderate, more early frosts will reduce the grain harvest locally – not a huge problem. If global cooling is severe, frequent and widespread early frosts will significantly reduce the grain harvest, driving up food prices and having a major negative impact on humanity, and particularly the poor.

    All in all, I’d prefer to be wrong. I could live with that – and so could many other people.

    In the meantime, our politicians continue to obsess about mythical catastrophic manmade global warming (CAGW), despite the fact that there has been NO net global warming for ~10-15 years.

    Should severe global cooling occur, humanity will be woefully unprepared.

  17. DirkH says:

    Thanks a lot, good to see someone stick his neck out and dare a prediction. So I have some time to get prepared.

  18. vukcevic says:

    Jeff M says:
    Last I heard to total heat content of the Pacific was significantly down and could be linked to the drought conditions in much of North America.
    see my posts:
    hansen-is-just-wrong – 1
    and
    hansen-is-just-wrong – 2

  19. beng says:

    Answer — right now. Summer is already on decline — mid-fifties this morning for the first time.

  20. F. Guimaraes says:

    @climatereason says:August 13, 2012 at 4:35 am
    “According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730′s”
    The analysis of Artic seaice extent of the Met Office seems more reliable than the NOAA analysis in my opinion:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
    It shows a coherent prompt response of the ice extent to solar radiation in the last 30 years, which is also coherent with the increased snowfall in Alaska since 2008. The graph of NOAA simply shows nothing. (or, possibly, some political bias mixed with the data… )

  21. HenryP says:

    David Archibald says:
    It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.

    Leif Svalgaard says
    Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.

    Henry says
    No, rather, it already started cooling, as observed from the drop in energy coming through the atmosphere.
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
    There is something wrong with the people doing the measuring (“hide the decline – my job depends on it!”) or with the results of the measurements themselves. Old story. 3M’s. It is either the man, the method or the machine.

  22. Ric Werme says:

    beng says:
    August 13, 2012 at 5:45 am

    > Answer — right now. Summer is already on decline — mid-fifties this morning for the first time.

    In New England, I look for the first wonderful Canadian air mass around mid August. Hasn’t happened yet. This year and past years aren’t anomalous, and we can still roast on Labor Day.

  23. F. Guimaraes says:

    There has been a spike in the solar radiation since mid 2011, that’s what I think is causing a little delay in the cooling trend. How long the delay will last depends on the exact character of the present grand minimum. If it reveal itself as a Dalton type the delay could last a little longer, if it’s a Maunder-type the cooling should be pronounced and start more quickly. The observation of solar radiation in the next year or so will bring the answer to this definition.
    Thanks David, for your very interesting post.

  24. The Monster says:

    A friend of mine bought a snow blower a year and a half ago, after the brutal winter. I don’t think he got to use it this last winter.

    I just bought a new air conditioner for my house, so the cooling should start in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  25. MiCro says:

    I’ve commented for about the last year, that melting arctic ice would expose more warm waters that originated in the tropics to frigid polar sky’s and would make an effective cooling system, similar in design to an automotive cooling system that’s thermostatically controlled.

  26. AnonyMoose says:

    “biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans”
    You might want to fix that typo to make reuse of the text more pleasant.

  27. Wagathon says:

    Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented:
    Question: Shall prospects of global cooling be considered a disaster too?

    Answer: Note: Nikola Scafetta believes that, “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.” Scafetta’s forecast is based upon, ‘physical mechanisms’ and ‘the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,’ such as for examples, ENSO effects and solar activity. Qing-Bin Lu believes that, “a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.” Humanity will adapt and global cooling need not necessarily be considered a disaster for everyone. Even so there will be many challenges, as for example, Canadian wheat production. And, there always is the possibility of disaster. Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”

    http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/answer-key-to/

  28. highflight56433 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:29 am

    It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
    Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.

    However, we keep getting the word that UHI temps have polluted the average temperature change, and are not a measurement to which we depend to make. In the last century having had a more active sun followed by an increase in global temp, would we not expect that if Mr. sunshine takes a nap that there would follow over time less warming/more cooling?

    Furthermore, in reading news from outside the US mainstream media that ignores anything like what happen last winter in SE Europe etc. And as another mentioned happening in Australia, S. Africa, etc. Maybe the old timers in Alaska fishing industry who claim last winter Bering Sea ice was more than they had ever seen should be a consideration as well. Just these little examples that are outside the “lab” that have real time effects on life.

    All the “experts” have a scattering of reasons for their “but” arguing. BUT … so do the folks who experience changes in weather where they live a life time. Do the local lakes freeze over in winter? Nope… did they 60 years ago yep. Simple real life observations. BUT… :)

  29. Jose says:

    According to “tonyb”…

    “According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730′s”

    According to the Met Office:

    CET average temperature in the 1730s: 9.86
    CET average temperature since 2000: 10.26
    CET average temperature for 2011: 10.70, the second warmest on record after 2006.

    Which UK does “tonyb” live in?

  30. John says:

    It wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t cool, or cools very little and for a short period of time. If the amount of warming we get from CO2, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and methane is toward the low end of projections — perhaps even close to Richard Lindzen’s projections — we are still in a warming world. Unless the solar influence is quite a bit larger than most of the solar community think, then to me it would make sense that cooling due to the current solar cycle might not be enough to cool the earth, but might be enough to cancel warming for a few years, everything else equal. That may be what we have been seeing the last few years.

    Everything else may not be equal. Real data is the only thing that matters to me at this point. We haven’t seen warming for about 15 years. Arctic sea ice is now lower than during the previous low period, 2007. Chinese sulfate emissions have been steadily increasing. The PDO switched modes about 15 years go. Lots of moving parts. I don’t want to prejudge, let’s just see what happens going forward.

  31. aaron says:

    Leif, could the solar cycle be forward skewed; can the tail drag out?

  32. HenryP says:

    cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.

  33. Doug Proctor says:

    The cooling of 0.9C: global, global land, continental USA, mid-central-north United States?

    The ratios of regions to global is economically and socially of greatest signficance. The multiplier going up in the Arctic is 3.5 to 5.0 X the alleged global rate right now; the cooling should be of a similar nature.

    Your earlier work was focused on New Haven, New Hampshire, I believe, invovling a 2.4C drop (I could be mistaken in the detail) locally. Globally it was much less. Is this the 0.9C you are writing about?

  34. TRM says:

    David Archibald, HenryP & Leif Svalgaard:

    Thanks. I always enjoy these reasoned discussions. You all provide some food for thought.

    Cheers and may it be the temp you want where you are for water or snow skiing.

  35. Michael Schaefer says:

    I say cooling is on it’s way already.

    “The Summer That Wasn’t” – here in Germany.

    I know, I know – Weather is not Climate. Tell me about it when I mount snow tires on my car in September…

  36. Jimbo says:

    Let’s hope it doesn’t start cooling soon as it would be devastating for the poor frogs whose decline was previously blamed on global warming.

    BBC, Roger Black, 12 August 2012
    More changeable temperatures, a consequence of global warming, may be helping to abet the threat that a lethal fungal disease poses to frogs……………..

    On its own, the fungus fared better in cooler conditions, and when the temperature changes were regular.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19199197

  37. Thank you, David Archibald, always enjoy your writings.

    K.R. Frank

  38. Lawrence beatty says:

    Now I know this may sound daft but if any cooling due to low sunspot activity is taking place then surely it’s to do with Svensgard’s extra cloud cover; but is this actually happening?
    Also if it is and average cloud cover increases doesn’t this too trap heat thus initially making the world warmer or sustaining in a more even temperature which is what the satellite data has been showing over the last 12 years a kind of levelling. Of course the key to this is whether according to still yet unproved theory a quite sun increases cloud cover. If cloud cover has increased I would then suggest heat trapping until a critical point is reached where the oceans lose their heat due to lack of shortwave heating and eventually the heat drains although heat loss was slowed down due to those very same clouds that prevent or slow ocean heating. And surely if all this tripe I’m suggesting were true then there could be a very long (relative to our human impatience) stalemate heating budget situation where less is going in but less is also going out.

    But hey what do I know.

    It could turn out that the warmist and the coolists don’t know what the hell they are talking about

  39. aaron says:
    August 13, 2012 at 7:55 am
    Leif, could the solar cycle be forward skewed; can the tail drag out?
    Cycle 5 is very ill-defined [not enough observation] and the large ‘opening spike’ is likely not real. The general rule is that for low cycles, the rise time is long, and the ‘tail’ is correspondingly short. So cycle 24 is not going to be 17 years long. More like 12 or 13. So only 9 years to go. The North Pole is reversing polarity right now and the South Pole perhaps in a year or so. Here is a recent talk about polar field reversals http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf The text for each slide is here http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf

  40. Allen says:

    When will we have the data to test this hypothesis? Do we have to wait until 2050?

  41. HenryP says:

    Henry@jose

    Now, can you bring me the calibration certificate of the thermometer that they used in 1730?

  42. daveburton says:

    MiCro says (on August 13, 2012 at 6:52 am), “I’ve commented for about the last year, that melting arctic ice would expose more warm waters that originated in the tropics to frigid polar sky’s and would make an effective cooling system, similar in design to an automotive cooling system that’s thermostatically controlled.”

    Now that is one of the more interesting comments I’ve read in a while.

    What you’re describing is a “negative feedback” mechanism. One of the alarmists’ major arguments for an unstable climate (high “climate sensitivity” to “forcings”) is that reduced albedo of the sea from melting arctic ice would cause increased absorption of sunlight (a “positive feedback”), and accelerated global warming. But does that make sense?

    If we ask, “what part of the globe should that cause to warm?” the answer is obviously, “the part with the reduced albedo, of course – i.e., the Arctic Ocean.” But, will reduced ice cover really warm the thus-exposed water? Reduced albedo works both ways: it reduces emission as well as absorption, and a layer of ice insulates the water below, preventing the agitation that transports heat to and from the surface.

    Does someone here know the answer to this question: what are the heat flows for open Arctic Ocean water during the summer (which is mostly daytime)? Does heat gained from absorption of sunlight exceed heat lost from longwave radiation emitted? Or are ocean currents, moving water from warmer latitudes, the only reason that Arctic Ocean water ever warms at all, even in the summer?

    In other words, is reduction of Arctic sea ice in a warmer world a net positive feedback mechanism (due to increased sunlight absorption), or a net negative feedback mechanism (due to increased radiative heat loss, per MiCro’s observation)?

  43. Matt says:

    Or maybe the prediction is wrong :)

  44. David Larsen says:

    The warmist crowd can move back into their caves.

  45. Edim says:

    It kinda already started, but the real thing (very rapid cooling) will start when the solar cycle starts declining (after 2014/2015). By 2020 we will have 30 years of no warming.

  46. vukcevic says:

    Here is a clear and fair comparison of SC24, SC14 and SC5.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC24-14-5.htm

  47. vukcevic says:
    August 13, 2012 at 10:18 am
    Here is a clear and fair comparison of SC24, SC14 and SC5.
    Since we know very little about SC5 [not enough observations], it is impossible to make a ‘fair’ comparison.

  48. MikeP says:

    DaveBurton, Clouds will complicate the feedbacks for the Arctic just as they do elsewhere. More open water means more evaporation which means potentially more clouds which means less sunlight reaching the ocean surface. Or more open water means more evaporation which means more rain in the summer and more snow in early winter which means less overall clouds and more sunlight reaching the ocean surface. This kind of handwaving has already been used to justify greater NH snowfall in the recent past. However, I believe that the reality is complex enough that I don’t think one can simply stare at the ceiling and say exactly what will happen. We need to know a lot more than we already do.

  49. MiCro says:

    daveburton says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:45 am

    ” One of the alarmists’ major arguments for an unstable climate (high “climate sensitivity” to “forcings”) is that reduced albedo of the sea from melting arctic ice would cause increased absorption of sunlight (a “positive feedback”), and accelerated global warming. ”

    You might enjoy this paper:
    http://sun.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf
    Basically, above 70-80 degrees Lat, a lot of the incoming solar energy gets reflected, not absorbed by water. You can see this as glare on wet surfaces.
    I don’t know how to quantify whether the feedback is positive or negative in the long run, but I suspect it’s a lot more difficult to answer than what the warmest would have us believe.

  50. Jeff L says:

    David,

    “Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”

    1) What is the standard deviation on the 0.9° C reduction forecast. Obviously the r^2 isn’t 1, so there are some error bars. Are we currently within those error bars ?

    2) At what point in time do you consider the forecast to be a bust ? The reality might be more complicated – just as temps aren’t just about CO2, they may not also be just about the sun & these complications could lead to a bust in forecast – which isn’t the end of the world – just a good learning opportunity to try to develop a better model, which is in contrast to those chanting the CO2 mantra – there is no desire on that side of the argument to improve the model – just a desire to use their current model to control people’s behaviors.

    Looking fwd to your thoughts on these 2 questions.

  51. Alec Rawls says:

    David and Jan-Erik’s cooling predictions are for surface temperatures, which historically have been predictable by the preceding solar cycle. There are two ways to account for that predictive power. It could be that the heat content of the planet starts dropping immediately when solar activity falls but it takes a while to be detectable thanks to “lags” in the system (signal dampening by the ocean heat-sink presumably), or it could be that the current solar cycle predicts something about what is going to happen to heat-content during the next solar cycle (or a combination of the two).

    Hence David’s attention to sea level as an ocean calorimeter. If only we had a decent measure of current heat content, we’d have a much clearer picture of what is going on. In this post David is not looking at lags, or ocean dampening, but is looking at what is likely to happen with the sun during cycle 24. But if he is right, aren’t the effects on surface temperature still going to be dampened, so that their most visible effect on surface temperatures is seen during solar cycle 25?

    I’m not reading too much into the lack of cooling at present. It’s hard to read anything into the vagaries of surface temperature when they are primarily determined by ocean fluctuations. The end of warming is already pretty strong confirmation that solar variation is at least as powerful driver of climate as CO2. If there is anything to read so quickly into the lack of cooling, I would say it provides a modicum of support for Nir Shaviv’s estimate that solar variation and CO2 have similarly sized effects on climate.

    Hard to imagine that the world could be so lucky. All the predictions that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming are based on the assumption that ALL late 20th century warming was caused by CO2, indicating a very high climate sensitivity. If half of it was caused by the sun then all that scary multiplying-up of CO2 forcing effects disappears and the only thing in prospect is the benign warming seen during the Roman Optimum and the MWP, while at the same time CO2 would still be powerful enough a warming agent to provide us effective control over planetary temperature. We can stave off the next descent into glaciation just by continuing to release stored CO2 into the atmosphere, which we can easily do at least for the couple hundred years it will take us to advance technologically to the point where we can stave off glaciation by putting some giant reflectors into orbit to give us as much sun as we want.

    Yet another Goldilocks coincidence in favor of our blessed blue marble? If so, I’d call it a modicum of evidence that there really is a God.

  52. Stephen Wilde says:

    Lawrence beatty says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:04 am

    All good points but I think the answer is as follows:

    i) A quieter sun seems to cause more meridional jets in the mid latitudes with larger polar air masses developing at the expense of smaller equatorial air masses. In the process I suspect that the net latitudinal position of the jets and all the climate zones shift equatorward. I have proposed a possible mechanism previously. Svensmark’s cosmic rays are unlikely to be the cause, I think they are just a coincidental proxy for other mechanisms but there may be a small contribution. More likely is differential effects on ozone concentrations at different heights in the atmosphere which alter the vertical temperature profile.The gradient of the tropopause height changes between equator and pole to allow latitudinal sliding of the climate zones beneath the tropopause.That alters the rate of energy flow from surface to space.An entirely negative system response which serves to ensure long term system stability whatever the forcing mechanism. The baseline is set by atmospheric pressure at the surface but that is for another day.

    ii) Either way, the effect is to increase the length of the lines of air mass mixing to produce more clouds globally. There is evidence that there have been more meridional jets and increased global cloudiness with higher global albedo since around 2000.

    iii) As you say, clouds both insulate and reflect but insulation only slows the rate at which energy is lost from the system (primarily the oceans) whereas reflection denies energy to the system altogether so over enough time the cumulative effect is net system cooling.

    iv) That solar effect on albedo skews the net thermal effect of the ENSO process towards warming El Ninos if the sun is active and towards cooling La Ninas if the sun is inactive. Changes in albedo have most effect either side of the equator where the ENSO phenomenon is generated.

    iv) The logical implication is that a quiet sun encourages net system cooling by increasing global albedo for less energy into the oceans. An active sun does the opposite.The only remaining issue is as to the length of the lag times. On the basis of the 1997/8 El Nino having caused the 2007 Arctic ice loss about ten years seem right.I expect the effect of trhe recent solar minimum with the record negative Arctic Oscillation to show its full effect in about 8 years time.

    I think David is correct in general terms but the precise values need to be ascertained from future observations. I would be surprised if he is exactly correct but he is surely on the right track.

  53. Alec Rawls says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:05 am
    David and Jan-Erik’s cooling predictions are for surface temperatures, which historically have been predictable by the preceding solar cycle.
    Not so: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf

  54. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:01 am

    cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.
    _________________________
    Beat me to it. The record snowfall is not melting out: Accuweather.com: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year

    … The all-time record snowfall of 133.6 inches last winter – just over 11 feet – could give Anchorage an endless winter….The combination of heavy snowfall and a cool spring caused the lingering snow, said United States Department of Agriculture Snow Survey Supervisor Rick McClure. He said that it’s unusual to see snow still remaining in some of the mountains that surround Anchorage…

    Given the oceans act as a giant hot watter bottle, I would not expect to see cooling temperatures from a quiet sun to be evident short term.

    NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

    New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere….

    The Graphs in the article of the “Energy emitted by the upper atmosphere as infrared (IR) radiation in 2002 (top) and 2008 (bottom)” are interesting since they show a decrease with Nitric Oxide (NO) as the IR emitter in one set of graphs and CO2 as the IR emitter in the other set of graphs.

    The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
    Abstract
    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…..

    Here is one for Vukcevic if he has not seen it already: NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered

    …”At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”

    The magnetosphere is a bubble of magnetism that surrounds Earth and protects us from solar wind. Exploring the bubble is a key goal of the THEMIS mission, launched in February 2007. The big discovery came on June 3, 2007, when the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening. Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance…..

  55. AJB says:

    Leif Svalgaard says, August 13, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Interesting slide on page 25. Here is an extract from SDO HMI today:
    http://s7.postimage.org/tvvkqjyaz/South_Pole.png

    Hard to tell with the south pole tipped away from us at the moment but do you really think it’ll take another year for it to switch? Looks to be happening fairly quickly.

  56. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Henry@jose

    Now, can you bring me the calibration certificate of the thermometer that they used in 1730?
    _______________________
    Spoken like a true chemist.

  57. Volker Doormann says:

    Posted on August 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts
    Guest post by David Archibald
    My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.

    There is a stable solar sun spot clock of 11.196 years which is modified in its frequency by an unknown mechanism. Shifts to lower frequencies results in decreasing temperatures and vice versa.
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sun_shift_buent.gif
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/shift_ssn_comp1.gif
    The Solheim method uses the solar sun spot number function and has a time resolution of about 11 years. Using solar tide functions the time resolution can be refined to two month:
    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_gl_july_2012.gif

    However, it’s the Sun.

    V.

  58. Stephen Wilde says:

    MiCro

    I have been trying to tell AGW proponents for some years that warm water surfaces at the North Pole where the sun is weakest are going to accelerate system cooling rather than warming.

    The extra sunlight into the water in high summer will be more than offset by more heat loss to the air in spring and autumn. Indeed even in high summer the heat loss from the exposed water might exceed the extra energy in from sunlight.

    My favourite analogy is the speed at which a bald man can lose body heat when going without a hat in cold weather.Any extra light on his head will count for nothing.

    I see the current low levels of Arctic ice as draining energy from the currently warm north atlantic more quickly whilst at the same time the available replacement energy from equatorial regions is being depleted by increased global cloudiness skewing ENSO in favour of cooling La Ninas.

    I expect a drop in global air temperatures as soon as the cooling of the north atlantic combines with the cooling observed in parts of the equatorial oceans.

    Many are suggesting a noticeable impact within 2 years and I think that is a reasonable estimate but the oceans are a big energy store so it could be up to another 8 years for the main event. That is just a guess though, it might well be sooner.

  59. AJB says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Hard to tell with the south pole tipped away from us at the moment but do you really think it’ll take another year for it to switch? Looks to be happening fairly quickly.
    One can debate what ‘reversal’ means. My definition is that all the old polarity at all longitudes must be replaced by new polarity, and a year to go looks reasonable judging from previous reversals.

  60. Stephen Wilde says:

    “If there is anything to read so quickly into the lack of cooling, I would say it provides a modicum of support for Nir Shaviv’s estimate that solar variation and CO2 have similarly sized effects on climate.”

    I’m doubtful that they are anywhere close to similar.

    If one looks at the size of the climate zone and jetstream shifts from MWP to LIA and LIA to date they appear to be in the region of 1000 miles latitudinally.

    I accept that in principle more CO2 from human emissions should cause a system response but on what scale ?

    The climate zones moved poleward when the sun was active and seem now to be moving back equatorward with the less active sun.

    Our CO2 emissions seems to have made no difference to the change in trend since around 2000.

    If forced to guess I’d say that our emissions might shift the system up to a mile as compared to the 1000 mile shifts from sun and oceans.

    During ice age / interglacial transitions I suspect shifts of well over 1000 miles latitudinally.

  61. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:10 am
    Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme… suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026.
    In his presentation at the SPD meeting in June 2012, Altrock suggests:
    “the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3″ making cycle 24 short.

    On average, the solar cycle splits such that the rise time is a bit under two thirds the length of the fall time. However, all bets are off for cycles 24/25. There may not be a clear minimum between them. We may not be in a position to argue about it for many years, since it may not be clear whether cycle 24 had a long low double peak, or whether it merged into cycle 25. The anomalous trailing hump on the cycle(s) preceding the Dalton MInimum may be the nearest analogue, though I would expect the split to be more even this time. Our definition of a solar cycle is based on past experience. But as any investment company will tell you, past performance is no guarantee of future trends. Expect the unexpected.

  62. Gail Combs says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:15 am
    NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
    …”At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”

    This is just the usual NASA hype. No alteration is needed. That the magnetosphere opens up when the magnetic field in the solar wind turns southwards was predicted by Dungey in 1961 and proven by in-situ measurements in 1968.

  63. Johanus says:

    David Archibald says:
    “So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. ”

    … yes, but measurements therefrom are noisy and somewhat uncertain due to instrumentation issues (as discussed frequently in these WUWT pages).

    A much more reliable calorimeter is on-board the SORCE space-craft. It also has had “calibration” issues, but these have been successfully addressed according to the experts.
    http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

    Total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies (in luminosity) by 0.07% between solar minima and maxima (with more variance in shorter EUV wavelengths).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_solar_irradiance#Solar_irradiance

    So, based on this direct solar observation, why should we expect more cooling at the minima?

  64. HenryP says:

    Henry@Lawrence beatty

    Nothing “daft” if you come here to find out something.
    I have come to believe that the effect of more or less clouds and cloudiness may sort of cancel each other out, if there is more or less of it. During the day, when there is “more” clouds you do get more deflection of sunlight. But during the night, it traps more heat. So which effect is more?
    Studying my own results,
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
    I think the effect of more or less clouds is minor.
    There is a clear natural relationship, parabolic, nogal, when you plot the change in maxima in degrees C per annum against time. Checking my current zero point on the x-axis I find that earth has started getting less energy from the sun around 1995 and checking my zero point on the y-axis (2012) I find that it is currently cooling by about -0.08 degree C per annum on the maxima. The nature of the graph for means is one that lags a bit on the graph for maxima: earth has a store where it keeps its energy and a lot of that energy only comes out a bit later. I would generally agree with the available datasets like RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 that maximum energy output by earth must have been a few years after 1995. But it will soon pick up on that fall in the maxima. In fact, I think it is happening already. There is simply less energy coming through. I am surprised that nobody has picked it up yet. I am still studying the reasons, but the Sun-UV-ozone cycle and/or the shrinking of the atmosphere, either way, creating (relatively) more ozone in the upper atmosphere, is the most likely cause for the cooling.

    My results also seem to indicate that it is not one single sun cycle that brought us here, in a cooling zone. We were warming from about 1944 to 1995. We are now cycling back and (I gather) around 2045 we will be back where we were in 1945. Those old enough will remember that the winter of 1944 was bitterly cold. In Europe they called it the “hunger” winter. Many people lost their lives, not (only)because of the war, but because of the cold and the lack of food….

  65. Stephen Wilde says:

    “why should we expect more cooling at the minima?”

    Because something other than raw TSI affects global cloudiness and albedo which in turn affects the amount of energy received by the oceans and the oceans affect tropospheric energy flows.

    Quiet sun more clouids / active sun less clouds.

  66. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:36 am
    Our definition of a solar cycle is based on past experience. But as any investment company will tell you, past performance is no guarantee of future trends.
    Tell that to Archibald. I count four ‘may be’s in your comment. Too many weasel words for my taste.
    Your example is flawed, as solar cycles are based on physics while investments are not.
    I would expect the split to be more even this time….Expect the unexpected.
    So your expectation is not based on anything.

  67. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:55 am
    Quiet sun more clouds / active sun less clouds.
    Observations show otherwise: http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif

  68. Alec Rawls says:

    Stephen: Thanks for the estimate of the relative size of solar and CO2 effects in your ozone driven model. As for Shaviv’s estimate of similar sized solar and CO2 effects

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117711007411

    I don’t put much stock it it. High correlations between GCR and global temperature go back many thousands of years (many millions in Shaviv’s study), while Shaviv’s estimate of solar vs. CO2 effects is only based on the last 100 years of instrumental data.

  69. vukcevic says:

    We have to be realistic about direct link between solar cycles and global temperatures
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-GT.htm
    Sun has its cycles, the Earth has its cycles too, question is:
    Can sun trigger Earth’s interior non-synchronous oscillations?
    I think it can:
    Ap -volcanic index: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
    Earth’s core – global temperatures: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    I have nearly finished an article which will attempt to explain how this might work.

  70. MiCro says:

    HenryP says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:45 am

    “During the day, when there is “more” clouds you do get more deflection of sunlight. But during the night, it traps more heat. So which effect is more?”

    My studies of the difference in Daily Rising temps minus Daily Falling temps (follow the link in my name) shows very little difference between the two.
    In fact if anything, periods where there’s a little more cooling, temperatures seem to go up.

  71. matt v. says:

    The potential cooling of 1.2C applies mostly to the North Atlantic region and Norway , the area of study by Jan- Erik Solheim et al. Globally the temperature decline will be less as we saw with the global atmospheric temperature decline during the last three low solar cycles between 1878 and 1913 when the global averge annual anomalies [HADCRUT 3]dropped from about oC to- 0.2C to about -o.6C to -0.8C , a drop closer to about 0.6 C . On the other hand isolated years and certain inland areas may cool faster and the 1.2C for these areas may be about right or even higher. The start of the cooling in my opinion is not dependent at all on the current solar cycle but by the lagged timing and amount of heat already put into the oceans during the latter phases of solar cycle #23. There may be no major new atmospheric cooling until the global SST starts to drop also in a more constant pattern[ like betwen 1880-1910.] The global SST is again rising this year but was dropping between 2002 and 2011. My best guess for the cooling to pick up again is probably 2015 when AMO may again go negative or cooler.

  72. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
    solar cycles are based on physics

    Solar cycles are the human interpretation of observed phenomena. No-one, especially including you, knows what the physics is yet. Which is why there are as many opinions about the Sun’s physics as there are solar physicists.

    So your expectation is not based on anything.

    You’re wrong about that too. When I said “expect the unexpected” I was referring to your assumption that cycle 24 will be short because there has been a lull in activity after mid 2011 which you believe to be ‘solar maximum’.

    My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif,

    Thank you for this link:

    http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif

    I’ve been using the Earthshine project and I see that the high level clouds in your link follow that dataset.

    High level clouds appear to have been declining up to about 2000 and then started to increase.

    I would suggest that until 2000 solar activity was at a sufficiently high level on average to cause a slow decline in high clouds but around 2000 the level of activity fell below the necessary threshold and since then high clouds have been increasing.

    As for the precise details of the changing relationship between cloud heights and cloud quantities it would appear that that remains uncertain but going by the Earthshine project the net effect has been declining albedo until 2000 but increasing albedo since.

    Just as I said :)

  74. HenryP says:

    Gail Combs says
    HenryP says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:01 am

    cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.
    _________________________
    Beat me to it. The record snowfall is not melting out: Accuweather.com: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year

    Henry says
    Hi Gail, I think they are still very optimistic if they think that it (the heavy snow cover on Anchorage mountains) is only for one year. My results show a clear continuous cooling trend there. If I were living there, I would seriously consider packing my bags. Because we have not even seen the worst yet, not for a long, long, time….I reckon only in 2045 will we see warming coming back again.
    (On the Norwegian arctic the trend is different because -I suspect- they pick up some heat from the increased condensation due to the cooling of earth, going in that direction, in general; that also seems to apply to the USA east coast)

  75. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    High level clouds appear to have been declining up to about 2000 and then started to increase.
    Other cloud enthusiasts follow Svensmark and claim that the effect is in the low clouds, so you claim they are all wrong.

  76. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    Which is why there are as many opinions about the Sun’s physics as there are solar physicists.
    Obviously not true.

    I was referring to your assumption that cycle 24 will be short because there has been a lull in activity after mid 2011 which you believe to be ‘solar maximum’.
    SC24 will not be ‘short’. It will be what small cycles are: longish, but not 17 years, thus shorter than Archibald’s claim. The polar fields reverse at maximum and are reversing in the North right now, so the North has maximum. The South is likely a year away.

    My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
    the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power.

  77. Steven Hill says:

    Interesting comments…..looks like the Obama budget projections, that’s right, we have no budget. ;-)

  78. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    SC24 will not be ‘short’.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:10 am
    Altrock suggests:
    “the maximum smoothed sunspot number in the northern hemisphere ALREADY OCCURRED at 2011.6 ± 0.3″ making cycle 24 short.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:22 am
    The general rule is that for low cycles, the rise time is long, and the ‘tail’ is correspondingly short. So cycle 24 is not going to be 17 years long. More like 12 or 13.

    You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.

    Truth is, you haven’t got a clue what cycle 24 will do.

  79. vukcevic says:

    Gail Combs says: August 13, 2012 at 11:15 am
    …….
    Hi Ms Combs
    Thanks, it is an interesting article, I did see it some time ago. In last 2-3 years there were number of follow-ups. Some of the NASA experts are now focusing on the ideas which I would consider not to be dissimilar to what I have been suggesting since 2009.

  80. I don’t normally participate in these solar discussions, but I’ll point out one thing.

    Annual average temperature is a meaningless metric for whether the climate is warming or cooling. You need to look at winter averages, because any warming in the rest of the year not retained in the winter is ‘heat’ that isn’t retained in the climate system for more than a year, and thus irrelevant to whether the climate is warming/cooling over longer timescales.

    And I think you will find winter averages have indeed cooled markedly in recent years.

  81. MiCro says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    “the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power.”
    My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations.
    Why should I believe it’s nonsense?

  82. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
    The dynamo theory prediction of SC24 is borne out quite well. So, if your expectations do not come to pass you will claim that solar-planetary theory has been falsified.

  83. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Other cloud enthusiasts follow Svensmark and claim that the effect is in the low clouds, so you claim they are all wrong..”

    Looks that way from the data you produced.

    I think that the cosmic rays have little effect but maybe some and are merely a coincidental proxy for solar variations. The real cause of cloud and albedo variations is the change in the length of the lines of air mass mixing when the jets become more (or less) meridional.

  84. Werner Brozek says:

    matt v. says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm
    The global SST is again rising this year but was dropping between 2002 and 2011.

    ‘Rising’ compared to what? Here is how I see the overall picture. With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. Sea surface temperatures are flat since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June). (I realize the last 3 months are not on WFT, but knowing their values, I know the slope would be flat to June had they been present.) See
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

  85. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    Altrock suggests: …

    You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.
    It would help you if you could read.

    SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are, e.g. SC5, SC6, SC14. If the maximum is late in the cycle, the tail will be reduced correspondingly. Small cycles have a long drawn-out maximum lasting several years. Again SC14 is a good example.

  86. MiCro says:
    August 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations. Why should I believe it’s nonsense?
    Because the Sun is in free fall and feel no forces [except extremely small tidal forces]. Also, any changes in the core of sun would take hundreds of thousands of years to make their way to the surface.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    It would help you if you could read.

    It would help if you could remember what you wrote.

    SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are.

    I’ll nail that to the predictions page on the blog, thanks.

  88. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm
    It would help if you could remember what you wrote.
    Anybody can just check the comments to see your misrepresentations for themselves.

    “SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are.”
    I’ll nail that to the predictions page on the blog, thanks.

    Remember to give me due credit as the predication comes to pass.

  89. Gail Combs says:

    Looks like NASA can not make up its mind.

    Solar Cycle [24] Prediction (Updated 2012/08/02)

    ….The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013….

    The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction….

    A number of techniques are used to predict the amplitude of a cycle during the time near and before sunspot minimum. Relationships have been found between the size of the next cycle maximum and the length of the previous cycle, the level of activity at sunspot minimum, and the size of the previous cycle.

    Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.

    Of these “geomagnetic precursor” techniques three stand out…..

    I will have to go along with Tallbloke, scientists are still getting surprised by the sun and this solar cycle. Just as the last minimum was long, low and drawn out. I think we are looking at a low flat maximum like was seen in cycle 14. (wiggle matching) I also think this long drawn out maximum will mean a long cycle.
    NOAA: Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Updated May 2009

  90. SteveSadlov says:

    Thank goodness for the current, weak El Nino. If not for that, we’d be screwed.

  91. Gail Combs says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    Looks like NASA can not make up its mind.
    Hathaway’s forecast [Not prediction. The difference is that a prediction is made before the cycle, but a forecast is continuously updated with current data] is his own. Not NASA’s.

    I think we are looking at a low flat maximum like was seen in cycle 14. (wiggle matching) I also think this long drawn out maximum will mean a long cycle.
    Cycle 14 was 11.8 years long…

  92. tallbloke says:

    MiCro says:
    August 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations. Why should I believe it’s nonsense?

    You shouldn’t. See the numerous articles on my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif. He speaks with false certainty.

  93. Jim G says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    SC24 will not be ‘short’.

    “You even disagree with yourself between posts. No wonder dynamology is in such disarray. According to your “general rule” cycle 24 should be extremely short, given that it’s rise time to maximum is less than two years and the ‘tail’ should be “correspondingly short”.

    Truth is, you haven’t got a clue what cycle 24 will do.”

    It is probably due to that dark matter, which no one is able to detect in our local neighborhood, which Leif says has been theorized by some to be “inside the sun”. You know, that stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations. If so. it may be the fly in the solar ointment, so to speak.

  94. James Abbott says:

    “My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”

    0.9 C ? That would take the northern hemisphere back to the mean seen about a century ago

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif

    We have just been through a prolonged solar minimum and there was no/very slight cooling. The solar min was more likely a factor in the temperature standstill seen since 2003, countering the rise in CO2 concentration.

    Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung
    http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf

    found a global warming signal of 0.18 C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle with larger changes near the poles, but nowhere near 0.9 C over a whole hemisphere.

    This rather gives the game away:-

    “It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”

    Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.

  95. MiCro says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    “Because the Sun is in free fall and feel no forces [except extremely small tidal forces]. Also, any changes in the core of sun would take hundreds of thousands of years to make their way to the surface.”
    It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving. As for the hundreds of thousands of years, that’s potentially a good point, but even if true, the sun was falling around a moving CoG hundreds of thousands of year ago as well.

  96. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif.
    What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
    “I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
    I have not seen the retraction. Perhaps you could provide a link…

  97. Jim G says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations.
    The theories about mass and gravity are not affected by the actual observations of dark matter and dark energy [are in fact used to detect those things]

  98. MiCro says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving.
    Not at all. an astronaut is weightless because he is in free fall. The CoG of him and the Earth is moving too as the astronaut circles the Earth.

  99. vukcevic says:

    Among the most reliable techniques are those that use the measurements of changes in the Earth’s magnetic field at, and before, sunspot minimum. These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms but the precise connections between them and future solar activity levels is still uncertain.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

    The above makes sense only if NASA accepts (which paradoxically they do not) existence of electric & magnetic feedback circuit between sun and major magnetospheres via ‘magnetic cloud’ also known as ‘magnetic rope’(goggle either). Major players here are two gas giants’ magnetospheres, while the Earth with its minor magnetosphere gets caught in between.
    This is bases of my sunspot number formula, with extrapolation providing a rough guidance of future solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm

  100. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
    my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif.
    What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper:

    They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.

  101. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    MiCro says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving.
    Not at all. an astronaut is weightless because he is in free fall. The CoG of him and the Earth is moving too as the astronaut circles the Earth.

    Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.

  102. James Abbott says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm
    Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.
    Indeed. Now, this is, of course, testable. In a few years we shall know. Note, however that by postulating longer and longer cycles, the moment of reckoning is pushed further and further out.

  103. MiCro says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    As for the hundreds of thousands of years, that’s potentially a good point, but even if true
    The number is based on well-known physics and is true. One can quibble a bit about the exact value [depending on the composition]. but the order of magnitude is correct

    the sun was falling around a moving CoG hundreds of thousands of year ago as well.
    The point is that because of the very long travel time [by random diffusion] any periodicity of the order of decades or centuries will be completely washed out.

  104. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.
    Make the astronaut’s orbit non-circular. It makes no difference. And there are not nine large planets, they are a thousandth or less the solar mass and are far away. And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].

  105. vukcevic says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    These changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are known to be caused by solar storms
    You are confusing things. There are currents in space around the Earth that are caused by solar storms and are rather well understood. E.g. given solar wind data we can calculate with good accuracy what those currents are. The internal field originating in the core is not affected.

    The above makes sense only if NASA accepts (which paradoxically they do not) existence of electric & magnetic feedback circuit between sun and major magnetospheres via ‘magnetic cloud’ also known as ‘magnetic rope’(goggle either).
    NASA does not accept this because there is no such feedback current.

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    “What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper”
    They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.

    So, they [and you] chicken out. Perhaps you could copy us the email where W&P said that…

  106. Henry Clark says:

    As can be seen, for example, at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2008&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on in this year so far 2% more cosmic rays have been deflected on average than in 2011, and solar activity is still rising at the moment. Perhaps it will peak by the May 2013 prediction though. Solar-GCR effects are superimposed upon the 60-year ocean cycle, while on shorter timescales there is the ENSO oscillation.

    The 60-year ocean cycle’s impact appears on such as the high temperatures in the late 1930s-1940s then also more recently. One good example is http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif first for the arctic (showing temperatures then were comparably warm to more recent temperatures), and, secondly, for the average over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole when without dishonest revisionism of past temperature measurements, in http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg (original National Academy of Sciences graph before the political era) when combined with http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg as well as the other data referenced in my comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick

    Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades. (That’s without trying to take into account the ENSO, though, so personally I wouldn’t count on single-year precision but just wager sometime between 2013 and 2016 as about the start, since the AMO will be going down too). We need the current solar cycle to peak first.

    His estimate extends to:

    “The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop [starting] in approximately 2014.” “The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”

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

    With that said, even though I would describe the past decade or so mostly as a plateau (and near the AMO oscillation index high point), temperatures have bordered on cooling since the 1997 albedo (cloud cover) change and the 1998 El Nino, as seen in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend for RSS satellite data while there is also what HenryP’s data shows.

  107. Henry Clark says:

    HenryP says:
    August 13, 2012 at 6:09 am

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    I’ve looked at such before when you posted it, and I just wanted to thank you for interesting data, including showing how averages versus minimums and maximums are quite different quantities.

  108. tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    Equating a two body problem…
    And it is not a two-body problem. Rather a three-body problem as the astronaut is in free fall in the combined gravitational field of the Earth and the Moon. Or a four-body problem if you include the Sun, or a MANY-body if you include the 588618 asteroids, 3157 comets, 176 planetary satellites, 8 planets, and the [large] Sun known today. None of this matters, as it didn’t matter to Gravity-B http://einstein.stanford.edu/

  109. Graeme W says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.

    Sorry, but the astronaut orbiting the Earth is not a two body problem. The Earth itself is moving in an elliptical orbit around the Sun (with varying velocities). The moon also has a gravitational effect on the astronaut, as does every other body in the Solar System (and, indeed, the universe). What defines free fall is that the body is freely “falling” in response to whatever current gravitation net vector is being experienced. The gravitational net vector does not have to be constant – a body will still be in free fall even if the gravitational net vector varies over time.

  110. Henry Clark says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades … http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
    His prediction is based on [see his Figures 1 and 2] an assumed decrease of TSI during the last minimum. This decrease did not happen. It is an artifact due to the erroneous assumption that an instrument that is not exposed to solar radiation [but still in space] does not degrade. This assumption has been shown to be incorrect [and so is Abdussamatov]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf slides 31 and 33: “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008″.

  111. E.M.Smith says:

    What Henry Clark said…

    I see the Tallbloke vs Leif “does so does not” is on again…

    We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there – but with some wobble) and took a bit of a pause on the current cycle “peak” that isn’t much. As we round over the top of it ( 2013 ) we start down again.

    At one of the presentations in Chicago a couple of years back they worked in a short movie by one presenter on ocean temperature patterns. Showed how cold / hot cycles at the Pacific equator took 18 years to work their way up to the Bering Straight. (We took a “cold dagger” to the center Pacific a few years back…) so it takes a while for the “global” to catch up with the “first change”.

    IMHO, the change of circumpolar current whacking into Drake Passage sends more or less cold water up the spine of South America and out into the Central Pacific. From there it takes 18 years to reach Alaska and who knows how long to cross the Pacific, run down Africa in the Indian, and then up the Atlantic.

    So, IMHO, Habibullo has it right and the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.

    To the extent it has a sine wave shape, crossing the peak takes a while but once ‘mid change’ things pick up…

  112. E.M.Smith says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.
    The issue is if we’ll cool by one degree in the next decade as Archibald speculates [due to the sun, there might be other reasons]. I think we’ll not cool that much due to lower solar activity, if you think otherwise and support Archibald, tell us.

  113. E.M.Smith says:

    @Leif:

    When I heard the presentation by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov he said it was based on observed changes of the diameter of the sun. ( I presumed due to either ‘standard understood things’ or ‘something new’ – but didn’t have a chance to ask ‘due to what?’ )

    Do you have any insight into the “solar diameter” reference or changes? ( i.e. Red Herring or “yeah it changes, see flow model” or…)

  114. In his announcement last year, Altrock said that the progress of the green corona emissions was 40% slower than the previous two cycles. All things being equal, that means that Solar Cycle 24 would be 40% longer than the previous two cycles, which makes it 17 years long. For all things not to be equal, it would have to either speed up or stop short of 10 degrees. Hell’s bells, from that 17 year figure, we even know the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum, which is 2032. There is a 17 year period in the numbered solar cycles, from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5.

    In other news, I am now a DC academic: http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/page/David-Archibald. The Institute of World Politics is a graduate school for all US intelligences agencies, the State Department and Department of Defense. Gail Combs please email me at david.archibald@westnet.com.au

  115. tango says:

    Australia has been in a cooling cycle for the last three years record low temptures every where a good snow depth 1.6 mt. bring on global warming

  116. Spector says:

    If the Svensmark theory is correct, I think we should be looking at plots of cosmic radiation intensity for a clue on this issue. That should be the bottom line. In his video, ‘The Cloud Mystery,’ he shows a full cycle of close correlation between global cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity at about the 9:20 minute mark. For most other correlations used in ‘Climate Science’ our non-proxy observation window is less than a quarter of a cycle.

    Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

    One thing I seem to note is that there appears to be no clear comprehensive theory of water vapor condensation presented in basic meteorology texts. If condensation is controlled by cosmic radiation flux, then relative humidity depends on the cosmic ray intensity as clouds begin to form when the water vapor concentration is such that the rate of condensation exceeds the rate of evaporation at any given temperature and cosmic radiation controls the the rate of condensation. I think this would make the real moist adiabatic lapse rate dependent on the cosmic radiation flux.

    My personal thought is that this effect may affect temperatures more by promoting thermal convection rather than by the equal opportunity cloud reflection of sunlight coming down and long-wave infra-red radiation going up from the Earth. The thermal time delay of this effect may, in part, be due to the time required for the atmosphere to respond to changes in environmental lapse rate forcing.

  117. E.M.Smith says:
    August 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov he said it was based on observed changes of the diameter of the sun.
    How about reading his paper?
    Do you have any insight into the “solar diameter” reference or changes?
    The measurements were not accurate enough in the past to deduce anything. A modern satellite is dedicated to such measurements: http://smsc.cnes.fr/PICARD/ no results yet.

    David Archibald says:
    August 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm
    In his announcement last year, Altrock said …
    Why use out of date data? [ah, when they fit, of course - silly me]. It is not correct to simply extrapolate using such a short interval. Two month’s ago, Altrock [using the green corona] pronounced maximum in the Northern hemisphere to be already passed in 2011.
    There is a 17 year period in the numbered solar cycles, from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5.
    SC 4 was 13.6 years.

    Spector says:
    August 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    If the Svensmark theory is correct
    Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here: http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverAllLevel%20AndWaterColumnSince1983.gif

  118. Henry Clark says:

    Dr. Abdussamatov’s data has cycles 22 and 23 being merely just 0.17 W/m^2 apart on average as seen in figure 2 of his paper at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754

    He is chief of solar research done through the Russian segment of the International Space Station, as in http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

    The publication you linked, right after saying the difference between 1996 and 2008 minima in TSI was not measurable (because they were so similar in W/m^2) emphasizes “When assessing long term trends, allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m2 for the 1996 solar minimum!” (Elsewhere, uncertainties of “typically 300 ppm (0.4 W/m^2)” are referenced in it). http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf

    Even before getting into the topic of different instruments being referenced, that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.

    Where matters get far more interesting, where Dr. Abdussamatov has major predictions in contrast, is for this current cycle 24 and beyond.

    Like http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1995&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on suggests, the magnitude of vastly more major difference between the last solar cycle 23 and this cycle 24 is striking.

  119. Henry Clark says:

    edit:
    The above comment is meant to be in reply to:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:33 pm
    His prediction is based on [see his Figures 1 and 2] an assumed decrease of TSI during the last minimum.” [...]

  120. PJF says:

    Leif Svalgaard wrote:
    “And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].”

    Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.

    The Moon, via interaction with the liquid parts of the Earth’s mass, takes energy from the spin of the earth and adds it to its orbital speed: the Moon moves further away and the days on Earth get longer. The interiors of the Jovian moons are heated and melted by the complex gravitational tugging within that system. The liquid interior of Jupiter is moved and heated by those moons, and we do not know enough to say how significant is the effect.

    So the statement that the Sun is in free fall has no bearing on the possibility of it being internally affected in some way by the actions of the planets. The (solar system) centre of mass being inside and outside the variable liquid body of the Sun by 0.13 solar radius and 1.98 solar radius over a short period of years, is interesting enough to investigate any correlations of planetary positions and solar activity.

    Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.

  121. Ninderthana says:

    Leif,

    Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..

    “…the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power..”

    I am going to enjoy watching you choking on humble pie..

  122. Henry Clark says:
    August 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.
    His Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of TSI was significantly lower for the 23/24 minimum than for the previous minima. This difference is the basis for his extrapolation. Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.

    PJF says:
    August 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.
    I carefully said ‘except for tidal forces’. The examples you mention are all due to tides. The magnitude of tides can be calculated, and the largest tidal bulge is that raised by Jupiter [the next one is by by Venus] and is less than one millimeter high.

    Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.
    Outside effects are there, no doubt, but are of such low magnitude that they have no detectable effect. There are also the effect of Sirius-shine on the Sun. When Jupiter is between the Sun and the star Sirius, Sirius-shine is reduced. This is an indisputable fact, but when you put numbers on it, you will find such a vanishing variation that there is no detectable effect. As your comment shows, that does not deter people from believing weird stuff.

  123. Ninderthana says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..
    You have been saying that for quite a while now…

    I am going to enjoy watching you choking on humble pie..
    It takes a certain kind of nastiness to enjoy other people’s misfortune…

  124. Mike J says:

    AJB wrote”
    “Hard to tell with the south pole tipped away from us at the moment but do you really think it’ll take another year for it to switch? Looks to be happening fairly quickly.”

    Oh darn. I hope it the southern hemisphere tips back towards us here in the northern hemisphere soon, so we’re both tipped in the same direction.

  125. HenryP says:

    Henry@HenryClark
    I am just puzzled that no one is plotting maxima, as it is giving so much less noise. With a sample of 47 weather stations I have now ramped up my rsquare on the binominal for the change in maxima in degrees C per annum to 0,998. Amazing.
    I think I may have made a slight error in one of my previous comments.Maxima are now droppping by -0.06 degrees C per annum, but it looks like earth energy output is now dropping by as much, if not more…. (maxima have been dropping since 1995)

  126. Jeff L says:

    Kudos to Leif for spending so much time answering questions & educating fellow blog followers !!
    Well done & thanks!

  127. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    His Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of TSI was significantly lower for the 23/24 minimum than for the previous minima. This difference is the basis for his extrapolation. Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.

    Actually the data referenced in his paper implies the 23/24 minimum was around 0.26 W/m^2 less than the previous minimum. If you want, you can call that “significantly lower,” but you are trying to disprove the Russian data with a publication on French satellite data outright implying its own uncertainty is of roughly comparable magnitude to that entire figure. If anything, even the *corrected* PREMOS data looks like a slight decline in minima between 1996 and 2008, as seen if I quickly draw (nonexact) red and brown lines on it here ( http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=17964_premos_122_174lo.JPG ), although such is not particularly meaningful to interpret in itself when the data source has up to tenths of W/m^2 error as the authors note.

    More importantly, as Dr. Abdussamatov remarks, “the uniqueness of the elapsed cycle 23 is confirmed by the fact that this cycle became the longest (~12.5 years) among all ascertained and studied 11-year solar cycles for more than 150 years of reliable observations starting from the cycle 10.

    But even that is far less major of an observation than what is being seen for solar cycle 24’s relative decline compared to solar cycle 23.

    The real test of his extrapolation is in cycle 24 and beyond.

    If you argue about cycle 23 versus 22, you are trying to quibble over hundredths of a W/m^2. Cycle 23 versus 24 is what really matters.

  128. Ninderthana says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..
    I think you have my motivation backwards here. I am in the business of predicting solar activity. Anything that can help with that, I would welcome. If planetary influence could be in fact observed and established, we could separate those from the internally generated causes and open a new window on the physics of the sun and stars. Unfortunately, no such elucidation has been forthcoming in the 150 years the hypothesis has been around. The subject has been hijacked by eager dilettantes pushing nonsense bordering on astrology and no progress has been made [except in their own minds - where anything goes]. Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals - perhaps that is what you have stumbled upon], but there is none of what characterizes true science: quantitative analysis, sound physics, and building on a common, ever expanding body of knowledge.

  129. Hoser says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:10 am

    Perhaps not, if there is a double peak like cycle 23.

  130. chickenlittle says:

    Great job Professor Archibald, although you truly are [url=http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/tag/david-archibald/]hiding your light under a bushel.[/url]

  131. Geoff Sharp says:

    When comparing SC24 with cycles before 1945 it is necessary to discount the Waldmeier factor and the increased speck ratio we experience today to compare apples with apples. David and Vuk have both made that mistake when using the SIDC values for SC24. When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24.png

    I see Leif is still peddling the same rhetoric, I remember statements he made in the past like, SC24 will not be part of a grand minimum and that SC25 was going to be a large cycle. His side of science can only guess. Based on sound data the current cycle and SC25 will be weak with a recovery during SC26. This makes this period weaker than the Dalton and much weaker than the Maunder, so perhaps don’t expect too much cooling.

    Interesting that David is going for a 17 year length for SC24, I thought the Ed Fix model was predicting a very short cycle length?

  132. Geoff Sharp says:

    When comparing SC24 with cycles before 1945 it is necessary to discount the Waldmeier factor and the increased speck ratio we experience today to compare apples with apples. David and Vuk have both made that mistake when using the SIDC values for SC24. When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png

    I see Leif is still peddling the same rhetoric, I remember statements he made in the past like, SC24 will not be part of a grand minimum and that SC25 was going to be a large cycle. His side of science can only guess. Based on sound data the current cycle and SC25 will be weak with a recovery during SC26. This makes this period weaker than the Dalton and much weaker than the Maunder, so perhaps don’t expect too much cooling.

    Interesting that David is going for a 17 year length for SC24, I thought the Ed Fix model was predicting a very short cycle length?

  133. Mervyn says:

    Australia has not had a period of cooler than normal temperatures over such an extended period of time as is the case this year. In 2011, Northern Australia experienced cooler than normal temperatures, not seen for many decades. This year it is even cooler, and has been for a longer period than experienced before. No bull… just ask the people of Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. In Australia, there definitely has been cooling despite rising Co2 emissions.

  134. David Banks says:

    Girls girls you are all pretty. As a highschool dropout with an interest in solar physics and its effects on past and future climate I say we live in interesting times where a ball of plasma billions of years old will show us that maybe nobody here really knows all her secrets. We have been studying the sun crudely for only a few hundred years. We also have crude temperature records roughly over the same time. Now we have the instruments to do some detailed observations and I can only hope we get an honest evaluation. Not data manipulation like we get from poor themometer sites

  135. AJB says:

    Mike J says, August 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    South pole will be max 7.25° inclined towards earth again on March 7th. Plenty of time to darn old socks.

  136. Allan MacRae says:

    Regarding timing, I think we are better in most fields at predicting what rather than when. Timing is really difficult to predict, and often involves a high degree of subjectivity in the analysis – years after a change in global climate, informed people will have different opinions on exactly when it started to occur.

    Therefore, I have no strong opinion on the timing of the commencement of global cooling – it may start soon, or may have already commenced.

    Now, concerning what will happen, here is my best guess – and I submit that all our opinions are guesses at this point – we do not understand climate science well enough to know what is cause and what is effect – for example, does CO2 primarily drive temperature, or does temperature primarily drive CO2?

    My prediction regarding global cooling is at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990638

    I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.

    In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
    1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections)? 0% probability of occurrence
    2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
    3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
    4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
    5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%

    In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.

  137. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    “What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper”
    They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.
    So, they [and you] chicken out.

    Why should Wolff and Patrone feel compelled to answer to the meanderings of Gough, who admits in the first sentence of his ramblings that he didn’t read their paper? Get a grip.

    Gough completely misunderstood the physical mechanism proposed because he didn’t actually read the paper, he just made stuff up about what he thought they must be proposing and criticised the strawman of his own creation.

    You’re guilty of the same thing.

  138. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    If planetary influence could be in fact observed and established, we could separate those from the internally generated causes and open a new window on the physics of the sun and stars.

    If you were able to quantify the magnitude of and predict the timing of the internal causes, which you are not.

    Unfortunately, no such elucidation has been forthcoming in the 150 years the hypothesis has been around.

    This is a lie.

    The subject has been hijacked by eager dilettantes pushing nonsense bordering on astrology and no progress has been made [except in their own minds - where anything goes].

    And this is just ad hominem crap.

    Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals - perhaps that is what you have stumbled upon], but there is none of what characterizes true science: quantitative analysis, sound physics, and building on a common, ever expanding body of knowledge.

    Gatekeepers like you are preventing the expansion of knowledge, not facilitating it.

  139. barry says:

    EM Smith says

    “We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there..”

    Hmm, according to GISS, UAH and BEST we haven’t been cooling since 1998, we’ve been warming. But not so according to HadCRU3 and RSS (although updated HadCRU4 says yes to warming since 1998).

    Ocean Heat Content (<750 meters or <2000 meters. take your pick) has warmed since 1998.

    So it's not *all* downhill. Which data stream is the right one, EM?

  140. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm
    Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals

    [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals]

    For your information Leif the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics is rated in the top ten worldwide for the IDRT measure of research impact.
    http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/

    http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may03/bollen/05bollen.html
    The ten highest IDRT scoring journals consist of a range of journals relating to a variety of subjects. We find, for example, the Journal of Arid Environments, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Remote Sensing of Environment and Planetary and Space Science

    Funnily enough the “reputable Journal you review for isn’t in the list.

  141. Henry Clark says:
    August 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    Actually the data referenced in his paper implies the 23/24 minimum was around 0.26 W/m^2 less than the previous minimum. If you want, you can call that “significantly lower,” but you are trying to disprove the Russian data…
    That is a quarter of the solar cycle variation so is significant. But there are no Russian data involved. He used the PMOD [of Froehlich] composite for his extrapolation. PMOD has now been shown to be wrongly compensated for instrument degradation [as I also showed long ago: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
    So no long-term decline has been observed, hence the basis for the extrapolation has gone away.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:43 am
    When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
    Except that we have very little actual data for SC5. Here are the various attempts to reconstruct SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png so to claim that something is ‘very very close’ is meaningless.

    tallbloke says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    “What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper”
    They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.

    So, they [and you] chicken out. Perhaps you could copy us the email where W&P said that…
    [still waiting for your response]

  142. Gail Combs says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    August 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    What Henry Clark said…

    I see the Tallbloke vs Leif “does so does not” is on again…

    We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there – but with some wobble) and took a bit of a pause on the current cycle “peak” that isn’t much. As we round over the top of it ( 2013 ) we start down again….

    So, IMHO, Habibullo has it right and the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.

    To the extent it has a sine wave shape, crossing the peak takes a while but once ‘mid change’ things pick up…
    ________________________________
    There is also the lesson I would hope Gerard Roe brought home when looking at the effects of solar insolation in relation to the the Milankovitch cycles.

    …The idea is that these cycles change the amount of sunshine near the Arctic circle which was claimed by the Serbian scholar [Milankovitch] to be globally important…. These cycles roughly have the right periodicity. However, it was still noticed that it didn’t quite work… The graphs above are just unimpressive. A lag of 8,000 years has to be added by hand to make it at least remotely plausible. There’s no real agreement…

    However, Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake…
    The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.

    In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?

    I think that is what we are seeing here. Not a change in temperature but a change in the rate (derivative) that temperature is increasing or decreasing. Therefore instead of looking at the increase in temperature we should be looking at the slope of the line/rate/first derivative.

    We now have fifteen years that say there has been a change in the first derivative. Graph

  143. D. Patterson says:

    Leif, FWIW or not, several elderly farmers I’ve been talking to in Southern Illinois this past week have surprised me with their unusual unanimity in opinion about the coming Winter weather. They’re all more than 72 years of age. I talked to each one individually, and they offered their opinion without any prior solicitatoins from me for those opinions. They each said that they believed the cold weather is already showing signs in Nature for the coming Winter, and the Winter they believe is going to be an extraordinarily cold one. When i asked if there were any particular reasons why they were so convinced the Winter was going to be so cold, they responded by saying no. They all said it was just the feeling they had from the way the hot months of June and July and the cooling month of August felt so much like it did when they were young and it got bitter cold the following Winter. These are the same guys who normally cannot agree about much of anything, and especially about the weather in the coming season.

  144. tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
    Funnily enough the “reputable Journal you review for isn’t in the list.
    I have reviewed for some of those [and for some not in the list, like Nature and Science] and even published in some, including JASTP, so I don’t know what your problem is. BTW, IMO the quality of JASTP has, sadly, been declining lately.

  145. Gail Combs says:

    chickenlittle says: @ August 14, 2012 at 12:12 am
    ________________________
    Use HTML tags see the bottom of Ric Werme’s Guide to Watts Up With That

    (Or you can steal them from Joanne Nova’s site and even preview the comment before cut and past to here. )

  146. tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
    The ten highest IDRT scoring journals consist of a range of journals relating to a variety of subjects.
    The IDRT is just a measure invented by Bollen et al. to quantify their results of surveying the journal articles downloaded at one laboratory [Los Alamos] reflecting that laboratory’s interests and is not a measure of the general interest. As usual, you know not whereof you speak.

  147. HenryP says:

    Henry@Gail

    Gail, I am not saying you are wrong or anything. I just want to know why you would say that you trust UAH. How do they do their calibration?

  148. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:35 am
    [still waiting for your response]

    Still waiting for you to deal with the substantive issue. Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.

  149. tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:09 am
    Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.
    I suspect that I won’t get it, because there isn’t any. Now, I know Charles so perhaps I just ask him. BTW, there have been six citations of W&P, five by Scafetta and one by Callebaut et al. who states “As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle.”

  150. Spector says:

    David Archibald says: (August 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm}
    [If the Svensmark theory is correct]
    Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here …

    It would appear that Svensmark is using a smoothed curve that removes the ‘noise’ of annual fluctuations that are shown in your reference. I would think falsification would require comparisons of similarly filtered cosmic radiation flux at ground level. (*not solar activity*) I would be somewhat surprised if the Royal Astronomical Society would accept for publication, a paper by someone known to have released obviously false data.

    The real issue here, I would guess, is the degree by which cosmic ray generated condensation nuclei are required for condensation to occur: 100%, 90%, 50%, 10% . . . Svensmark seems to have shown that cosmic ray flux can be correlated with climate changes associated with the transit of the solar system through the spiral arms of the galaxy where cosmic radiation levels are relatively high and ground temperatures tend to be low–perhaps due to accelerated convective activity.

    http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

    http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3016-new-evidence-that-cosmic-rays-seed-clouds.html

    Dr. Tim Ball
    A Different Perspective
    Svensmark’s Cosmic Theory Confirmed; Explains More Than Solar Role in Climate Change

    http://drtimball.com/2011/svensmark%E2%80%99s-cosmic-theory-confirmed-explains-more-than-solar-role-in-climate-change/

  151. Gary says:

    D. Patterson, I trust old farmer’s bones more than I do any other source. I ain’t no farmer, but I grew up outdoors, working outdoors, gardening, growing, pruning, trimming, etc. The advent of August was a weird one, almost like it was late September instead. Could it be a shift in the seasons? Like the seasons are out of whack by a month? I know that sounds foolish, but I am a layman. I merely say that as contrast. I hate to sweat, but it’s better than shivering. I hope that ol’ sun keeps burning, baby!

  152. Spector says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:52 am
    “Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here …”
    It would appear that Svensmark is using a smoothed curve that removes the ‘noise’ of annual fluctuations that are shown in your reference.

    It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades and so has the low cloud cover, while Svensmark would predict the opposite. No amount of smoothing, torturing, or massaging can change that.

  153. Venter says:

    Notice to moderators : On every thread relating to the Sun or Solar System on WUWT you might as well put up a notice

    COMMENTS NOT PERMITTED – LEIF SVALGAARD KNOWS EVERYTHING

    That would be more adept. And I though that my wife was the world champion in having the last word on any subject!! :-)

    REPLY:
    Dr. Svalgaard is a competent debater, and welcome here. Engage him at your own risk – Anthony

  154. Venter says:

    Hi Anthony,

    That’s why I put up the smiley in order to make clear that it was said in humour. Hope Dr.Svalgaard and you don’t mind it.

  155. Venter says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:24 am
    COMMENTS NOT PERMITTED – LEIF SVALGAARD KNOWS EVERYTHING
    “In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king”

  156. Venter says:

    Good one Leif, you had the final word here also, hats off :-)

  157. D. Patterson says:

    [snip - facts not in evidence]

  158. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am
    “It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades..”

    That depends on which metric: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_30917.gif
    I’m not though supporting Svensmark.

  159. Ulric Lyons says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:50 am
    “It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades..”
    That depends on which metric: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_30917.gif
    I’m not though supporting Svensmark.

    It really doesn’t. Svensmark claims cosmic rays are involved, and they follow closely solar wind B [inverted].

  160. Spector says:

    RE: Leif Svalgaard: (August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am)

    Spector says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:52 am
    “Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here …”
    It would appear that Svensmark is using a smoothed curve that removes the ‘noise’ of annual fluctuations that are shown in your reference.
    It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades and so has the low cloud cover, while Svensmark would predict the opposite. No amount of smoothing, torturing, or massaging can change that.

    I will have to accept this, provided that, ground level cosmic radiation flux, the ‘hypothetical’ Svensmark cloud-formation mechanism, has not also been decreasing over this period.

    I was under the impression that the temperature rise over the last century might be explained, at least in part, as the result of a gradual decline in cosmic radiation from ‘The Chilling Stars’ reaching the surface of the Earth.

    Again; I have seen, from my limited vantage point, no comprehensive attempt to explain the condensation process. When two water molecules collide in the atmosphere, what is the probability, if any, that they will fuse and during collisions or in fusing, can they generate unusual photons due to their strong polar electric fields, such photons that would not likely to be absorbed by other water molecules in free flight.

  161. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:47 am
    tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
    The ten highest IDRT scoring journals consist of a range of journals relating to a variety of subjects.
    The IDRT is just a measure invented by Bollen et al. to quantify their results of surveying the journal articles downloaded at one laboratory [Los Alamos] reflecting that laboratory’s interests and is not a measure of the general interest. As usual, you know not whereof you speak.

    As usual your ignorance about the solar-planetary theory shines through. Los Alamos is where the theory gained its big leap forward in the modern era with the work of Paul D Jose.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:36 am
    tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:31 am
    Funnily enough the “reputable Journal you review for isn’t in the list.
    I have reviewed for some of those [and for some not in the list, like Nature and Science] and even published in some, including JASTP, so I don’t know what your problem is. BTW, IMO the quality of JASTP has, sadly, been declining lately.

    Fascinating Leif, so you are also a gatekeeper for the journals Science and Nature, which enjoy such a high reputation for their unbiased approach to the climate debate amongst the sceptic community. Fancy that.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/

  162. Amos Batto says:

    What solar cycle is David Archibald talking about? The solar cycle that climatologists generally talk about in terms of climate impacts is a 11 year solar cycle. We are currently in the start of a new cycle, so we can expect solar radiation to go up for the next 5 years, meaning slightly higher temperatures for the next couple years. See Figure 9 at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
    I’m sorry, but I the NASA scientists do peer-reviewed research whose data and software algorithms are publically available. Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.

  163. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    Jim G says:
    August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
    “stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations.
    The theories about mass and gravity are not affected by the actual observations of dark matter and dark energy [are in fact used to detect those things]”

    There has yet to be any “actual observations of dark matter and dark energy” only suppositions based upon present accepted theories of mass and gravity that cause believers, such as yourself, to think they have been “detected”. And it may well be so, but it might also NOT be so. True scientists need to open their minds to other possibilities or they will never be discovered if they do exist..

  164. matt v. says:

    D. Patterson

    You were commenting about what the local farmers in Southern Illinois , US ,were saying about the coming winter and their feeling that it would be an “extraordinarily “cold winter. I partly agree with them in that it will be a cold winter again but not necessarily extra cold [not like the winters of the late 1970's which were extraordinarily cold ] . My feeling is that it will be more like the winters before the 2012 winter and more like the 2008-2010 winters around average winter temperature of about 25-27 degrees F

  165. Sparks says:

    When will it start cooling??
    Ah, It must just be my imagination then, I could have sworn that hundreds lost their lives earlier this year in Europe due to extreme cold and wintry conditions, and it brought chaos governments mobilized their armies and it effected hundreds of thousands right across Europe and Eurasia including freezing over canals and waterways for the first time in many years.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20120205-death-toll-europe-deadly-chill-300-ukraine-london-heathrow-weather-cold-winter-snow
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9061221/Britain-on-snow-alert-as-Europe-freezes-over.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097292/Big-freeze-Europe-shows-signs-letting-Venices-famous-waterways-ice-over.html

    Maybe I was just dreaming that tens of thousands of people had to queue in the freezing cold for water in Northern Ireland and the largest lake in the UK and Ireland (lough Neagh) froze over in 2010, did the big freeze even happen?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/29/northern.ireland.water/index.html
    http://www.nightskyhunter.com/Extreme%20Lough%20Neagh%20Freeze%20-%20Page%201.html

    And I must have imagined headlines like this from the US during February 2010; “Washington, D.C., is clobbered with snow again”
    “The snowiest winter since records were first kept in the 1880s paralyzes the region, shutting down the federal government, airports and schools.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/nation/la-na-snow-washington11-2010feb11

    2012 Johannesburg.
    “The snowfall was the first in Johannesburg in five years and the heaviest since 1981.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9461564/Johannesburg-snow-fulfils-couples-white-wedding-dream.html

    2009 Historic snow event in South America.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/historic-snow-event-in-south-america/

    So, when will this cooling start for real?

  166. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am
    Spector says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:52 am
    “Svensmark claims that solar activity controls the low clouds, which is falsified here …”
    It would appear that Svensmark is using a smoothed curve that removes the ‘noise’ of annual fluctuations that are shown in your reference.
    It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades and so has the low cloud cover, while Svensmark would predict the opposite. No amount of smoothing, torturing, or massaging can change that.

    Solar activity hasn’t been decreasing the past several decades. The peak amplitudes have fallen slightly, though by very little according to your adjustments to Waldmeier’s sunspot counts, but the cycles were short, the up and downramps steep, and the minima brief. The average sunspot count over the second half of the C20th was significantly higher than over the first half.

    No amount of your data flattening exercise will change that. Especially since the solar science community rejected your proposed revamping of the data.

    So Svensmark is still in the running, considering how little we know about clouds and the effect of cosmic rays on them at this stage. Good results coming from Jasper Kirby at CERN though, and the big Forbush decreases in march this year lend credence to the theory. Sunny weather followed a week after the big solar flares. No amount of naysaying will change that either.

  167. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 10:02 am

    I was merely commenting on your blanket statement that solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades. This is not true for plasma speed: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_11735.gif

  168. tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:39 am
    As usual your ignorance about the solar-planetary theory shines through. Los Alamos is where the theory gained its big leap forward in the modern era with the work of Paul D Jose.
    Paul Jose was at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico when he published his 1965 paper…
    Who was ignorant now? http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1965AJ…..70..193J

    Fascinating Leif, so you are also a gatekeeper for the journals Science and Nature
    I’m a reviewer for all major journals in these fields. So now you equate ‘peer reviewed’ with ‘gatekept’. Perhaps you should use that terminology on your blog: make a global change of ‘peer reviewed’ to ‘gatekept’. You know, with computers such sweeping textual changes are easy to do.

    Jim G says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm
    There has yet to be any “actual observations of dark matter and dark energy”
    That you don’t know of any, does not mean that there aren’t any. Dark matter is detected in several ways, for example by gravitational lensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
    Dark Energy is detected by observing the speed up of the expansion of space with increasing distance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy In a sense the words ‘dark energy’ is just the label we put on the observation that the expansion is accelerating. Just like ‘solar energy’ is the label we put on the observation that we get hot when we are out in the sun.

  169. Jim G says:

    Just for Leif,

    Dark matter and dark energy were invented, or discovered, depending upon your point of view, to explain, respectively, why the orbital speeds of visible matter in other galaxies exceeded expectations given the amount of visible matter observed and why the expansion of the universe is accelerating when it would be expected to be slowing down due to gravitational effects. Einstein’s original equations for general relativity indicated an expanding universe which could not be detected by the technology available in his day. He then introduced a cosmological constant to bring his theory in agreement with observations available at that time which he later called his greatest mistake. Turns out, however, that there may well be a different correction factor need to explain an acceleration of the expansion, that being dark energy. Dark matter, on the other hand, seems to complicate this entire situation and cause many open minded serious scientists to question if there may be some finer points missing in the overall general theory of relativity.

    Complicating all of this are questions as to the proper interpretation of the observed red shifts which give rise to the estimated of velocities and distances of far away objects as both the theories of dark matter and dark energy have their basis in these interpretations. Also, structures have been detected at distances, i.e. earlier in time, than theory says there should be such structures. This along with the inability to marry quantum physics with relativity has caused very notable scientists to question and attempt to explain what may be missing in relativity or quantum physics that might obviate the need for dark matter and/or dark energy. Being considered are theories of faster than light speed for systems of higher energy such as in the early universe and theories which “unzip” time from space/time that might obviate the need for dark matter and dark energy and avoid the infinities produced when trying to combine the theories of the very small with those of the very large.

    Just as relativity replaced Newtonian physics it may be that there is another energy level at which one of these new theories may be more accurate than relativity. But it will take open minds, just like Einstein, who was at one point considered a heretic in his time.

  170. tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    Solar activity hasn’t been decreasing the past several decades. The peak amplitudes have fallen slightly, though by very little according to your adjustments to Waldmeier’s sunspot counts, but the cycles were short, the up and downramps steep, and the minima brief. The average sunspot count over the second half of the C20th was significantly higher than over the first half.
    The Waldmeier adjustment goes back to 1945 so it not relevant. The average sunspot count 1945-1995 was as high as some cycle in the 19th and 18th centuries. Since 1995 solar activity is lower.

    Especially since the solar science community rejected your proposed revamping of the data.
    I don’t think so. You can follow the evolution of the acceptance by the solar community here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home see especially the summary by Hudson http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Hudson.pdf

    So Svensmark is still in the running
    So Svensmark is roundly falsified as should be clear to everybody, except hardcore believers.

  171. Jim G says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    cause many open minded serious scientists to question if there may be some finer points missing in the overall general theory of relativity
    This has nothing to do with open-mindedness. All scientists dream about [and many try] proving Einstein wrong, but none have succeeded.

  172. Jose: “http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965AJ…..70..193J”

  173. Spector says:

    Just for reference; here is a link to a plot indicating cosmic radiation since 1964.

    Cosmic Ray Station
    of the University of Oulu / Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Finland)

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=03&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    Home: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

    This is the force that Dr. Svensmark believes to be driving the climate. There would be no need to examine solar activity–just this data. The plot represents cooling power which appears to be cyclicly decreasing until about 1995 and then cooling begins to increase from that point.

  174. David Archibald says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:44 am
    The cycles that Ed Fix’s model is showing up for Solar Cycle 24 are impossibly short. There is nothing wrong with his model – we are at the point where the system resets and then starts building momentum again. Re the length of Solar Cycle 24, just look at Altrock’s diagramme. He says it is 40% slower, I believe him, and then project it out. Solar minimum in 2026. You are right, of course, about the spot count thing.

  175. Bob Kutz says:

    Lief, et al;

    It seems to me that the reason it hasn’t been cooling of late is that we are at the peak of the cycle.

    Set the equilibrium where you will, if we are in a ‘solar cycle cooling phase’, we are in the slowest part of that cooling phase.

    That we are no longer warming at the peak of the cycle indicates that there is something happening. We were in the habit of warming both during the peaks and the troughs. I think if you assume that most solar energy is first absorbed by the oceans before being released to the atmosphere, this isn’t such a hard thing to understand; that the earth could warm, even during the inactive part of the solar cycle. When you realize that the oceans have many many times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, that isn’t such a difficult thing to believe. It may not be correct, but it would sure explain some things. I don’t know that we understand the climate system well enough to even understand and predict even that simple effect.

    We are now at the peak of the solar cycle, weak though it is, and we aren’t warming. From what I see we are about to head into the trough of the current cycle. If cooling is going to happen as a result of changes to the solar cycle, it will happen during the trough before it happens at the peak. If it continues while we approach the peak of the next cycle . . . well I would take that as a very bad sign. If we had some way to know what future solar cycles have in store, that would be productive science.

    As it is; I am too old to be very concerned about what happens after a couple more solar cycles.

  176. daveburton says:

    Amos Batto says (on August 14, 2012 at 11:50 am): “…the NASA scientists do peer-reviewed research whose data and software algorithms are publically available. Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.

    Amos, I’m very glad to hear that you know where NASA’s data and software algorithms can all be found. Will you please help me find them?

    In particular, I’ve been trying, without success, to learn how and why, over the last ~12 years, NASA GISS and/or NCDC has added approximately 0.7 C of increased 1930s-to-1990s warming in revisions to their (old) USHCN temperature records for the 48 contiguous United States. I’ve also been trying, without success, to locate the unadjusted temperature data.

    I am interested in the data depicted in the graph labeled “(a)” in this 1999 NASA article:
    http://webcitation.org/63wGUTWt6

    It is very strikingly different from current NASA GISS graphs of the U.S. 48-state surface temperature record. Compared to the 1999 version, recent versions show about 0.7 C of additional warming from the 1930s to the 1990s, comprised of a combination of increases in post-1965 temperatures and decreases in pre-1965 temperatures (especially in the 1920s and 1930s).

    I’m aware of a paper discussing 0.29 C of adjustments, but no explanation for the rest.

    Eyeballing this graph…
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
    …it appears to show the following 1930s vs 1990s adjustment effects:
    TOBS (area adj & TOB adj): +0.34 F
    MMTS (sensor change adj): + 0.04 F
    SHAP (station history adj): +0.20 F
    FILNET (missing data est): +0.02 F
    FINAL (urban heat island adj): -0.06 F
    ———————-
    sum: +0.53 F = 0.29 C

    0.7 C is a very large increase to come from late adjustments to old data! It is about equal to the entire 20th century’s global warming!

    Nick Schor told me that that Reto Ruedy at NASA GISS told him the difference is not due to adjustments made by NASA GISS, but rather due to adjustments made by NOAA NCDC “to accomodate siting and measuring biases,” before NASA received the data.

    Based on the old version of the data, a page on nasa.gov said (circa 2000), “it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” But now NASA’s data shows 1934 as only 3rd-warmest year, and cooler than 1998. (This is all referring to U.S. 48-State temperatures, not global temperatures.) So what was “clear” to NASA in 2000 apparently is thought to be untrue, now.

    (BTW, you’re not the first person I’ve asked; I stumped Prof. Scott Mandia of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team.)

    Can you please help me to:

    1. find the data which was graphed in that 1999 article, and any other extant pre-2007 versions of http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt, especially versions older than this one, which was archived by the late John Daly; and

    2. find the the actual station lists and temperature and adjustment and weighting data used, for each of the stages of adjustment; and

    3. understand the adjustments that were made, and why they should be trusted.

    Thanks in advance!

    BTW, my email address can be found on my web site:
    http://sealevel.info/

  177. Spector says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    This is the force that Dr. Svensmark believes to be driving the climate. There would be no need to examine solar activity–just this data.
    This is a typical case of cherry picking. It has proven difficult to pin down what the long-term cosmic ray record is. Different stations show different trends. See e.g. the third plot of http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm or http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png which do not show the increase Oulu has.

    The plot represents cooling power which appears to be cyclicly decreasing until about 1995 and then cooling begins to increase from that point.
    Yet the climate has warmed since 1995 and [more damning] cosmic rays may have gone up, but the low-level clouds [which were supposed to follow the cosmic rays] have gone down. This is the clear falsification of Svensmark’s theory. You can always ‘rescue’ the theory but postulating that perhaps it was not the low clouds after all, or that the data is bad or manipulated, or …

  178. David Archibald says:

    Sparks says:
    August 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    As the warmers say, those are just localised events. Dr Spencer’s UAH graph is the standard.

  179. D. Patterson says:

    D. Patterson says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:40 am
    [snip - facts not in evidence]

    The facts were not supposed to be in evidence, because it was only a jocular and cautionary jibe in principle and not in example. I’m currently and irritatingly due for the real surgery myself. It seems to be quite common in my age group in recent months. I’m told we most all get to this point where it’s needed. The One-Eyed King has to pay more than the other blind inhabitants who don’t need it in the Land of the Blind. :-)

  180. David Archibald says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    The cycles that Ed Fix’s model is showing up for Solar Cycle 24 are impossibly short. There is nothing wrong with his model – we are at the point where the system resets and then starts building momentum again.
    So a failure of a theory is now called a ‘reset’.

    Re the length of Solar Cycle 24, just look at Altrock’s diagramme. He says it is 40% slower, I believe him, and then project it out.
    He said that a year ago, now he says maximum in the Northern hemisphere is already passed. You still believe him on that?

    You are right, of course, about the spot count thing.
    No, Geoff is dead wrong, the last decade or so we have been losing the small spots and undercounting, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf

  181. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    Jim G says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    “cause many open minded serious scientists to question if there may be some finer points missing in the overall general theory of relativity
    This has nothing to do with open-mindedness. All scientists dream about [and many try] proving Einstein wrong, but none have succeeded.”

    I am sure your attitude is similar to those who were skeptical of anything beyond Newtonian physics in Einstein’s time. Stuck in the box irrespective of evidence which would indicate there was more to be learned. It has everything to do with an open or closed mind.

  182. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm
    “Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.”

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:35 am
    “So no long-term decline has been observed, hence the basis for the extrapolation has gone away.”

    versus

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am
    solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades

    To use a more reliable, consistent, and specific source of data instead, where observed variation greatly exceeds any measurement error (as opposed to distraction by a case where that is not so): http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi

    Such illustrates how solar activity increased over cycles 20 to 21 and 22 (up to the early 1990s and contributing to warming on top of the ocean cycle). Then solar activity decreased a bit from cycle 22 to 23, and decreased more going from cycle 23 into the current cycle 24 (during which time temperatures reached a plateau to border on cooling, since the late 1990s through now, although the 60 year ocean cycle is as important as the moderate external forcing variations so far):

    solar cycle 20, 1964/10 to 1976/6: 6181 average neutron count

    solar cycle 21, 1976/6 to 1986/9: more solar activity, greater magnetic deflection of cosmic rays: 3.1% reduction in average GCR count (5991) compared to cycle 20

    solar cycle 22, 1986/9 to 1996/5: the solar oven continuing at relative max setting so to speak, continued high deflection of cosmic rays: 3.1% reduction in average GCR count (5992) compared to cycle 20

    solar cycle 23, 1996/5 to 2008/12: a significant relative decrease in solar activity from cycle 22, with less deflection of cosmic rays: within 0.5% of the average GCR count of cycle 20 (6214) instead of 3.1% less

    And then the first 3 years and 8 months so far of solar cycle 24 have had significantly less solar activity than the first 3 years and 8 months of solar cycle 23, as illustrated by having less magnetic deflection with 2.5% more average GCR flux (as 6565 instead of 6407).

    The preceding is the basic picture of solar activity: rising from the 1960s to be like an oven on max during the late 1970s through the early 1990s (with albedo decline as in reduced cloud cover http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ), then solar activity trends reversing to start to decline from the late 1990s through now (with albedo trends reversing to start to increase as in http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ), although a fuller climate picture would include adding in such as http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1964/to:2013/mean:50 (AMO ocean cycle index) among other data.

    Dr. Abdussamatov has some weaknesses, like he uses a common temperature dataset (unfortunately fudged by the CAGW movement) in one of the figures (rather than http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg plus http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg and other data discussed before that shows more solar-temperature correlation than the fudged data, superimposed upon the 60-year ocean cycle and shorter ocean oscillations, which would support his observations even more).

    But overall the preceding compares well enough to the general pattern of Dr. Abdussamatov’s illustrations at http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/sa_tsi_1600_en.jpg and http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/sa_eng.jpg

    as part of http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

    Off-topic, it is noteworthy how the very anti-CAGW page above is that of the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supported by the Russian government instead of an E.U. or Anglosphere government, illustrating as usual how publications supporting CAGW tend to be localized in both space and time to where and when the primarily-Western modern enviropolitical activist movement is strong.

  183. Henry Clark says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    “Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.”
    versus
    “solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades”

    Shows how one can twist things to support any point of view when guided by a firm belief.
    Dr. A’s whole thesis is based on his Figure 1 and 2. On the change in TSI with time. His curve shows a downward trend. Do you see that?
    Once you have answered this question we can go on.

  184. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    Dr. A’s whole thesis is based on his Figure 1 and 2. On the change in TSI with time. His curve shows a downward trend. Do you see that?
    To help you out here is the Figure 1: http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa1.png
    Once you have answered this question we can go on.

  185. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Henry@Gail

    Gail, I am not saying you are wrong or anything. I just want to know why you would say that you trust UAH….
    ___________________________
    I trust them more than I trust the others. Here is some information (At least we do not have to sue for it)

    How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced

    Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures

    WUWT: How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced by Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.

    Review of Previous Climate Calibration Workshop

    Scientific Robustness Of The University Of Alabama At Huntsville MSU Data

    As a result of the persistent, but incorrect (often derogatory) blog posts and media reports on the robustness of the University of Alabama MSU temperature data, I want to summarize the history of this data analysis below. John Christy and Roy Spencer lead this climate research program…. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

  186. Peter says:

    What an amusing array of comments.
    I really like the opening paragraph – “It hasn’t cooled yet and we’re three and a half years into the current cycle.”
    Also I see that old favourite distortion of using 1998 as the baseline for claiming a cooling trend has made another appearance. Classic denier fantasy land. Go look at the global temperature charts – the best you could say is the rate of warming has slowed. That would be due to all those forcings that are supposed to be producing much cooler conditions……. but aren’t.

    Oh, and cherry picking a few newsworthy cold weather events from the southern hemisphere, where it’s winter by the way, doesn’t mean anything.

    REPLY: I should have snipped this, but decided otherwise. Mr. Hearndon, I’ll expect you to make the same complaint to the BBC when they talk about the next heat wave or record high temperature. – Anthony

  187. Jim G says:
    August 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    Stuck in the box irrespective of evidence which would indicate there was more to be learned. It has everything to do with an open or closed mind.
    As I said, every physicist want to prove Einstein wrong and is totally open on this point. There is no box other than the hard constraints of observations. The problem is that when extending a theory to explain puzzling things one is constrained to still have the new version explain everything the old one could. That is the hard part. And nobody has succeeded in doing so, but everybody wish in his heart that he could. What physicists do not buy is the argument that there are some unknown unknowns that we can shove stuff onto. In the old days, it was called ‘magic’. We don’t believe in magic and we do not believe in the notion that all it requires is an open mind. I don’r know any scientist who would close his mind to a chance of proving Einstein wrong. There is ALWAYS more to be learned. The very notion of dark matter and dark energy are indeed things we have recently learned. You would exclude that hard won knowledge? I would say: how wonderful things we are learning that we never thought of before.

  188. Gail Combs says:

    Amos Batto says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:50 am

    What solar cycle is David Archibald talking about? The solar cycle that climatologists generally talk about in terms of climate impacts is a 11 year solar cycle. We are currently in the start of a new cycle, so we can expect solar radiation to go up for the next 5 years, meaning slightly higher temperatures for the next couple years. See Figure 9 at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
    I’m sorry, but I the NASA scientists do peer-reviewed research whose data and software algorithms are publically available. Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.
    ____________________________
    HUH???

    You really should do a bit of a search on the internet before posting.

    You state: “We are currently in the start of a new cycle, so we can expect solar radiation to go up for the next 5 years…” While this is what NASA says:

    NASA: Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2012/08/02)
    The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013…

    You then say: “…Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.

    ERRR, the NASA scientists do not all agree with Hansen. Actually you do not even have the correct guy it is Dr. Hathaway who is the Solar Physicist.
    NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records A study by Richard Feynman’s sister and others.

    A. J. Strata, NASA Engineer Error Analysis of surface temperature data

    NASA Data Confirms Solar Hibernation and Climate Change to Cold Era

    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) announces today that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government, the media, and the public that we are heading into a new cold climate era with 20 to 30 years of record setting cold weather.
    According to Director Casey,
    “I’m quite pleased that NASA has finally agreed with my predictions which were passed on to them in early 2007. There is no remaining doubt that the hibernation of the Sun, what solar physicists call a ‘grand minimum’ has begun and with it, the next climate change to a prolonged cold era.
    When I first called Dr. Hathaway and told him the NASA and NOAA estimates for the Sun’s activity were “way off” in both sunspot count and in which solar cycle the hibernation would begin (cycle 24 vs. cycle 25), he was polite but dismissive. Since that time both NASA and NOAA have been revising their sunspot estimates for solar cycle 24 lower every year and with each year their numbers have been getting closer
    to mine and the few other scientists around the world who had similar forecasts. The January announcement by NASA is now virtually identical to mine made almost four years ago.”…

    To put it bluntly they all have theories and some knowledge but none have a really solid grip on the “truth” about the sun or the climate. We are all still learning and that is why legislation about the climate is completely idiotic at this time.

  189. Gail Combs says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) announces today that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government

    John Casey is a fraud, so no need to consider this any further.

  190. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard:

    You had to skip over practically my entire prior post to aim to repeat the same loop. No thanks.

  191. Henry Clark says:
    August 14, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    You had to skip over practically my entire prior post to aim to repeat the same loop. No thanks.<
    Because your entire post was irrelevant for the issue at hand. And now that you see the writing on the wall you withdraw without learning anything so you can maintain your delusion. Your loss.

  192. Gail Combs says:

    Henry Clark says: @ August 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    …..Off-topic, it is noteworthy how the very anti-CAGW page above is that of the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supported by the Russian government instead of an E.U. or Anglosphere government, illustrating as usual how publications supporting CAGW tend to be localized in both space and time to where and when the primarily-Western modern enviropolitical activist movement is strong.
    ____________________________________
    I am not surprise the Russians are not swallowing the CAGW crap. When it comes to a little (or big) ice age the Russians are not going to fool around with the facts because getting caught flat footed means starvation and death.

  193. AlaskaHound says:

    Solar cycle 23 may not have ended when we thought it did.
    We may have peaked in this cycle last month, so wait and wait some more:)

  194. William Astley says:

    There are cycles of gradual climate change and abrupt climate change in the paleoclimate record. There are solar changes before and during the climate changes. (The papers below note the correlation.)

    There has been significant progress made in resolving the mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycle changes affect the planet’s climate. There is a physical reason why when there is an abrupt slow down in the solar cycle from a period of short active cycles to long cycles or an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle, there is a 10 to 12 year delay in the onset of cooling.

    I would suggest we continue looking for anomalous solar observations and the onset of cooling. The past data and current observation appear to support the assertion that there will be a significant cooling event, a Heinrich event which it appears is predicated by a solar magnetic cycle interruption, followed by significant cooling due to increased GCR, and then when the magnetic cycle restarts a series of events that cause a geomagnetic excursion, which causes long term abrupt cooling.

    List of Bond events
    Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
    • ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1) — roughly correlates with the Migration Period pessimum(450–900 AD)
    • ≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) — roughly correlates with the Iron Age Cold Epoch (900–300 BC)[8]
    • ≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) — correlates with the 4.2 kiloyear event
    • ≈5,900 BP (Bond event 4) — correlates with the 5.9 kiloyear event
    • ≈8,100 BP (Bond event 5) — correlates with the 8.2 kiloyear event
    • ≈9,400 BP (Bond event 6) — correlates with the Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[9] as well as with a cold event in China.[10]
    • ≈10,300 BP (Bond event 7) — unnamed event
    • ≈11,100 BP (Bond event 8) — coincides with the transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal

    Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?

    http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf

    http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://dept.kent.edu/geography/GEC/Reduced_solar_activity_as_a_trig.pdf
    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    Following the end of the Eemian, a large number of other sudden changes and short-term warm and cold alternations have been recognized; apparently many or all of these occurred on a global or at least a regional scale (Fig.3; Ice core record). The most extreme of these fluctuations are the warm interstadials and the cold Heinrich events. These are most prominent in the ice-core record of Greenland, deep-sea cores from the North Atlantic, and in the pollen records of Europe and North America, suggesting that they were most intense in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1992; 1993).

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379198000882

    “The role of solar forcing upon climate change”

    “A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”

    “… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”

    Last 40 kyrs
    Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”

    Recent Solar Event
    “Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)

    Periodicity
    “Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

  195. Gail Combs says:

    Peter says: @ August 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    …… Go look at the global temperature charts – the best you could say is the rate of warming has slowed. That would be due to all those forcings that are supposed to be producing much cooler conditions……. but aren’t.
    ==================================

    Well Mr. Hearndon, thank you for confirming the change in the first derivative of the temperature. As I noted in my other comment the effects on the climate is not in the absolute numbers but in the first derivative or RATE of change in the temperature.

    In Defense of Milankovitch
    …The idea is that these cycles change the amount of sunshine near the Arctic circle which was claimed by the Serbian scholar [Milankovitch] to be globally important….

    However, Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake…
    The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.

    In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting).

    Just as you would not expect to immediately change the ice volume in response to the Milankovitch cycles (changes in Solar Insolation), you would not expect an immediate change in temperature either. Graph

    70% of the earth is ocean and a large amount of the high energy wavelengths enter the ocean to be absorbed at various depths (think in three dimensions) To actually overcome the inertia of the system requires time and a heck of a change in energy. Think about what it takes to break a railroad train or better yet an ocean liner. The response is going to be in terms of years and may only be seen as changes in ENSO, PDO, and AMO decades later because the oceans act as storage for large amounts of energy over time. Therefore a step change in the amount of energy (TSI) though small could be “integrated’ over time to give a surprisingly large effect.

  196. Werner Brozek says:

    Peter says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm
    the best you could say is the rate of warming has slowed.

    Warming has STOPPED for over 10 years on all sets below except UAH.
    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)

    1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
    2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
    3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
    4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
    One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
    5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June)
    6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
    RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
    7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)

    See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend

    For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

  197. William Astley says:
    August 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle …
    solar magnetic cycle interruption

    Seems to be a favorite theme. So define what such a ‘interruption’ would be. How would we know one if it happened?

  198. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 6:14 pm
    “Because your entire post was irrelevant for the issue at hand.”

    Inconvenient for you trying to get people to believe Dr. Abdussamatov was wrong in implying a decline in solar activity after cycle 22? Yes. Irrelevant? No.

    I notice you repeatedly skip over:

    1) the change in GCR count between cycles 22 and 23
    2) the change in GCR count between cycles 23 and 24
    3) the change in sunspot number between cycles 22 and 23
    4) the change in sunspot number between cycles 23 and 24
    5) the change in solar cycle length between cycles 22 and 23

    All of those support the general picture of Dr. Abdussamatov. It is very telling that you end up resorting to the one and only measurement source (unlike all of the preceding) where Abdussamatov’s expected difference is smaller than the measurement error, smaller than the multiple tenths of a W/m^2 error stated by the authors in your publication.

    Such as the 12.6 year duration of cycle 23 compared to 9.7 years for cycle 22 is not likely to be measurement error and not something which can be revised away later.

    September 1986 to May 1996 does not equal May 1996 to December 2008.

    Even if I believed cycles 22 and 23 were identical in TSI down to the last 0.01 W/m^2, that would just show decline in other aspects of solar activity (like the magnetic field affecting GCR flux and neutron count measurements) can start before TSI decline does: a mild curiosity not reversing the big picture.

    I’m reminded of part of a post someone recently made on another topic in a different context, on August 13, 2012 7:46 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/july-hottest-ever-but-u-s-tornado-count-lowest-since-1951-poisoned-weather-meme-falsified-by-nature/ . In that analogy, one berry does not distract from the non-berries if one realizes to watch out for the tactic. (You apparently figure the tactic works on skim readers, which unfortunately is likely so).

    ********************

    The following from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi data gives the real picture of solar activity (inverted average GCR counts relative to cycle 20):

    Rise in activity, from the 1960s through part of the 1990s, like an oven on max:

    cycle 20: 1.000 for 1964-1976
    ->
    cycle 21: 1.032 for 1976-1986
    ->
    cycle 22: 1.032 for 1986-1996

    Decline in activity (about fitting Dr. Abdussamatov’s paper, short of misleading nitpicking attempts):

    ->
    cycle 23: 0.995 for 1996-2008
    ->
    cycle 24 so far: 0.942 (where cycle 23’s figure would be 0.965 by this many months into it)

    Later in this decade is the real test for whether Dr. Abdussamatov is right or not, as he is making major predictions for what will happen after cycle 24 peaks in the near future. But, after further illustration of what one of his top opponents is like in regard to bias, my opinion of how he compares has gone up.

  199. Henry Clark says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:57 pm
    “Because your entire post was irrelevant for the issue at hand.”
    A favorite trick is to heap link upon link, dataset upon dataset, claim upon claim, etc until the true issue is completely blurred. I tried to go in small steps so there would be only a single question in each step to agree upon. In that way one can make progress through the swamp of obscurantism. So, back to http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa1.png Have you seen this Figure before? Describe what you see.

    Later in this decade is the real test for whether Dr. Abdussamatov is right or not
    In fact we do not need to wait, we shall see [at the end of the exercise] that he is already wrong. But if you do not want to follow along you will not obtain enlightenment.

  200. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
    In that way one can make progress through the swamp of obscurantism.

    I cross-check claims against such as the solar activity rise from 1.000 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 for the cycles from 1964 to 1996 A.D. seen in average relative inverted neutron counts, which was followed by decline to 0.995 and then, in this incomplete cycle, 0.942 so far.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
    Describe what you see.

    Particularly notably, a major decline in peak sunspot numbers between cycle 22 and cycle 23 (which correlates with other data on how relative solar activity, in the metric mentioned earlier, dropped from 1.032 in cycle 22 to 0.995 in cycle 23).

  201. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif said:

    “The very notion of dark matter and dark energy are indeed things we have recently learned.”

    Well, we may have ‘learned’ that proposing them appears to solve a few puzzles if they are defined in certain specific terms but it is not yet clear to me that they actually exist. Something exists but whether those terms are appropriate remains to be seen.

    In the meantime, proposing them is a bit of an appeal to magic is it not ?

    The phonomena which they are currently used to ‘describe’ could still be the result of some different features of our universe.

  202. HenryP says:

    Leif Svalgaard says
    Since 1995 solar activity is lower.

    Henry says
    don’t you think it is interesting for me to have been able to calculate this from the fall in maximum temperatures?
    (I give myself an ovation)
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
    funny that you should also mention 1945.
    Namely, my results suggest that from this time solar activity started increasing. Do you agree?

    We are not imagining things when we say it is cooling. The official datasets must be wrong (CALIBRATION?) or they are being manipulated. I also feel that winter is longer here now. August used to be fine, but it feels like July. We had snow here in Pretoria (South Africa) for the first time that I have been here (36 years). Just be sure, it was snow I went outside to see and feel it happening.

  203. HenryP says:

    Henry@Werner, Gail

    Thanks Werner, an impressive peace of work! It clearly tells me that UAH must be wrong, which I already suspected for some time. There could be several causes and I most certainly don’t suspect it is Dr. Spencer’s fault. I briefly looked at the calibration procedure (Thank you Gail!) and it seems to me that using the cosmic backround as a reference point of 2.7K could be a point of discussion. How do we know that point is not changing by a few tenth’s with solar activity going down in the surrounding space? (since 1995, as we noted in my previous post)

  204. Spector says:

    This is an example of the plot Dr. Svensmark has presented as convincing evidence of a direct correlation between low cloud cover and cosmic ray flux. I have not found a site providing the source data for this plot. It seems to show a strong correlation between obviously filtered cloud-cover data and cosmic ray flux. Of course, one might argue that these plots share a common driver and nothing more.

    As the Earth as a whole would act as a huge low-pass filter, perhaps sufficient to remove the eleven-year solar activity variation cycles, one might expect a ten or more year delayed response in the temperature record.

    As the possibility of cloud seeding by cosmic rays has been experimentally confirmed, this graph indicates may be a close-coupling between climate and cosmic ray flux as modulated by galactic and solar effects and moderated by terrestrial inertia.

    [". . . The correlation between cosmic ray flux(orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003."]

    http://www.androidworld.com/Clouds_CosmicRays.jpg

    Source(ScienceBits): http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    The only other mechanism that I can think of for an enhanced (non-photon) solar effect on climate would be by energy or particles carried directly in the solar wind.

  205. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 7:36 am
    I have published in some, including JASTP, so I don’t know what your problem is. BTW, IMO the quality of JASTP has, sadly, been declining lately.

    Well of course Leif. JASTP was fine when it published your paper, but because it published Scafetta’s work its quality must be declining.
    /sarc

  206. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:49 am
    tallbloke says:
    August 14, 2012 at 8:09 am
    Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.

    I suspect that I won’t get it, because there isn’t any. …there have been six citations of W&P, five by Scafetta and one by Callebaut et al. who states …The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle.”

    Yes Leif. I have had email correspondence with Callebaut and de Jager too.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-influence-of-planetary-attractions-on-the-solar-tachocline/#comment-23693

    See also:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/another-argument-against-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity-bites-the-dust/

  207. Henry Clark says:

    Spector says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:51 pm

    http://www.androidworld.com/Clouds_CosmicRays.jpg

    Source(ScienceBits): http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    Just to add to that:

    To get some data in another way extending from 1964 to 2012, for twice as lengthy of a time period, I made a quick illustration of actually 9 km altitude humidity versus solar/GCR activity:

    http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg

    I circled in purple the four peaks of atmospheric specific humidity and the corresponding four solar minimums which were peaks in GCR flux. Of course, it is somewhat messy, being real-world data with other influences and weather fluctuations on top, but one can see the general match-up even in the unfiltered raw data.

    The top is from:
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    The bottom is from:
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    CAGW movement supporters claim GCRs having any effect is proven impossible by post-2004 divergence between GCR trends and the “official” average cloud cover trend. But, by 2004 onwards, average global cloud cover trends reported by the ISCCP (headquartered at GISS) diverge from other metrics when cross-checked, in contrast to relationships before. Short of weird physics, the simplest explanation is that GISS started fudging their cloud cover dataset to counter theories against CAGW like the same GISS group definitely does with their temperature dataset (discussed in http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php et cetera).

    By the way, just in case you haven’t already seen them before, you might enjoy http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ , and with, as usual on climate topics, a Russian publication on cosmic rays being good: http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm

  208. Henry Clark says:

    edit:
    There is a typo in the text of my prior comment, reversing minimums and peaks. The http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg graph is better than its text description, though.

  209. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 12:23 am
    Well of course Leif. JASTP was fine when it published your paper, but because it published Scafetta’s work its quality must be declining.
    Indeed, that is part of its malaise. Very perceptive of you.

    tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 3:19 am
    I have had email correspondence with Callebaut and de Jager too.
    And you have no qualms about showing that correspondence, so now we are awaiting a similar openness about W&P’s.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 14, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    In the meantime, proposing them is a bit of an appeal to magic is it not ?
    Actually not, as they are consistent with the known laws of nature. New particles are discovered all the time.

    The phonomena which they are currently used to ‘describe’ could still be the result of some different features of our universe.
    There is those weasel words ‘could be’. The phenomena are observed [gravitational lensing, acceleration of expansion] and no new ‘features’ need be considered.

    Henry Clark says:
    August 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm
    Particularly notably, a major decline in peak sunspot numbers between cycle 22 and cycle 23
    The relevant feature is the decline of the minimum value of TSI shown by the blue line in concert with a similar decline of the sunspot number. In Figure 2 http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa2.png he highlights the TSI ‘deficit’. Now, both my own work and that of the PMOD team have shown that there is no deficit. This is why I said “there is no decrease” [in the minimum values], that is: TSI minima do not follow the blue line down.
    So, as the next step we need to agree that minimum TSI has not decreased. That there is no ‘deficit’.

  210. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Actually not, as they are consistent with the known laws of nature. New particles are discovered all the time.”

    So what new particles constitute dark matter and dark energy ?

    The whole point of speculating as to their existence is because observations on the face of it are not always consistent with the known laws of nature. You could be using the terms simply as a catch all for ‘whatever is causing the apparent discrepancies’ but I’d call that magic until you actually determine whether those specific terms have any descriptive meaning. The cause could be quite different from anything that a reasonable person would describe as dark matter or dark energy.

  211. tallbloke says:

    Henry Clark says:
    August 15, 2012 at 4:46 am
    To get some data in another way extending from 1964 to 2012, for twice as lengthy of a time period, I made a quick illustration of actually 9 km altitude humidity versus solar/GCR activity:

    http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=27173_globalwarmingGCRsvshumidity_122_1193lo.jpg

    Henry, you may be interested in the graph of Specific humidity near the tropopause vs Sunspot count I made a couple of years ago.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png

  212. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 15, 2012 at 6:18 am
    The whole point of speculating as to their existence is because observations on the face of it are not always consistent with the known laws of nature.
    Dark matter is not a matter of speculation as to its existence. DM is observed by its gravitational effect. That is no different from deducing the existence of the planet Neptune from its effect on the orbit of Uranus. There are several candidates for what those particles are and one of the reasons for the LHC [of Higgs fame] is to search for those.
    Dark energy is consistent with general relativity, in fact, is demanded by GR [in combination with the observation that the Universe is flat].

    The cause could be quite different from anything that a reasonable person would describe as dark matter or dark energy.
    But not from what a knowledgeable person would think.
    You might progress from ‘reasonable’ to ‘knowledgeable’ by reading this very accessible piece http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf

  213. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 6:44 am
    you may be interested in the graph of Specific humidity near the tropopause vs Sunspot count I made a couple of years ago.
    Except, the graph does not show the actual sunspot number count as should be obvious to everyone.

  214. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 15, 2012 at 6:18 am
    The whole point of speculating as to their existence is because observations on the face of it are not always consistent with the known laws of nature.
    The laws of nature are what demonstrates the existence of dark matter. Another good and accessible reference is http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/

  215. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 5:31 am
    tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 3:19 am
    I have had email correspondence with Callebaut and de Jager too.
    And you have no qualms about showing that correspondence, so now we are awaiting a similar openness about W&P’s.

    Here’s the part that concerns you and Gough. [My Parentheses]
    ===========================
    Dear Roger Tattersall:
    We decline to enter the private exchange you reported to us concerning planetary influence on the sun. In our opinion the observational evidence for some kind of planetary effect is nearly overwhelming.

    However, models of the effect are always open to question or improvement. We agree that the “the sun is in freefall” and said so in our paper. But this does not repeal the conservation of angular momentum or the tidal force for example. In due time, the merit of our model will be decided.

    [Section redacted]

    Sincerely,
    Paul Patrone and Charles Wolff
    ===========================

    So there you have it Leif. The merit of W&P’s model will be decided by scientists in the literature. Not in a knockabout internet argument started by your private exchange with Gough who can’t even be bothered to read the paper. Dirk Callebaut and Kees de Jager have made a half hearted attempt which cast a slur on any and all tidal hypotheses and falsely included W&P in a list of hypotheses they think they have refuted. It’s pretty obvious to me they didn’t read or understand W&P’s paper either.

    What are you and Gough afraid of, getting your asses handed back to you on a plate? If you believe you and Gough have found a flaw in W&P’s work, then submit a properly written piece to the relevant journal. Otherwise W&P stands and you’re talking hot air.

  216. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:45 am
    “We decline to enter the private exchange you reported to us concerning planetary influence on the sun.”
    So there you have it Leif.

    Which makes your reply to my question “What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper”: They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.
    a blatant lie [as I thought]. Completely destroying any ‘credibility’ you might have thought you had.

    What are you and Gough afraid of, getting your asses handed back to you on a plate? If you believe you and Gough have found a flaw in W&P’s work, then submit a properly written piece to the relevant journal. Otherwise W&P stands and you’re talking hot air.
    We might do that at some point, although I doubt that that would make any difference to your cult.

  217. Werner Brozek says:

    HenryP says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:49 pm
    It clearly tells me that UAH must be wrong, which I already suspected for some time.

    Some sort of an adjustment should be coming in the next month of two. It is possible UAH has been too high over the last three years. On February 2, Dr. Spencer wrote: “Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset. You can anticipate a little cooler anomalies than recently reported, maybe by a few hundredths of a degree, due to a small warming drift we have identified in one of the satellites carrying the AMSU instruments.”
    See
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:36/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/mean:36/plot/rss/from:1980/mean:36/plot/uah/from:1980/mean:36/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/mean:36
    UAH is the only one that shows the last 36 month mean as being warmer than any earlier time.

  218. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:58 am
    tallbloke says:
    What are you and Gough afraid of, getting your asses handed back to you on a plate? If you believe you and Gough have found a flaw in W&P’s work, then submit a properly written piece to the relevant journal. Otherwise W&P stands and you’re talking hot air.

    We might do that at some point, although I doubt that that would make any difference to your cult.

    Still blowing smoke Leif?

    Let us know when your guru Gough gets around to actually reading the W&P paper and writing something he thinks worthy of submission for peer review.

  219. tallbloke says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:07 am
    HenryP says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:49 pm
    It clearly tells me that UAH must be wrong, which I already suspected for some time.

    Some sort of an adjustment should be coming in the next month of two. It is possible UAH has been too high over the last three years. On February 2, Dr. Spencer wrote: “Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset. You can anticipate a little cooler anomalies than recently reported, maybe by a few hundredths of a degree

    I think UAH is fine. What we are seeing is what I have been predicting on my blog for the last two and a half years. When the Sun goes quiet, heat comes out of the ocean and keeps the lower troposphere warm. Land is only a quarter of earth’s surface, and air isn’t very good at warming it. The increase in cloud as measured by the Earthshine project and ISCCP after 1998 means less insolation to the soil and oceans. The heat is coming up from the ocean depths.

  220. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 10:57 am
    Still blowing smoke Leif?
    Just exposing your errors and lies, e.g. that Jose was at Los Alamos and that W&P actaully said in their email. But let that slide, as Steven Schneider once said: “it is OK to lie if it furthers the cause”.

    Let us know when your guru Gough gets around to actually reading the W&P paper
    Perhaps you didn’t read his note to me where Gough comments on specific items of the text:
    “that Wolff and Patrone on p231 appear to claim …”
    “the first paragraph of p. 232 …”
    “in the last six lines of p.232″
    “dismissal at the bottom of p.231″
    But, as he says, after a while it becomes clear that the rest of the ‘fairy tale’ in the paper is not worth delving into. And for that reason it may not be worth wasting energy on a rebuttal [which you would not understand or accept anyway]. Or any need. Bad papers are soon and deservedly blissfully forgotten.

    As Gough notes: “I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
    Perhaps they did not succeed…

  221. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    Jim G says:
    August 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    Stuck in the box irrespective of evidence which would indicate there was more to be learned. It has everything to do with an open or closed mind.
    “As I said, every physicist want to prove Einstein wrong and is totally open on this point. There is no box other than the hard constraints of observations. The problem is that when extending a theory to explain puzzling things one is constrained to still have the new version explain everything the old one could. That is the hard part. And nobody has succeeded in doing so, but everybody wish in his heart that he could. What physicists do not buy is the argument that there are some unknown unknowns that we can shove stuff onto. In the old days, it was called ‘magic’. We don’t believe in magic and we do not believe in the notion that all it requires is an open mind. I don’r know any scientist who would close his mind to a chance of proving Einstein wrong. There is ALWAYS more to be learned. The very notion of dark matter and dark energy are indeed things we have recently learned. You would exclude that hard won knowledge? I would say: how wonderful things we are learning that we never thought of before.”

    Not everyone is simply attempting to be the first to prove Einstein wrong. You are looking at the search for deeper knowledge as an egotist would and it is certain that some of that may be involved for some. Some are, however, simply trying to determine if there is MORE that might add to or modify what Einstein has discovered and thereby answer questions which relativity does not answer. Dark matter has not been “observed”, only inferred based upon what we do know about gravity, which may not be complete knowledge, What you are doing is taking the same position as those who would not listen to Einstein and clung to the Newtonian approximations of the day. An open mind says that relativity is the present day best approximation of what is going on but since it does not answer all of the questions, there may be more, and since dark matter has not been found or observed, but its postulation is using what we already do think we know to prove what we already think we do know, dark matter may not be the answer. Not a very encouraging course of logic. Also, relativity does not, I believe, call for an accellerating expansion, only an expanding universe (and here I may be open to correction, see “General Relativity and the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe”, Patrick Das Gupta) so dark energy is also in question. It may,however, according to some, be related to the potential quantum nature of space itself.

    Your position on this issue is a perfect example of the old saying that ‘It is not what people don’t know that gets them in so much trouble but all of the things they do know that just ain’t so.’ In a single word, dogmatism. This said, I probably agree with you more on the issue of relativity, in general, than you might suppose, with the exception of dark matter and dark energy due to the “incestuous” sequential logical used to “prove” their existence.

  222. Mike Mellor says:

    I first read about solar cycles in John Gribbin’s book “The Strangest Star.” I thought that the science of solar cycles had been discredited and am fascinated to see it resurfacing. Gribbin has excellent instincts and is seldom wrong.

    On the other hand…. climate change skeptics, if it starts cooling, don’t rejoice too soon. The warmists will only take the cooling as evidence that carbon emission restrictions were effective.

    Off topic: snip acceptable. I love the tolerant moderation policy on WUWT. Opposing opinions are welcome. In fact every time there’s a new blog I look to see what James Abbott and barry have said. They never stoop to personal comments and maintain a high standard of debate. Gail Combs is another favorite.

  223. HenryP says:

    Tallbloke says
    Werner Brozek says: August 15, 2012 at 8:07 am HenryP says: August 14, 2012 at 11:49 pm It clearly tells me that UAH must be wrong, which I already suspected for some time. Some sort of an adjustment should be coming in the next month of two. It is possible UAH has been too high over the last three years. On February 2, Dr. Spencer wrote: “Progress continues on Version 6 of our global temperature dataset. You can anticipate a little cooler anomalies than recently reported, maybe by a few hundredths of a degree …

    I think UAH is fine. What we are seeing is what I have been predicting on my blog for the last two and a half years. When the Sun goes quiet, heat comes out of the ocean and keeps the lower troposphere warm. Land is only a quarter of earth’s surface, and air isn’t very good at warming it. The increase in cloud as measured by the Earthshine project and ISCCP after 1998 means less insolation to the soil and oceans. The heat is coming up from the ocean depths

    Henry says
    HI tallbloke! Hi Werner! No doubt you are right about where the heat is coming from, when since 1995 the energy input to earth (ground) has been falling. It seems there is no one so far that has challenged the validity of my tables. From my table for means it can be calculated that “global” temps have dropped by about -0.2 degrees C or K since 2000. With current technology I would accept an absolute maximum error of 0.2 degrees K . Of course, because of various technical reasons, I believe my own data set is the best. That means most data sets must report between -0.4 to 0.0 from 2000. UAH is out. Not by a few hundredth. It is a little more, I am afraid.

  224. Jim G says:
    August 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Dark matter has not been “observed”, only inferred based upon what we do know about gravity, which may not be complete knowledge
    One of the best demonstrations of Dark Matter is the determination of the Baryon/Cold Dark Matter ratio from the observed signature of sound waves during the early universe, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf This is simple freshman physics and has nothing to do with general relativity or gravity on large scales. There are now so many observations of DM at the issue is compelling, see e.g. http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/

    Also, relativity does not, I believe, call for an accellerating expansion, only an expanding universe
    Observations show that the Universe is ‘flat’ which with the observed amounts of baryons and dark matter requires about 75% dark energy, which automatically means an accelerating universe.

    Your position on this issue is a perfect example of the old saying that ‘It is not what people don’t know that gets them in so much trouble but all of the things they do know that just ain’t so.’
    You get more in trouble by not knowing whereof you speak.
    You make the unwarranted assumption that cosmology is dominated by dogmatism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Workers in the field are their own devil’s advocates and leave no stone unturned trying to poke holes in modern precision cosmology by examining known and possible sources of errors and uncertainties. A good example is http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2434v1.pdf .
    Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in a sense the least upsetting or revolutionary things. The implications of DM and DE being due to something else are MUCH more shattering. I prefer the simplest and most conservative explanations consistent with what our observations force us to go along with. You may want to assume much more radical departures from known physics than I could stomach, that is your choice, but in that you leave me behind.

  225. Werner Brozek says:

    Thank you tallbloke and HenryP. Dr. Spencer has already said there needs to be an adjustment downward. The only question is how much. Now I know this is not very scientific and could easily be wrong. But IF we make the assumption that RSS has been correct over the last 12 years, and if we then compare the relative positions of the 36 month mean for 2002 and 2012 for each set, my conclusion is that UAH was too high by 0.10 C over the last three years. Time will tell if this is in the ball park.

  226. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Bad papers are soon and deservedly blissfully forgotten.

    You have to get a proof that it is bad published, or you are just continuing to blow smoke. Wolff and Patrone’s paper stands until rebutted in the literature. You can blissfully ignore it remain in ignorance if you wish, the development of the theory will continue without your input.

  227. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in a sense the least upsetting or revolutionary things. The implications of DM and DE being due to something else are MUCH more shattering”

    That is a good point but does not justify saying with certitude that DM and DE exist.

    DM and DE are currently just the least disruptive interpretation that could be put on the observations. And it isn’t that DM or DE is due to something else but rather that the observations that led to the concepts of DM and DE might be due to something else.

    It could well be something else unless one can demonstrate the presnce of DM and DE empirically and those who wish to consider other interpretations should not be discouraged from doing so.

    Fixing on DM and DE as the most likely explanation without any supporting observation or measurement of the actual physical properties of DM and DE is just the same type of leap of faith that led to it being assumed that our CO2 emissions can control the climate.

  228. tallbloke says:

    HenryP says:
    August 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    UAH is out. Not by a few hundredth. It is a little more, I am afraid.

    Werner Brozek says:
    August 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    .my conclusion is that UAH was too high by 0.10 C over the last three years. Time will tell if this is in the ball park.

    Well, we’ll see. What I’m saying is that lower troposphere warming relative to land surface as ocean surface cools is consistent with the hypothesis I’ve been testing since late 2008. The Recent el Nino’s have been depleting ocean heat content and heating lower troposphere. The Sun hasn’t been ‘recharging’ (as Bob Tisdale puts it) the Pacific Warm Pool so much. so we see the Hadley SST falling, and the land surface series falling behind the troposphere. It’s a temporary situation, as the run of big el Nino’s peters out, the lower troposphere will start to chill. My curent guess is we’ll see a marked downturn in LT by the end of next year whatever minor adjustments Roy and John need to make for orbital factors.

    It’ll be interesting to see how it develops.

    Cheers

    TB .

  229. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    “Bad papers are soon and deservedly blissfully forgotten.”
    You have to get a proof that it is bad published … the development of the theory will continue without your input

    It will not be forgotten by me, but by the scientific community in general. There has been no further development of the ‘theory’ so far.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    That is a good point but does not justify saying with certitude that DM and DE exist.
    There is no ‘certitude’ in science [except in your theory :-) ].

    DM and DE are currently just the least disruptive interpretation that could be put on the observations. And it isn’t that DM or DE is due to something else but rather that the observations that led to the concepts of DM and DE might be due to something else.
    You have clearly not studied any of the links I gave you. Try again http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
    What you are saying is like “the Moon seems to be held in orbit by gravity, but it might be something else”

    It could well be something else unless one can demonstrate the presnce of DM and DE empirically
    See the above link
    and those who wish to consider other interpretations should not be discouraged from doing so.
    They most certainly are not. Many scientists are trying to poke holes in this. None have succeeded so far. As for the general public [like you], they should be educated if they are willing and [perhaps more to the point] able.

    Fixing on DM and DE as the most likely explanation
    You did not study the links. DM and DE are *forced* upon us by observations, unless we want to entertain even worse alternatives.

  230. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    “Bad papers are soon and deservedly blissfully forgotten.”
    You have to get a proof that it is bad published

    No need, a bad paper stinks to high heaven on its own and any scientist worth his salt can spot it.

  231. HenryP says:

    Thx you all. I wouls agree/say that UAH Is out by at least 0.1 since 2000. I am interested to hear the reason? Best wishes. H

  232. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “You make the unwarranted assumption that cosmology is dominated by dogmatism.”

    You make the unwarraned assumption that I was speaking of cosmology in general, the dogmatism comment was the stone thrown and the one which howls is the one which was struck. there are, indeed, many in the field who are open minded and seeking more truth.

    “Observations show that the Universe is ‘flat’ which with the observed amounts of baryons and dark matter requires about 75% dark energy, which automatically means an accelerating universe.”

    More incestuous, circular logic.

    “Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in a sense the least upsetting or revolutionary things. The implications of DM and DE being due to something else are MUCH more shattering.”

    It is not that DM and DE might be due to something else, but that the observations which you feel confirm their existence might be due to something else. And why would such a discovery be “shattering” to you particularly if it progessed us toward integration of quantum physics with relativity?

  233. Jim G says:
    August 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    You make the unwarranted assumption that I was speaking of cosmology in general
    Cosmology without DM and DE simply does not exist. You too could benefit from studying the very accessible http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf which you clearly didn’t do.

    And why would such a discovery be “shattering” to you particularly if it progessed us toward integration of quantum physics with relativity?
    First, there is no ‘discovery’, second because DM has nothing to do with general relativity. As I said:
    “You may want to assume much more radical departures from known physics than I could stomach, that is your choice, but in that you leave me behind.”

    Your notion of ‘dogmatism’ is ill-placed. The dogmatic one is the one who refuses to accept the marvel of modern cosmology. Refuses to accept how far we have come and refuses to learn about the greatest story ever told.

  234. Peter says:

    [snip]

  235. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    Jim G says:
    August 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    You make the unwarranted assumption that I was speaking of cosmology in general
    “Cosmology without DM and DE simply does not exist..”

    An absurd statement.

    “Your notion of ‘dogmatism’ is ill-placed. The dogmatic one is the one who refuses to accept the marvel of modern cosmology. Refuses to accept how far we have come and refuses to learn about the greatest story ever told.”

    You either are not reading what I write or fail to understand what I, and several others, I might add, are saying. You also seem to always assume that others are not aware of, nor have read, nor understand subjects which only you (so you think) have the abilty to fully comprehend. A legend in your own mind.

  236. tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    “Just exposing your errors and lies, e.g. that Jose was at Los Alamos and what W&P actually said in their email”
    I note that you [correctly] did not dispute this. Perhaps you should bring that fact to the attention of the readers of your blog, as would be fitting for a gentleman.

  237. PJF says:

    Leif Svalgaard wrote:
    “I carefully said ‘except for tidal forces’. The examples you mention are all due to tides. The magnitude of tides can be calculated, and the largest tidal bulge is that raised by Jupiter [the next one is by by Venus] and is less than one millimeter high.”

    I’m sorry that I missed your previous mention. If I’d searched the thread for “tidal” instead of “tide” I might have saved us both five minutes. My reply was correct for your post that I was responding to, but your post did not represent your whole position. Such is life.

    The result of < 1.0mm in the context of an enormous, multi-layered sphere of frothing high-energy plasma is so meaningless that it sounds like a figure derived from a model sun enjoying simple properties that are actually calculable. It also sounds like a vertical component only. Do you have a figure for the horizontal components? These are usually much larger. And the size of a tidal bulge is not necessarily an indication of the significance of subsequent effects.

    "There are also the effect of Sirius-shine on the Sun. When Jupiter is between the Sun and the star Sirius, Sirius-shine is reduced."

    I appreciate your analogy of insignificant effect, however Sirius lies so far from the orbital plane of the solar system that such a shadow from Jupiter is unlikely to occur before Sirius and the Sun both stop shining (or the end of this thread, whichever is the soonest).

    "As your comment shows, that does not deter people from believing weird stuff."

    I do not "believe" in the solar-planetary theory; indeed I hadn't heard of it as a specific notion before dropping into this thread. At this stage of exposure I think it is interesting that there are / may be some correlations between various and combined gravitational / positional aspects of the planets and various and combined solar activities. I am open to the possibilities of these correlations being non-existent; existent but meaninglessly coincidental; existent and meaningfully coincidental; existent and causal. I have no dog in this race nor horse in this fight, as people don't say.

    On the Earth, volcanic phenomena are primarily (almost entirely entirely) the result of internal processes. Nevertheless, real actual Earth scientists have established that the gravitational / positional interaction of the Moon can trigger eruptions. To an imaginary outside observer (of long life), there would be a clear correlation between the positions of these co-orbiting bodies in freefall and a surface activity upon one of them.

    *If* there is any correlation between the planets and solar activity, that's the sort of magnitude of influence I wouldn't be surprised about.

    Further, in our own species (or half of it, anyway) there is a peculiar but clear and obvious correlation between the orbit of the Moon and menstruation. Now you might want to dispute the time of the month, but (to paraphrase Rick Blaine) there are certain areas of discussion, Leif, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

  238. Jim G says:
    August 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    “Cosmology without DM and DE simply does not exist..”
    An absurd statement.

    Those are the cornerstones of modern cosmology, so there is nothing absurd about this.

    You either are not reading what I write or fail to understand what I, and several others, I might add, are saying.
    Your comment here is like saying that smoking is healthy because many people do it.
    And about not reading: I respond to everything, while you respond to nothing.

    You also seem to always assume that others are not aware of, nor have read, nor understand subjects which only you (so you think) have the abilty to fully comprehend. A legend in your own mind.
    Your comments give you away. No need for me to assume anything.

    For your education, I quote here one of the links you didn’t seem to have understood if even read:
    From http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/ :

    Ever since the phenomenal success of Isaac Newton in explaining the motion of the planets with his theory of gravity and laws of motion in 1687, unseen matter has been invoked to explain puzzling observations of cosmic bodies.

    For example, the anomalous motion of Uranus led astronomers to suggest that an unseen planet existed, and a few years later, in 1846, Neptune was discovered. This procedure is still the primary method used to discover planets orbiting stars.

    A similar line of reasoning led to the detection in 1862, of the faint white dwarf Sirius B in orbit around the bright star Sirius.
    ======

    Rotation speed of spiral galaxies:
    Measuring the acceleration of matter orbiting an object is the basic method for determining the mass of that object. For example, by measuring the centripetal acceleration of a planet orbiting the sun at a known distance, the mass that the sun must have to produce that acceleration can be determined.

    In a similar way, astronomers can calculate the mass of a galaxy by measuring the acceleration of clouds orbiting on the outer edges of a galaxy. Pioneering work by Vera Rubin and her colleagues showed that, much to their surprise, the required mass of many spiral galaxies is much larger than the observed mass of all the visible stars and gas. About 5 times larger.

    Many subsequent studies confirmed this discovery, and the general picture that has emerged is that of a disk of stars and gas embedded in a large, spherical halo of dark matter.
    ======

    Hot Gas in Elliptical Galaxies:
    Large elliptical galaxies have extended atmospheres of hot gas which appear to be in equilibrium. The pressure of the hot gas is balanced with the gravitational pull of all the mass in a galaxy. Chandra and other X-ray telescopes can be used to measure the hot gas pressure, and observations with optical telescopes can be used to determine the mass of the stars.

    The conclusion: there is not enough mass in the stars and gas to provide the necessary gravity. Elliptical galaxies must contain about five times as much mass in dark matter as the amount present in stars and gas.
    ======

    Random Motions of Stars in Dwarf Galaxies:
    Dwarf galaxies are faint, inconspicuous systems with only a few million stars, but they may ultimately play a key role in understanding dark matter. Measurements of the random motions of stars in nearby dwarf galaxies show that these galaxies may require a much larger fraction of dark matter than normal galaxies.
    ======

    Hot Gas in Clusters of Galaxies:
    The first indication of the scope of the dark matter problem came from a 1933 study by Fritz Zwicky of the speed of the random motions of galaxies in the Coma cluster of galaxies. He found that 10 to 100 times more matter than could

    One possibility was that the so-called “missing matter” was in the form of hot gas undetectable with optical telescopes. Indeed, in the last two decades, X-ray telescopes have discovered vast clouds of multimillion degree gas in clusters of galaxies. These hot gas clouds increase the mass of the cluster, but not enough to solve the mystery.

    To the contrary, the hot gas in clusters of galaxies provides an independent confirmation of dark matter. As with giant elliptical galaxies, the measurement of the hot gas pressure in galaxy clusters shows that there must be about 5-6 times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas we observe, or the hot gas in the cluster would escape
    =======

    Gravitational Lensing by Clusters of Galaxies:
    Yet another independent line of evidence points to the dominance of dark matter in galaxy clusters. According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, space is curved in the vicinity of strong gravitational fields.

    One consequence of the warping of space by gravity is that the path of light from background galaxies is bent when it passes near a cluster, in much the same way that a glass lens will bend light. The images of the galaxies are distorted by this “gravitational lensing” effect, by an amount that depends on the mass of the cluster. This method gives estimates for the amount of dark matter in galaxy clusters that is in good agreement with X-ray observations.
    =======

    Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation:
    The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals what the universe was like when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, long before galaxies and clusters of galaxies were formed. At this time the universe was an expanding gas composed primarily of protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos, and dark matter.

    The intensity of the cosmic microwave background radiation is very nearly the same in all directions, but not quite. Small variations of a fraction of a percent have been detected. These variations, or fluctuations, are due to clumps of matter that are either hotter or cooler than the average.

    The rate at which clumps would grow in a hot, expanding gas can be calculated for different mixtures of photons, protons, neutrinos and dark matter. Comparison of such calculations with observations of the microwave background (especially with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP) and other data indicate that the universe contains about 6 times more dark matter than normal matter.
    =======

    Summary: Amount of Dark Matter:
    Many different lines of evidence suggest that the mass of dark matter in galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole is about 5 or 6 times greater than the mass of ordinary baryonic matter such as the protons and neutrons [and electrons].
    =======

    Alternatives:
    Although the evidence for dark matter is wide and deep, it is nevertheless indirect, and is based on the assumption that the laws of motion and gravity as formulated by Newton and expanded by Einstein apply. An alternative possibility is that a modification of gravity can explain the effects attributed to dark matter. The basic idea is that at very low accelerations, corresponding to large distances, the usual law of gravitation is modified.

    The most studied of these modifications is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND. According to this hypothesis, the force of gravity falls off more slowly at low accelerations (inversely as the distance rather than inversely as the square of the distance). With this prescription, less mass is required to explain the observed rotation of the outer edges of galaxies or the pressure of the hot gas in clusters of galaxies than in the Newton-Einstein theory. By adjusting the parameters of the theory, the need for dark matter can be eliminated.

    Although MOND has had some success in explaining observations of galaxies, it and other theories that involve modifying the law of gravity have been severely challenged by observations of the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56, a.k.a. the Bullet Cluster. X-ray observations show that the Bullet Cluster is composed of two large clusters of galaxies that are colliding at high speeds.

    Using the gravitational lensing technique, astronomers have deduced that the total mass concentration in the clusters is separate from that of the hot gas. This separation was presumably produced by the high-speed collision in which the gas particles collided with each other, while the stars and dark matter were unaffected. It cannot be explained by an altered law of gravity centered on the hot gas particles, and provided *direct* evidence that most of the matter in the Bullet Cluster is dark matter. Although such violent collisions between clusters are rare, another one (MACS J0025.4-122) shows the same effect.
    =======

    What is Dark Matter?
    In view of the compelling evidence that most of the matter in the universe is dark matter, one of the most pressing questions in modern astrophysics is: What is dark matter?

    The nature of dark matter is unknown. A substantial body of evidence indicates that it cannot be baryonic matter, i.e., protons and neutrons. The favored model is that dark matter is mostly composed of exotic particles formed when the universe was a fraction of a second old. Such particles, which would require an extension of the so-called Standard Model of elementary particle physics, could be WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), or axions, or sterile neutrinos. There is as yet no answer to this question, but it is becoming increasingly clear what it is not. Detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background with the WMAP satellite show that the dark matter cannot be in the form of normal, baryonic matter, that is, protons and neutrons that compose stars, planets, and interstellar matter. That rules out hot gas, cold gas, brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes.

    Black holes would seem to be the ideal dark matter candidate, and they are indeed very dark. However stellar mass black holes are produced by the collapse of massive stars which are much scarcer than normal stars, which contain at most one-fifth of the mass of dark matter. Also, the processes that would produce enough black holes to explain the dark matter would release a lot of energy and heavy elements; there is no evidence of such a release.

    The non-baryonic candidates can be grouped into three broad categories: hot, warm and cold. Hot dark matter refers to particles, such as the known types of neutrinos, which are moving at near the speed of light when the clumps that would form galaxies and clusters of galaxies first began to grow. Cold dark matter refers to particles that were moving slowly when the pre-galactic clumps began to form, and warm dark matter refers to particles with speeds intermediate between hot and cold dark matter.

    This classification has observational consequences for the size of clumps that can collapse in the expanding universe. Hot dark matter particles are moving so rapidly that clumps with the mass of a galaxy will quickly disperse. Only clouds with the mass of thousands of galaxies, that is, the size of galaxy clusters, can form. Individual galaxies would form later as the large cluster-sized clouds fragmented, in a top-down process.

    In contrast, cold dark matter can form into clumps of galaxy-sized mass or less. Galaxies would form first, and clusters would form as galaxies merge into groups, and groups into clusters in a bottom-up process.

    The observations with Chandra show many examples of clusters being constructed by the merger of groups and sub-clusters of galaxies. This and other lines of evidence that galaxies are older than groups and clusters of galaxies strongly support the cold dark matter alternative.

    The leading candidates for cold dark matter are particles called WIMPs, for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. WIMPs are not predicted by the so-called Standard Model for elementary particles, but attempts to construct a unified theory of all elementary particles suggest that WIMPs might have been produced in great numbers when the universe was a fraction of a second old.

    A typical WIMP is predicted to be at least 100 times as massive as a hydrogen atom. Possible creatures in the zoo of hypothetical WIMPs are neutralinos, gravitinos, and axinos. Other possibilities that have been discussed include sterile neutrinos and Kaluza-Klein excitations related to extra dimensions in the universe.
    ======

    Experimental Detection of Dark Matter:
    Despite the compelling evidence for dark matter, the issue of whether dark matter exists or gravity needs to be modified [except that the Cosmic Sound Waves in the CMB does not depend on gravity] will likely not be resolved until dark matter particles are detected, or ruled out by lack of detection [although you can never prove a negative].

    Two types of experimental searches for dark matter candidates are being pursued by a number of investigators. These involve the direct detection of dark matter particles by some type of detector, and the detection of X-rays or gamma-rays from the decay or annihilation of dark matter particles.

    If WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) are the dark matter, then we must be swimming in a sea of dark matter and a billion or more of them would be passing through our bodies every second. The problem for their detection is the “weakly interacting” nature of WIMPs. Fortunately for us, almost all of them would pass through our bodies and through the entire Earth.

    However, it is possible that once in a great while a WIMP could collide with an atom and knock its nucleus askew, creating a minuscule vibration in a supercooled crystal detector. So far, the most sensitive of such experiments, the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search located half a mile underground in an old iron-ore mine in Minnesota, has failed to detect any WIMPs. More sensitive experiments are planned.

    Axions may also be detected directly, though using very different techniques. These hypothetical particles are predicted to interact with a strong magnetic field, to produce radio waves. Experiments such as the Axion Dark Matter Experiment have so far yielded negative results. Experiments using different techniques are planned for the near future.

    Another approach is to detect dark matter indirectly by observing a unique signature from their decay. Most theories for WIMPs predict that when they collide, they annihilate and produce a shower of high-energy particles and radiation. One of the most important programs of NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Telescope will be to search for gamma rays from the annihilation of WIMPs, or from the interaction of axions with strong magnetic fields in the nuclei of galaxies. It is also possible that the decay of sterile neutrinos into X-rays could be detected by Chandra, XMM, or a future, larger X-ray telescope.

    Rather than taking a passive approach of observing dark matter directly in the lab, or indirectly through astronomical observations, some physicists propose making the stuff. Since the dark matter particles were presumably created in the first few nanoseconds or so of the Big Bang when temperatures were a quadrillion degrees, a particle accelerator that reproduces these conditions might create dark matter.

    Extensive searches have been conducted for new particles of many kinds at and the Tevatron collider at Fermilab, so far without detection. Physicists are eagerly looking forward to the start of operations in late 2008 of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland. The LHC will be the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, smashing protons together at energies of 10 trillion electron volts, high enough to produce many predicted versions of dark matter.

    The bottom line: one way or another, many physicists and astronomers are optimistic that hard evidence for dark matter particles will be found in the next few years. If not, they will be faced with an even deeper mystery than they now confront.
    =======

    It has taken us 80 years to arrive here. You seem to be stuck in the previous century.

  239. PJF says:
    August 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    The result of < 1.0mm in the context of an enormous, multi-layered sphere of frothing high-energy plasma is so meaningless that it sounds like a figure derived from a model sun enjoying simple properties that are actually calculable.
    Tides are eminently calculable. See the last page of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf

    It also sounds like a vertical component only. Do you have a figure for the horizontal components? These are usually much larger.
    What do you base that on? Even if they were 10 times larger or 100 times larger, that would not make any difference.

    And the size of a tidal bulge is not necessarily an indication of the significance of subsequent effects.
    To make such a statement you must have something specific in mind. If not, the statement is vacuous.

    I appreciate your analogy of insignificant effect, however Sirius lies so far from the orbital plane of the solar system that such a shadow from Jupiter is unlikely to occur before Sirius and the Sun both stop shining (or the end of this thread, whichever is the soonest).
    You should [perhaps I'm mistaken about your ability] be able to see that the analogy does not depend on Sirius in particular.

    On the Earth, volcanic phenomena are primarily (almost entirely entirely) the result of internal processes. Nevertheless, real actual Earth scientists have established that the gravitational / positional interaction of the Moon can trigger eruptions.
    The Moon is close enough for its effect on the earth to be hundred times larger than Jupiter’s on the Sun.

    Further, in our own species (or half of it, anyway) there is a peculiar but clear and obvious correlation between the orbit of the Moon and menstruation.
    I don’t think so [provide a link if you can]. That the periods are close is another matter, but the phase is random from one woman to the next.

    Another ‘clear and obvious’ correlation: in 1976 I was the U.S. Special Envoy to the then Soviet Union with the mandate to visit all SSSR scientific institutions and promote cooperation. At one, I was confronted with the director of an insane asylum. She noted that her inmates were unusually agitated on certain days and those days coincided with the passage of the Heliospheric Current Sheet [ http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html ]. At the time there were data gaps in the coverage by spacecraft and she graciously offered her [and her inmates'] services to fill the gaps in the spacecraft data.

  240. Stephen Wilde says:

    Well, Leif, I’ve been watching this DM / DE discussion and to me at least it is clear that all you mean by ‘dark’ is that we currently cannot register it with our normal sensing equipment.

    In other words you just use the term as a ‘catch all’ (as I suggested before) for whatever it is that causes the observations.

    It could be particles (DM), or waves (DE) or a currently unknown feature of the universe that only becomes apparent at great distances or, in my opinion, most likely a mixture of all three.

    On that basis your definition of DM and DE is so fluid that you cannot be wrong.

  241. JJ says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    You should [perhaps I'm mistaken about your ability] be able to see that the analogy does not depend on Sirius in particular.

    But the truth of your previous statement certainly does.

    There are also the effect of Sirius-shine on the Sun. When Jupiter is between the Sun and the star Sirius, Sirius-shine is reduced. This is an indisputable fact, …”

    Seems if there is precious little space between “indisputable fact” and “stuff Leif just made up, but asserted with condescending certainty”.

    Not exactly consistent with the air of ad verecundiam you subsist on…

  242. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    “Bad papers are soon and deservedly blissfully forgotten.”
    You have to get a proof that it is bad published
    No need, a bad paper stinks to high heaven on its own and any scientist worth his salt can spot it.

    This is a content free appeal to ‘consensus’. Along with your bad behaviour in rejecting Scafetta ‘s paper on spurious grounds you are evidently behaving more and more like Phil Jones.

    “Kevin and I will keep them out of the literature somehow – even if we have to redefine what peer review is”

    Well, you’ve failed. The W&P paper stands, and Scafetta has built on it as well as formalising and publishing the work we’ve been doing together on the Talkshop in the excellent and impactful JASTP. He has also performed proper statistical tests on out of sample projections of the model which demonstrate its validity.

    Note however, that we are not claiming the Leighton-Babcock dynamo doesn’t exist, but that its behaviour can be modulated by the interaction of cyclic tidal/magnetic/momentum effects caused by planetary motion. We believe this is the best current explanation for the obvious and irrefutable correlations which we have discovered between planetary motion, solar activity and proxy records of changes in Earth’s climate going back thousands of years as well as with the modern temperature record which the co2 driven theory can’t even successfully hindcast past 1960.

  243. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 5:31 am

    So, as the next step we need to agree that minimum TSI has not decreased. That there is no ‘deficit’.

    In an alternate reality where an increase in minimum TSI was shown in the revised PREMOS plot over that time period (it isn’t), you would arguably only have to prove the error was less than the depicted increase to show no deficit. However, as I noted before, if drawing a brown line on even the revised, adjusted version of the plot from even your prior publication link, the minimum at the end of cycle 23 still is below the minimum of cycle 22 in it, still a decrease: http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=17964_premos_122_174lo.JPG . That is not a combo of (1) a plot showing no decline (2) proof the plot has zero error (or, for an increasing plot, which the preceding is not, less error uncertainty than a depicted increase magnitude). As gone over before, you quoted from the authors saying no measurable trend during that time period, but the rest of the quote right afterwards includes “allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m^2” (Elsewhere they remark: “uncertainty: +/- 280 ppm (+/- 0.4 W/m^2)“). It is not a measurable trend *because* their measurement uncertainty is so relatively major. (As a thought experiment example, if they had X times higher measurement uncertainty, then X times greater trend could exist in reality but not be a measurable trend). Dr. Abdussamatov only implied a bit more than 0.2 W/m^2 TSI difference between those particular minima anyway.

    Moreover, if, for instance, PMOD data is graphed at a woodfortrees.org with convenient functionality, what happens when extending the graph up to the latest data can be seen:

    First, graphing PMOD TSI from the September 1986 beginning of cycle 22 to the December 2008 end of cycle 23 including the site’s calculation of a trendline over that period:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/to:2008.9/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/to:2008.9/trend

    Secondly, extending the graph further up until the latest data, more towards now:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/trend

    What is really noticeable is how an increasingly big difference is starting to appear. Conclusions will be firmer once this cycle actually peaks and starts its post-peak decline, but already it is getting interesting even in TSI (let alone in better data than TSI).

    Your second link, your own paper, argues for:

    Possible Degradation PMOD vs. SORCE
    2010.25 since 2004.00 -0.080 W/m2 Total
    2010.25 since 1996.75 -0.172 W/m2 Total

    While that could be mildly interesting in itself, even your own paper’s stated quantitative magnitude is not as great as the decline in the prior 1986.75 to 2008.9 PMOD graph, and it is not remotely as great as what decline appears evident when extending further up towards now in the last graph above (keeping in mind that even the near-future estimated peak of this cycle is not predicted to be enough vastly higher than it has obtained so far).

    If you wanted to change your own TSI figures so much more as to instead entirely eliminate the decline in the prior graphs, if something gets much revised repeatedly (raising the question whether the first revision is right, the second revision, the hypothetical next future revision if applicable, or simply none of them), the simplest way to deal with matters from my perspective would be to look at metrics which are not clouded in measurement uncertainties and debatability on the scale needed. Of the metrics discussed in prior comments, TSI is the *only* one for which Dr. Abdussamatov’s expected cycle 22->23 change was so small as a fraction of the total (a fraction of a thousandth of the total flux) as to have much measurement uncertainty in context. For the others, the change between cycle 22 and cycle 23 is blatant, let alone that between cycle 23 and 24.

  244. Henry Clark says:

    Tallbloke:

    Thanks. And I see the sunspot numbers used can be reproduced by inputting http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/mean:96 . If trying without the mean 96 averaging, the shape is a bit different, but the location in time of the peaks is about as before.

  245. daveburton says:

    MiCro says (on August 13, 2012 at 10:33 am</a) “You might enjoy this paper: http://sun.iwu.edu/~gpouch/Climate/RawData/WaterAlbedo001.pdf Basically, above 70-80 degrees Lat, a lot of the incoming solar energy gets reflected, not absorbed…”

    Thanks for that!

    MiCro, would you please send me an email? (My email address is on my web site, http://www.sealevel.info/ )

    Thanks.

  246. tallbloke says:

    “The complex wobbling of a star around the barycenter of its solar
    system is a well-known phenomenon of stellar motion (Perryman
    and Schulze-Hartung, 2010). Indeed, Wolff and Patrone (2010)
    have recently proposed that the rotation of the Sun around the
    barycenter of the solar system could induce small mass exchanges
    that release potential energy. The mass exchange would also carry
    fresh fuel to deeper levels and increase solar activity. This
    phenomenon would cause stars like the Sun with an appropriate
    planetary system to burn somewhat more brightly and have
    shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets. However,
    the solar barycentric motion should be understood just as an
    approximate geometrical proxy of the forces acting on the Sun.
    Tidal forces, torques and jerk shocks act on and inside the Sun,
    which is not just a point-size body in free fall.

    Scafetta 2012b
    http://www.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/ATP3610.pdf

    Discussion here
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/nicola-scafetta-does-the-sun-work-as-a-nuclear-fusion-amplifier-of-planetary-tidal-forcing/

    Also Relevant
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/another-argument-against-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity-bites-the-dust/

  247. tallbloke says:

    Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 2:07 am

    Tallbloke:

    Thanks. And I see the sunspot numbers used can be reproduced by inputting http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/mean:96 . If trying without the mean 96 averaging, the shape is a bit different, but the location in time of the peaks is about as before.

    Henry, welcome. We had some discussion as to the relevant period for averaging the data. It also looks strong at around 82 months, half the length of the Jupiter-Uranus synodic period which coincides with flooding events.

  248. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 15, 2012 at 10:29 pm
    Well, Leif, I’ve been watching this DM / DE discussion and to me at least it is clear that all you mean by ‘dark’ is that we currently cannot register it with our normal sensing equipment.
    To be precise: we know there is something there that has mass, but is not baryonic and does not interact with the electromagentic force, hence cannot be seen. In our solar system there is 2*10^30 kg of baryons [mostly in the Sun] and 9*10^9 kg of DM, so DM is spread thinly. We know [from obervations] that the Universe is flat, i.e. has the critical energy density that balances between closed and open curvature. Of that total density, baryons [which we can see] and DM [which we cannot see] together make up 27%. the remaining 23% of the energy that we apparently cannot see we call DE. As simple as that.

    tallbloke says:
    August 15, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    “No need, a bad paper stinks to high heaven on its own and any scientist worth his salt can spot it.”
    This is a content free appeal to ‘consensus’.

    No, just makes a distinvtion between scientists who are worth their salt and those who are not.

    Along with your bad behaviour in rejecting Scafetta ‘s paper on spurious grounds
    Scafetta’s papers were rejected [not just by me, but by the other referees as well] because of their lack of merit.

    The W&P paper stands
    More like: just lying there.

    He has also performed proper statistical tests on out of sample projections of the model which demonstrate its validity.
    We had a long discussion here on WUWT of his work and it didn’t survive the scrutiny

    Note however, that we are not claiming the Leighton-Babcock dynamo doesn’t exist, but that its behaviour can be modulated by the interaction of cyclic tidal/magnetic/momentum effects caused by planetary motion.
    Throwing in all possible effects having no clue as to which one might be correct [if any]. I too believe that there can be modulation but at such low level that it is undetectable.

    We believe …
    Some people believe weird things, so why not you.

    Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 2:03 am
    As gone over before, you quoted from the authors saying no measurable trend during that time period, but the rest of the quote right afterwards includes “allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m^2”
    You are confusing the absolute calibration which has that uncertainty and the relative accuracy ['instrument precision']that measures changes over time. The latter is about 30 times smaller at 0.007 W/m2.
    The problem with PMOD is that they have not properly corrected for instrument degradation, as pointed out by Schmutz [and me].

    Moreover, if, for instance, PMOD data is graphed at a woodfortrees.org with convenient functionality, what happens when extending the graph up to the latest data can be seen:

    First, graphing PMOD TSI from the September 1986 beginning of cycle 22 to the December 2008 end of cycle 23 including the site’s calculation of a trendline over that period
    As long as the degradation is not accounted for correctly, there will be such a downward trend which will get worse and worse, as your finally seem to recognize:
    What is really noticeable is how an increasingly big difference is starting to appear.

    Conclusions will be firmer once this cycle actually peaks and starts its post-peak decline, but already it is getting interesting even in TSI (let alone in better data than TSI).
    As long as you use PMOD there is nothing interesting. The best instrument we have is TIM on SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm SORCE started in 2003 and the average for the last year [up to the present] is 1361.46 W/m2 which is already higher than the average of the first year of data [2003] which was 1361.32 w/m2.

    For the others, the change between cycle 22 and cycle 23 is blatant, let alone that between cycle 23 and 24.
    As I said, solar activity has been decreasing, but TSI at minimum has not. In his Figure 3 http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png he shows a plausible graph of sunspot numbers in the lower panel, but an implausible variation of TSI in the upper graph based on an invalid extrapolation of a decrease in TSI for which there is no evidence. The TSI curve should look just like the solar activity curve.

    tallbloke says:
    August 16, 2012 at 6:03 am
    “The mass exchange would also carry fresh fuel to deeper levels and increase solar activity. This phenomenon would cause stars like the Sun with an appropriate planetary system to burn somewhat more brightly…”

    Which is another one of Scafetta’s errors. The radiative core does not convect and mix. Even if it did, any change in energy production will have to work its way out by diffusion which takes hundreds of thousands of years thus completely washing out any cyclic changes on the order of decades or even millenniae.

  249. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 15, 2012 at 10:29 pm
    Of that total density, baryons [which we can see] and DM [which we cannot see] together make up 27%. the remaining 73(+/-3)% of the energy that we apparently cannot see we call DE. As simple as that.

  250. Pamela Gray says:

    Meanwhile the elephant in the room (the short and long term oscillating teleconnections between oceanic and atmospheric intrinsic drivers) is bringing previously warmed pools here and shoving cold pools there, producing well-known weather pattern variation oscillations within the broad outer limits of regional climate parameters. But please, carry on. Ignore the elephant and continue to search for mouse droppings among the teeny tiny anthropogenic portion of CO2 additions to the atmosphere and/or solar-barycenter-planetary-galactic-universe ethereal boogymen.

  251. Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 2:03 am
    Conclusions will be firmer once this cycle actually peaks and starts its post-peak decline, but already it is getting interesting even in TSI (let alone in better data than TSI).
    As long as you use PMOD there is nothing interesting. The best instrument we have is TIM on SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm SORCE started in 2003 and the average for the last year [up to the present] is 1361.46 W/m2 which is already higher than the average of the first year of data [2003] which was 1361.32 w/m2. The sunspot numbers for those two periods were 67.7 and 63.7, consistent with the increase of TSI.

  252. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
    You are confusing the absolute calibration which has that uncertainty and the relative accuracy ['instrument precision']that measures changes over time. The latter is about 30 times smaller at 0.007 W/m2.

    The statement on page 33 of the http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf document is “when assessing long term trends, allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m^2 for the 1996 solar minimum!” where it is referencing uncertainty in measuring long term trends, in measuring trends over time, in measuring changes over time.

    In fact, looking closely now at page 30, zooming in closely on the multiplot graph, every single one of the different TSI measurements depicted is greatly inconsistent on this scale not just in absolute offset but also in changes over time. For instance, DIARAD in January 1996 is tenths of W/m^2 below ACRIM, but, in the spike in late 2008, DIARAD becomes at least 0.3 W/m^2 above ACRIM, before DIARAD then goes back to much less above ACRIM.

    To create an illustration, here is one location where first ACRIM has a downwards trend relative to DIARAD and then another where ACRIM has an *upwards* trend relative to DIARAD:

    http://img31.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=34476_allTSIlousy_122_583lo.JPG

    Actually doing this investigation makes me see now that TSI measurements are even worse than I thought as a choice of metric (unlike the alternative metrics I already favored where one does not have to worry about fractions of 0.1% variation, where multiple percent variation instead exceeding uncertainty is seen). As in the prior graphical illustration, when none of the TSI instruments consistently match each other within a tenth of a W/m^2 even in change over time, at least all but one of them (or very simply all of them) has major error on this scale.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
    The problem with PMOD is that they have not properly corrected for instrument degradation, as pointed out by Schmutz [and me].

    At least one of the problems.

    No two of the TSI instruments depicted fully match each other in data output on the scale relevant here, having spurious relative downwards and upwards trends.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
    As long as the degradation is not accounted for correctly, there will be such a downward trend which will get worse and worse

    As noted in my last comment, your publication had, as its reported possible degradation, -0.080 W/m2 total 2004 to 2010.25 and -0.172 W/m^2 1996.75 to 2010.25, which, if one thought it sufficed as a summary of the matter, would suggest on the order of 0.27 W/m^2 or lesser degradation over 1986.75 to 2008.9. Yet that is when the PMOD trendline in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/to:2008.9/plot/pmod/from:1986.75/to:2008.9/trend over that period for a complete cycle 22 plus a complete cycle 23 is between -0.5 W/m^2 and -0.6 W/m^2. Even with your publication’s correction, it would still be a decline in TSI, an apparent decline being halved but around -0.3 W/m^2 over that period. With that said, however, after such as my graphical illustration earlier in this comment, I wouldn’t assume TSI measurement inaccuracy isn’t more complicated.

    Where there is clarity, in contrast, is in other metrics.

    For instance, a blatant illustration is http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    For the top several-month average, the minimum following cycle 23 is seen to be around +11% on a neutron monitor count scale where the minimum following cycle 22 only reached around +7% in those terms.

    Such as that 4% difference vastly beats arguing over fractions of 0.1% in TSI with mediocre measurement instruments.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am
    The best instrument we have is TIM on SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm SORCE started in 2003 and the average for the last year [up to the present] is 1361.46 W/m2 which is already higher than the average of the first year of data [2003] which was 1361.32 w/m2.

    Such is curious. However, considering the utter TSI mess previously discussed, with both downwards and upwards trends at different times between different instruments varying by tenths of a W/m^2 and no instrument fully matching any other instrument even in trends, one instrument giving hundredths of a W/m^2 between unequal time sections of two solar cycles is not as meaningful as the non-TSI metrics.

    For a clearer observation, in contrast, even over those example (albeit uneven) time periods:

    Average cosmic ray flux over 25 February 2003 to the end of 2003: 5751

    Average cosmic ray flux over 1 January 2011 to now: 6363

    Unlike TSI, those figures have large enough variation as fraction of the total to not be clouded in measurement error uncertainty. So does solar cycle length change, sunspot number change, and even spectral distribution (e.g. UV) change.

  253. Stephen Wilde says:

    TSI at top of atmosphere changes very little but the proportion of that TSI able to get into the oceans depends on global albedo and it appears that small changes in albedo result in larger changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the oceans than could occur from top of atmosphere TSI variations.

    Albedo is greatly influenced by global cloudiness so anything that affects cloudiness will affect the amount of energy getting into the oceans to fuel the system.

    Zonal jets seem to accompany an active sun and meridional jets an inactive sun.

    It stands to reason that if the jets are more meridional with more wandering about latitudinally then the length of the lines of air mass mixing increases and that must increase cloudiness.

    The changes in spectral distribution (larger than the changes in TSI) appear to affect the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere so as to allow the jets to become more zonal or more meridional depending on the spectral mix.

    I think the answer lies in the slope of the gradient of the tropopause height between equator and poles. That slope appears to change as a result of ocean variability from below and solar spectral mix variability from above.

    Changing that slope allows the climate zones and jets to move latitudinally so as to adjust the rate of energy flow from surface to space and thereby maintain sytem equilibrium.

    Cosmic ray quantities may have some effect but unless they change the slope of the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles their effects are not significant as compared to the changes in the spectral mix which appear to interfere with the balance of ozone creation / destruction differently at different heights.

  254. HenryP says:

    Henry@Stephen

    Stephen, it looks like I can can correlate my resuts with the decrease and increase in ozone in the upper atmosphere. Namely from 1945 ozone has been decreasing (to the extent that everyone thought at one stage that man must be causing the ozone breakdown with CFC’s) but since 1995 it started moving up. It also seems to follow the same parabolic curves as evident by my results on the maxima, suggesting a natural process that has been going on for many, many years. I think it must be to do with the sun-UV-O3 cycle or some contraction of the atmosphere itself, causing higher ozone. Note that ozone deflects a lot of sunlight due to re-radiation. More ozone means more deflection. That high energy light of <0.3 um would otherwise be absorbed in the oceans as heat. The 50 year cycle was important in the Hebrew calendar (7 x 7 + 1 Jubilee year) and I suspect Moses picked up this knowledge from the Egyptians who knew everything that happened on their god Ra.
    There is nothing new under the sun….

  255. Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 11:22 am
    where it is referencing uncertainty in measuring long term trends, in measuring trends over time, in measuring changes over time.
    You are still confused. The measuring a long-term trend you need to have the absolute calibration correct. And that is what is referred to. The relative precision is much better, 0.007 W/m2 for SORCE/TIM which currently is the only instrument good enough for any trend measurements.

    To create an illustration, here is one location where first ACRIM has a downwards trend relative to DIARAD and then another where ACRIM has an *upwards* trend relative to DIARAD
    ACRIM is junk as far as long-term stability is concerned.

    (or very simply all of them) has major error on this scale.
    There absolute calibration varies quite a lot [and we know now why]. Only SORCE/TIM is really good enough.

    Where there is clarity, in contrast, is in other metrics.
    However Abdussa does not base his ‘prediction’ on those other indices, only on TSI.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 16, 2012 at 11:45 am
    The changes in spectral distribution (larger than the changes in TSI) appear to affect the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere…
    If you cannot put numbers to any of this, all you have is hand waving.

  256. HenryP says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    Note that ozone deflects a lot of sunlight due to re-radiation. More ozone means more deflection.
    There is no such thing as ‘deflection’ of sunlight. We have discussed this at length already, but you apparently didn’t learn anything.

  257. HenryP says:

    Leif says
    There is no such thing as ‘deflection’ of sunlight. We have discussed this at length already, but you apparently didn’t learn anything.
    Henry says
    oh dear. you still did not get it. you can (perhaps) learn something here
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
    start with the definitions….

  258. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks HenryP.

    However one needs to be careful about the height at which the ozone increases or decreases.

    It seems that the sign of the ozone response to solar changes is the opposite of conventional climatology above 45km (decreasing when the sun is active instead of increasing) and that the response above 45km dominates over the response below 45km ( increasing when the sun is active as per conventional climatology) with the net result being a natural reduction in stratospheric ozone and natural cooling of the stratosphere when the sun is more active.

    The effect is greater at the poles so the gradient of the tropopause height rises more at the poles due to the stratospheric cooling being greater there.

    That decreases the slope of the tropopause height between equator and poles to allow the climate zones to slide poleward beneath the tropopause.

    Cloudiness declines due to a widening of the sub tropical high pressure cells and a reduction in the length of the lines of air mass mixing which allows more energy into the oceans to skew the ENSO balance towards more El Ninos relative to La Ninas.

    The opposite process occurs when the sun is inactive. Then, the stratosphere warms more towards the poles and presses the tropopause height downward to push the climate zones back equatorward.

    Note that oceanic variability operates in exactly the same way working from the equator but with an opposite effect on the tropopause height. Warm oceans push the height up more at the equator for a poleward shift and more zonality whereas cooler oceans allow the height to drop above the equator allowing more meridionality.

    There is a sort of fulcrum or seesaw in the mid latitudes and the latitudinal position of the fulcrum at any given moment depends on the netted out balance of the top down solar and bottom up oceanic effects on the slope of the tropopause height between equator and poles.

    It is that variability which provides a negative system response to any forcing process that seeks to change total system energy content from that determined by surface atmospheric pressure and top of atmosphere insolation.

  259. Stephen Wilde says:

    “If you cannot put numbers to any of this, all you have is hand waving”

    Lots of reasearchers are now working on that including Lockwood and Haigh. They have noted evidence that the ozone response to solar variability above 45km is the opposite of that expected.

    I am joining the dots.

  260. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    “The bottom line: one way or another, many physicists and astronomers are optimistic that hard evidence for dark matter particles will be found in the next few years. If not, they will be faced with an even deeper mystery than they now confront.”

    You give yourself away with your own quotes. You refuse to treat theoretical explanations as theory rather than dogma. Read what you quoted to me above. The “hard evidence” is not yet in and if not, “they will be faced with an even deeper mystery”. Note also, “many physicists and astronomers”, many think otherwise and neither group has come up with the hard evidence for any of the variety of theories out there, while you still claim DM has been “observed”. You continue to confuse cause, which you call DM, with the observed gravitational effect, which could be from another entirely different cause or a lack of complete understanding of the physics involved. You may fear a deeper mystery, luckily many do not and see it as a path to further knowledge. The human nature seeks certainty and fears the unknown so the box in which you find yourself is lined with fear.

  261. HenryP says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    you still did not get it.
    Because there is nothing to get

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    Lots of researchers are now working on that including Lockwood and Haigh. They have noted evidence that the ozone response to solar variability above 45km is the opposite of that expected.
    There is almost no ozone above 45 km, so no effects are to be expected.

    Jim G says:
    August 16, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    You continue to confuse cause, which you call DM, with the observed gravitational effect, which could be from another entirely different cause or a lack of complete understanding of the physics involved.
    You might invent different ad hoc causes for all the effects observed, but there is no need to as DM is the single one that suffices. And you didn’t study http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf where you will learn that DM controls the amplitude of some of those.

    The human nature seeks certainty and fears the unknown so the box in which you find yourself is lined with fear.
    DM is the unknown, that seems to be what you fear. I have no fear of the revolution in cosmology that has happened in the 21st century which you discount.

  262. Stephen Wilde says:

    “There is almost no ozone above 45 km, so no effects are to be expected”

    Then why did Joanna Haigh say this?

    “We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity”

    and:

    “our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations”

    More from the article:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html

    “a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an
    altitude of 45km, with an increase above this altitude.”

  263. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 2:08 pm
    “You might invent different ad hoc causes for all the effects observed, but there is no need to as DM is the single one that suffices.”

    There was no subject in your last post about which I had not read so I find no need to go to leif.org for information. As far as inventing ad hoc causes, I am certain such arguments were used against Einstein for thinking out of the Newtonian box. At least we know longer have the dark ages version of the magisterium or many might be burned at the stake for even considering heretical potential answers to integration of quantum physics and relativity which have yet to be discovered, just like DE and DM have yet to be proven to actually exist. And as I said before, they may well some day be proven to exist, but in the mean time it is good that the search goes on for answers outside of your box as well as inside. As you quoted “The bottom line: one way or another, many physicists and astronomers are optimistic that hard evidence for dark matter particles will be found in the next few years. If not, they will be faced with an even deeper mystery than they now confront.”

  264. Jim G says:
    August 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    There was no subject in your last post about which I had not read so I find no need to go to leif.org for information.
    So you claim to have read http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf ?

    just like DE and DM have yet to be proven to actually exist.
    They certainly exist, for example we know that there is 9*10^9 kg DM in the solar system. That we don’t know in detail what they are is a different matter.

    for answers outside of your box as well as inside.
    This is not ‘my box’, but generally accepted facts. See, e.g. here http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-astrophysical-constants.pdf . That you cannot stomach modern cosmology is really your problem [which you share with many]. Progress will happen without you.

    One of my colleagues has written a recent review which might illuminate the matter for your:
    ‘Dark Matter Searches with Astroparticle Data’
    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
    Vol. 49: 155-194 (Volume publication date September 2011)
    DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102528
    Troy A. Porter, et al., Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford,
    ABSTRACT
    The existence of dark matter (DM) was first noticed by Zwicky in the 1930s, but its nature remains one of the great unsolved problems of physics. A variety of observations indicate that it is nonbaryonic and nonrelativistic. One of the preferred candidates for nonbaryonic DM is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) that in most models is stable. WIMP self-annihilation can produce cosmic rays, gamma rays, and other particles with signatures that may be detectable. Hints of anomalous cosmic-ray spectra found by recent experiments, such as PAMELA, have motivated interesting interpretations in terms of DM annihilation and/or decay. However, these signatures also have standard astrophysical interpretations, so additional evidence is needed in order to make a case for detection of DM annihilation or decay. Searches by the Fermi-LAT for gamma-ray signals from clumps, nearby dwarf spheroidal galaxies, and galaxy clusters have also been performed, along with measurements of the diffuse Galactic and extragalactic gamma-ray emission. In addition, Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescopes like HESS, MAGIC, and VERITAS have reported on searches for gamma-ray emission from dwarf galaxies. In this review, we examine the status of searches for particle DM by these instruments and discuss the interpretations and resulting DM limits.

    So, the existence is not in doubt. The nature of the beast is what the search is about.

  265. Jim G says:
    August 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    just like DE and DM have yet to be proven to actually exist.

    Annika H. G. Peter∗†
    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-4575
    E-mail: annika.peter@uci.edu
    “From astronomical observations, we know that dark matter exists, makes up 23% of the mass
    budget of the Universe, clusters strongly to form the load-bearing frame of structure for galaxy
    formation, and hardly interacts with ordinary matter except gravitationally. However, this infor-
    mation is not enough to identify the particle specie(s) that make up dark matter. As such, the
    problem of determining the identity of dark matter has largely shifted to the fields of astroparticle
    and particle physics. In this talk, I will review the current status of the search for the nature of
    dark matter.”
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1201-3942-dark-matter.pdf

    you are way behind the curve, stuck in the 20th [or 19th] century.

  266. RACookPE1978 says:

    I would disagree … slightly.

    The EFFECT of dark matter is measurable, at least as it “measures” the differences between conventional Einsteinium astrophysics and its theoretical mathematics (as we assume they are today) and the real world.

    The EXISTENCE of dark matter is assumed, in order to make the theoretical mathematics and physics, as we now assume it, to work.

    Let’s face it: If you must assume more than half of the assumed universe, and more than 70% of its entire energy must be invisible and undetectable, can never be seen nor measured in order to make your mathemagics work, then you are more than 50% of the way to an answer that depends on magic more than physics. 8<).

  267. RACookPE1978 says:
    August 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    If you must assume more than half of the assumed universe, and more than 70% of its entire energy must be invisible and undetectable…
    It is certainly not undetectable. We talk about these things because we have detected them, see e.g.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/1201-3942-dark-matter.pdf

    It is a myth that DM and DE are assumed to make things work. It is just the opposite: DM and DE are observed and we must look for NEW physics to explain what they are. See above link.

  268. RACookPE1978 says:

    Yes. We need “new physics” to explain the effect that is observed.

    But note: we are only “observing” a “difference” between current theory and certain observations that we assume are correct based on that same current theory. The Dark Matter and the Dark Energy – that might be present – are not themselves observed.

  269. RACookPE1978 says:
    August 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm
    But note: we are only “observing” a “difference” between current theory and certain observations that we assume are correct based on that same current theory.
    Not so, depending on your definition of ‘difference’. I recommend reading http://www.leif.org/EOS/1201-3942-dark-matter.pdf for some perspective on this. What is observed are DM and DE. What they are is unknown, but there is no doubt anymore about their existence. Again, depending on your definition of ‘existence’. My definition is that something exists if it has measurable consequences.

  270. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    However Abdussa does not base his ‘prediction’ on those other indices, only on TSI.

    The foundation of his prediction, in terms of such as the reduced solar activity seen during the Maunder Minimum and his estimation that it is time for that to occur again, comes from historical data at a time when TSI was directly measurable not at all, even less measurable than now. The solar activity drop in general is the most important part of his prediction from my perspective, since I don’t assume TSI variation is the only aspect of solar variation which effects climate.

    For instance, cosmogenic isotopes like Be-10 and C-14 which show major change in solar activity during the Maunder Minimum do not show TSI; they imply cosmic ray count variation which traditionally is ascribed to mean TSI variation meanwhile as well but with the latter conceivably perhaps not the case.

    For recent years, now, and coming decades, Dr. Abdussamatov’s prediction, based on history, has lesser sunspot number counts and lesser solar activity in other indicators than during the 20th century period of high solar activity. Conceivably, what is being seen now is actually what approaching a Grand Minimum looks like. If modern satellite instruments were aloft back then, perhaps they would have shown no more TSI variation than now at this stage, with the observed climate effects coming from the rest of solar variation.

    However, TSI variation was consistently reported as a factor by researchers in the era before the global warming political war began, which does not directly prove they could not all be accidentally mistaken but does correspond to when I am certain basically nobody was intentionally skewing matters (having no likely motive when the field was relatively purely academic so to speak). Already how cosmic rays and UV change more than TSI is known, but to have TSI outright unchanging regardless of sunspot number change is an extraordinary claim requiring accordingly utterly extraordinary evidence for me to be confident in trusting, although that does not rule it out as a conceivable possibility.

    If essentially a second Maunder Minimum occurs in future years and decades, those years also will provide from my perspective the final test of what happens to TSI during such, as Dr. Abdussamatov’s estimates of tenths of a W/m^2 TSI change up to now are almost nothing compared to his predictions for an order of magnitude greater drop in the future. Changes in TSI or not at the W/m^2 level will be simpler to check from multiple instruments than tenths of a W/m^2.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    The relative precision is much better, 0.007 W/m2 for SORCE/TIM which currently is the only instrument good enough for any trend measurements.

    The position that every other instrument is wrong on that scale but that they are reporting accurate data is conceivable, as in (1) they have better design and get better data plus (2) they report it accurately. #2 is extra particularly a concern which I can not directly verify one way or another, though. In the mess of having no two independent instruments matching on TSI at the tenths of a W/m^2 level, they could report practically about whatever they wanted, right or wrong, with no easy direct way for outside observers to check. I don’t doubt that there is plausibly instrument degradation. It just is impossible in this context to easily externally tell, for example, if X degradation occurs, whether someone slips in 1 * X effective compensation, Y * X overcorrection, or almost any other figure they wanted.

    I never like relying upon only one group not externally verifiable on any climatological matter, and I don’t trust the University on Colorado on not fudging sea level rise rates, considering past history, so whether I can trust them on TSI is an unknown. In the context of the IPCC’s approach that only TSI variation is to be taken into account at all as climate-impacting solar variation, to “prove” that TSI never varies when sunspot numbers change so that they could claim the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the Little Ice Age and so on could be practically a coup. So there would be potentially powerful motive as well as means. There are already “peer-reviewed” papers coming out conveniently claiming the LIA was due largely to activities of the small human population of the time. Motive and means together do not directly prove anything. They do raise questions, though.

    Anyway, the overall result from my perspective is even more so my always-standing preference for other metrics than TSI. For instance, there is no possible way, not by accidental error nor by intentional error, that the 30% difference in solar cycle length between cycle 22 and cycle 23 didn’t occur, or that the multiple percent change in average GCR flux then didn’t occur, whereas variation in TSI down to fractions of 0.1% is such a mess to verify.

  271. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    “our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations”
    Because some UV varies out of phase with the cycle [and everybody thought it was in phase]

    “a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45km, with an increase above this altitude.”
    The decline and the increase are of very different magnitude. Atmospheric density falls thousand-fold for an increase in altitude of 50 km.

    You may want to look at an update of the spectral irradiance issue:
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/6b_Cahalan_Sedona_9-15-2011.pdf

  272. Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    “However Abdussa does not base his ‘prediction’ on those other indices, only on TSI.”

    The foundation of his prediction, in terms of such as the reduced solar activity seen during the Maunder Minimum and his estimation that it is time for that to occur again, comes from historical data at a time when TSI was directly measurable not at all, even less measurable than now. The solar activity drop in general is the most important part of his prediction from my perspective, since I don’t assume TSI variation is the only aspect of solar variation which effects climate.
    Abdussamatov assumes that TSI is the only aspect [and I will agree with him on that], and he states “Both bicentennial and eleven-year cyclic variations of TSI and solar activity are synchronized and inter-correlated in both phase and amplitude (Fig. 1)”. This means that as the sunspot number goes, so will TSI go. This is the basis for his extrapolation. It also means that if the sunspot number falls to nothing, TSI will obtain its lowest values.

    This has been directly confirmed by
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L06701, doi:10.1029/2011GL046658, 2011
    The minimal solar activity in 2008–2009 and its implications
    for long‐term climate modeling
    C. J. Schrijver, W. C. Livingston, T. N. Woods, and R. A. Mewaldt
    [1] Variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI) associated with solar activity have been argued to influence the Earth’s climate system, in particular when solar activity deviates from the average for a substantial period. One such example is the 17th Century Maunder Minimum during which sunspot numbers were extremely low, as Earth experienced the Little Ice Age. Estimation of the TSI during that period has relied on extrapolations of correlations with sunspot numbers or even more indirectly with modulations of galactic cosmic rays. We argue that there is a minimum state of solar magnetic activity associated with a population of relatively small magnetic bipoles which persists even when sunspots are absent, and that consequently estimates of TSI for the Little Ice Age that are based on scalings with sunspot numbers are generally too low. The minimal solar activity, which measurements show to be frequently observable between active‐region decay products regardless of the phase of the sunspot cycle, was approached globally after an unusually long lull in sunspot activity in 2008–2009. Therefore,
    the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009. The implied marginally significant decrease [which we now know didn't even happen] in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf

    If so, we can reconstuction TSI from the sunspot number [red curve] http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png . There is a roughly 100-yr period [not 200-yr as he claims] in the maximum TSI values [and Sunspot numbers], but the minima stays nearly the same. This constancy near minima is what was painfully confirmed this past minimum. It is also clear that with solar activity the coming cycles being predicted [by me: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ] to be small [perhaps even a Maunder Minimum as suggested in a paper [under review] by Livingston, Penn, and me] TSI will be smaller, but still above its minima plateau. This is where Abdussamatov goes wrong [ http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png ].

    but to have TSI outright unchanging regardless of sunspot number change is an extraordinary claim requiring accordingly utterly extraordinary evidence for me to be confident in trusting, although that does not rule it out as a conceivable possibility.
    But that is not the claim. The claim is much simpler: as the variation in TSI is caused by variation in the Sun’s magnetic field of which sunspots [SSN] are a good proxy, TSI should follow SSN closely [as Abdussamatov said].

    The position that every other instrument is wrong on that scale but that they are reporting accurate data is conceivable, as in (1) they have better design and get better data plus (2) they report it accurately.
    We are back to the issue of accuracy vs. precision. Due to design differences one instrument can have an offset compared to another one [e.g. if a little extra light leaks into the sensor - which is what happended] but that offset is usually nearly constant or at least slowly varying, so when you subtract the offset from the instrument with too much light, the result can now be directly compared to the other instrument. Here is such a comparison http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-PMOD-2004.png for every single day during 2004. The offset was 4.5 W/m2 in 2004, but as you can see the relative difference between SORCE and PMOD was very small, almost undetectable. This is what is meant by instrument precision and you can see that the two instruments register VERY nearly the same flux. The calibration problem comes in because the offset changes slowly with time due to different degradation.

    #2 is extra particularly a concern which I can not directly verify one way or another, though.
    The plot I just showed is such a verification. Furthermore, I know both teams personally and can vouch for their integrity.

    Anyway, the overall result from my perspective is even more so my always-standing preference for other metrics than TSI.
    That may be but Abdussamatov is a TSI guy, and as we have seen his extrapolation doesn’t hold up.

  273. Stephen Wilde says:

    Thanks for the update, Leif.

    “Because some UV varies out of phase with the cycle [and everybody thought it was in phase]”

    Well yes. That is my point.That simple newly observed fact confirms the possibility that my earlier ‘hand waving’ (which I regarded as the application of simple logic) was on target.

    I note this:

    “Even for constant TSI, atmospheric temperatures can have responses to spectral solar forcing.”

    “Out-of-phase SSI changes may cause atmospheric stability to vary from solar max to solar min, leading to cloud feedbacks that may amplify climate responses.”

    Both of which suit me very well.

    The cloud feedback arising via changes in zonality relative to meridionality in the global air circulation which leads to changes in total global cloud quantities and changes in the amount of energy entering the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    However, I think the effect from one solar cycle to another is likely to be small and short lived. The effect across multiple solar cycles over centuries would be more significant and if one adds the observed system response in terms of latitudinal climate zone shifting (which they do not yet seem to have considered) which alters the rate of energy flow from surface to space then I think the outcome will be a negative system response which dampens or removes the effect of the forcing at the expense of the climate zone shift.

    So far so good :)

  274. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 16, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    Well yes. That is my point.That simple newly observed fact confirms the possibility that my earlier ‘hand waving’ (which I regarded as the application of simple logic) was on target.
    Everything I say is always confirmation of your ‘logic’. Even if I said the Moon was made of green cheese. :-)
    But now you in a bind, because should this preliminary finding [based on a few years of noisy data] not pan out in the future, your theory fails completely.

  275. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    The calibration problem comes in because the offset changes slowly with time due to different degradation.

    The plot I just showed is such a verification.

    It is dependent on the offset. As a thought experiment, let’s say I wanted to have reported TSI go up by X per year compared to what it would otherwise; I take the original data and have a computer add X from mostly a simple mathematical function to the data. Subtract X, and the adjusted data goes back to then matching the original data. Yet that does not directly prove X was the proper true offset as opposed to 0.5 * X or another figure.

    In a different example, there are even mostly about the same up and downs in adjusted versus original plots for temperatures even; such as the adjustments discussed in http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php are very subtle individually in most months, albeit having a major cumulative effect gradually with a little cunning.

    At this point, the debate on what TSI has been doing has largely reached the matter of whether I trust the University of Colorado and Denver environmentalists or not; with prior history, I don’t trust them really any more on TSI than them on sea level rise rates, so going further on this matter is not particularly possible.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    Furthermore, I know both teams personally and can vouch for their integrity.

    This discussion has been illuminating of some of the complications, but, as may be guessed from our past discussions unless perhaps you don’t recall my name, I don’t, however, trust you personally at all. As one example, using this particular thread, when in the context of your August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am post you said “solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades,” I was mentally contrasting to such as the solar activity rise from 1.000 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 for the cycles from 1964 to 1996 A.D. seen in average relative inverted neutron counts from cosmicrays.oulu.fi, which was followed by decline to 0.995 and then, in this incomplete cycle, 0.942 so far (where one decade and part of another decade, from part of the 1990s to 2012, is not what a person would normally by default call several decades) — and asking what would be the fundamental driving motivation for saying that in its original context.

    (Even if instead I did trust you on that, anyone meeting someone face to face personally doesn’t automatically directly mean much; most people are not mentally prepared to suspect that someone friendly in person could not be true to their face, but, from past experience in other contexts, I am).

    You may reply with a standard remark like saying you have no dog in the race, but this is not really going to go anywhere.

    If not for what I believe to be your motives, etc., I would thank you for the discussion.

  276. Stephen Wilde says:

    “But now you in a bind, because should this preliminary finding [based on a few years of noisy data] not pan out in the future, your theory fails completely.”

    Of course it does and I told you that ages ago when you challenged me to offer a means of falsification. I gave you several other means of falsification at the same time but none have yet come to pass.

    In the meantime you can only ‘hand wave’ yourself on the basis that you think it is a misleading result from a few years of noisy data.

    The thing is that if those findings do hold up I’ve hit the jackpot.

    As for the balance of probability there are so many observations that fall into place if those findings are accurate that I cannot conceive of any other scenario that would fit those observations and still comply with basic physical principles.

    One simply cannot achieve the observed changes in air circulation without reversing the sign of the solar effect on the stratosphere from that assumed by the established climatology.

    If the effect of a more active sun were to warm the stratosphere as normally proposed then since the effects of solar chemistry on the upper atmosphere are proportionately greater at the poles the more active sun should have caused more meridionality and / or an equatorward shift but the opposite actually happened.

  277. Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    “The plot I just showed is such a verification.”
    It is dependent on the offset.

    Not at all, as the offset is constant [4.5 W/m2 for this plot] and can be determined simply by subtracting the yearly means for the two instruments.

    As a thought experiment, let’s say I wanted to have reported TSI go up by X per year compared to what it would otherwise; I take the original data and have a computer add X from mostly a simple mathematical function to the data. Subtract X, and the adjusted data goes back to then matching the original data. Yet that does not directly prove X was the proper true offset as opposed to 0.5 * X or another figure.
    I think that makes no sense. The offset for that year is simply the yearly mean for one minus the yearly mean for the other. I have no idea where you get the ‘simple mathematical function’ from. For the year 2004 which is shown the offset is constant.

    At this point, the debate on what TSI has been doing has largely reached the matter of whether I trust the University of Colorado and Denver environmentalists or not; with prior history, I don’t trust them really any more on TSI than them on sea level rise rates, so going further on this matter is not particularly possible.
    This is not a question of trust. SORCE reports the data in real time, PMOD reports every three months. These data are completely independent and yet matchg almost perfectly with the constant offset.

    “solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades,”
    Sure it has [the cycles are usually compared using the smoothed sunspot number]:
    1979.956 164.5
    1989.539 158.5
    2000.287 120.8
    2012.041 63.5 [max predicted next year to be 75]

    If not for what I believe to be your motives
    My motive is simply to educate you. To give back to that society that has supported my research over the decades. This ought to be a motive for every scientist funded by the public, don’t you think?

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm
    Of course it does and I told you that ages ago when you challenged me to offer a means of falsification. I gave you several other means of falsification at the same time but none have yet come to pass.
    I submit that they were so vague that no comparison was possible. For that, one need NUMBERS and ERROR BARS, which you have not provided.

    that you think it is a misleading result from a few years of noisy data.
    No, I don’t think this is a misleading result. It is a real finding for those years and cannot be misleading as the numbers are what they are. Because they are numbers one can compare the finding with newer data when they become available and so check if *their* finding holds up.

    The thing is that if those findings do hold up I’ve hit the jackpot.
    Not really, because their finding was supposed to be a general things, true for all cycles, past and present, and not just for those four years.

    If the effect of a more active sun were to warm the stratosphere as normally proposed then since the effects of solar chemistry on the upper atmosphere are proportionately greater at the poles the more active sun should have caused more meridionality and / or an equatorward shift but the opposite actually happened.
    The sun has become less and less active over the past several decades, so what is that with ‘a more active sun’?

  278. Henry Clark says:
    August 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    The foundation of his prediction, in terms of such as the reduced solar activity seen during the Maunder Minimum and his estimation that it is time for that to occur again

    I mentioned that Livingston, Penn, and myself have a paper coming out on this. Our conclusion states:
    “By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard, Cliver, & Kamide 2005; Hathaway 2011). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores. Such behavior would be highly unusual, since such a small solar maximum has not been observed since the Maunder Minimum. During that period from roughly 1645 to 1715 few sunspots were observed, although cosmic ray studies suggest the Sun did have a functioning magnetic activity cycle (Usoskin, Mursula, & Kovaltsov 2001); this is consistent with the scenario provided by our fit extrapolation”

    This would mean that the TSI we measure now and in the next cycle would resemble TSI during the Maunder Minimum, hence the intense interest in whether minimum TSI is decreasing.

  279. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 16, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    This is not a question of trust. SORCE reports the data in real time, PMOD reports every three months. These data are completely independent and yet matchg almost perfectly with the constant offset.

    It is a question of whether or not they can be trusted, as any good liar knows the most useful lies have as much truth as possible while still being effective, so the obvious way would be to have a correction for the instrument degradation (true in itself) but just make the quantitative magnitude of the offset adjustment an overcorrection such that it diverges more and more from reality at such as a constant rate gradually over a period of years. Deduct the offset adjustment, and the adjusted data goes back to matching the original data. Having software add any constant adjustment in real time would be trivial.

    As an outside observer, I can’t tell one way or another directly, but what is apparent is potential motive. Get rid of, for instance, how ACRIM shows a fraction a W/m^2 rise in TSI during minimums between 1986 and 1996, as part of rise over the 1960s-1990s followed by decline afterwards, while also getting rid of its fall of several tenths of a W/m^2 to the minimum following cycle 23 depicted originally in http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg , and that lets an environmentalist write:

    Did a quiet Sun cause the Little Ice Age? Maybe not. [...]

    Using the 2008/09 sunspot minimum data, Schrijver et al estimate that the decrease in the TSI during the Maunder Minimum may have been significantly smaller than previously estimated. Using the 2008/09 sunspot minimum, the authors estimate that the TSI was about 0.2 – 0.5 watts per square meter smaller than in 1996. Previous estimates ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 watts per square meter. For comparison, the greenhouse warming due to long-lived greenhouse gases is about 2.6 watts per square meter. [...]

    What I take away from Schrijver et al’s work is that the climatic forcing (whether it came from the Sun or something else) that led to the Little Ice Age may have been much smaller than we thought. And what that means is that the climate sensitivity — the amount of temperature change for a given climate forcing — is also larger than what’s included in current climate models.

    http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/solardoubt

    That’s wrong for multiple reasons including that, in actual non-fudged temperatures, recent years are not even multiple tenths of a degree Celsius beyond temperatures of the late 1930s, which rules out what the creators of those climate models claim as valid, let alone having higher claims for anthropogenic effects via increasing the climate sensitivity and the effect ascribed to CO2 increase.* But it is convenient for the CAGW movement.

    * In images, how the 1930s were about as warm as the 1990s is seen in http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif first for the arctic, and, secondly, for the average over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole when without dishonest revisionism of past temperature measurements, in http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ScreenHunter_296-Apr.-08-09.29.jpg when combined with http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg . Full non-fudged southern hemisphere temperature data is harder to acquire, but, beyond partial segments like http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig47.jpg , the overall global temperature average would be related to what global sea level data shows: slower rise rate in the second half of the 20th century than during the first half (“1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″ as http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml notes). More illustrations are in http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php , http://www.real-science.com/hansens-tremendous-data-tampering , etc., even indirectly supported by historical arctic sea ice maps.

    Amongst the general population, a moderate majority is honest most of the time, but, if being associated with and supporting dishonesty bothered someone, they would tend to be an outcast skeptic, remain a casual in the general public, or otherwise not end up employed in University of Colorado (or GISS or CRU) environmental studies programs in the first place. Most skeptical scientists entered the field decades ago, and many are retired or otherwise in particularly safe circumstances.

    Science has historically had a well-deserved favorable reputation from contributing to the technological, industrial progress and material advancement of mankind (not reducing energy per person but rather increasing it), yet that is precisely what makes hijacking the mantle of science the greatest prize for promoting an agenda.

    You’ll likely reply by saying again essentially that those involved are trustworthy, but, for the TSI dataset differing from the rest in adjustments for sensor degradation over time, that is not externally verifiable. While the mess with TSI instruments was moderately interesting to see, at this point this discussion is dropping into a loop.

  280. Henry Clark says:

    In the first sentence of the preceding, the “they” refers to the University of Colorado SORCE group. Since other TSI measuring instruments do not match in trend at the tenths of W/m^2 level except through adjustments, the adjustment’s exact quantitative value is the key matter.

  281. Henry Clark says:

    Actually a good analogy in a way would be a temperature station which is adjusted for a change in location from one decade to the next. Deduct the adjustment, and of course the adjusted data after deducting the adjustment would match the original data. An adjustment may be justified in itself for existing, but a big question becomes whether or not the adjustment is being done with the right numerical magnitude.

  282. Henry Clark says:

    edit:

    Some of the wording of my August 17, 2012 1:11 am comment is careless. I mean “helps write,” not “lets write” as the latter could give the wrong connotations as if I was justifying the incorrect chain of TSI-only-mattering assumptions in the article quote, which I am not.

  283. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says

    However one needs to be careful about the height at which the ozone increases or decreases

    Henry thinks:
    No worries about that. The behavior of ozone is the same, whereever you find it.
    According to a Swiss measuring station that has been doing measurements on ozone for a long time it started moving up since 1996 and if you look very carefully you will also note a bendpoint going down from just before the the fifties….,
    The absolute measurements off late are probably a lot better due to technology, though, so look at trends, reather than stare yourself blind on absolute values.

    Henry asks:
    Do you perhaps know if the light that is back radiated by the ozone
    (ooops, there, almost I said “deflected” again….don’t want to upset my friend Leif again)
    of which the wavelength is all <0.3 um, is also counted in earth's albedo?
    I think if we talk about albedo we must clearly define exactly what we are talking about,
    knowing full well that the <0.3 um carries the highest amount of energy which is directly converted to heat when it hits on water.

  284. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif said:

    i) “The sun has become less and less active over the past several decades, so what is that with ‘a more active sun’?”

    Only very slightly has it become less active (until recently) and from a very high peak so that throughout the period the level of activity was higher than that required to maintain equilibrium (via the spectral changes and not TSI) so that until around 2000 the climate zones continued to drift poleward slowly.

    ii) “their finding was supposed to be a general thing, true for all cycles, past and present, and not just for those four years.”

    Quite so. That would be the jackpot. An active sun always cools the stratosphere allowing a poleward drift of the climate zones,regional climate changes, less cloudiness and more energy into the oceans for a faster througput of energy from surface to space. A less active sun does the opposite.That fits all available observations.

    iii) “I submit that they were so vague that no comparison was possible. For that, one need NUMBERS and ERROR BARS, which you have not provided.”

    Direction of trend would be sufficient. Precise numbers not necessary.

    You may be an expert debater but I think the exercise of successful debating takes priority in your mind over a search for truth.

  285. Stephen Wilde says:

    “According to a Swiss measuring station that has been doing measurements on ozone for a long time it started moving up since 1996 and if you look very carefully you will also note a bendpoint going down from just before the the fifties….,”

    Agreed.

    The dominant process appears to be the recently discovered reverse sign effect above 45km. Conventional climatology says that when the sun is less active ozone reduces but in fact it increases. The conventional viewpoint only refers to the processes below 45km but it appears that that lower process is overcome by the processes higher up for a reverse sign ozone and temperature response throughout stratosphere and mesosphere.

    We just have to wait and see whether those measurements hold up as Leif says.

  286. tallbloke says:

    @Henry Clark
    Regarding ACRIM and PMOD TSI.
    See this letter
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg

    Note that the letter is sent to Nicola Scafetta, who a member of the ACRIM team. This is part of the reason Svalgaard has the knife out for Scafetta.

    The data benders and flatteners still rule the roost.

  287. Stephen Wilde says:

    Like I said:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1460.html

    “Large changes in solar ultraviolet radiation can indirectly affect climate by inducing atmospheric changes.”

    But the authors fail to take the next logical step which is to realise that those atmospheric changes alter the energy flow rate from surface to space.

  288. Henry Clark says:

    @Henry Clark
    Regarding ACRIM and PMOD TSI.
    See this letter
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg

    Such is interesting, indeed not particularly inspiring confidence in PMOD. And I see now also that http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm states:

    The PMOD composite approach uses a different subset of the satellite TSI database, the ERBS/ERBE ACRIM gap ratio and modifies published Nimbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 results, to conform them to the predictions of TSI proxy models [Frohlich & Lean, 1998]. The sparse ERBS/ERBE data required the PMOD model to use about 90% interpolated data to compute their ACRIM gap ratio.

    Well, the deeper one digs into this matter, the messier it gets.

  289. Henry Clark says:

    edit:

    The preceding is in reply to Tallbloke, accidentally forgetting to properly mark the quote.

  290. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    which is to realise that those atmospheric changes alter the energy flow rate from surface to space.

    Henry@Stephen
    Sorry, it is the other way around. The amount of energy let through the atmosphere is less due to the back radiation of more <0.3 light due to higher ozone content. It is going out to space instead which is why I always used the word "deflection".
    This is not only confirmed by my lessons here,
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
    given to Leif earlier on,
    ( on "The theory of GHG and anti GHG behavior")
    but it also confirmed by the results in my tables for maxima,
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

  291. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 2:56 am
    Direction of trend would be sufficient. Precise numbers not necessary.
    If the trend is -0.1 +/- 0.2, then the minus sign [the direction] is not significant and is not sufficient. Precise numbers and their error bars are absolutely and always necessary.

    Henry Clark says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:07 am
    Such is interesting, indeed not particularly inspiring confidence in PMOD.
    Indeed, which is the whole point I have been trying to get across to you. Abdussamatov used and depended on the flawed PMOD for his extrapolation. It is good to see that you agree.
    Your paranoid comments about trust are just silly and need no further arguments.

    tallbloke says:
    August 17, 2012 at 4:26 am
    Note that the letter is sent to Nicola Scafetta, who a member of the ACRIM team. This is part of the reason Svalgaard has the knife out for Scafetta.
    Nobody has any knife out for Scafetta. The low quality of his papers speaks for itself as several reviewers can testify too, and as any competent scientist can readily discern.

  292. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    Paul Jose was at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico

    My bad. I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy without the need for ‘Dark Matter’. He just did the sensible thing and included all the fundamental forces instead of limiting his model to gravity.

  293. tallbloke says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:01 am
    “Paul Jose was at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico”
    My bad.

    Don’t you think an apology is needed? For ‘as usual you don’t know…’

    I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy
    That failed attempt has long been in the dustbin.

  294. tallbloke says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:01 am
    I probably was thinking of Anthony Peratt – the guy who successfully modeled the spinning of the spiral arms of a galaxy
    Educate yourself: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html

  295. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif said:

    “If the trend is -0.1 +/- 0.2, then the minus sign [the direction] is not significant and is not sufficient. Precise numbers and their error bars are absolutely and always necessary.”

    If a change in trend is to be regarded as having been observed then that implies that the change exceeds the error margin so your comment is redundant. Another example of you preferring to score debating points rather than ascertain truth.

  296. Stephen Wilde says:

    HenryP said:

    “The amount of energy let through the atmosphere is less due to the back radiation of more <0.3 light due to higher ozone content. It is going out to space instead which is why I always used the word "deflection".

    No problem, I could just say that the atmospheric changes are associated with a change in the rate of energy flow from surface to space. The sequence of cause and effect makes no difference to the general principle. Whatever comes first the system seeks to retain balance in the face of ANY forcing other than surface atmospheric pressure or top of atmosphere insolation. If more energy goes out by reflection/deflection as you say then the circulation changes do not need to work so hard to maintain balance.

    The circulation changes just mop up any net energy imbalances that arise elsewhere in the system from other processes. The atmospheric circulation always reconfigures as necessary to ensure energy in equals energy out at top of atmosphere and in the process keeps total system energy content at the level set by surface pressure and top of atmosphere insolation.

    It is a very neat self regulatory arrangement and explains why we have had liquid oceans for 4 billion years despite massive disruptions from impact events and widespread volcanism.

  297. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    If more energy goes out by reflection/deflection as you say then the circulation changes do not need to work so hard to maintain balance.
    Henry says
    As long as you realize that if less of <0.3 um radiation is going into the oceans, than less warmth will be accumulated there and hence, eventually it will start taking average temps. on earth down. It is all a question of time; but surely, by now, anyone here on this blog must agree with me that average temps. are dropping? My dataset suggests a drop of at least 0.2 degrees K since 2000. And I can easily predict from my data set that from now on, it will be accelerating further down. Better buy yourself some extra warm cloths and count on more snow….the sun-UV-O2- O3 bike is cycling back ….it seems that is on a 50 or 51 year natural cycle of warming (from 1945) and now cooling (from 1995).

  298. Stephen Wilde says:

    Agreed Henry.

    Whether it is due to more ozone reflecting more energy out or more clouds doing the same then either way the system energy content is declining. More likely a combination (I favour the clouds).

    However the increased cloudiness and more meridional jets being a negative system response which also slows the loss of energy to space and with ocean cycles still being on the warm side especially in the Indian Ocean and North Atlantic it is hard to predict when the falling energy content will significantly affect the troposphere and that is the question behind this thread.

    It is not enough to deal with AGW that the warming pause for a while. We need to see a significant fall.

  299. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    We need to see a significant fall.

    Henry says
    I am not particularly looking forward to my own predictions coming true. I hate cold. I can take more heat easier than more cold. If it is too hot I climb in my POOL. But I cannot change NATURE.
    God has ordained a very neat self regulatory arrangement that explains why we have had liquid oceans for 4 billion years despite massive disruptions from impact events and widespread volcanism.
    True.

  300. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 7:43 am
    If a change in trend is to be regarded as having been observed then that implies that the change exceeds the error margin so your comment is redundant.
    Try to think as a lawyer and note how vacous your comment is. Maybe what you are trying to say is that in order for a change to be accepted as real it must exceed its error bar. So, again: no error bar, no observed change.

  301. Stephen Wilde says:

    Never mind the convoluted semantics, Leif.

    The stratosphere cooled until the late 90s then stopped cooling.

    High and mid level clouds declined until the late 90s and then started to increase.

    The climate zones and jets drifted poleward until the late 90s and now appear to be moving back equatorward.

    Warming of the troposphere has come to a virtual halt since the late 90s.

    The sun became less active from the late 90s to date.

    Ocean heat content is not rising as quickly as it was with the rate of sea level rise declining.

    Even the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere seems to be declining a little.

    What we have here is numerous changes in trend all occurring from the late 90s and it is not necessary to show precise quantities and error margins to realise that something is up.

  302. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Abdussamatov used and depended on the flawed PMOD for his extrapolation. It is good to see that you agree.

    If the ACRIM results are more true than PMOD (something I would have difficulty quickly absolutely verifying as a outside observer but already strongly suspect in context), TSI increase would have extra contributed to the natural component of warming up through part of the 1990s (leaving still less gap to be ascribed to be anthropogenic causes after taking into account the 60-year ocean cycle, temperature data not wrongly adjusted, and all else). Yet, even while ACRIM data, unlike PMOD, shows a relatively substantial rise in TSI between the 1986 and 1996 solar minimums, ACRIM *also* actually then depicts a greater fall in TSI between the 1996 and 2008 solar minimums than PMOD does. The preceding for the difference between ACRIM and PMOD data is seen by comparing and contrasting http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg for ACRIM versus http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg for PMOD.

    I doubt you will really like the preceding chain of observations at all, but I think you momentarily slipped into being more focused on aiming to score debate points, in a manner of speaking, than thinking of what would be the consequences if ACRIM is more accurate than PMOD.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you respond saying the ACRIM-depicted rise and decline in TSI of the different minimums is due to errors in ACRIM. Proving the exact quantitative magnitude of errors negate the existence of the preceding would be a separate matter than showing errors exist, though (when, with real-world instruments, there are always non-zero complexities of measurement, like as far back as the 1980s the ACRIM1 science team was applying corrections for degradation mentioned in http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg ).

    If using ACRIM data more or less, Dr. Abdussamatov would be off in the exact location of the overall peak in solar activity, but I’d be more concerned about the general picture. In that regard, with ACRIM showing a greater fall in TSI in the recent minimum than PMOD did (and the likelihood of that being solely measurement error looking still less), such would be a bit like the remark I made way back on August 14th:

    *******************
    Dr. Abdussamatov has some weaknesses, like he uses a common temperature dataset (unfortunately fudged by the CAGW movement) in one of the figures (rather than http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg plus http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg and other data discussed before … which would support his observations … more).
    *******************

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Your paranoid comments about trust are just silly and need no further arguments.

    After severe dishonesty on 20th-century temperature history (Hansen, GISS, etc.), the MWP and other millennial-scale temperature history (Mann, etc.), sea level rise rates, arctic ice history, hurricanes, tornadoes, AGW effects on malaria, et cetera, widely not apologized for but in practice condoned, the inescapable conclusion is that, while the majority of all people are honest, such does not extend to the majority of activists who rise to the top of institutions gravitating to them. The preceding does not directly prove anything on another topic (as in TSI measurement) but discourages being automatically unable to consider other than 0% probability of a little number massaging by anyone, when there is means, motive, and practically nil chance of serious negative repercussions for responsible parties if applicable, if done with almost any care at all. As the saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” — except I don’t know a saying for “fool me ?? times in a row”

    In context, I’ll take being called paranoid as a compliment, which is an exact word I’ve been called by CAGW supporters on another site (the run-of-the-mill type who could argue on all AGW-related topics without blowing their cover since having none), as I would also if, as there, called a conspiracy theorist. With that said, conspiracy is not the right term when conspiracy connotates a movement which collapses if publicly exposed much at all, with the instability of true conspiracies making them rare in the real world, whereas the CAGW movement has proven quite able to survive many dissenters. It represents not a conspiracy in sense of centralized organization but rather the natural inclinations of the majority of individuals flocking into the relevant organizations at this point, a little like Greenpeace spreading utter inaccuracy about nuclear power is not a conspiracy but the natural inclination of the majority of individuals who would join Greenpeace in the first place (for that subset is not identical in makeup to the general population, being by now more predominately the type not bothered by Greenpeace’s past inaccuracies and thus still wanting to join).

  303. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 10:11 am
    Never mind the convoluted semantics, Leif.
    The stratosphere cooled until the late 90s then stopped cooling.

    The observers think that the solar cycle variation of the spectral irradiance happens in every solar cycle, not just once in the late 90s.

    vukcevic says:
    August 17, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Dark Matter strikes !
    This may, if confirmed, go some ways to elucidate [excuse the pun] the nature of DM. The existence is no longer in doubt.

  304. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The observers think that the solar cycle variation of the spectral irradiance happens in every solar cycle, not just once in the late 90s”

    Of course.

    But if it happens with the solar variation during every cycle then it also happens through the solar variations from MWP to LIA to date. Think in terms of multiple cycles over centuries gradually changing their average level of activity and therefore also the spectral composition of the radiation supplied.

    The stratosphere did not just cool during part of a single cycle and recover during another part. It cooled for decades whilst solar activity remained relatively high then stopped cooling when the level of solar activity dropped below a threshold in the late 90s.

    If the stratosphere cools when the sun is more active through a single cycle then it also cools when the sun is more active through a series of cycles and it is that cooling response in the stratosphere which produces the poleward shift in the climate zones during the centuries long period of increasing solar activity.

    The opposite when the sun gradually becomes less active through multiple cycles such as from MWP to LIA.

    If you cannot see it then you simply won’t see it because you are well capable of seeing it.

  305. HClark says:

    ACRIM data showing a rise in minima up to the minima ending cycle 22 (before the later fall) would help explain why cycle 22 has 1.032x of the average inverted cosmic ray neutron count of cycle 20, like cycle 21 also had 1.032x. That is in the context of despite the nominal borderline decrease in peak sunspot number count between cycles 21 and 22, by fitting having the minima rise increase the average in itself in a manner compensating for a little lower sunspot-count peak.

  306. HClark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Abdussamatov used and depended on the flawed PMOD for his extrapolation. It is good to see that you agree.

    If the ACRIM results are more true than PMOD (something I would have difficulty quickly absolutely verifying as a outside observer but already strongly suspect in context), TSI increase would have extra contributed to the natural component of warming up through part of the 1990s (leaving still less gap to be ascribed to anthropogenic causes after taking into account the 60-year ocean cycle, temperature data not wrongly adjusted, and all else). Yet, even while ACRIM data, unlike PMOD, shows a relatively substantial rise in TSI between the 1986 and 1996 solar minimums, ACRIM *also* actually then depicts a greater fall in TSI between the 1996 and 2008 solar minimums than PMOD does. The preceding for the difference between ACRIM and PMOD data is seen by comparing and contrasting http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg for ACRIM versus http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg for PMOD.

    I doubt you will favor the preceding chain of observations, but I think you momentarily slipped into looking at what would superficially be against Abdussamatov without considering all consequences if ACRIM is more accurate than PMOD. SORCE does not extend back before less than a decade ago anyway.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you respond saying the ACRIM-depicted rise and decline in TSI of the different minimums is due to errors in ACRIM. Proving the exact quantitative magnitude of errors negate the existence of the preceding would be a separate matter than showing errors exist, though (when, with real-world instruments, there are always non-zero complexities of measurement, like as far back as the 1980s the ACRIM1 science team was applying corrections for degradation mentioned in http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/acrim.jpg ).

    If using ACRIM data more or less, Dr. Abdussamatov would be off in the exact location of the overall peak in solar activity, but I’d be more concerned about the general picture. In that regard, with ACRIM showing a greater fall in TSI in the recent minimum than PMOD did (and the likelihood of that being solely measurement error looking still less), such would be a bit like the remark I made way back on August 14th:

    ——
    Dr. Abdussamatov has some weaknesses, like he uses a common temperature dataset (unfortunately fudged by the CAGW movement) in one of the figures (rather than http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg plus http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg and other data discussed before … which would support his observations … more).
    ——

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am
    Your paranoid comments about trust are just silly and need no further arguments.

    After severe dishonesty on 20th-century temperature history (Hansen, GISS, etc.), the MWP and other millennial-scale temperature history (Mann, etc.), sea level rise rates, arctic ice history, hurricanes, tornadoes, AGW effects on malaria, et cetera, widely not apologized for but in practice condoned, the inescapable conclusion is that, while the majority of all people are honest, such does not extend to the majority of activists who rise to the top of institutions gravitating to them. The preceding does not directly prove anything on another topic (as in TSI measurement) but discourages being automatically unable to consider other than 0% probability of a little number massaging by anyone, when there is means, motive, and practically nil chance of serious negative repercussions for responsible parties if applicable, if done with almost any care at all. As the saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” — except I don’t know a saying for “fool me ?? times in a row”

    In context, I’ll take being called paranoid as a compliment, which is an exact word I’ve been called by CAGW supporters on one forum, as I would also if, as there, called a conspiracy theorist. With that said, conspiracy is not the right term when conspiracy connotates a movement which collapses if publicly exposed much at all, with the instability of true conspiracies making them rare in the real world, whereas the CAGW movement has proven quite able to survive many dissenters. It represents not a conspiracy in sense of centralized organization but rather the natural inclinations of the majority of individuals flocking into the relevant organizations at this point, a little like Greenpeace spreading utter inaccuracy about nuclear power is not a conspiracy but the natural inclination of the majority of individuals who would join Greenpeace in the first place (for that subset is not identical in makeup to the general population, being by now more predominately the type not bothered by Greenpeace’s past inaccuracies and thus still wanting to join).

  307. Henry Clark says:
    August 17, 2012 at 11:46 am
    The preceding for the difference between ACRIM and PMOD data is seen by comparing and contrasting http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig26.jpg for ACRIM versus http://www.acrim.com/images/earth_obs_fig27.jpg for PMOD.
    ACRIM shows that there is no long-term downwards trend in TSI, thus nicely refuting Abdussamatov.

    After severe dishonesty on 20th-century temperature history (Hansen, GISS, etc.)
    None of this has anything to do with Abdussamatov’s errors, unless you classify him as dishonest too.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    But if it happens with the solar variation during every cycle then it also happens through the solar variations from MWP to LIA to date.
    Including the rise in the first half of the 20th century and the low cycle 20, which both should then behave just like cycle 23.

    If you cannot see it then you simply won’t see it because you are well capable of seeing it.
    Without numbers and dates one can see nothing.

  308. daveburton says:

    Henry Clark, we got five (5) copies of that long post. There’s no need to keep reposting. Just wait for the (overworked & mourning) moderators to get to it.

    Amos Batto, where’d you go? Couldn’t find those NASA data files after all?

  309. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    it is that cooling response in the stratosphere which produces the poleward shift in the climate zones during the centuries long period of increasing solar activity.
    Actually, you have cause and effect reversed here.
    “We demonstrate that this enhanced cooling is a direct response of the lower-stratospheric temperature to the poleward shift of subtropical jets.”
    Fu, Qiang, Pu Lin, 2011: Poleward Shift of Subtropical Jets Inferred from Satellite-Observed Lower-Stratospheric Temperatures. J. Climate, 24, 5597–5603.
    “it is shown that the subtropical jets have shifted poleward by 0.6° ± 0.1° and 1.0° ± 0.3° latitude in the Southern and Northern Hemispheres, respectively, in last 30 years since 1979, indicating a widening of tropical belt by 1.6° ± 0.4° latitude.”
    Here you have number, error bars, and dates. This is science.

  310. Stephen Wilde says:

    I said:

    “But if it happens with the solar variation during every cycle then it also happens through the solar variations from MWP to LIA to date.”

    Leif said:

    “Including the rise in the first half of the 20th century and the low cycle 20, which both should then behave just like cycle 23.”

    Why ?

    The effect of each single cycle is influenced by the cycles preceding and following it and modulated by the delayed oceanic response. There is no reason why cycle 23 should have mirrored cycle 20 or the early part of the 20th century.

    Leif, you appear to be reduced to throwing out chaff to distract from the important points.

    Even if cooling does soon set it you will deny that it has anythng to do with solar changes. On the other hand if the sun stays quiet without cooling setting in I have accepted that I would be in some difficulty and then I would seek to amend my model to try and accommodate the new observations.

    My mind is open but yours is slammed shut so you wriggle and divert to avoid the logical implications of observations.

  311. Henry Clark says:

    daveburton says:
    August 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Henry Clark, we got five (5) copies of that long post. There’s no need to keep reposting. Just wait for the (overworked & mourning) moderators to get to it.

    I greatly apologize. The duplication was unintentional. I kept having the post not appear as posts normally do as pending moderator screening. I was getting a javascript error message in Firefox for some reason on the page (actually probably unrelated as such turns out), and, thinking it was not getting to the point of mods seeing it for screening, I was trying submission by multiple methods including with and without java / javascript active.

    [Your (multiple) posts WERE going into a "test" thread last evening.... Robt]

  312. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    ACRIM shows that there is no long-term downwards trend in TSI, thus nicely refuting Abdussamatov.

    Depending on your definition of long-term, that could be rather hard to satisfy without waiting longer to see, although waiting and seeing how several years from now goes and beyond is exactly what I am looking forward to in a way. (I don’t operate under a mode of investigation where part of someone’s work being imperfect means ignoring the rest; if I literally did, I would have to discard every publication short of a non-existent perfect analysis properly combining everything from all external forcings to ocean cycles at once and proving its correctness by future predictions coming true relatively precisely).

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    None of this has anything to do with Abdussamatov’s errors, unless you classify him as dishonest too.

    I wasn’t talking about him there. Aside from this being a bit of a generalization and everything a matter of probabilities until knowing otherwise, I trust Russian sources more by default on climatological topics, for reduced likelihood of intentional fallacies, based on past experience, which doesn’t rule out some accidental errors or imperfections but helps.

  313. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 17, 2012 at 3:27 pm
    The effect of each single cycle is influenced by the cycles preceding and following it
    So the system is clairvoyant…
    My mind is open but yours is slammed shut so you wriggle and divert to avoid the logical implications of observations.
    Perhaps so open that the brain has fallen out. As I said, no numbers, no error bars, no dates = no theory. And, as I pointed out “Actually, you have cause and effect reversed here.”

    Henry Clark says:
    August 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    I don’t operate under a mode of investigation where part of someone’s work being imperfect means ignoring the rest
    The rest is unfounded as well in case of Abdussamatov. As I said, there is no foundation for his alarmist ‘prediction’.

    I trust Russian sources more by default on climatological topics
    The Russian sources here are not about climate, but about the sun. And, again, it is not about trust, but about being right, and Dr. A has clearly been proven wrong.

  314. Stephen Wilde says:

    “We demonstrate that this enhanced cooling is a direct response of the lower-stratospheric temperature to the poleward shift of subtropical jets.”

    No mechanism is suggested as to how a movement poleward of the jets could ’cause’ a cooling of the lower stratospheric temperature.

    In contrast I have suggested a mechanism whereby a cooling stratosphere could cause a poleward shift n the jets.

    Do you have any ideas as to how their speculation could work ?

  315. Stephen Wilde says:

    For other readers here is the paper which Leif refers to:

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/jc.fu.2011.pdf

    They also say this:

    “The TLS (Temperature of the Lower Stratosphere) trends in last three decades are also caused by the change of the atmospheric compositions such as the increase of
    the CO2, O3 depletion, and possible long-term changes
    of H2O”

    If we focus on O3 depletion then there we have it but they are all over the place with their unquantified alternative suggestions.

    How do they suggest that shifting the jets first can then alter the balance of ozone destruction / creation ?

    What do they think shifts the jets in the first place ?

    The most notable upper air atmosphere trend (as regards composition) has been ozone reduction during the long period of high solar activity. Given the known association of ozone quantities with stratospheric temperatures why would they need any more than that ?

    Their paper as a whole is vindication of my earlier insistence that latitudinal jetstream shifting is associated with stratospheric temperatures.

    They are confirming points that I have been putting into the public domain for some time now but I submit that they have got cause and effect the wrong way round.

    The only ways to shift the jets and climate zones poleward are by oceanic warming of the equatorial troposphere or by solar (via ozone chemistry) cooling of the stratosphere.

    Their mere speculation that shifting the jets cools the stratosphere is not science at all.

    The increase of CO2 in the troposphere is a possible candidate as per AGW theory but that is falsified by the recent cessation of stratospheric cooling despite continuing increases in CO2.

    CFCs destroying ozone is another candidate but the change in the stratosphere temperature trend from cooling to relative stability and maybe slight warming fits the timing of the quiet sun better than the reduction in CFCs following implementationof the Montreal Protocol.

    The finding that at a time of quiet sun ozone increases above 45km is in my view the critical issue , if confirmed, because that provides an explanation for observed stratospheric temperature trends and for the observed jet stream shifting and in particular the observation that the recent trend for the jets to shift back equatorward is solar induced.

  316. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    CFCs destroying ozone is another candidate but the change in the stratosphere temperature trend from cooling to relative stability and maybe slight warming fits the timing of the quiet sun better than the reduction in CFCs following implementationof the Montreal Protocol.

    The finding that at a time of quiet sun ozone increases above 45km is in my view the critical issue , if confirmed

    Henry says
    The CFC’s destroying ozone was another red herring. I feel stupid to have been associated with that. (I helped develop a PCBoard soldering procedure that did not require CFC cleaning)
    No, if you look at the speed of warming/cooling in degrees C per annum and measure that against time you actually get to have a look at acceleration. And if you look at the curves I get for that you can see that it looks completely parabolic, as if someone is throwing a ball at you. That suggests a completely natural process and the roots for the curves for maxima acceleration can be associated with 1995 changing sign here from warming to cooling and on the other side it looks like 1945 when it started warming. It is this natural process that suggested to me that the most likely candidate is the sun- UV-O2-O3-cycle. During the 50 year warming period less ozone allowed more light of <0.3 through the atmosphere. We are now cycling back to 2045 when it will be as cold as it was in 1945….
    During the cooling period ozone is increasing causing more high energy light being re-radiated to space.

  317. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 12:34 am
    For other readers here is the paper which Leif refers to:
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/jc.fu.2011.pdf

    Whatever the merit of their paper is, one should note the difference with your hand waving. Their paper is specific, is numeric, has error bars and is science [right or wrong]. Yours has none of this.

  318. Stephen Wilde says:

    “We are now cycling back to 2045 when it will be as cold as it was in 1945…”

    The sun is a lot less active than in 1945 or during the slightly lower cycle 20 so there is potential for a faster, deeper fall.

  319. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 17, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Nobody has any knife out for Scafetta.

    The low quality of his papers speaks for itself as several reviewers can testify too, and as any competent scientist can readily discern.

    Lol. Nice self contradiction Leif. Thanks for proving the point so ineloquently.

  320. Louise says:

    So if somebody sings out of tune we should expect them to win X Factor (or do we point out that they can’t sing)?

  321. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Their paper is specific, is numeric, has error bars and is science [right or wrong]. Yours has none of this.”

    There is nothing specific or numeric as regards their speculation that the shift of the jets allegedly causes a cooling stratosphere.

    In so far as they do produce specifics and numbers they can be adopted by me to support my previous insistence that stratospheric temperatures relative to troposphere temperatures are critical to jet stream positioning.

    Therefore,thanks to them,I now have the specifics and numbers to support that part of my case and meanwhile their assertions about causation are entirely unscientific and unsupported and indeed go contrary to common sense and basic physical principles.

    Notwithstanding all that I am grateful to you for the links you have provided here since they are replete with the sort of data that I need to eventually prove my case though I accept more data is needed to make it more persuasive.

  322. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 6:44 am
    In so far as they do produce specifics and numbers they can be adopted by me to support my previous insistence that stratospheric temperatures relative to troposphere temperatures are critical to jet stream positioning.
    Except causality is the other way around.

  323. HenryP says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    The sun is a lot less active than in 1945 or during the slightly lower cycle 20 so there is potential for a faster, deeper fall.

    Henry says
    I am going from the principle that the next 50 years of cooling will be like a mirror of the previous 50 year of warming. 1995 is my point of reference where the input of energy was at maximum and where the signal changed from positive to negative.We are now 17 years from that point.
    Due to a number of reasons earth lags a bit in the energy output and it seems from various data sets that earth reached its maximum energy output in 1998, when it was the “warmest”. If I now deduct my 17 years on the new cycle from 1998 I come to 1981. In 1981 was the last time it snowed in Johannesburg. In 2012 it was for the first time since 1981 it snowed again in Johannesburg.
    So, as my example shows, you can predict more or less what earth’s weather will be like by looking how far we are on the cycle….. We also don’t have to worry now anymore whether or not we will survive it: we have been there, done that, many times before….I suspect even the Egyptians knew about this cycle. Independent of this cycle there may be others that may bring us up or down a bit but I suspect that within a hundred years there is not that much change. So there is nothing new under the sun. The weather is now what it was in 1912, give or take a few years.

  324. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Except causality is the other way around”

    Please explain how shifting the jets cools the stratosphere.

    And what makes the jets shift in the first place.

    They don’t explain it yet at the same time they concede that O3 chemistry (amongst other things) can do it from above.

    In fact they explicitly exclude matters of atmospheric chemistry from their paper so how could they safely come to such a conclusion ?

    The only thing that will shift the jets poleward is warming from below (at the equator) or cooling from above (at the poles) or a combination of the two and either way one has to change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles to allow such latitudinal shifting.

  325. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 8:31 am
    And what makes the jets shift in the first place.
    Global warming would do nicely.

  326. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Global warming would do nicely.”

    So why are the jets now becoming more meridional / shifting equatorward again despite continuing increases in CO2 ?

    Am I to take it that you are of the belief that human CO2 emissions were indeed the cause of warming and the poleward shift?

    If so, how would you explain the latitudinal shifting from MWP to LIA and LIA to date ?

  327. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 10:47 am
    “Global warming would do nicely.”
    So why are the jets now becoming more meridional / shifting equatorward again

    If [for some reason] the sun would become significantly brighter and the Earth would heat up [by a lot, sat 10C] I think you would not dispute that the tropical belt would become wider. So, global temperature and width of the tropical belt go together. Since global warming has not occurred the past 10 year or there may even be a slight cooling, it stands to reason that the belt would no longer be moving polewards and might even retreat again.

    despite continuing increases in CO2 ?
    Who said CO2 has anything to do with this? This is the major flaw in your argument.

    If so, how would you explain the latitudinal shifting from MWP to LIA and LIA to date ?
    Global temperature changes all the time and the climate zones shift accordingly. What is so hard to understand about that?

  328. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif said:

    “So, global temperature and width of the tropical belt go together. Since global warming has not occurred the past 10 year or there may even be a slight cooling, it stands to reason that the belt would no longer be moving polewards and might even retreat again”

    Yes, absolutely and I see that you acknowledge that it isn’t a CO2 issue and you acknowledge that global temperatures change all the time and the climate zones shift accordingly.

    But the point is that the stratosphere cools when the temperature rises and the equatorial belts widen.

    AGW theory says that the stratospheric cooling is a consequence of the CO2 holding energy back in the troposphere which warms at the expense of less energy in the stratosphere which then cools.

    But you don’t support that CO2 scenario, do you, so how do you think that the stratosphere could cool when the troposphere warms ?

    A warmer troposphere should also give a warmer stratosphere especially since you previously said (as per established climatology) that an active sun warms the entire atmospheric column.

    But it doesn’t.

    The stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and now might be warming a little while the sun is less active. Meanwhile the troposphere temperatures go in the opposite direction and the jets are going back equatorward again.

    The only logical answer that I can come up with for that combination of facts is a top down solar effect having opposite thermal effects in the stratosphere as compared to the troposphere.

    Which is now partially substantiated by the recent observations of increasing ozone higher up when the sun is less active. More ozone = warmer.

    I look forward to hearing an alternative equally plausible scenario from you (or anyone else for that matter).

  329. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 11:26 am
    “So, global temperature and width of the tropical belt go together. Since global warming has not occurred the past 10 year or there may even be a slight cooling, it stands to reason that the belt would no longer be moving polewards and might even retreat again”
    Yes, absolutely and I see that you acknowledge that it isn’t a CO2 issue and you acknowledge that global temperatures change all the time and the climate zones shift accordingly.

    Still you have this somewhat backwards. I see that you admit that ozone and UV aren’t issues at all. The tropical belt will widen even if there were no ozone at all simply because the temperature goes up.

  330. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 11:26 am
    “So, global temperature and width of the tropical belt go together. Since global warming has not occurred the past 10 year or there may even be a slight cooling, it stands to reason that the belt would no longer be moving polewards and might even retreat again”
    Yes, absolutely and I see that you acknowledge that it isn’t a CO2 issue and you acknowledge that global temperatures change all the time and the climate zones shift accordingly.

    The tropical belt would widen if the global temperature goes up, even if there were no CO2 and no ozone in the atmosphere at all and no change in the sun either [e.g. if the change of temperature were due to changes in the insulation, in turn due to orbital changes]. It is good to see that you finally agree on this.

    Thus the connection between width of the belt and global temperature is a first order effect that has nothing to with CO2 or UV, everything else are secondary perturbations, that can only be detected by careful numerical analysis, complete with error bars and the rest.

    The cooling/warming of the stratosphere can have many sources, CO2, CLFs, volcanoes, etc.
    Some of those may have a slight effect on the troposphere, for example as speculated by by good friend Kristoffer Rypdal:

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D06115, 14 PP., 2012
    doi:10.1029/2011JD017283

    Global temperature response to radiative forcing: Solar cycle versus volcanic eruptions

    Key Points
    Solar cycle signal in global temperature is no more than 0.02 degrees K
    A 0.2 K periodic signal observed in phase with solar cycle is due to volcanoes
    Volcano cooling in 20th century more than offsets solar activity warming
    K. Rypdal
    Department of Physics and Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    I show that the peak-to-peak amplitude of the global mean surface temperature response to the 11-year cyclic total irradiance forcing is an order of magnitude less than the amplitude of a cyclic component roughly in phase with the solar forcing which has been observed in the temperature record in the period 1959–2004. If this cyclic temperature component were a response to the solar forcing, it would imply the existence of strong amplifying feedbacks which operate exclusively for solar forcing, such as top-down mechanisms responding to the large variability in the ultraviolet part of the solar spectrum. I demonstrate, however, that the apparent cyclic component in the temperature record is dominated by the response to five major volcanic eruptions some of which incidentally took place a few years before solar minimum in four consecutive solar cycles, and hence that the correlation with the solar cycle is coincidental. A temperature rise of approximately 0.15 K over the 20th century ascribed to an increasing trend in solar forcing is more than offset by a cooling trend of about 0.3 K due to stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions.
    —-
    Lots of things to ramble about. But don’t lose track of the primary cause.

  331. Stephen Wilde says:

    “I see that you admit that ozone and UV aren’t issues at all. The tropical belt will widen even if there were no ozone at all simply because the temperature goes up.”

    I made no such ‘admission’.

    Ozone and UV (and possibly other processes affecting ozone) combine to produce the top down effect such that when the sun is more active ozone ,contrary to expectations, actually decreases at higher levels to cool the stratosphere.The temperature inversion in the stratosphere serves to oppose the widening of the tropical belt caused by any surface warming depending on the strength of the inversion.

    Decreasing ozone weakens the inversion and reduces the opposition to expansion of the tropical belts and so allows a poleward drift of the climate zones (cooling the stratosphere has the same effect as warming the surface). We then see more jetstream zonality resulting in less cloudiness and more solar energy reaches the oceans which then warm up leading to an enhancement of El Nino events relative to La Nina.

    So the extra incoming sunlight is a positive feedback from the cooling stratosphere but is offset by the poleward shift because larger equatorial air masses with less clouds radiate faster to space for a negative system response offsetting the initial positive feedback from the solar induced changes.

    Essentially the entire atmosphere reconfigures itself to ensure energy in equals energy out at the top of the atmosphere despite the chemical changes that have occurred as a result of the solar influence.

    To dismiss that scenario you need to explain how the troposphere temperature would otherwise rise. To get the temperature rise in the troposphere before the cooling of the stratosphere you would have to create a warming without any extra sunlight getting into the oceans.

    How would you work that miracle ?

    And you still have to explain how you think the stratosphere could cool whilst the troposphere warms unless there is a top down solar induced effect on ozone quantities given that you don’t subscribe to the AGW explanation involving CO2.

    Don’t we all know that the temperature inversion in the stratosphere is caused by ozone ?

    How do shifting jets in themselves alter the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process?

  332. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Lots of things to ramble about. But don’t lose track of the primary cause”

    The primary cause is solar effects on ozone chemistry. That is then modulated by ocean cycles.

    The shifting jets then alter the rate of energy flow from surface to space so as to maintain system stability.

    Volcanic effects are small and short term and easily cancelled by jetstream shifts as have been the past potentially catastrophic effects of asteroid impacts and widespread volcanism.

    Human CO2 effects are infinitesimal.

    Everything else is of far smaller significance and on balance all the other variables cancel each other out over time.

  333. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    “I see that you admit that ozone and UV aren’t issues at all. The tropical belt will widen even if there were no ozone at all simply because the temperature goes up.”
    I made no such ‘admission’.

    Then we must go slower. Would you admit that even if there were no ozone and no CO2 but the temperature went up, the tropical belt widens? And if the temperature fell [as in a glaciation], that the tropical belt would contract? And that that would not depend on CO2 or UV or Ozone?

  334. Stephen Wilde says:

    Answer my earier questions..

    The temperature will only rise or fall if there is a change in the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans. The changes in TSI are too small to create the observed changes so an amplification factor is required.

    That factor is changing albedo from changing cloudiness and to get changing cloudiness we need to change jetstream behaviour from zonal to meridional or from meridional to zonal and / or change the average latitudinal positioning.

    To do that requires changes in the temperature of the stratosphere relative to that of the troposphere with an associated change in the slope of tropopause height between equator and pole.

    UV and likely other aspects of solar / atmosphere chemistry are involved but I accept that human emitted CO2 would have a similar effect but vanishingly small in comparison.

    Internal opcean variability modulates the process.

    The shifting of the jets and limate zones is simply a negative system response which prevents those energy budget changes from affecting total system energy content. The rate of energy throughput changes instead.

    Am I going too fast for you ?

    I recommend that you start by answering my earlier questions.

    To remind you:

    i) To get the temperature rise in the troposphere before the cooling of the stratosphere you would have to create a warming without any extra sunlight getting into the oceans.
    How would you work that miracle ?

    ii) You still have to explain how you think the stratosphere could cool whilst the troposphere warms unless there is a top down solar induced effect on ozone quantities given that you don’t subscribe to the AGW explanation involving CO2.

    iii) Don’t we all know that the temperature inversion in the stratosphere is caused by ozone ?
    How do shifting jets in themselves alter the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process?

  335. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Would you admit that even if there were no ozone and no CO2 but the temperature went up, the tropical belt widens? And if the temperature fell [as in a glaciation], that the tropical belt would contract? And that that would not depend on CO2 or UV or Ozone?”

    While you think about the answers to my questions I will answer yours.

    If the temperature in the troposphere increases with no change in the temperature of the stratosphere then the tropical belts will widen with no contribution from CO2, UV or Ozone but (apart from internal ocean variability) one does need CO2, UV and Ozone to change the relative temperatures of troposphere and stratosphere. The CO2 changes the energy content of the troposphere (not necessarily temperature because I aver that it all goes to increased latent heat transfer for a faster exit of the extra energy to space)) and the UV / Ozone reactions change the temperature of the stratosphere.

    In practice, subject to the modulating effects of ocean cycles, it is not possible to change the relative temperatures of troposphere and stratosphere significantly without changing TSI (the variations in TSI are too small),) or the strength of the inversion in the stratosphere.

    To change the strength of the inversion in the stratosphere requires changes in ozone concentrations.

    For the switches between glaciations and interglaciations TSI changes via the Milankovitch cycles are sufficient but in the meantime the primary cause of temperature changes is variations in upper atmosphere ozone chemistry altering global cloudiness in the way I have proposed.

  336. HenryP says:

    Henry@Stephen
    I just want to leave you all with one more thought. It looks like the degree of acceleration of warming (positive values for degree C/annum) or cooling (negative values) due to the sun-UV-O2-O3 cycle in itsself does seem to cause peculiar weather patterns, that are possibly predictable. Another exmaple on this: We are now about 17 years on a cooling curve when observed by energy input. But as I said before , I believe/hope that it mirrors the previous warming curve except that the positive has changed to negative. I notice the current July drought in the USA is being compared with the Dust Bowl of 1930. Notice that, as my results seem to suggest, in 1930 we were about 15 years from the change from cooling to warming. But the amount of deceleration of cooling in 1930 before changing to warming in 1945 would have been about the same as the current acceleration into cooling. (If you can follow my thought of a sinus wave like pattern of warming and cooling)

  337. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hi Henry. I agree that your approach is reasonable. A simple sine wave may not be enough though because ever since the LIA each upward curve has become a little higher than the previous one so there is another wave pattern in the background that appears to be linked to solar activity.

    I would say that the sine wave you are seeing is a product of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation whereas the longer term wave is solar in origin.

    My concern is that if the current low level of solar activity continues then applying the shorter term sine wave on its own may be unduly optimistic.

  338. HenryP says:

    Henry@Stephen
    I am bit sceptic about that. You must just remember that automatic recorders of temps. were only introduced in the early 70ties, that is why as a matter of principle I cannot really reliably report on results before that time. These recorders can be set at reading every second and at the end of 24 hours you can get a good daily mean.
    Before that we had to rely on people doing the readings at certain set times, which can change from hour to hour)./
    Obviously you cannot compare those results with those before 1970….Whenever you look at results you have to compare apples with apples. So I am not going to say that I would trust anything reported before automatic temperature recording.I can only talk with some certainty about my own data, and only for the period 1973-2011. Because of the pattern of the acceleration and deceleration of the warming observed here, I will take it back as far 1945 because at rsquare 0.998 I think we can assume that the plot must have been on that route.

  339. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 18, 2012 at 10:36 pm
    If the temperature in the troposphere increases with no change in the temperature of the stratosphere then the tropical belts will widen
    This is going halfway to full admission. Now for the other half: Will you admit that even if there were no stratosphere [no ozone] there would still be tropics and polar regions? That is: the existence of climate zones has nothing to do with ozone, CO2, or a stratosphere, but has as its primary cause the simple fact that the Earth is round.

  340. HenryP says:

    Leif Svalgaard says,
    his paper shows

    Key Points
    Solar cycle signal in global temperature is no more than 0.02 degrees K
    A 0.2 K periodic signal observed in phase with solar cycle is due to volcanoes
    Volcano cooling in 20th century more than offsets solar activity warming
    K. Rypdal
    Department of Physics and Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    I show that the peak-to-peak amplitude of the global mean surface temperature response to the 11-year cyclic total irradiance forcing is an order of magnitude less than the amplitude of a cyclic component roughly in phase with the solar forcing which has been observed in the temperature record in the period 1959–2004

    Henry says,
    This is not possible.First of all, my tables for means show a rise of about 0.7 degrees C from 1974 to 1999 and a decrease of 0. 2 degree C since 2000. If you look at the table Maxima we can conclude FOR SURE that the increases and decreases of global temps. are forced from the top down. If volcanism or CO2 had anything to do with it, it would have been the other way around, i.e. Minima forcing Means up. In addition, if we take the last 12 years as a full solar cycle they are out by a factor of at least 10 x ….

    Also, volcanism does not follow on predictable cooling and warming curves……

    gentlemen, for the last time, it is the sun-UV-O2-O3 cycle that causes the change in maxima and the amount of heat being slammed in the oceans. I picked that up already from my first table pool table.
    I concede that the rise or fall in ozone could also be relatedor due to respectively, the contraction and expansion of the atmosphere itself due to some magnetic or planetary forcings. I cannot comment on that. But I do know the global warming and global cooling periods are due to the rise and fall in ozone. IT IS A COMPLETELY NATURAL PROCESS.

  341. Stephen Wilde says:

    “the existence of climate zones has nothing to do with ozone, CO2, or a stratosphere, but has as its primary cause the simple fact that the Earth is round.”

    But there is a stratosphere and ozone which affects the entire global air circulation such that the presence of the stratosphere with its temperature inversion and changes in the temperature of the stratosphere will influence the range of sizes intensities and positions of the climate zones.

    If there were no stratosphere with its temperature inversion there would still be climate zones but they would be distributed differently.

    The atmospheric circulation and the volume of the atmosphere will always configure itself to cause energy out to equal energy in at the top of the atmosphere.

    If one places a temperature inversion above the layer nearest the surface (the troposphere) then in order to achieve balance at TOA the configuration of the air circulation will be different to that which would be required in the absence of that temperature inversion.

    Furthermore any change in the temperature within that inversion layer (relative to the temperature of the lower layer) will require a different configuration to maintain TOA energy balance.

    So one gets latitudinal climate zone shifting whenever either the troposphere warms or cools relative to the stratosphere or the stratosphere warms or cools relative to the troposphere.

    Now you say that the warming of the troposphere comes first and then the stratosphere cools because of the warming troposphere.I know of no way that can happen unless something blocks the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere. AGW theory claims that CO2 does that but you say you do not accept that so what is your explanation ?

    I do accept it in principle but say that the effect is insignificant compared to oceanic and solar influences.

    The troposphere relies upon solar energy to warm up (if we ignore internal ocean variability for the moment) yet we agree that TSI variations are insufficient. That means the extra energy needs to come in some other way and the only way I can see is by reducing global cloudiness and albedo.

    So you have to reduce cloudiness and albedo BEFORE the troposphere warms up.

    How do you propose to warm the troposphere without a sufficient change in TSI and without reduced albedo first letting more energy into the oceans ?

    Focus on answering my questions.

  342. HenryP says:

    Henry@tallbloke
    (if you still follow this blog)
    would it be possible for planets to come in a line to cause a subsequent contraction in our atmosphere due to gravitational pull and it expands when they move out again? I am thinking about that 45 year cycle, where a few planets come into one line, which is a possible candidate for my 50 year ozone cycle ( I concede that the 50 year is only my estimate from a probable plot. I could easily be a bit out there by a few years)

  343. HenryP says:

    Henry@tallbloke
    (if you still follow this blog)
    would it be possible for planets to come in a line to cause a subsequent contraction in our atmosphere due to gravitational pull and it expands when they move out again? I am thinking about that 45 year cycle, where a few planets come into one line, which is a possible candidate for my 50 year ozone cycle ( I concede that the 50 year is only my estimate from a probable plot. I could easily be a bit out there by a few years

  344. Stephen Wilde says:

    “It is the sun-UV-O2-O3 cycle that causes the change in maxima and the amount of heat being slammed in the oceans”

    Agreed absolutely.

    The ozone changes alter the global albedo by changing jetstream characteristics and the positions of the climate zones.

    Reduced ozone when the sun is active causes a more positive AO, poleward jets, less clouds and more energy into the oceans for net warming.

    Established climatology is going to have to accept that the stratosphere cools naturally when the sun is active and warms naturally when the sun is inactive.

    That is the only way one can get poleward or more zonal jets with an active sun and equatorward more meridional jets with an inactive sun.

    If the sun really did warm the stratosphere when it is more active the opposite would hold true as witness the fact that sudden stratospheric warming events push cold air equatorward.

    The late 20th century cooling stratosphere with more zonal poleward jets has to be a natural solar induced phenomenon acting on ozone quantities so as to influence the behaviour of the polar vortices and through them the entire global air circulation.

  345. HenryP says:
    August 19, 2012 at 9:42 am
    “Solar cycle signal in global temperature is no more than 0.02 degrees K”
    This is not possible. First of all, my tables for means show a rise of about 0.7 degrees…

    Perhaps you might consider that your tables are just your opinion…

    But I do know the global warming and global cooling periods are due to the rise and fall in ozone
    And the cause for ice age glaciations are then also just fall and rise of ozone?

  346. HenryP says:

    Forget about my previous comment. I was confused. I am looking for a complete 100 year cycle.
    I think this guy is right.
    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
    Note in V : 1750-1850-1950, not bad compared to my own observations.
    Note in VI: the graph looks exactly like my graph for the acceleration of warming and cooling (maxima)
    I got it. The cycle I was looking for.
    strange that Leif did not know about this?

  347. Stephen Wilde says:

    “And the cause for ice age glaciations are then also just fall and rise of ozone?”

    No, you have to add the effect of the Milankovitch cycles for that but even so, ozone changes will occur if the Milankovitch cycles also lead to a change in the solar spectral (or particle) mix.

    Anyway, whether it be ozone changes or Milankovitch cycles the configuration of the atmospheric circulation simply changes to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance.

    Hence jets and climate zones much closer to the equator during glaciations which allows the ice to advance from the poles.

  348. Stephen Wilde says:

    Fits the faint sun paradox nicely too. As the sun became gradually more powerful the jets and climate zones shifted poleward and in the process altered the speed of energy throughput so as to maintain top of atmosphere energy balance. Thus the stronger sun had little effect on system energy content.

    System energy content (not the same as surface temperature due to the presence of oceans) being determined by atmospheric pressure at the surface.

    The effect of the sun being to increase or decrease the volume of the atmosphere and the vigour of the circulation within it as per the Ideal Gas Laws rather than altering system energy content.

    No sun and the atmosphere congeals on the surface. Too much sun and the atmosphere boils off to space.

    Insolation controls the volume of an atmosphere and atmospheric mass at any given surface pressure (dependent on strength of gravitational field) sets the system energy content.

    Climate change is just energy redistribution due to a change in flow rates and any effect of human CO2 emissions is vanishingly small.

  349. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 10:01 am
    If there were no stratosphere with its temperature inversion there would still be climate zones
    Good, so we have admission on that point.

    The atmospheric circulation and the volume of the atmosphere will always configure itself to cause energy out to equal energy in at the top of the atmosphere.
    The altitude where there is balance is at about 5 or 6 km

    I know of no way that can happen unless something blocks the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
    Ignorance is not a good reason.
    AGW theory claims that CO2 does that but you say you do not accept that so what is your explanation ?
    CO2 does not warm the surface much, but is obviously important for cooling the stratosphere

    only way I can see is by reducing global cloudiness and albedo.
    So cosmic rays could do this [if you would subscribe to that], without any ozone relevance.

    Now, the climate tropics are defined as where the mean temperature in every month is about 18 C. The width of the tropic ‘belt’ changes by 290 km [or 2.6 degrees of latitude] for each degree C change in global temperature, so since the width has increased by 1.6 degrees the last 40 years, that corresponds to a temperature change of 0.62C which is about right. So, the shift of the jets is quantitatively explained simply by a GW of 0.6 degrees. no ozone needed: the tail does not wag the dog.

  350. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    No, you have to add the effect of the Milankovitch cycles for that but even so, ozone changes will occur if the Milankovitch cycles also lead to a change in the solar spectral (or particle) mix.
    The M cycles obviously do not change the spectral mix.

  351. Stephen Wilde says:

    Henry,

    Leif and many others dismiss the idea of planetary or cosmic effects on the sun as ‘cyclomania’.

    I am unconvinced but open minded.

    However my position is that the stregth of the solar wind and so forth (and the amount of cosmic rays) are simply proxies for the level of solar activity with no necessary causative influence as far as the energy budget is concerned.I think it is the spectral and particle mix that matters for the ozone destruction / creation balance.

    Nevertheless if it could be shown that those factors could alter ozone chemistry and / or stratospheric temperatures from above then my hypothesis could comfortably include them.

    For example a stronger solar wind could bring in more charged particles that affect ozone chemistry one way or another and there is also the possibilty that ozone reactions are not the whole story since other solar / atmosphere reactions could also alter the vertical temperature profile and lead to climate zone shifts.

    That is the direction the science needs to go rather than simply blaming CO2 and stopping further consideration of the causes of climate changes.

  352. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The M cycles obviously do not change the spectral mix.”

    Fine, they don’t need to from my point of view. Just adding TSI changes from the M cycles to such changes in the spectral mix as do occur will be sufficient to trigger glaciations or interglacials at any particular moment.

  353. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    The effect of the sun being to increase or decrease the volume of the atmosphere and the vigour of the circulation within it as per the Ideal Gas Laws rather than altering system energy content.
    No sun and the atmosphere congeals on the surface. Too much sun and the atmosphere boils off to space.

    Those two statements are obviously contradictory.

  354. Stephen Wilde says:

    “So, the shift of the jets is quantitatively explained simply by a GW of 0.6 degrees. no ozone needed: the tail does not wag the dog.”

    Quite right but the jets are the tail and the temperature of the stratosphere relative to the temperature of the troposphere is the dog.

    You cannot warm the troposphere without moving the jets poleward first because only then does cloudiness decrease to let more energy into the oceans.

    It cannot be anything to do with CO2 because CO2 continues to increase but the jets are moving back equatorward whilst the stratosphere has stopped cooling and may be warming a little.

    The observed ozone changes correlate with the shifting jets. Falling ozone whilst the jets moved poleward, recovering ozone with the jets apparently now moving back again.

    Therefore ozone essential.

    Your position seems to be that warming of the surface from CO2 is minimal but that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere.

    Then you say that a warming troposphere caused the jets to move poleward which caused the cooling stratosphere.

    There are two problems with your account:

    i) You say that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere AND the shifting jets cooled the stratosphere. Which is it to be ?

    ii) You say that CO2 doesn’t warm the tropospere much but then you say the troposphere warmed enough to widen the tropical belts. How did the troposphere get enough energy to do that in the absence of more TSI and in the absence of lower albedo from a PRIOR shift in the jets

    Do you not see the logical problems inherent in your position ?

    “The altitude where there is balance is at about 5 or 6 km”

    I’ll reconsider that bit. I don’t see that it matters as to the precise height as long as the whole system is in balance. Whatever happens, the atmospheric circulation reconfigures as necessary to maintain overall balance at whatever height and that height is variable whether it be at top of atmosphere or 5 or 6km.

  355. HenryP says:
    August 19, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    I am looking for a complete 100 year cycle. The cycle I was looking for.
    strange that Leif did not know about this?

    Sure, there is an approximately 100-yr ‘cycle’, as I remark here: Figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
    Other than that, the paper you refer to is just junk.

  356. Stephen Wilde says:

    “Those two statements are obviously contradictory”

    Not so.

    It is the speed of throughput that changes rather than the system energy content.

    Obviously, zero energy input to an atmosphere will cause it to get cold enough to congeal on the surface.

    A sudden blast of energy if strong enough will throw the atmosphere into space instantly.

    Anything in between will allow an atmosphere to be retained in gaseous form as long as there is sufficient gravitational field to hold the molecules close enough to the planet.

    If the solar input then varies, the speed of energy throughput increases or falls giving a larger or smaller volume for the atmosphere but the system energy content (the amount of the solar energy retained within the atmosphere) will depend on atmospheric pressure at the surface.

    Expansion of the atmosphere cools every molecule within the atmosphere so as to keep system energy content stable whilst the speed of throughput increases. Atmospheric pressure at the surface stays the same despite the expansion so the system can hold on to no more and no less of the solar input than it could before the expansion.

    It is a simple application of the Ideal Gas Law where volume can vary freely.

    It is like adding water to a full receptacle although the analogy is not perfect. The overflow will match the input once the receptacle is full. All that will then change is the volume of the overflow.

    .

  357. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm
    Quite right but the jets are the tail and the temperature of the stratosphere relative to the temperature of the troposphere is the dog.
    Both in terms of mass and in terms of energy the troposphere is the mightly dog and the stratosphere the almost invisible tail

    You cannot warm the troposphere without moving the jets poleward first because only then does cloudiness decrease to let more energy into the oceans.
    Of course, you can. The tropic belt is determined by the temperature, not the other way around. You can warm the troposphere in many ways: changed ocean circulation, cosmic rays and clouds [some would say], lack of volcanoes, changes in aerosols, even CO2 [some would say]

    i) You say that the CO2 caused the cooling stratosphere AND the shifting jets cooled the stratosphere. Which is it to be ?
    No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere. And the stratosphere may be recovering due to the Montreal Protocol, e.g. see: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nature/nature04746-Ozone-Recovery-Signe.pdf

    ii) You say that CO2 doesn’t warm the tropospere much but then you say the troposphere warmed enough to widen the tropical belts. How did the troposphere get enough energy to do that in the absence of more TSI and in the absence of lower albedo from a PRIOR shift in the jets
    There is a lot of energy in the climate system [e.g. in the oceans]. Much more than in the stratosphere.

    I’ll reconsider that bit. I don’t see that it matters as to the precise height as long as the whole system is in balance.
    Of course the system [including the oceans and even the sun] is in balance on time scales that matter.

  358. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Expansion of the atmosphere cools every molecule within the atmosphere so as to keep system energy content stable whilst the speed of throughput increases. Atmospheric pressure at the surface stays the same despite the expansion so the system can hold on to no more and no less of the solar input than it could before the expansion.
    The atmosphere does not behave like that. You have cause and effect reversed [again]. It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain. The volume is not allowed to vary freely. Gravity sees to that.

  359. Stephen Wilde says:

    i) “The volume is not allowed to vary freely. Gravity sees to that.”

    Any extra energy added to the atmosphere causes expansion. Once the atmosphere is in balance between energy content and gravity any extra energy will cause expansion proportionate to the amount of extra energy.

    ii) “It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain.

    Expansion results in cooling of each molecue as per the Ideal Gas Law and that cooling offsets the additional energy coming in at the expense of a faster throughput. A particular combination of gravity and mass can only hold on to a specific amount of energy.Any surplus passes straight through for a change in volume and circulation.

    iii) “No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere”

    Well the paper you linked to says they did and you seemed to agree when you said I had cause and effect reversed as against the content of that paper.I am glad you have clarified that. Obviously you agree that the paper’s speculation is wrong.

    iii) “There is a lot of energy in the climate system [e.g. in the oceans]. Much more than in the stratosphere.”

    The ocean cycles are about 60 years long with the thermohaline cycle about 1000 years long but we see climate cycling up for 500 years or so and down for 500 years or so (some say 750 years each way as per the Bond cycles). The 500 year cycling fits solar changes but not ocean cycles.None of the other factors you mention create the observed climate cycling.

    iv) The energy content of the stratosphere as compared to the energy content of the troposphere or oceans is not the relevant factor. Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift in order to maintain energy balance for the system as a whole. The temperature inversion at the tropopause physically prevents further convection despite the much lower density and energy content of the stratosphere. The density and energy content comparisons are straw men.

    Tell me this:

    Why do you think the stratosphere cooled when the tropsphere warmed ?

    And is no longer cooling and may be warming whilst the tropsphere cools ?

    You suggested it might be CO2 but that is already falsified by recent changes because CO2 continues to rise but the stratosphere is no longer cooling.

    You have now accepted that it does not cool as a result of shifting jets but you implied and the paper you linked to said that it did.

    So why did it cool and why is it now not cooling and why did the change in trend occur when the sun became less active ?

    The change in stratosphere temperatures precedes climate zone shifts and for that to be possible requires a top down solar effect.

  360. Stephen Wilde says:

    “It is the temperature of the air that expands it: the hotter the air, the more does the atmosphere expand and the more energy does the air contain.”

    I see your problem there.You are conflating ‘the air’ with ‘the atmosphere’.

    You understood the concept when you told me about the thermosphere. You said that individual molecules in the thermosphere were very hot but due to the low density the energy content of the thermosphere is actually low as compared to lower levels.

    Now apply that principle to the entire atmosphere.

    Additional energy coming in from the sun will raise the temperature of individual molecules but, because the density reduces, a given volume of space occupied by a smaller number of hotter molecules contains no more energy than before.

    So you get a bigger atmosphere but the same energy content for each unit of volume which should leave the temperature of the air at the surface unchanged should it not ?

  361. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    Any extra energy added to the atmosphere causes expansion.
    Any extra energy causes the atmosphere to heat up.

    iii) “No, the shifting jets do not cool the stratosphere”
    Well the paper you linked to says they did
    No, the paper [co-authored by my daughter-in-law Signe] said that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics [waves] influence ozone.

    The ocean cycles are …
    There are no agreement on what the cycles are.

    Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift
    Not at all, that is where you go off the rail.

    Why do you think the stratosphere cooled when the tropsphere warmed ?
    asked and answered.

    And is no longer cooling and may be warming whilst the tropsphere cools ?
    ditto

    You have now accepted that it does not cool as a result of shifting jets but you implied and the paper you linked to said that it did.
    Not at all. The Fu and Lin paper said:
    “Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of the poleward shift of subtropical jets and its relation to TLS. The tropopause on the equatorial and poleward side of the jet is at 100-and 250-hPa levels, respectively (Fig. 1a), corresponding to a low and a high tropopause temperature and thus a low and a high temperature in the lower stratosphere (Fig. 1b). Therefore, when the jet moves poleward (Fig. 1a), the latitudinal dependence of the lower-stratospheric temperature would shift poleward (Fig. 1b), which leads to a drop of the lower-stratospheric temperature near the jet latitudes”

    So why did it cool and why is it now not cooling and why did the change in trend occur when the sun became less active ?
    Asked and answered.

  362. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    You understood the concept when you told me about the thermosphere….
    given volume of space occupied by a smaller number of hotter molecules

    But you have apparently lost it when you said:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    Expansion results in cooling of each molecule

  363. Stephen Wilde says:

    i)”No, the paper [co-authored by my daughter-in-law Signe] said that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics [waves] influence ozone.”

    The conventional view is that ozone is primarily created and destroyed by competing and varying reactions in the upper atmosphere involving solar irradiation of atmospheric molecules.

    Obviously,temperature changes and circulation changes including atmospheriic waves have an effect but I remain to be convinced that it is primarily a bottom up process.There are many papers supportive of a top down effect and in the light of the known solar induced ozone reactions I remain doubtful that you have the full story in that paper especially since the paper concedes that it does not address upper atmosphere chemistry.

    I note that you refer to this comment in the paper:

    “which leads to a drop of the lower-stratospheric temperature near the jet latitudes”

    which rather begs the question as to why there was a general cooling of the stratosphere rather than simply a cooling in the region of the jet latitudes.

    It would seem that you have not answered my question.

    ii) “Expansion results in cooling of each molecule”

    I concede that point. The individual molecules warm up but the amount of energy per unit of volume remains the same. I think I should abandon the assertion that system energy content remains the same when the atmosphere expands since it is only the energy per unit of volume that stays the same. However when one considers the oceans as a driver of air temperatures and the dependence of the ocean energy content on atmospheric pressure at the surface the change in energy content of the atmosphere may not be significant.

    iii) “Anything that changes the relative temperatures between troposphere and stratosphere will require a climate zone shift”
    “Not at all, that is where you go off the rail.”

    We will have to continue to disagree on that point .If solar variations were to change ozone quantities in the stratosphere especially above the poles then that would lead to a climate zone shift. The issue between us seems to be whether the sun can do that or whether the observed changes are solely generated from bottom up.

    You have given me a few pointers as to how to improve my narrative but have not yet convinced me that the fundamentals are wrong.

    We should leave it there until I see whether future data confirms or rebuts either of our positions.

    Thank you for engaging with me.

  364. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    So you get a bigger atmosphere but the same energy content for each unit of volume which should leave the temperature of the air at the surface unchanged should it not ?
    Does not make any sense. The air at the surface is heated from below and what is in the thermosphere has nothing to do with the surface. And temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is. Time to end the physics lesson.

  365. Stephen Wilde says:

    Leif said:

    “But you have apparently lost it when you said:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    Expansion results in cooling of each molecule”

    Not so. My 2.43 post corrects that 2.20 post.You give the impression that the timing was the other way around.

    Anyway, there is enough to think about.

  366. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The air at the surface is heated from below ”

    Of course it is but the temperature it achieves will be affected by the rate at which energy is transported upwards.

    “And temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is.”

    Lower density results in faster upward energy transfer and will therefore affect the temperature that can be achieved.

    “Time to end the physics lesson.”

    Noted. Good day.

  367. Entropic man says:

    Thank you , Mr Archibald.
    It is a pleasure to see testable predictions on a climate change related topic from a sceptic source. So many of the people on WUWT take a purely negative approach.
    I look forward to an unusual luxury in a climate debate plagued by arguments about the quality of data; clear measurements of solar output demonstrating or falsifying a cooling trend, something we stand a chance of agreeing on.

    Roll on 2015 and a chance to see how it turns out.

    Readers might be interested in NASA’s measurements of solar output and the 0.05% per decade warming trend from 1979 to 2003. If their satellite sensors are sensitive enough to detect this, a downward trend in output this cycle should show up clearly.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

  368. Stephen Wilde says:

    Whoops.

    The temperature of the air must rise to cause expansion because it is the vibrational energy from the higher temperature that forces the molecules apart.

    I don’t know how I went off on the wrong tangent there because I’ve previously always included a rise in insolation (either from increased TSI or reduced albedo) as one of the factors that is capable of warming the system.

    In the case of other influences such as more CO2 it is necessary for the circulation changes to prevent an expansion of the atmosphere by speeding up the throughput of energy instead.

    Sorry on that point Leif.

    I’d still like to know how you think the whole stratosphere (and apparently the mesosphere) could cool whilst the troposphere warms when the shift of the jets apparently only involves a cooling of the lower stratosphere temperature near the jet latitudes.

    It can’t be CO2 because CO2 is still rising whilst the stratosphere is no longer cooling.

    Simply saying that temperatures and atmospheric dynamics influence ozone doesn’t appear to be sufficient given that we know that ozone quantities do respond to solar spectrum variations.

  369. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 7:22 pm
    It can’t be CO2 because CO2 is still rising whilst the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
    Read Signe’s article. Consider that CO2 is cooling, but the Stratosphere is recovering from CLFs and warming faster than the CO2 is cooling it. None of this can be discussed with hand waving or ‘it stands to reason’, etc. Only numbers, error bars, more observations, and real science can bring some clarity to this.
    I’m tired of this. It is like building a sand castle on the beach when the tide is coming in.

  370. Stephen Wilde says:

    I know that that is one possibility but the timing is wrong.The change in trend started in the late 90s when the sun became less active and the change in temperature trend in the stratosphere also correlates with a change in jet behaviour, a change in the cloudiness trend and a cessation of tropospheric warming.

    If you are going to say all that is a result of CLF recovery then we have a remarkable substance that can control climate pretty much all on its own.

    In fact we should produce more CLFs to counter the long term effects of CO2.

    What is the evidence (numbers, error bars, observations and real science) that it is the recovery from CLFs and not changes in the solar effects on ozone in the upper atmosphere ?

    Sorry if you are getting tired, so am I but that is theinevitable given the nature of the problem.

    You said this previously:

    “temperature is not ‘energy per unit of volume’ but the average speed of the molecules no matter what the density is.”

    What is the temperature of 1 cubic metre of empty space containing a single molecule vibrating at 100C ?

    Does it change if you have 10 such molecules ?

    What happens to that temperature if you have 9 such molecules instead of 10 such molecules ?

    At what density of molecules does such a concept of temperature cease to be useful ?

  371. Stephen Wilde says:
    August 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    I know that that is one possibility but the timing is wrong.The change in trend started in the late 90s
    See Figure 1 of Signe’s Nature article.

    If you are going to say all that is a result of CLF recovery then we have a remarkable substance that can control climate pretty much all on its own.
    Isn’t that what you claim of O3?

    What is the evidence (numbers, error bars, observations and real science) that it is the recovery from CLFs and not changes in the solar effects on ozone in the upper atmosphere ?
    Lots of papers on that. Go google yourself.

    Sorry if you are getting tired, so am I but that is theinevitable given the nature of the problem.
    Not of the problem, but of the tiresome people.

    At what density of molecules does such a concept of temperature cease to be useful ?
    most of those questions were rather meaningless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature has what you need. Temperature is a measure of the mean energy of motion, called kinetic energy, of the particles. So is a statistical measure. The mean energy per particle over an ensemble [either spatially or temporally] of particles is E = 3/2 k T where k is Boltzmann’s constant. This does not depend on the density. For the temperature to be well-defined there must be enough particles that the mean is well-defined. You can define a temperature of only one particle if you take a mean over time, but now we are getting into esoterics.

  372. Stephen Wilde says:

    Signe’s 2006 article is suitably cautious.

    The unknowns concerning solar effects are fairly expressed.

    We shall have to wait and see.

  373. HenryP says:

    Well, to me this is no junk:
    By William Arnold:
    “A Secondary Sunspot Cycle and Weather Cycle, max spots followed by min spots and max flood followed by min flood, as per the Slurzberg and Osterheld diagram of an a-c wave, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a predicted minimum at 1990″ (He wrote this in 1985, so the 1990 was his estimate).”

    Henry says
    It compares well with my wave for the change in maxima in degrees C/annum against time, which turned negative in 1995 (=turned from warming to cooling) and where I can estimate that it also changed sign in 1945, more or less, from cooling to warming. Assuming my 50 year cycle was right then I can further estimate that my whole cycle started in 1895. In all 3 cases me and Arnold differ by only 5 years!

    Obviously I cannot confirm his assertion in that paper that the planets have a pull on the sun,
    initiating solar spots etc. and/or changing solar activity. I leave that to the experts and Leif to sort out.
    But the 100 year cycle that I was looking for is clearly there!!! I am quite elated about that.

    So the Nile flood measurements and suncycle spots in tandem clearly established the proof that I was looking for.

    I think you guys still don’t get it as to how the mechanism works.
    On my first data set I wrote, a long time ago:
    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.

    The only possible explanation for the fall in maxima and global temps. must be that the particular prevalent sun cycle activity affects the ozone production. There is now more ozone from 1996 (and we have already established this as fact) and it will still carry on increasing. More ozone causes less of <0.3 um radiation to come through the atmosphere because if there is more ozone, more of the <0.3 light is back radiated to outer space. However, whatever the ozone content, it does not change the temperatures in the top layers of the atmosphere. The gases in the atmosphere are all completely transparent to <0.3 um (I think). But the moment the <0.3 um light falls on water it is absorbed there and tranformed to heat, mostly. So, from that point of view, the change in ozone in the upper atmosphere has a bottoms up effect, from the seas, which will get warmer if ozone concentration is lower and which will cool down when ozone is creeping up higher.

  374. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    David Archibald is one of my favorite scientists on the planet. He has continued to find original takes on the climate puzzle typically relating to the Solar effects. He has gone out on a limb to call for a significant temperature fall during Solar cycle 24. Part of the prediction is that this current cycle is expected to be cooling and long which go together. The average cycle length of 11.2 years gets stretched when the cycle is weak. Cycle 23 which was about 13 years led to the current cooler cycle. A 17 year cycle should be really cold if all turns out as expected. All the global warming crowd is aware of the trend and the current climate numbers and have become desparate to implement all their pet projects before the world wakes up to a continuing cold period. It would be like trying to sell a ticket to the 7th game of the world series the day after the event. The odds are not too great.- Kirt

  375. Spector says:

    Although two respected members here have expressed a healthy skepticism, I think it is important to understand what Dr. Svensmark is saying. It is not that cosmic radiation in an effect promoting cloud formation, it is that cosmic radiation is *the* effect that allows the condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere, at least in the absence of other abnormal condensation nuclei and perhaps only in the lower atmosphere where temperatures are above freezing. I believe he is saying that cosmic rays make the difference between a climate that grows palm trees in Antarctica and one that puts mile-deep ice over New York City. The Milankovitch cycles are reduced to a side effect.

    The best way to falsify or verify his theory is to measure the *absolute* humidity required for condensation with ‘clean’ air in an underground radiation-free chamber. As far as I can tell, measurements like this at CERN seem to have qualitatively confirmed his theory by demonstrating that pulsed radiation can turn condensation on and off.

    If this theory is correct, I believe that the primary cooling effect of cosmic radiation is due to increased convection as each cloud is the top of an extended convection cell. This condensation promotes the transfer of heat evaporated from the ground directly to the atmosphere. Without condensation, water vapor would be just like CO2.

    The latest data from the Oulu site indicates that cosmic cooling this solar cycle may be bottoming out with a cosmic ray neutron count around 6200 counts/min. Going back, previous bottoms (minimum cooling) appear to be about 5800, 5400, 5600, and 5800 counts/min. It looks like the previous peaks (maximum cooling) were, going back, 6800, 6500, 6400, and 6500 counts/min.

    Ref: Cosmic Ray Station of the University of Oulu
    Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Finland)

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=03&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    Another source of cosmic ray data is the Climax Neutron Monitor from the University of New Hampshire. The data from this site runs from 1951 to 2006. the formula:
    6136+(Climax-3998)*1.365509 seems to match the Oulu data.

    Huge Data File:
    ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt

    It is important to note: While the lower clouds appear to be dancing to the cosmic tune, it may take decades for the temperature to respond due to terrestrial thermal inertia. Also, on a day to day basis, seasonal effects appear to predominate over solar-cosmic cloud modulation effects.

  376. Stephen Wilde says:

    Spector, the atmosphere is loaded with suitable condensation nuclei already.

    I think the changes in cosmic ray quantities are simply a proxy for solar variations with no significant causative effects as regards cloud quantities.

    One has to look to changes in stratospheric temperatures to produce the various patterns of climate change that we observe.

  377. HenryP says:

    Spector says
    Huge Data File:
    ftp://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/DailyAverages.1951-.txt

    It is important to note: While the lower clouds appear to be dancing to the cosmic tune, it may take decades for the temperature to respond due to terrestrial thermal inertia. Also, on a day to day basis, seasonal effects appear to predominate over solar-cosmic cloud modulation effects

    Henry says
    I had a look at those data and there does not seem to be a correlation with the acceleration /deceleration of warming
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
    sorry.

  378. Spector says:

    RE: Stephen Wilde: (August 24, 2012 at 10:20 am)

    Spector, the atmosphere is loaded with suitable condensation nuclei already.

    You may be right. Mutual causation of a phenomena is less complicated than a chained effect.

    However, in my state of ignorance, I am not sure that an initial load of condensation nuclei would be sufficient to support a continuous condensation process. Cosmic nuclei are being continually refreshed at rates in thousands of counts per minute.

    Svensmark et al are claiming that warm periods in our past climate can be correlated with the solar system passing through the blank space between galactic arms where cosmic radiation is quite low and that cold periods can be correlated with passage through galactic arms where cosmic radiation has been shown to be quite high due to the multiple supernovae occurring in that region. He is saying this indicates that cosmic rays are required for the rate of cloud formation we see. Of course, there might be some other reason for this apparent correlation.

    As stated before, I think the best way to verify or falsify this concept would be to measure the absolute humidities required for continuous condensation in clean air and in a cosmic radiation free (shielded) environment.

    I do believe that clouds usually indicate that thermal convection is in progress and thus are indicative of the rate of convective cooling.

    Of course, the need for condensation nuclei presumes that the spontaneous creation rate of H4O2 linked water molecules is always equal to their rate of destruction by evaporation when colliding with other molecules.

  379. Spector says:

    RE: HenryP: (August 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm)
    Henry says
    I had a look at those data and there does not seem to be a correlation with the acceleration /deceleration of warming

    Over the time period that this data is available, temperature correlation seems inconclusive, but there does appear to be an increasing cooling trend since 1990 with the highest peak cooling over the whole period in 2010 based on Oulu data. Just as seasonal variations in cloud cover mask, to some extent, the cloud cover correlation, I suspect that terrestrial climate cycles, PDO, etc. may mask cosmic temperature derivative effects over this short interval. I have regarded the graphic showing the close connection with low cloud cover to be the most convincing evidence of the Svensmark effect. The reported strong Galactic correlation seems to indicate that cosmic rays may be *required* for most low cloud formation. The effect may only apply in air where water would condense in liquid form–colder air might be self-condensing.

    http://www.androidworld.com/Clouds_CosmicRays.jpg

    Source(ScienceBits): http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    Oulu data from April 1964 to date can be downloaded from this site. Select a text app to receive data from the *.dat data file if you select that option. I do not recommend saving as a *.dat file because windows uses this extension for files containing system configuration information.

    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

  380. Spector says:
    August 25, 2012 at 9:44 am
    I have regarded the graphic showing the close connection with low cloud cover to be the most convincing evidence of the Svensmark effect.
    Except that [as usual] the correlation breaks down just after it was ‘discovered’ [red vertical line]:
    http://www.leif.org/research/GCR-Temp-Falsification.png
    Figure 2 from http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/assets/pdfs/Relationship%20of%20Lower-Troposphere%20Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays_%20An%20Updated%20Perspective.pdf
    So no ‘convincing evidence’.

  381. Spector says:

    RE: Svensmark
    I have not found a cloud cover data set that matches the Svensmark graph. They all seem to show a steadily declining trend after about 1993. Such a trend might indicate a transition to more variable weather–hot days–cold nights. I think Svensmark is going to need a more knowledgeable person than myself to defend his theory. If it is bogus, that should be exposed here.

    His concept would seem to indicate that cosmic rays are required for water vapor condensation in the lower atmosphere to have the strong Galactic effect he claims. If the effect were limited to liquid condensation then the definition of ‘low clouds’ might be critical.

  382. Spector says:
    August 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    If it is bogus, that should be exposed here.
    It is not ‘bogus’, and it could have been true, but the data simply does not any longer support it. For many people it doesn’t matter that the data doesn’t fit, they will just postulate some special circumstance, or variable that has not been considered, or the like.

  383. Spector says:

    So, it’s beginning to look like “Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot” instead of heralding a new understanding of the condensation process, may have been the last convulsive kick of a horse long dead. His correlation of warm and cold periods with the Earth’s position in the Galaxy might be correct, but cosmic ray modulation of clouds would not be the cause. If such theories appear obviously invalid, it’s best to discard or set them aside in short order.

    I think we should know more about how water condenses especially in the absence of other particles. If Kirk Sorensen can draw a pie chart showing the probability that a neutron will be absorbed by a thorium nucleus, it should be possible to draw such charts showing the probability that two colliding water molecules will fuse to form H4O2 and the probability that they would emit an odd photon in the process.

  384. NotSoSmartWeasel says:

    Mr Archibald, can you describe how you make correlation plot between sun spots and SLR? I’m interested in source data and methods.

Comments are closed.