F10.7 Flux, Sea Level and the Holocene

Guest post by David Archibald

George Orwell said,” He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” Some amongst us have used that as an instruction manual and have attempted to create confusion about the sunspot number record. We can sidestep all that by using the F10.7 flux which can’t be fiddled with and adjusted. The F10.7 instrument record goes back to 1948:

clip_image002

It has been previously derived that the break-over between sea level rising and falling is a sunspot number of 40: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/ A sunspot number of 40 equates to a F10.7 flux of 100.

WUWT recently alerted us to the existence of Usoskin’s 2010 paper on solar activity during the Holocene, available here: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

Usoskin’s paper contains a lot of useful information that allows us to backtest the relationship between solar activity and sea level. For example, consider that if the average sunspot number over the Holocene had been above or below 40 over the Holocene, then sea level would have risen or fallen over the Holocene according to my theory. His Figure 18 provides the answer:

clip_image004

Figure 18 shows that the average sunspot number over the Holocene was very near 40. We can also tie sea level events over the Holocene to the detail in Usoskin’s Figure 17:

clip_image006

The figure above is the last six thousand years of sunspot number. It is evident the average sunspot number was higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. Sea level therefore should have been higher prior to 0 BC and lower since. That is confirmed by a 2007 paper on Holocene sea level variability: http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcuprd_054910.pdf

From the abstract,”the Holocene sea-level highstand of +1.0 – 1.5 m was reached ~ 7000 cal yr BP and fell to its present position after 2000 yr BP.” Low sunspot periods from Usoskin’s Figure 17 are evident in the sea level record. Further from that abstract,”During this ~ 5000 year period of high sea level, growth hiatuses in oyster beds and tubeworms and lower elevations of microatolls are interpreted to represent short-lived oscillations in sea-level of up to 1 m during two intervals, beginning c.4800 and 3000 cal yr BP. The rates of sea-level rise and fall (1-2 mm yr) during these centennial scale oscillations are comparable with current rates of sea-level rise.” On Usoskin’s Figure 17, the 4,800 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 2,800 BC and the 3,000 BP date corresponds to the low sunspot period at 800 BC.

The Usoskin paper contains another instructive figure, his Figure 13 of an example of a reconstruction of the heliospheric magnetic field at Earth orbit for the last 600 years:

clip_image008

The benign period of the second half of the 20th Century is associated with a far more active Sun. The cold periods are associated with a heliospheric magnetic field of under 2 nT. How does that compare with the modern instrument record? The following figure shows that the recent range of the magnetic field equates to that of the first half of the 20th Century:

clip_image010

Now back to the F10.7 flux and sea level. Based on the length of Solar Cycle 24 derived from Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram and Livingston and Penn’s prediction of peak Solar Cycle 25 sunspot amplitude of 7, we can predict the general form of the F10.7 flux to 2040:

clip_image012

I have come to the conclusion that a F10.7 Flux of 100 is the breakover between heating and cooling on Earth. It explains most things to me. My best guess on that at this point is January 2015, following which, two decades of cooling will ensue.

About these ads

163 thoughts on “F10.7 Flux, Sea Level and the Holocene

  1. The irony in this prediction is should it come true you know the doomsday cultists will claim it as they predicted it and it proves global warming… because after all nature can only cool the planet and man can only warm it.

  2. Amazing how many things can be wrong with such a short post [illustrates the danger of but a little knowledge]. We have already discussed that splicing the [wrong] group sunspot number onto to cosmic ray record creates the illusion of ‘greatest solar activity’ in many thousands of year. BTW the F10.7 value for SSN = 40 is 90, not 100 [this is a minor point]. The extrapolation of Altrock’s data to a solar cycle length of 17 years is to flimsy to take seriously. And the plot of the heliospheric magnetic field is based on flawed reconstruction of cosmic ray intensity from the 1930s and 1940s. Slide 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2010.pdf shows a correct reconstruction [on which there is now general agreement] of HMF.

  3. Interesting thoughts. This seems like a rehash of previous thoughts, with just a bit more information. This idea is what really tweaked my interest in looking more carefully at weather and climate and lead to my beginnings of skepticism of AGW. As others have said before, ‘it could get interesting’. Countries could be scrambling to deal with the repercussions. The need for more food and energy for heating would make the current effort to deal with the nice gentle warming look like child’s play.

  4. An easily testable hypothesis. Too bad it will take 10 years to even start to have the data, but that’s the nature of the thing being tested.

  5. “Livingston and Penn’s prediction of peak Solar Cycle 25 sunspot amplitude of 7, we can predict…”

    Is there a zero missing off the end of this prediction?

    REPLY: In this paper: http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf,

    Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.

    -Anthony

  6. I am a sceptic, but can someone explain to me how anyone knows how many sunspots there were 2000, or even 500 years ago?
    Was someone counting them and making notes that are still available?

  7. Todd says:
    September 15, 2012 at 8:47 am
    An easily testable hypothesis. Too bad it will take 10 years to even start to have the data, but that’s the nature of the thing being tested.
    Since it fails for the past, the test has already been done.

  8. The prediction may be right and it may not. We’ll see. Unfortunately, it seems we typically use some form of linear extrapolation. Linear approximations don’t handle chaotic systems very well, except perhaps for short periods of time. We see some regular cycles in solar behavior, however, the underlying drivers of the changes in these cycles may be chaotic, and hence, we don’t know which direction changes will go, or the magnitude of the cycles.

    Based on the figures shown above, it seems reasonble that the Sun will continue to behave in more or less the same way for thousands of years into the future. However, we know Ice Age cycles exist, and inter-glacials are relatively short periods of high temperatures. When will the system tip back into the ice-growing phase? Do sunspots and the Sun’s magnetic field simply go into hibernation? Does that shutdown happen quickly?

    I like predictions, but I won’t bet the farm on them. I think it makes more sense to know what the range of likely natural change may be and then be prepared to adapt to what comes. In our case, higher or lower temperatures, higher or lower sea levels.

    Energy is always going to be the key to our future survival because the abundance of energy can make difficult tasks much easier to accomplish, and the lack of energy will make things we take for granted very difficult. We can use that gauge to predict the stability of the human population and our quality of life with more certainty that the sunspot number.

    We can’t predict the political future, the impact propaganda may have, and the choices our fellow citizens will make. That’s why it is vital for political decisions to affect only subpopulations, since politics can be a very strong destabilizing force (when choices are made for the short-term benefit a few at the expense of the rest). If bad decisions are made on a world-wide scale, it would be disaster for mankind. Decisions made in the free market affect individuals and companies, and don’t threaten civilization. Never, ever allow one-world government until we have large populations living on other planets.

  9. I fully support the assertion that sea level will fall if the sunspot cycle falls below 40. Based on observations both solar and earth based, however, it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which is significantly different than a slow down in the solar magnetic cycle.

    If I understand the fundamental mechanism (what is causing what is observed) and its effects on the planet we are going to experience a Heinrich event. There will (if my understanding of the fundamental mechanism is correct) be a significant increase in volcanic eruptions, a significant increase in earthquakes, a drop in sea level, a gradual though significant cooling of the planet, until the solar magnetic cycle restarts. The last Heinrich event was the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.

    http://geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/courses/International%20Field%20Studies/Sea%20level.pdf

    “… the pre-Last Glacial Maximum (pre-LGM) is characterized by substantial fluctuations in sea level of 10 to 15 m about every 6000 years. The timing of these rapid change events during oxygen isotope stage 3 (OIS-3) apparently coincides with Heinrich ice-rafting events recorded in North Atlantic sediments (61), which suggest that they reflect major ice discharges from continent-based or shelf grounded ice sheets (62). Of note is that sea level falls during this period occur in similarly short time intervals and the ice accumulation also appears to have been a rapid process (39).

    Lightning Alaska’s Redoubt Volcano

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/photogalleries/volcano-lightning-pictures/

    April 14, 2009–Lightning, which often accompanies large eruptions, illuminates a giant ash cloud from Alaska’s Redoubt Volcano, southwest of Anchorage, in a March 28 picture by an amateur astronomer. (See daytime pictures of the Redoubt Volcano eruption.)

    “We don’t always get lightning [when a volcano erupts],” said Steve McNutt, research professor of volcano seismology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who was involved in the project. “And that’s one of the things we’re trying to figure out.”

    Volcanic eruptions and solar activity” by Richard Stothers

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989JGR….9417371S

    The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980 is subjected to detailed time series analysis. In two weak but probably statistically significant periodicities of about 11 and 80 yr, the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland reveals several very long periods ranging from about 80 to about 350 yr which are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and C-14 records. Solar flares may cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which affect volcanism. (My comment. This mechanism guess is not correct.)

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.full#otherarticles

    Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony. Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system. (William, the authors of this paper are confusing the dog with the tail.)

  10. “Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.”

    Thanks Anthony. Looking at the figure, I wonder if the typo is L&P’s. It looks more like 17 than 7.

  11. Hoser says:
    September 15, 2012 at 8:59 am
    However, we know Ice Age cycles exist, and inter-glacials are relatively short periods of high temperatures. When will the system tip back into the ice-growing phase? Do sunspots and the Sun’s magnetic field simply go into hibernation? Does that shutdown happen quickly?
    Glaciations are due to changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth [cause by gravitational perturbations mainly by Jupiter] and have nothing to do with the Sun and its activity.

  12. Don’t you think that the theory of Livingston & Penn should be verified with the data from the past ? Because 7 SSN is very very low.

  13. To Davis Archibald: David, we are about to issue a new paper: “Five forcing
    mechanisms govern 10,000 years of climate change”. These forcings are all
    macro-forcings, whereas the Sun’s output variation is only a micro-forcing…..
    We have a pre-announcement of the paper available with details on the subject,
    I would send it knowing to where….
    JS

  14. William says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:00 am
    I fully support the assertion that sea level will fall if the sunspot cycle falls below 40. Based on observations both solar and earth based, however, it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which is significantly different than a slow down in the solar magnetic cycle.
    Explain what you mean by the magic word ‘interrupted’.

  15. To make this work we need to get more solar energy into the oceans when the sun is active and less solar energy into the oceans when the sun is inactive.

    More solar energy getting in causes thermal expansion, sea level rises and, yes, more outgassing of CO2 from the sunnier oceanic regions beneath expanded subtropical high pressure cells.

    That requires albedo changes via cloudiness variations because the raw TSI changes are insufficient.

    Which all links back to the various papers that suggest a top down solar effect on the global air circulation so as to cause global cloudiness variations by expanding or contracting the polar vortices.

    Relatively straight zonal jetstreams when the polar vortices are contracted (positive AO and AAO) gives less clouds globally than bendy meridional jetstreams waving about latitudinally when the polar vortices are expanded (negative AO and AAO).

    A lot of observed phenomena fit into such a scenario very neatly.

  16. How is it that the sunspot number is given for a period of thousands of years? I thought it had only been measured for a couple of hundred years.

    REPLY: Proxy reconstruction using C14/Be10 isotopes – Anthony

  17. The Usoskin paper contains another instructive figure, his Figure 13 of an example of a reconstruction of the heliospheric magnetic field at Earth orbit for the last 600 years:
    McCracken did good work, his data is not questioned, it is just that data values are not primarily determined by the HMF, but number of other factors, among which local precipitations and the Icelandic and Kamchatka volcanic gasses are possibly major factors. I wouldn’t consider that figure particularly instructive or useful; here are some further aspects not considered elsewhere:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm

    However all this is academic unless a solid link between the solar activity and one of the 3-4 critical climatic factors is firmly established as valid at least during the instrumental period.

  18. (William, the authors of this paper are confusing the dog with the tail.)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I presume this last sentence is a mod comment that hasn’t been identified as such?

  19. The latest NASA solar cycle 24 ‘prediction’ has now been added to the list of predictions versus date predicted:

    01/2004- min 1/07, 160 pk
    01/2005- min 1/07, 145 pk 2010
    01/2006- min 1/07, 145 pk, 2010
    01/2007- min 6/07, 145 pk, 2010
    03/2008- min 6/08, 130 pk, 2011.5
    01/2009- min 1/09, 105 pk, 2012
    04/2009- min 4/09, 104 pk, 2013
    05/2009- min 5/09, 90 pk, 2013.5
    11/2009- min 5/09, <50 pk, 20??
    04/2010- min 12/08, 70 pk, 2013.5
    06/2010- min 12/08, 65 pk, 2013.5
    10/2010- min 12/08, 64 pk, 2013.5
    12/2010- min 12/08, 64 pk, 2013.5
    04/2011- min 12/08, 62 pk, 2013.5
    12/2011- min 12/08, 99 pk, 2013.2
    03/2012- min 12/08, 59 pk, 2013.2
    05/2012- min 12/08, 60 pk, 2013.2
    06/2012- min 05/08, 60 pk, 2013.4
    08/2012- min 05/08, 60 pk, 2013.4
    09/2012- min 05/08, 76 pk, 2013.9

    The science is settled…

  20. vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:48 am
    McCracken did good work, his data is not questioned,
    They are very much questioned. His main problem is the splicing of the ion-chamber measurements of the 1930s-1950s to the neutron monitor measurements 1950s-now.

    chris y says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:56 am
    The latest NASA solar cycle 24 ‘prediction’ has now been added to the list of predictions versus date predicted: …
    09/2012- min 05/08, 76 pk, 2013.9
    The science is settled…

    First of all, this is not NASA’s prediction, but David Hathaway’s own private prediction and, indeed, it seems that he is settling on our prediction issued back in 2004: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf of
    ” a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years”.

  21. Other considerations, such as what is contained in the plasma stream (solar eruptions with varying elemental properties emanating from its depth over time) heading our direction may have significant importance. The 10.7GHz wavelength is just that, and not an indication of the matter arriving at our bow shock. The Van Allen belts rise and fall with a variety of particle matter and under varying conditions!

  22. tallbloke says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:09 am
    Nice consensus you’ve got coming together there Leif.
    Funny how they never show up to speak for themselves.
    Maybe because we’d see the bruises. :-)

    They do show up: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L
    Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications
    Authors: Lockwood, M.; Owens, M. J.:
    “Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux.”

    There is still debate about the Maunder Minimum, but that is what our ISSI workshop [next one in April, 2013] is meant to resolve.

    And there is something true about the bruises….

  23. William said

    “If I understand the fundamental mechanism (what is causing what is observed) and its effects on the planet we are going to experience a Heinrich event.”

    ” it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which is significantly different than a slow down in the solar magnetic cycle. ”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    OK. You have my attention, how about a bit more explanation, and / or a graph or two.

    If you are right and we get YD #2 presumably we all need to move to a band near the equator. That will result in a rapid cure for overpopulation.

  24. One thing is what Leif wrote – the reconstruction of past sunspot numbers is flawed and numbers should be shifted way up.
    Another flaw I can see is that there is no physical basis for hypothesis that “above 40 sunspot sea is rising, below it is declining”. It may be true now, but definitely cannot hold throughout all the holocene. Given a lot of assumptions, certain average sunspot number defines certain sea level, not its eternal rise or decline.

    What’s funny about this is that if we correct for both of these errors and assume the sun activity forecast is correct, then the conclusion may actually hold.

  25. tallbloke says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:09 am
    Nice consensus you’ve got coming together there Leif.
    Funny how they never show up to speak for themselves.

    They do, and more importantly other scientists agree:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Munoz-Jaramilo_etal_ApJ2012.pdf

    “It has been found that one of the most important quantities when determining the evolution of geomagnetic activity indicators (which have been measured for more than a century) is the
    heliospheric magnetic field (HMF; Stamper et al. 1999). Direct HMF observations have existed since the beginning of 1965 and these observations can be extended all the way to the mid 1800s using the aa geomagnetic index (Lockwood et al. 2009) and the InterDiurnal Variability geomagnetic index (Svalgaard &Cliver 2010). Following a decade of vigourous debate, different reconstructions of HMF based on geomagnetic data have gradually reached consensus (see Lockwood & Owens 2011; Svalgaard & Cliver 2010 and references therein), providing us with the opportunity of studying the combined role of active regions (ARs) and polar flux in determining the characteristics of the heliospheric environment (as well as acting as a consistency check for our polar flux database).”

    Their Figure 17 is instructive.

  26. Leif Svalgaard said
    “Glaciations are due to changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth [cause by gravitational perturbations mainly by Jupiter] and have nothing to do with the Sun and its activity”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    There is plenty of discussion about how Milankovic doesn’t quite fit, of which you’re no doubt aware. Perhaps Milankovic provides the underlying long cycle, with other events varying the timing and intensity, one prospective candidate being the Sun.

    So anyway Leif, where’s your money on temperatures over the next 20 ++ years ?
    Geoff Sharp’s Dalton repeat ?
    David Archibald’s maunder repeat ?
    William’s Younger Dryas repeat ?
    Warmer ?
    Stable ?

  27. Leif Svalgaard says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 15, 2012 at 11:17 am
    vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:03 am
    Dr. S’s link http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..11604109L
    WordPress corrupts the link [mine and yours]. Copy/paste the whole link into your browser.
    I think one can [with some added pain] circumvent WordPress’s corruption by embedding the full html: here

    Reply: The problem is the ‘dots’. You need to replace them with Ampersand POUNDSIGN 46; (as actual 5 characters which if I do it right is: &♯46;). That inserts the UNICODE value. More UNICODE values for other problems can be found here:
    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2e/index.htm I’ve gone back and patched up the earlier entries. -ModE

  28. vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:08 am
    What is this about Grand Maximum ?
    Myth.

    J Martin says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:12 am
    So anyway Leif, where’s your money on temperatures over the next 20 ++ years ?
    Geoff Sharp’s Dalton repeat ?
    David Archibald’s maunder repeat ?
    William’s Younger Dryas repeat ?
    Warmer ?
    Stable ?

    None of the above, but colder, but not because of the sun.
    As far as solar activity is concerned, I’m beginning to lean towards a Maunder Minimum, especially if L&P holds up. We shall see.

  29. Leif Svalgaard said, as is referenced by J Martin above, “Glaciations are due to changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth [cause by gravitational perturbations mainly by Jupiter] and have nothing to do with the Sun and its activity.”

    Glaciations have nothing to do with the Sun? Wow, quite the statement of certainty. I like this statement better that Leif Svalgaard made, “There is still debate about the Maunder Minimum, but that is what our ISSI workshop [next one in April, 2013] is meant to resolve.

    And there is something true about the bruises….”

    I like seeing debate between scientists. When I see definitive statements about theories, I expect to see those statements proven wrong at least to some degree in the future.

    For your definitive statement about the sun to be true, then the Maunder Minimum must not have been caused or affected by the sun in anyway or else the sun does have some kind of effect on glaciations.

    Thank you Leif, for your time on here and thanks to the others for their part.

  30. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:24 am
    …….. I’m beginning to lean towards a Maunder Minimum
    Change of mind?
    We got you on record ‘large SC25 ’ ( presumably larger than SC24)

    J Martin says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:12 am
    …..
    This is an extrapolation dating back to 2003

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

    it can’t be changed, for the monthly non-smoothed SC25 should hit or approach 50 (red curve), but then could be just as a spike as we have in the current SC24, but the smoothed annual number could be much lower.
    Note: the amplitude curve (plotted in read), overestimates pre 1890’s values, which surprisingly does agree with the Dr. S’s assertion that pre 1900 values are about 10% low on the geo-magnetic metrics, which are only ones that matter.
    If solar activity interacts with the Earth’s environment on any scale than it has to be either TSI (close solar flux), apparently not changing sufficiently, or the geo-magnetics (open solar flux), which does, but energy is too low.
    I favor the geo-magnetics

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    as Dr.S. is aware, but understandably he doesn’t agree, but there is no harm done.
    M.G: they ignore you, they laugh at you, they fight you, then you win.
    May be, may be not.

  31. David Archibald claims
    I have come to the conclusion that a F10.7 Flux of 100 is the breakover between heating and cooling on Earth
    Henry says
    that part, how you came to that conclusion, I actually did not get.
    Did I miss something?

    Otherwise, of course, I have to laugh at all you guys, like I did before, when I found so many of you that never ever really understood how the GH effect works.

    Had you ever bothered to look at the right variable, namely maxima, (which is like energy-in) ,you would have easily figured out that the process of cooling, initiated by natural processes coming from the sun, is already underway, from 1995, to be precise.
    Cooling is already happening, about 0.2 degrees C globally since 2000 (if you would believe my dataset) or about 0.1 degrees C since 2000 according Hadcrut 3.
    Obviously, my wife still laughs at me for even worrying about this (small amount), but this is only a global average. There are a few places, like Anchorage, Alaska, that have cooled a lot more.

  32. Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:43 am
    Glaciations have nothing to do with the Sun? Wow, quite the statement of certainty.
    Absolutely. Perhaps just as certain as the oft repeated statement “it’s the Sun, stupid”.

    When I see definitive statements about theories, I expect to see those statements proven wrong at least to some degree in the future.
    All theories are eventually [to a degree] proven wrong. The issue is whether they are good enough for now.

    For your definitive statement about the sun to be true, then the Maunder Minimum must not have been caused or affected by the sun in anyway or else the sun does have some kind of effect on glaciations.
    For your information, a glaciation [or ice age] is something completely different from what happened 400 years ago. The last glaciation ended some 15,000 years ago, and the next is 50,000 years in the future.

    vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
    We got you on record ‘large SC25 ’ ( presumably larger than SC24)
    No, you don’t. What you have is a speculation of mine [and labeled as such] that if SC24 were to change polarity or reach maximum very quickly, that might leave much more time for SC25 to build up, but since that didn’t happen, a small SC25 is ruled out.

    Dale says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    Colder by how much?
    Don’t know, wild guess: less than half a degree perhaps.

  33. vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:54 am
    We got you on record ‘large SC25 ’ ( presumably larger than SC24)
    No, you don’t. What you have is a speculation of mine [and labeled as such] that if SC24 were to change polarity or reach maximum very quickly, that might leave much more time for SC25 to build up, but since that didn’t happen, a large SC25 is ruled out.

  34. HenryP says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    the process of cooling, initiated by natural processes coming from the sun, is already underway, from 1995, to be precise.
    The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.

  35. In reply to davidmhoffer,

    “davidmhoffer says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:55 am

    (William, the authors of this paper are confusing the dog with the tail.)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I presume this last sentence is a mod comment that hasn’t been identified as such?”

    The last statement has not written by a mod. Sorry, I should have used a colon rather than a comma.

    The following is hopefully less cryptic.

    William: The authors of the quoted paper are incorrect. The solar magnetic cycle interruption caused the bi-polar abrupt increase volcanic activity. The increase in volcanic activity did not cause the planet to cool for a thousand years (Younger Dryas, for example.) This is a pseudo cyclic event which occurs to terminate interglacial periods as well as during the glacial period. The magnetic excursion causes the planet to abrupt cool for a thousand year.

    Whether the statements above are or are not correct is dependent on whether I understand the mechanism. If I do there will be more anomalous sun and earth based observations to explain. I will if there is something significant to explain have a strawman mechanism that explains what is happening.

    I have as I noted before found paper after new astrophysics paper with anomalous observations that are connected to this phenomena.

  36. It will be warmer and it will colder, determined by how the oceans react to the inseparable sun-Earth partnership, as long as sun throws CMEs and changes its magnetic polarity .
    Neither of the above two (CMEs and polarity change, as far as we can tell, as per Dr. S) is affected by the L&P, so I suggest there will not be an L&P driven Maunder minimum temperature factor.
    Dalton type is more likely, but then temperatures were as much affected by a couple of volcanic eruptions (Mayon and Tambora) as by the solar activity.
    June temperatures, when the insoaltion (TSI incidence) is at its highest, in the Maunder time were not significantly lower (except for short period post 1690, but then Hekla exploded in 1693) than those in the 1810s, 1910s or 1970s.

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

    Notice this is actual temperature not anomaly or de-trended, no CO2 rise, no rise with the increase average with the solar activity in the following 300 years, no grand minima or maxima.
    Climate science has a problem, if to be taken seriously it can’t dismiss 300 years as an exception, without solid reason.
    Post is getting to long, in the next one I could elaborate, if anyone asks, on why June (and the rest of the summer months to a similar degree) do not show great deal of variability.

  37. Leif said
    “The last glaciation ended some 15,000 years ago, and the next is 50,000 years in the future.”
    – – – – – – – – – –
    So what happened to the Milankovic cycle then ?
    Co2 ?
    Surely not. A glaciation is a drop of 6 to 10 degrees C.
    Co2 shows no signs of being able to deliver that much protection, (if any).

  38. LS says
    The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.
    Henry says
    Are you sure -you want to quible again? With me?
    Can you please answer my question that I have asked you a few times before, as to why the so-called climate scientists (including yourself) never ever bothered to even look at maxima which was readily available for every one to look at, especially since the recording of maxima and the method has been known for more than a hundred and fifty years?
    Obviously energy-in is not the same as energy-out; there is a bit of a lag, due to earth’s ability to store energy (in the oceans, mostly).\
    Most datasets agree however, that the max. of energy output (when earth was the “warmest”) was around 1999. Since 2000 we have started going downhill, I am afraid.

  39. L.S:
    The first few surges serve to cancel out the old flux, the rest to build the new polarity which [I think] determines the size of the next cycle. We have just seen that the very first surge of cycle 24 in the North has already cancelled out the old flux [granted that there wasn't much to begin with]. If several more surges follow [as they usually do], the North polar fields might build to considerable strength [with SC25 then becoming strong, contrary to expectation]. The South seems to be a year or so behind. If mid-cycle is when the poles reverse it can’t be far away…
    Remember, you heard it first here, Last Edit: Feb 23, 2011, 9:03pm by lsvalgaard
    followed by laughing face.

    OK then, ‘laughing face’ got you out of that one.
    I’m cherry picking in the emperor’s garden, always a dangerous business.
    To be fair, there were at least 5-6 ‘low SC25′ prediction since then.
    Peace among friends.

  40. In reply to Leif Svalgaard.

    “Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:19 am

    William says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:00 am
    I fully support the assertion that sea level will fall if the sunspot cycle falls below 40. Based on observations both solar and earth based, however, it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted which is significantly different than a slow down in the solar magnetic cycle.
    Explain what you mean by the magic word ‘interrupted’.”

    No sunspots, abrupt very large CME. The sun will be unstable, if I understand what happened before and the same event occurs again (i.e. This is not a Maunder minimum.)

    As noted above in my comment, there will be a significant increase in volcanic activity, increase number of earthquakes, large earthquakes, large drop in sea level, and there will be a gradual but significant planetary cooling before the solar magnetic cycle restarts, if I understand the mechanism and what happened before and the same event occurs again. The long term abrupt cooling is caused by the solar magnetic cycle restart which causes a geomagnetic excursion. (There are burn marks on the surface of the planet that correlate in time with the timing of the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event and there is a geomagnetic excursion that also correlates in time with the Younger Dryas.)

    I am waiting for observations (both solar and earth based) which are unequivocally viewed by all specialists as anomalous and will not comment further until there are. I am working away at clarifying the mechanism and have made progress. It appears it is fundamental to galaxy formation, galaxy morphology, and galaxy evolution.

  41. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:52 am

    “…and that does not show any trend over the past almost two centuries:”

    Looks to me like it might, if the low frequencies are stripped out. What happens if you feed this series through a low pass filter with a very low bandwidth?

    I do not know who this belongs to – it’s just a random link I saved some years ago. The blue line is observed temperate anomaly, and the green line is said to be the “integrated sunspot”. An integral, of course, is a first order low pass filter with infinite time constant.

    It stands to reason that the effect of solar heating should be cumulative, with a thermal time constant which could be quite long, given the immensity of the system. Just as a pot of water on the stove on low heat will take a long time to reach steady state temperature, imagine the time it would take for a pot big enough to hold the world’s oceans.

  42. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”

    There is always a lag. With a very long time constant, the lag can be quite long.

  43. Tim Walker said, “For your definitive statement about the sun to be true, then the Maunder Minimum must not have been caused or affected by the sun in anyway or else the sun does have some kind of effect on glaciations.”

    Leif Svalgaard said, “For your information, a glaciation [or ice age] is something completely different from what happened 400 years ago. The last glaciation ended some 15,000 years ago, and the next is 50,000 years in the future.”

    Glaciation for your information is The process, condition, or result of being covered by glaciers. During the Maunder Minimum glaciers grew in Europe and most other parts of the world that have been thoroughly checked. Therefore there was glaciation happening during the Maunder Minimum. It did not get to the extent of ice sheets covering large portions of the northern continents, but it was glaciation. I presume you are thinking in only the situation where glaciation has happened to the point of ice sheets covering large portions of the northern continents, you did clarify your use of glaciation by [or ice age] otherwise you might not of been so pedantic sounding. I say pedantic sounding as apposed to pedantic, because the use of pedantic also implies being correct..

    I appreciate your agreeing with me about your definitive statement not being correct.
    Leif said, “Glaciations have nothing to do with the Sun.”
    Tim said, “When I see definitive statements about theories, I expect to see those statements proven wrong at least to some degree in the future.”
    Leif said, “All theories are eventually [to a degree] proven wrong. The issue is whether they are good enough for now.”
    That is why making definitive statements about theories puts the speaker in a bad light. They come across as just argumentative instead of as entering into a discussion

    Thanks for the chat, Leif..

  44. Archi: “Figure 18 shows that the average sunspot number over the Holocene was very near 40. ”

    It does? Could you explain how you read 40 off that graph? Mean, median, mode what are we talking about here. If you mean the middle of the fitted parabola: a) Why?; b) is 32 “very nearly ” 40?

    It’s not at all clear what you are reading off this graph.

    c) Whatever the average for the Holocene is , how does this relate to the zero in sea level rise? On that time scale temps have been falling for the last 10,000 years. That would imply falling sea levels

    You seems ot be working on the erroneous assumption that temperatures have been oscillating around this “average” value for the entire Holocene period and that it thus is the neutral point for sea level rise.

    I would also suggest that basing climate analysis on one parameter is unlikely to be useful , whether it be sun spots or CO2.

  45. Bart: >> There is always a lag. With a very long time constant, the lag can be quite long.

    could you expand on what you mean?

    Increase in temp is increase in energy. In what cicumstances do you see a lag in the increase in energy once the driver is removed?

  46. Leif,
    You replied to the question: “So anyway Leif, where’s your money on temperatures over the next 20 ++ years ?” …
    “None of the above, but colder, but not because of the sun.”

    If not because of the sun, what then ?

  47. HenryP says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    Are you sure -you want to quible again? With me?

    I’m trying to educate you, but you seem to be learning-resistant.

    vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    by lsvalgaard followed by laughing face.
    OK then, ‘laughing face’ got you out of that one.

    But puts you in a very poor light, doesn’t

    William says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    “Explain what you mean by the magic word ‘interrupted’.”
    No sunspots, abrupt very large CME.

    This has never been observed

    Bart says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Looks to me like it might, if the low frequencies are stripped out. What happens if you feed this series through a low pass filter with a very low bandwidth?
    How low? A century per data point? or a solar cycle?

    It stands to reason that the effect of solar heating should be cumulative, with a thermal time constant which could be quite long, given the immensity of the system.
    None of the solar enthusiasts incorporate a ‘quite long thermal time constant’. What do you think it is? 10 years, 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? …

    Bart says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm
    There is always a lag. With a very long time constant, the lag can be quite long.
    Tell that to HenryP

    Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    Glaciation for your information is The process, condition, or result of being covered by glaciers.
    “Glaciation’ has a very precise meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period
    “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago”

    I appreciate your agreeing with me about your definitive statement not being correct.
    In spite of your appreciation, my statement stands.

    That is why making definitive statements about theories puts the speaker in a bad light.
    Not when they are true

    They come across as just argumentative instead of as entering into a discussion
    Your education is not a discussion.

  48. OK Bart, I just found your preceding comment about the integral being infinite period low pass filter. and Leif’s “less activity”. Less is still some , so continued increase or reduceing increase is sitll possible.

  49. Leif Svalgaard-

    you say “First of all, this is not NASA’s prediction, but David Hathaway’s own private prediction…”

    I think that may be a surprise to the global news media and every magazine that quotes these solar cycle predictions from the NASA website-

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

    The web page indicates the update was authored by Hathaway.
    I don’t see anywhere on the webpage that indicates this is David Hathaway’s ‘private’ prediction.
    It is presented as the official prediction of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

  50. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”

    If rate of change of temp (aka global warming) and rate of rise of sea levels have fallen drastically since 1995 , somebody forgot to tell Leif.

  51. Leif Svalgaard posted this,

    Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    Glaciation for your information is The process, condition, or result of being covered by glaciers.
    “Glaciation’ has a very precise meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period
    “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago”

    I appreciate your agreeing with me about your definitive statement not being correct.
    In spite of your appreciation, my statement stands.

    That is why making definitive statements about theories puts the speaker in a bad light.
    Not when they are true

    They come across as just argumentative instead of as entering into a discussion
    Your education is not a discussion.

    Your problem sir is that you posted not the precise meaning of glaciation, but of GLACIAL PERIOD. Your condescension gathered around your obvious error is very bad sir. I sir looked up the meaning of glaciation and used it in my post, sir. You sir did not use a PRECISE meaning of glaciation or even a meaning of glaciation. You, sir, used the wikipedia definition of GLACIAL PERIOD. This gives me serious doubts about what else you are sharing here. As I have sadly found out in recent times, science is occupied by many with larger egos than desires for truth and knowledge. Good day sir. I will from hence forth take all you have to say with a very large grain of salt.

    [I'm not condescending to think I could teach you anything. It sounds as if you just might know it all. SARC]

  52. Ric Werme says:
    OT – There are nice comments about Leif over at

    I propose some slogans
    Save the Leif
    No Leif for oil
    Leif’s Day
    I guess without the presence of Dr Leif. My misconceptions were permanently crystallized,
    Thanks Dr Leif.
    Anthony: The best blog in the solar system.

  53. I would like Leif or anybody to explain why the next glaciation could be 50,000 years into the future?
    Our flat topped holocene would then be 61,000+ years young. Bit different than all the other interglacials in the 100,000 year cycle.

  54. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    The last glaciation ended some 15,000 years ago, and the next is 50,000 years in the future.

    Of the last six interglacial episodes, five lasted for 1/2 of a precessional cycle (12,500 years) and the sixth, for unknown reasons lasted for a full precessional cycle (25,000) years).

    Upon what information are you claiming the current interglacial will last for two full precessional cycles?

  55. Wading through these comments, I am beginning to think there may be a danger that sunspot versus sea level may be another “correlation equals causation” error similar to temperature versus CO2.
    I need to keep an eye on two or three local tide gauges for the purpose of checking habitable floor and trench invert levels against height datum and HAT (highest astronomical tide). No variations apparent other than a cyclical variation of +/- 2mm/year.
    Reasonable fit to JCU paper 2008: “Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia” referenced above. I am also aware of Mörner’s paper: “The great sea-level humbug”.
    Staggering mismatch with the projections in the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project.
    Sea level is another area where “corrections” are rampant and observations are replaced by modelling.
    If they are tweaking here, they are probably tweaking everywhere.

  56. AnonyMoose says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:38 am
    0 BC? So the seas stopped rising when Jesus appeared, and again when Obama appeared. :-)
    ————————-
    I’m going back to my old training ….. something about causation and …….now what was that?

  57. Leif Svalgaard-

    you say “…he is settling on our prediction issued back in 2004″

    Thanks for the link to your paper. Do you still stand by your prediction of cycle 24 maximum occurring in 2011?

  58. Dr Burns says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:07 pm
    If not because of the sun, what then ?
    Any sufficiently complicated system has internal variations.

    chris y says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    It is presented as the official prediction of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
    Nowhere does it say that. NASA subscribes to the official prediction here:

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

    “April 25, 2008 The official NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel on April 25, 2007″
    P.S. I am on that prediction panel.

    P. Solar says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    If rate of change of temp (aka global warming) and rate of rise of sea levels have fallen drastically since 1995
    Except they haven’t

    vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    “But puts you in a very poor light, doesn’t it”
    Indeed it doesn’t , not as yet, so far so good

    The poor light comes from misrepresenting a tongue-in-cheek statement by me, as my ‘opinion’ [we got you on record ...]
    This is very poor style

    Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    Your problem sir is that you posted not the precise meaning of glaciation, but of GLACIAL PERIOD.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period : “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation)”

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

    http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_glacial.html

    You confuse the term ‘glaciation’ with ‘glacier’. Glaciers expand and shrink all the time. Geologists call it a glaciation when glaciers expand and move on a continental scale. This happens rarely [every tens to hundreds of thousands of years] controlled by changes in the orbital elements of the Earth [caused predominantly by Jupiter] and seems to be contingent of particular arrangements of the continents and ocean currents. In the past 500 miliion years there have been a handful of periods where glaciations happened. We call those ‘ice ages’ [each 'age' consisting of many 'glaciations']. And they are not caused by variations of activity of the sun.

    Neville. says:
    September 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    I would like Leif or anybody to explain why the next glaciation could be 50,000 years into the future?
    Because the slide into a new glaciation happens at ‘glacial’ speed [i.e. slowly]. There are more than one cycle: 21k, 41k, 100k years aprox.

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

    jjfox says:
    September 15, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    Upon what information are you claiming the current interglacial will last for two full precessional cycles?
    “More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years”
    Berger A, Loutre MF (2002). “Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?”. Science 297 (5585): 1287–8.

  59. This compares satellite sea level records and the tide gauge data against which they are supposedly calibrated. Tide gauge data from knmi Klimate explorer only goes to 2002 but there’s enough overlap to tell the story.

    Apparently the water was piling up in the middle of the oceans at a rate of 3mm/yr from 1995 until 2005. Then apparently they were full and it stopped piling up. In the mean time there was a minimal increase in global sea levels measured at the coastal tide gauges. Well under 1mm/yr even at the peak in 1995.

    The tide gauge data is 12 data per year and the GMSL is 33 / year , so the processing accounts for this as seen in the legends. GMSL is Colorado’s data current release sl_ns_global is the SAME dataset as reported April 2011.

    The closer you look the worse it gets … again. What a scam.

  60. chris y says:
    September 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    Do you still stand by your prediction of cycle 24 maximum occurring in 2011?
    If you read the paper you’ll see that we actually did not try to predict the time of maximum. We mentioned 2011 as the ‘canonical time’ which is simply 11 years after the previous maximum in 2000, just to indicate that we were predicting an occurrence pretty much in the future [like at least 7 years]. Not everyone follow the solar cycles so some perspective is needed. I actually wanted to use a later date [as cycle 23 was rather low so its length was expected to be somewhat longer than average], but the referee wouldn’t let me, so we simply threw him a bone with the ‘canonical time’.

  61. Neville. says:
    September 15, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    The warmers made the 50,000 year figure up. That is why it is a nice round number. I just found a nice model of insolation and glaciation on my PC. Someone must have given it to me in March this year. From that, the next glacial period will be fully developed at 50,000 years and the next interglacial at 73,000 years.

  62. Leif Svalgaard says: “Except they haven’t”

    Yeah, let’s play “did , didn’t” for a while, that’ll fix it.

    UAH lower tropo does show a marked reduction in rate of change: http://i45.tinypic.com/2lt1r4l.png
    Tide gauges also show the moderate increase in sea levels of the early to mid 90’s was gone by 2000. (Satellite versions suggest the water was piling up in mid ocean until around 2005.)

    If you want to comment on rate of change you’d better look at rate of change, not the time series.

  63. P. Solar says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    There is also the issue of which heat reservoirs lose energy faster, and which slower. In the same way a cookie on a baking sheet continues to cook after you take it out of the oven. If you want nice, soft cookies, you have to remove them from the baking sheet immediately. Otherwise, they will continue to brown and get crunchy (and, I don’t like crunchy cookies). The heat is still flowing from one reservoir, the baking sheet, to the other, the cookie. In the case at hand, from the oceans to the atmosphere.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    “How low? A century per data point? or a solar cycle?”

    Significantly lower, I believe, than a solar cycle. Try different values, and see what you come up with. With the different reservoirs in play, as I mention above, higher than first order is justified.

    I’m not saying it would necessarily bear fruit – it seemed to for the guy at the link I posted, but I don’t really know what all he did or which data he was using. I’m just saying that an instantaneous response is not what I would expect in any case.

    If I had the data (and the time), rather than such trial and error, I might try estimating an actual transfer function under the assumption that the solar activity is the dominant influence on the temperature, and see if I could replicate the output temperature by passing the input solar activity through it.

  64. I should correct my use of the term “fallen drastically”. I wrote that because I had been mugged by the rigged satellite GMSL data, before I compared to tide gauges. Falling from > 3mm/a to zero in 5 years would be “drastic”.

    In reality, there was bearly any rise going on in the first place to the fall to zero is less “drastic” then it seemed.

    Leif’s comment in reply to Bart: “somebody forgot to tell the Earth” thus remains incorrect , which was my basic point.

  65. Bart says:
    September 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    Significantly lower, I believe, than a solar cycle. Try different values, and see what you come up with. With the different reservoirs in play, as I mention above, higher than first order is justified.
    Often people use the 22-yr average which looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-22yr-Averages,png
    The green box shows that at the height of the “Grand Maximum in the last half of the 20th Century’ 22-yr [centered] average AP was no different from what it was in the 1860s. Now, perhaps it was the same as it was in the 21st century BC and there is a 4100 year lag…

    P. Solar says:
    September 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm
    Leif’s comment in reply to Bart: “somebody forgot to tell the Earth” thus remains incorrect , which was my basic point.
    somebody forgot to tell the Earth about the drastic change…

  66. Bart says:
    September 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    I might try estimating an actual transfer function under the assumption that the solar activity is the dominant influence on the temperature, and see if I could replicate the output temperature by passing the input solar activity through it.
    If you do that be sure to use the phony Group Sunspot Number to ensure a good correlation.

  67. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Perhaps you could suggest the best data to use, and where to find it? Not saying I will do it, or at least anytime soon, so don’t hold your breath.

  68. Bart , I have a lot of respect for some oh the stuff you have posted at Tallbloke’s and CA but I think you’re going off line on this one.

    Your cookies may continue to cook , that is a chemical change caused by their temparature, but they will not continue to get hotter once they are removed form the oven. The heat in the tray may slow down thier cooling but that tray (ocean) will not be getting any hotter either once the oven is turned off .

    You can have a phase lag while the heat is still applied but falling like August being hottest yet two months after peak solar input. The rate of change will still be +ve, though reduced (deceleration). That is what the data shows in the plots I provided above.

    Perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say to Leif. The fact that the temp is still rising (probalby not the case anyway) during a reduction in solar input does not prove solar isn’t a (or the) major driving force.

    That is why I am saying we should be looking at rate of change. When the driving force is reducing the rate of change will be reducing. That is exactly what is shown in the data I plotted.

  69. Interesting to watch Leif duck and weave on the grand minimum question. I too like Vuk remember past statements like “we are not entering a grand minimum” and SC25 was going to be a large cycle (a recent statement). He like the most of those involved in solar science have no clue on what’s coming. Now incredibly Leif is predicting a maunder type event based on the L&P theory which is also some sort of get out clause.

    I am very disheartened that the skeptic community has not challenged the so called L&P theory. There are quite a few scientists that are questioning this theory that have solid evidence and I also have been building data that flies in the face of the very weak skewed data that L&P and now Leif are putting forward.

    I will provide some links and data shortly for those that wish to read all the science.

  70. Bart says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm
    Perhaps you could suggest the best data to use, and where to find it? Not saying I will do it, or at least anytime soon, so don’t hold your breath.
    It depends on which parameter you want to use. There are several
    1) TSI [the most obvious one]
    2) SSN [everybody uses this one]
    3) Ap [for the ones that say that what matters is the solar wind]
    4) and for the temperatures: no matter what you do, someone will say the data is invalid
    And which time resolution [month, 27-day rotation, yearly average]
    I would use SSN or TSI.
    A preliminary SSN series is here http://www.leif.org/research/New-SSNs.txt and an old [but still good] TSI series is here http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.xls column L
    Both of these are works in progress and may differ in details, but the general run should be better than the ‘official’ values. Another way to look at the difference is that represent some measure of uncertainty.

  71. P. Solar says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    Perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say to Leif. The fact that the temp is still rising (probalby not the case anyway) during a reduction in solar input does not prove solar isn’t a (or the) major driving force.
    A time base of a decade or two is not enough to decide this. The FAIL comes from the fact that temperatures have risen significantly the past 200-300 years, but solar activity has not.

  72. Don’t be fooled on the attempted discreditation of the GSN record. This is science with an agenda.

    There has been a flood of statements in the last few weeks on the unreliability of the GSN record coming from one source who has the ironing board out. The whole truth once again needs to be placed on the record, which has not been done yet and it is way too early to be making grand statements.

  73. OK. So what “is” the cycle that is being (potentially) influenced?

    Fusion happens deep in the sun’s core. Neutrino emission from those fusions happens (almost) instantaneously. Energy released – from some given fusion somewhere in the deep core – happens immediately.

    But energy from a single “fuse” doesn’t get to the earth immediately.

    But how long does that bit of energy take to get up from the core to the “emitting” surface of the sun so that it can get to the earth’s orbit so it can begin (potentially) influencing earth’s heat balance? Light radiation takes 8 minutes to arrive. But I understand it takes years for energy to go up through the sun. If so, just what offset is correct if one is trying to relate changes in received radiation to changes in cosmic radiation, planetary position, or climate?

    10Be is formed in direct proportion to the amount of galactic cosmic radiation received, which is inversely related to the “protection” that the solar wind creates. So, if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?

  74. Geoff Sharp says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    There has been a flood of statements in the last few weeks on the unreliability of the GSN record coming from one source who has the ironing board out. The whole truth once again needs to be placed on the record, which has not been done yet and it is way too early to be making grand statements.
    The whole truth has been on the record for a while, even Ken Schatten agrees with our findings:

    http://www.leif.org/research/HAO-Seminar%2C%20How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Schatten.pdf

    http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf

    But I can understand your uneasiness when your foundations crumble.
    and SC25 was going to be a large cycle (a recent statement)
    You make the same mistake as Vuk.

    It is clear that SC24 is going to be like SC14:

    and it has been clear for quite some time [since 2003] that we are headed for a period of low activity :
    “The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a ‘Maunder’ type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.
    This based on the polar field method that we pioneered back in 1978

    http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf

    RACookPE1978 says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    But how long does that bit of energy take to get up from the core to the “emitting” surface of the sun so that it can get to the earth’s orbit
    It takes about 200,000 years

    if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
    99.9% of the change in TSI comes from the fusion in the core, the remaining 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.

  75. RACookPE1978 says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
    99.9% of TSI comes from the fusion in the core [which does not change on time scales for which we have data], the remaining [variable] 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.

  76. Geoff Sharp says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm
    I am very disheartened that the skeptic community has not challenged the so called L&P theory.
    And for good reason!
    Our latest paper in the Astrophysical Journal notes:
    Decreasing Sunspot Magnetic Fields Explain Unique 10.7 cm Radio Flux
    Livingston, W.; Penn, M. J.; Svalgaard, L.
    The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 757, Issue 1, article id. L8 (2012).
    Abstract
    Infrared spectral observations of sunspots from 1998 to 2011 have shown that on average sunspots changed, the magnetic fields weakened, and the temperatures rose. The data also show that sunspots or dark pores can only form at the solar surface if the magnetic field strength exceeds about 1500 G. Sunspots appear at the solar surface with a variety of field strengths, and during the period from 1998 to 2002 a histogram of the sunspot magnetic fields shows a normal distribution with a mean of 2436 ± 26 G and a width of 323 ± 20 G. During the observing period the mean of the magnetic field distribution decreased by 46 ± 6 G per year, and we assume that as the 1500 G threshold was approached, magnetic fields appeared at the solar surface which could not form dark sunspots or pores. With this assumption we propose a quantity called the sunspot formation fraction and give an analytical form derived from the magnetic field distribution. We show that this fraction can quantitatively explain the changing relationship between sunspot number and solar radio flux measured at 10.7 cm wavelengths.

  77. Thanks Leif but It still doesn’t explain why this interglacial should extend to 61,000+ years. I’m sure that much of that forecast would be guesswork.
    E.G why did the Eemian have the more regular peaked top and the slide into the next full glacial then seems much faster. Or if jupiter suddenly changes next year wouldn’t you have to quickly change your mind.
    Btw I’ve tried to get an answer to the scare of future dangerous SLR. Gore, Hansen , Flannery etc all frighten us with possible SLR of 20 foot by 2100, but the graph on all the models from the Royal society shows little rise for the next 300 years.( by 2300)

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    If all the models show negative contribution from Antarctica until 2300 where is that dangerous SLR to come from by 2100 I wonder?
    These are the same models that the alarmists base their IPCC reports on. Anybody got any ideas?

  78. This is what Mr. Svalgaard, our want to be teacher, said, “Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm
    Your problem sir is that you posted not the precise meaning of glaciation, but of GLACIAL PERIOD.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period : “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation)”

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

    http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_glacial.html

    You confuse the term ‘glaciation’ with ‘glacier’. Glaciers expand and shrink all the time. Geologists call it a glaciation when glaciers expand and move on a continental scale. This happens rarely [every tens to hundreds of thousands of years] controlled by changes in the orbital elements of the Earth [caused predominantly by Jupiter] and seems to be contingent of particular arrangements of the continents and ocean currents. In the past 500 miliion years there have been a handful of periods where glaciations happened. We call those ‘ice ages’ [each 'age' consisting of many 'glaciations']. And they are not caused by variations of activity of the sun.

    This is what I say Mr. Svalgaard.

    Since when does the Wikipedia provide the precise meaning of anything, as you put it and are now trying to weasel out of. Here is the precise meaning of the word glaciation and as anyone can see unless they have their eyes shut and are repeating, “If I don’t see it I don’t have to believe I am wrong.” glaciation is not a synonym for GLACIAL PERIOD.
    ‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ defines glaciation as: the noun of the verb glaciate, which is to (a) cover with a glacier, (b) to subject to glacial action.
    ‘The Free Dictionary’ by Farlex defines glaciation as: noun 1. glaciation glaciation – the condition of being covered with glaciers or masses of ice; the result of glacial action; “Agassiz recognized marks of glaciation all over northern Europe”
    ‘Merriam-Webster’ defines glaciation as the noun of the verb glaciate: (a) to subject to glacial action; also: to produce glacial effects in or on; (b) to cover with a glacier.
    McGraw-Hill Science and Technology Dictionary defines glaciation as: Alteration of any part of earth’s surface by passage of a glacier, chiefly by glacial erosion or deposition.
    Macmillan Dictionary defines glaciation as: the process in wich land becomes covered by glaciers.

    I could go on sir, but I suspect you are just like other bad scientists I have heard about in the last few years. You are so right in and of yourself you will refuse to discuss something that might impinge upon your own ideas. You just want to pontificate as you have so ably shown here.

    In the beginning I just said this: Glaciations have nothing to do with the Sun? Wow, quite the statement of certainty. I like this statement better that Leif Svalgaard made, “There is still debate about the Maunder Minimum, but that is what our ISSI workshop [next one in April, 2013] is meant to resolve.

    And there is something true about the bruises….”

    I like seeing debate between scientists. When I see definitive statements about theories, I expect to see those statements proven wrong at least to some degree in the future.

    For your definitive statement about the sun to be true, then the Maunder Minimum must not have been caused or affected by the sun in anyway or else the sun does have some kind of effect on glaciations.

    Saying this I tried to get a bit more discussion and less of, ‘This is the facts from on high.’. But no. You insist on pontificating or as you, Mr Svalgaard said: Your education is not a discussion.

    You Sir sound like the worst of the professors I ever had in college or as the worst of the AGW crowd.

  79. LS says
    There is always a lag. With a very long time constant, the lag can be quite long.
    Tell that to HenryP
    Henry says
    You are confusing issues and people again. The lag (from the change of energy input into the atmosphere,= 1995 as CAN BE SEEN WHEN OBSERVING MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES), is a couple years.
    For example, this can be seen from the data supplied by vukcevik earlier on this thread:

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

    LS says
    A time base of a decade or two is not enough to decide this. The FAIL comes from the fact that temperatures have risen significantly the past 200-300 years, but solar activity has not.
    Henry says:
    Significantly? Really? How much is significant? Going by Vukcevic’s June data quoted above it amounts to ca. 0.02 to 0.03 degrees C over the past 200-300 years.
    This is significant? How accurate were the thermometers 200-300 years ago? Do you have a calibration ceritificate of a thermometer from that time?

    (Someone) asked:
    How much will temperatures decline?
    Henry says
    Again , I think the June data from Vulcevic look good to me. We will fall by about 1 full degree C or K until about 2039. It will be cold enough for all the arctic ice to freeze back as it did from 1920-1940.

  80. RaCookPE1978 says
    So, if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
    Henry says
    I have been studying the rate of change of maxima against time (data from 47 weather stations) , this is the deceleration of warming and the curve looks like someone threw a ball: completely natural, binominal. My rsquare on that was 0.998. From that I calculated that in 1995 we changed signal, from warming to cooling. Realizing this is an ac-wave I was able to put it in a sine wave, best wavelength 88 years. So we came from 44 years of warming and now moved into 44 years of cooling (from 1995), looking at energy in. I have since been doing some puzzling, coming to the conclusion that the rise and fall of energy in coincides with the decline and rise of ozone, both NH and SH. On the SH the fall in ozone until 1995 was as much as 100% and more. So it seems to me that a small change in the distribution of the solar constant changes the chemical reactions happening on top of the atmosphere.

  81. HenryP said:

    “So it seems to me that a small change in the distribution of the solar constant changes the chemical reactions happening on top of the atmosphere.”

    Agreed, and the result is a changed air circulation affecting global cloudiness and albedo.

    The precise detail of the chemical reactions involved is currently not known but it alters the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.

    The recent finding that during the period of quieter sun the amount of ozone unexpectedly increased above 45km is an important diagnostic indicator.

    This is interesting too:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017719.shtml

    which excludes CO2 as the primary factor but still leaves it open (for the time being) for it to be asserted that human CFCs caused the observed ozone reduction and stratospheric cooling when the sun was more active.

    However, on the basis of the various longer term correlations, I think it has to be a natural solar induced phenomenon rather than anything attributable to CFCs.

  82. Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:26 pm
    Since when does the Wikipedia provide the precise meaning of anything
    In Science, some words have a more precise meaning than in ordinary speech. ‘Glaciation’ is one of them. Another one is ‘theory’. I [and Wikipedia - and the other references which you ignore] gave you the scientific meaning of ‘glaciation’. That you will not learn is your loss.

    HenryP says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    Going by Vukcevic’s June data quoted above it amounts to ca. 0.02 to 0.03 degrees C over the past 200-300 years. … We will fall by about 1 full degree C or K until about 2039.
    So, you claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C and in the next 25 they will fall 1 C…

  83. LS says
    So, you (Henry) claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C…. Henry says
    oh dear. You cannot even read a graph? The red line is the long term average change (of temperatures in JUNE in mid England) from the average measured. It has a slope of 0.0001 = 0.0001 degree C change per annum. Over 300 years it was 0.03 degree warmer.
    I asked you to supply me with a calibration certficate of a thermometer that is 300 years old?

  84. Stephen Wilde says

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017719.shtml

    Finally we demonstrate that when ozone depletion alone is prescribed in the model, the seasonal cycle of the resultant cooling trends in the lower stratosphere is quite similar to that recently reported in satellite and radiosonde observations: this constitutes strong, new evidence for the key role of ozone depletion on tropical lower-stratospheric temperature trends.

    Henry says.
    Good quote thanks. It is all coming together now, very neatly. You will recall my initial results that showed that maxima in the SH rose much sharper than those in the NH. This was because the fall in ozone in the SH was much sharper than in the NH. Remember also that a smaller ozone layer / bigger ozone hole meant less high energy <0.5 um being back radiated and this meant more energy in the SH oceans. Water absorbs in the UV, and because there is a lot of mass in the SH oceans, this particular type of energy is converted to heat, mostly.
    However, with the recovery of ozone since 1996, this is changing now, all quite naturally. (If there were any human influence on this, I would not expect to see a beautiful curve on the the deceleration of warming, as if somebody had thrown a ball)

  85. How is it that the sunspot number is given for a period of thousands of years? I thought it had only been measured for a couple of hundred years.

    REPLY: Proxy reconstruction using C14/Be10 isotopes – Anthony

    Thanks, Anthony. Is there any measure of there accuracy vis a vis recent empirical observations?

  86. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:17 pm
    RACookPE1978 says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    if (big if there) 10Be ratios relate to solar energy that we believe are related to TSI levels, when did that change in solar energy occur, and when did the changes in fusion that caused the original change in solar energy occur?
    99.9% of TSI comes from the fusion in the core [which does not change on time scales for which we have data], the remaining [variable] 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.

    cut – paste – save.

    Thanks Leif. I’ll quote this back to you the next time you use the argument that it’s not possible that the planets are affecting the sun contemporaneously because it takes ever so long for energy to get from the core to the surface.

    All systems with feedback oscillate. The solar system is such a system. The longer term oscillations in the suns core might easily exhibit a 0.1% variability over a few hundred years since the nadir of the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum in solar activity.

    It is estimated that global average surface temperature may have risen around 1.5C since then. If so, this is around 0.5% of the Earth’s absolute temperature in Kelvin. Prof Nir Shaviv identified an amplification of solar variation of around 5-7 times in the climate system by using the oceans as a calorimeter. This was likely caused by a reduction in cloud albedo, which is empirically found by the new Spanish and Chinese studies to be contemporaneous with the above averagely active sun of the late C20th.

    It appears then that the Sun can account for most or all of the climate variation we have observed and reconstructed from proxies, given various lags and leads associated with natural internal variability from, for example, oceanic oscillations.

  87. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    P. Solar says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    Perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say to Leif. The fact that the temp is still rising (probalby not the case anyway) during a reduction in solar input does not prove solar isn’t a (or the) major driving force.
    A time base of a decade or two is not enough to decide this. The FAIL comes from the fact that temperatures have risen significantly the past 200-300 years, but solar activity has not.

    No, Leif , the FAIL (failure in English) comes from making a statement and then, when it is shown to be incorrect by referencec to multiple sources of data, you skip timescale by an order of magnitude instead of admitting your statement was wrong.

    Have you ever admitted you were wrong. Ever ?

  88. I follow the 10.7 cm flux data as a personal pet project. Lately I’ve been using running means of 584 days (tidal theorists; guess where this comes from). The actual data used is for the period 292 days on each side of the date. Thus the most recent day only has 292 days to average. I notice a pattern for cycles 20 through 23…

    the running mean reaches a max, drops down a bit, meanders up and down for a year or two, and then starts downwards to the next minimum.

    Cycle 20 hit its first local max at 152 in 1968, dropped down a bit, and got up to around 155 in 1969. Then it started down towards the min at 1975/1976. That was when we were hearing all about the coming ice age.

    Cycle 24 hit its first local max at 127 (584 day running mean) this June 30th. It has since dropped to under 123.

    If Cycle 24 follows the pattern, the 584 day running mean should max out at approx 130 sometime in the next year or 2. That would be noticeably lower than Cycle 20.

    Note that this is 10.7 cm solar flux data. So there’s no LP-effect here.

  89. L.S: So, you claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C

    If I do bit more of a ‘cherry pick’ , the summer temperatures (J,J,A) in C. England for 290 year long period 1700-1990 have actually fallen, it is the winter temperatures that went up.

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

    and there is perfectly good explanation for it, if a geomagnetic hypothesis is considered as valid.

    P. Solar :…..
    There might be two god reasons for tide gages around world would show increment of few mm around 2000:
    – with the SST increase, total volume would expand.
    – geomagnetic hypothesis predicts tidal oscillations of extra up to 20mm on top of normal luni-solar tides (in the areas of extra-high tides ! ) based on and clearly shown as the irregularities of the tidal annual mean range in the Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, USA; see: illustration from ftp://ftp.flaterco.com/xtide/tidal_datums_and_their_applications.pdf page10

  90. Just to reiterate what this refers to:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    “The Sun may have shown less activity, but somebody forgot the tell the Earth that, as temperatures since 1995 have increased.”

    So you were clearly refering to changes since 1995 and saying Earth had “not been told”.
    The data I posted shows that rates of change in atmospheric temp and sea level in that timescale do not contradict the idea the two are related.

    Your statement that the Earth was not “told” was unfounded. You made an incorrect statement , your were wrong.

    The fact that rather than comment on the data that contradicts you ill-thought out statement you chose to skip timescale to avoid the issue, demonstrates that you realise this.

  91. Since TSI is a “constant” [and the Sun's Core output is a constant], the changes in Sunspots, magnetic field, ultraviolet, and Flux must all be due to, say, Gremlins!! Now, we can’t see gremlins yet, but I know that they are there. They are the same things that power the El Nino, the AO, the PO, and etcO. Wait we have another name for gremlins -> random [chaotic] variation. Given randomness, I can find a correlation to every and anything thing [the latest multi-universe theory].

    /sarcasm yes, no??

  92. Svalgaard quoted my statement:

    Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:26 pm
    Since when does the Wikipedia provide the precise meaning of anything

    He left out the definitions I provided from numerous dictionary sources.

    Then Svalgaard said:

    In Science, some words have a more precise meaning than in ordinary speech. ‘Glaciation’ is one of them. Another one is ‘theory’. I [and Wikipedia - and the other references which you ignore] gave you the scientific meaning of ‘glaciation’. That you will not learn is your loss.

    He failed to provide any dictionary ordinary or dictionary scientific definition of glaciations. Epic failure. He must of been bothered by his failure, because later he then referenced a article on here:

    Tim Walker says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:26 pm
    In Science, some words have a more precise meaning than in ordinary speech. ‘Glaciation’ is one of them
    As in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/

    The problem is I didn’t say any of what Mr. Svalgaard is quoting me as saying in the just previous quote. A failure on your part, but just a small one. Mr. Svalgaard this is an argument. You refuse to try and show definitions as I did. Then you use an example of use of the word glaciation. Are you also a comedian? .

    You are trying to say that glaciation only happens during glacial epics and by inference saying that the Maunder Minimum was not during any glacial epic. Which by your meaning; there is no glaciation going on now or during the Maunder Minimum. Oh sir please stop it you have me rolling in the aisle. You are too funny. No glaciation going on in Europe during Maunder Minimum or even right now. Not even in Greenland or dare I say it. Oh, it is just too funny. You sir are such a great comedian. No glaciation going on in… ha ha, he he he… Antarctica?. I guess that is news to glaciologists. You do know what the term glaciologists means? They study on going and past glaciation. You do know that? Oh wait did I say on going glaciation. Oh my that can’t be right. The great and all knowing Mr. Svalgaard says by reference that there is no glaciation going on now or during the Maunder Minimum or maybe it’s just that you don’t think any glaciers are moving outside of the glacial epics? That is quite funny sir.

    Mr. Svalgaard says:

    That you will not learn is your loss.

    I say: but sir, I did learn. I learned how funny you are. Making jokes about no glaciation going on right now, in multiple posts none the less. I learned first hand to what an extent a scientist will go to avoid admitting they are wrong and how obfuscating a scientist can be. It was quite a lesson sir. Again sir, you say that I will not learn. How funny. Another joke of yours. You are … What a joke.

  93. Vukcevic says
    If I do bit more of a ‘cherry pick’ , the summer temperatures (J,J,A) in C. England for 290 year long period 1700-1990 have actually fallen, it is the winter temperatures that went up.

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

    and there is perfectly good explanation for it, if a geomagnetic hypothesis is considered as valid
    Henry says
    I am inclined to believe that winters in highly populated spaces like central England and Holland (that I also looked at) got somewhat warmer mostly because people remove snow quickly now with salt and heat (on roofs) so there is no more reflection back from snowed-in places when the sun shines again.They all now have a lot more quick access to heat (from gas burning) than a few hundred years ago. But if you can prove a geomagnetic connection, that only works his juice in winter time (?), I would like to know about it.
    (don’t let Dr.S intimidate you…he is just a person, you know…..I think….)

  94. Stephen Wilde says
    the precise detail of the chemical reactions involved (on the top of the atmosphere) is currently not known but it alters the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process differentially at different levels of the atmosphere.

    Henry says
    Yes, it seems we are here at the edge of what we really know is happening. I doubt that we have the equipment to measure. Apart from the creation of ozone from high UV + oxygen, I only just learned that there are a few other reactions also going up on top there:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/#comment-1076278

  95. tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:32 am
    “99.9% of TSI comes from the fusion in the core [which does not change on time scales for which we have data], the remaining [variable] 0.1% comes from changes to the surface magnetic field.” next time you use the argument that it’s not possible that the planets are affecting the sun contemporaneously because it takes ever so long for energy to get from the core to the surface.
    It seems from your comment that you agree that the 99.9% of TSI does not change [and thus is not changing because of planets].

    The longer term oscillations in the suns core might easily exhibit a 0.1% variability over a few hundred years since the nadir of the little ice age and the Maunder Minimum in solar activity.
    Even if the core varied a lot we would not see any periodicity because of the long diffusion time for radiation to get out of the core. You could turn off energy generation completely and we wouldn’t know it for thousands of years.

    It is estimated that global average surface temperature may have risen around 1.5C since then.
    ‘may’ ?

    It appears then that the Sun can account for most or all of the climate variation we have observed and reconstructed from proxies
    Except that the solar variability does not match climate variability.

    P. Solar says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:57 am
    Have you ever admitted you were wrong. Ever ?
    Sure, in a paper in 1978 I thought that the solar magnetic field had doubled since 1900. In a paper in 2002 after a re-analysis of the [since then more extensive data] I concluded I was wrong and that there had been no century-scale doubling of the sun’s magnetic field.
    If you present a coherent argument backed up by good data that will go a long way to change my opinion, but you haven’t.

  96. Tim Walker says:
    September 16, 2012 at 7:20 am
    He left out the definitions I provided from numerous dictionary sources.
    “In Science, some words have a more precise meaning than in ordinary speech. ‘Glaciation’ is one of them.” …
    there is no glaciation going on now or during the Maunder Minimum.

    Some examples:

    http://nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm

    “At the peak of the last glaciation, about 20 000 years ago”

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/glaciers-and-glaciation/3/1

    “The last glaciation [...] about 20,000–18,000 years ago

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.06.050178.001225

    “…last glaciation. … during the maximum of this glaciation about 18,000 before present”

    http://www.paleoanthro.org/journal/content/PA20060116.pdf

    “Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape During the Last Glaciation … from about 60,000 to 20,000 years ago”

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00206818909465906

    “THE DATE OF THE LAST GLACIATION IN NORTHERN EAST CHUKOTKA … 39,300 to 40,100 years ago”

    http://www.nps.gov/prsf/naturescience/sea-level-rise-since-the-last-glaciation.htm

    “Sea Level Rise Since the Last Glaciation … 18,000 years ago”

    http://flightline.highline.edu/jloetterle/153F05pdfs/G153_FieldGuide.pdf

    “Between 25,000 and 18,000 years ago global sea level was about 420 feet lower than
    modern times due to continental ice build up during the last glaciation”

    http://epic.awi.de/12608/

    “The sedimentary record of the last glaciation in the western Bellingshausen Sea (West Antarctica) … age of 12 ka B.P”

    http://email.eva.mpg.de/~paabo/pdf1/HofreitMolMolecularEc200.pdf

    “At the end of the last glaciation, some 11 000 years ago”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5472/1815

    “Millennial-Scale Instability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation … between 20,000 and 74,000 years ago”

    etc

  97. Anyone noticed that Leif is now much more temperate and measured?

    There is a reason for debating on WUWT, even if it is only to get the measure of the alternative arguments and the measure of your temperment.

  98. Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.

    Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.

  99. Stephen Wilde says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.
    Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.

    Either way, the word ‘glaciation’ in the geophysical sciences refers to the episodes of ice covering extensive land areas intermittently several times during an ice age. As per the several examples I just gave. One of Tim’s quotes reads “‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ defines glaciation as: the noun of the verb glaciate”, although he is confused about the distinction between noun and verb. But none of this matters: the word ‘glaciation’ is in the geological sciences meant to signify wide-spread ice cover [which happen to be caused by changes in the orbital elements].

  100. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 16, 2012 at 8:05 am
    “Except that the solar variability does not match climate variability.”

    Leif, there is a correlation between the temperature charts and the 10Be variations which is used as proxy for solar activity.
    Is your understanding that there is no such link? 10Be fluctuation are wrongly brought in relation with solar activity and sunspot numbers?

  101. Lars P. says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    Leif, there is a correlation between the temperature charts and the 10Be variations which is used as proxy for solar activity.
    Here is what that ‘correlation’ looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%TSI.png
    The ‘TSI’ is really just derived from 10Be, so essentially the lower plot is of 10Be.
    Here is another such ‘correlation’ adding another temperature reconstruction:

    Are you impressed? I am not.

  102. Lars P. says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    Leif, there is a correlation between the temperature charts and the 10Be variations which is used as proxy for solar activity.
    Here is what that ‘correlation’ looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/2000%20Year%20Temp%20and%20TSI.png
    The ‘TSI’ is really just derived from 10Be, so essentially the lower plot is of 10Be.
    Here is another such ‘correlation’ adding another temperature reconstruction:

    Are you impressed? I am not.

  103. LS says
    Except that the solar variability does not match climate variability
    Henry says
    well, unless you know for sure everything that happens on the top of our atmosphere, and by however small amount of change in EUV or FUV =that we are aware= can cause a number of changes in the chemical chain reactions between oxygen and nitrogen and hydroxide compounds, that subsequently causes variations in climate as pointed to by Stephen Wilde earlier on this thread,
    I think you cannot make a statement like that.
    unless you are (a) God?

  104. Dr. Svalgaard said this:

    there is no glaciation going on now or during the Maunder Minimum.

    I say no matter how many times you say the wrong thing it doesn’t make it right. I still stand by all of the definitions I provided. I notice that you didn’t challenge them. Is this how you do scientific debate? Keep saying the same time until someone dies. The one that lives wins. In fact you means of arguing seems really quite similar to how children argue. They do tend to just repeat themselves. How old are you?

    Why do you not want to admit that there is glaciation going on right now? Is it because it waxes and wanes. Some papers actually show that the current waxing and waning of ongoing glaciation might have some connection with solar activity. You wouldn’t want to go there, no sir.

    There fore you will state that there is no glaciation going on right now. Do you believe in the existence of the continent Antarctica and its glaciers? Do you think that all of the dictionarys ordinary and scientific that I quoted definitions from are wrong? No body on this forum knows these answers, because you just keep repeating the same words. There is no glaciation going on right now.

    People are going to doubt your veracity if you continue making strange statements.

  105. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Thank you for the prompt answer, I was having different graphs in memory, looks like big changes in the evaluation of solar activity have been done since then or my memory of it is wrong.
    Is the chart weighted in any way or is it directly derived from Be10 (C14?) data readings?
    More or only one set of data?
    Will be interesting to see what changes the coming years bring in solar activity with lower sunspots to compare.

  106. @ HenryP
    No I can’t prove it, but there are good reasons for it ( I am in process of writing paper on geomagnetics), summer nights in high latitudes are as short as 8 h in June and as long as 16 h in December, see this link.

    @ Lars P.
    but then compare Loehle temp reconstruction to the geomagnetic bi-decadal change (post 1600 resolution of the ETHZ is in one year steps, but Potsdam data base pre 1600, is only at 10 year steps), not perfect correlation but still meaningful.

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

  107. Stephen Wilde said:

    Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.

    Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.

    Tim Walker says:

    Thanks for trying to help Stephen. I appreciate it. The problem is that you are not correct. Glaciate the verb is going on right now in a multitude of places on Earth. Mostly glaciers away from Antarctica are not glaciating. They are not covering more ground. Take away the e and add ion you get glaciation the noun describing the result of glacial action which includes on going glacial activities. There is fresh glaciation even when the glacier is no longer glaciating.

    Above Mr. Svalgaard created a nice big long list of references. It looks very impressive. In reality it is very stupid. All of his references relate to the use of glaciation to refer to glaciation that was created before the current Holocene interglacial period. I know what he is doing. He is referring to the past and purposefully refusing to respond to the fact that glaciation is happening right now through current glaciating activity. Glaciation the noun describes the results of the glaciating. Right now down in Antarctica scientists are looking under the ice at the results of glaciating.

    Leif only wants to use the noun glaciation to refer to the past major epics of glacial activity. I presume that he has enough knowledge to really know glaciating is going on right now and that there is glaciation seen as a result of glacial activity since the last major epic of glacial activity. I don not doubt that he knows that Antarctica is in the middle of a major glacial epic. Most of the continent is still covered by glaciers. He must have ulterior motives for ignoring it and the glacial activity going on it other places. This along with his pedantic attitude is really annoying.

  108. Mr. Svalgaard said all of this stuff down to where I respond:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    Glaciation – noun – as Leif means it.
    Glaciation – verb – the process of glaciating as Tim Walker means it.
    Either way, the word ‘glaciation’ in the geophysical sciences refers to the episodes of ice covering extensive land areas intermittently several times during an ice age. As per the several examples I just gave. One of Tim’s quotes reads “‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ defines glaciation as: the noun of the verb glaciate”, although he is confused about the distinction between noun and verb. But none of this matters: the word ‘glaciation’ is in the geological sciences meant to signify wide-spread ice cover [which happen to be caused by changes in the orbital elements].

    Mr. Svalgaard I have not disagreed that the term glaciation is used to refer to past episodes of ice covering extensive land areas. It also is used correctly for the results of glacial activity. By the way Mr. Svalgaard you do know that Antarctica is a extensive land area covered by ice. You do know Mr. Svalgaard that Greenland is a extensive land area covered by ice.

    Oh, and sir I am not confused about the distinction between nouns and verbs. But since you are so pompous as to say such a thing maybe, sir you should give me your definition of a verb and of a noun. Doing so is pedantic and quite fitting for someone that would say I am confused about the distinction between nouns and verbs.

  109. Tim Walker says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    Mr. Svalgaard I have not disagreed that the term glaciation is used to refer to past episodes of ice covering extensive land areas.
    I gave you a long list of scientific papers and references to ‘the last glaciation’. Which apparently according to them was about 20,000 years ago. Would you say that they are all wrong or written by little children. We are still in the middle if an ice age, which is why there are still glaciers around. During each ice age there are periodic glaciations due to the changing orbital elements [and axial tilt] of the Earth. Nothing to do with the Sun. I repeat these things because you seem to have a hard time grasping them.

  110. I always find it interesting that commenters in thesesolar discussions have the exact same “feel” as the rest of climate science :-

    There are experts who know it all and they use denigrating language – now where have I seen this behaviour before ???

  111. common sense says if the sun is pumping out more energy the earth is receiving more energy but that alone cannot explain Global Warming. It is not as simple as that. The Earth is a complicated entity that will not be defined by such simplistic scientific ideas and that is why the debate continues. Science should stop predicting the future where the Earth is involved, they will always miss the mark.

    Here’s a bit of observational science. Living in the south of Australia, two members of the family just spent 4 weeks in USA, mainly California and didn’t use sunblock and didn’t get sunburn. To compare your August/September summer/fall would be February/March summer/autumn in Australia. You can’t spend a day in the sun unprotected as you will get severely burned. Obviously there is a substantial difference between the North and the South of the Planet and science uses averages to explain it and the non-scientific person has to trust the scientist that he/she knows what they are doing. I think not.

  112. askwhyitisso says
    Here’s a bit of observational science. Living in the south of Australia, two members of the family just spent 4 weeks in USA, mainly California and didn’t use sunblock and didn’t get sunburn. To compare your August/September summer/fall would be February/March summer/autumn in Australia. You can’t spend a day in the sun unprotected as you will get severely burned. Obviously there is a substantial difference between the North and the South of the Planet and science uses averages to explain it and the non-scientific person has to trust the scientist that he/she knows what they are doing. I think not.
    Henry says
    The explanation is that the ozone layer is a lot thinner in the SH and also depleted by more than 100% in the SH during the warming period 1951-1995. Depletion of ozone in the NH was a lot less, for some reason.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/f10-7-flux-sea-level-and-the-holocene/#comment-1079609

  113. I know the verb is ‘to glaciate’ and the noun is ‘glaciation’ but it just seemed to me that in some comments Tim was using the noun when the context seemed to indicate that he meant the verb.

    No matter.

  114. In reply to Leif Svalgaard’s comment:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    William says:
    September 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    “Explain what you mean by the magic word ‘interrupted’.”
    No sunspots, abrupt very large CME.
    This has never been observed

    Direct solar observations are limited to three to four centuries. The last solar magnetic cycle interruption occurred during the 8200 year BP abrupt cooling event or the Younger Dryas 12,900 BP abrupt cooling event. Something is causing the cyclic abrupt cooling events. As there are abrupt cosmogenic isotope change that correlate with the abrupt cooling event the cause must be either the sun or the changes to the geomagnetic field. The warming and cooling is not due to changes in TSI.

    The Younger Dryas cooling period has 1200 years in duration. The solar magnetic cycle does not shutdown for a 1200 years. An abrupt change to the geomagnetic field is capable of causing what is observed. The liquid core changes are not however capable of causing geomagnetic excursions. The mantel is conductive so abrupt core based geomagnetic field changes will generate a counter EMF in the mantel which resists the change.

    By the a process of elimination based on physical cause and limitations of what is physically possible the sun is the cause of what is observed.

    If the solar magnetic cycle is periodically interrupted and the restart results in burn marks on the surface of the planet, something is fundamentally incorrect or missing from the basic solar magnetic model. The something that is missing explains a host of astronomical anomalies related to galaxy formation, galaxy evolution, and galaxy morphology. There is significant and widespread observational evidence to support this statement.

    I am quite sure the above statements are all correct. What I am not sure of is whether the current solar change will lead to a solar magnetic cycle interruption or will it lead to a Maunder minimum. All the observational evidence supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, however, it will be a number of months or years until there is observational evidence to clearly resolve this question

    Something is abruptly causing the cyclic geomagnetic excursions. It appears for the reasons noted above the physical cause is the sun. The correlation of orbital parameter is due to the mechanism by which the solar magnetic cycle restart effects the geomagnetic field not due to solar insolation at 65N or 60N.

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

    The Younger Dryas (YD, 12.9}11.6 ka cal BP, Alley et al., 1993) was a cold event that interrupted the general warming trend during the last deglaciation. The YD was not unique, as it represents the last of a number of events during the Late Pleistocene, all characterised by rapid and intensive cooling in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1993; Anderson, 1997). During these events, icebergs were common in the N Atlantic Ocean, as evidenced by ice-rafted sediments found in ocean cores. The most prominent of these episodes with ice rafting are known as Heinrich events (e.g., Bond et al., 1992, 1993; Andrews, 1998). A Heinrich-like event (H-0) was simultaneous with the YD (Andrews et al., 1995). Moreover, the YD seems to be part of a millennial-scale cycle of cool climatic events that extends into the Holocene (Denton and KarleHn, 1973; Harvey, 1980; Magny and Ru!aldi, 1995; O’Brien et al., 1995; Bond et al., 1997). Based on analysis of the 14C record from tree rings, Stuiver and Braziunas (1993) suggested that solar variability could be an important factor a!ecting climate variations during the Holocene (see also Magny, 1993, 1995a), possibly operating together with oceanic forcing. For the Late Pleistocene, however, it is generally assumed that the abrupt climate changes are predominantly forced by fluctuations in ocean circulation (e.g., Bond et al., 1997; Broecker, 1997, 1998). However, van Geel et al. (1999b) proposed that solar variability played a major role by triggering the abrupt Late Pleistocene climate shifts. In this paper, we extend this idea by discussing in detail the possibility that a reduced solar activity triggered the start of the YD.

    Estimates for the increase in 14C at the start of the YD all demonstrate a strong and rapid rise: 40}70& within 300 years (Goslar et al., 1995), 30 to 60 %/% in 70 years (BjoK rck et al., 1996), 50} 80&in 200 years (Hughen et al., 1998) and 70 %/% in 200 years (Hajdas et al., 1998). This change is apparently the largest increase of atmospheric 14C known from late glacial and Holocene records (Goslar et al., 1995). Hajdas et al. (1998) used this sharp increase of atmospheric 14C at the onset of the YD as a tool for time correlation between sites.

  115. Henry@william
    So to summarize ur comment
    We are on the same curve as compiled by Vukcevic
    – june temps central England
    We will drop by about one degree K until the end of the cooling
    period 2039.
    You agree?

  116. vukcevic says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    @ Lars P.
    ……

    thanks vukcevik. That is quite something!
    Have you ever tried to superimpose the solar reconstruction over it? Even maybe there is no need for better alignment with the error range of the temp reconstruction….

    On the SSN changes – I was always skeptic of any revision of older data, but yes, sometime it is needed. Time will tell. If for instance in the near future TSI would vary 1 or 2 W it would raise a lot of questions to the validity of the new reconstructions which show a narrow band of 1 W between minima and maxima of each cycle over 300 years with almost constant minima. Even a 0.3 W deviation of a minima would be an unseen event.

  117. @ Lars P.
    There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field. If it is solar originated, than either close flux reaches the Earth’s magnetosphere, or it is due to the open flux, it is far to weak to have such an effect.

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

  118. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 15, 2012 at 10:13 am
    vukcevic says:
    September 15, 2012 at 9:48 am
    McCracken did good work, his data is not questioned,
    They are very much questioned. His main problem is the splicing of the ion-chamber measurements of the 1930s-1950s to the neutron monitor measurements 1950s-now.

    You’re confusing science with Climate Science. That’s SOP in Climate Science.

  119. HenryP says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:15 am
    LS says
    So, you (Henry) claim that in the past 300 years temperatures have increased 0.03 C…. Henry says
    oh dear. You cannot even read a graph? The red line is the long term average change (of temperatures in JUNE in mid England) from the average measured. It has a slope of 0.0001 = 0.0001 degree C change per annum. Over 300 years it was 0.03 degree warmer.
    I asked you to supply me with a calibration certficate of a thermometer that is 300 years old?
    _________________
    Ahhhh. The specter of the logical fallacy of spurious accuracy raises it’s ugly head.
    The climate where I live (inter-mountain west ) frequently enjoys daily swings of 25 deg C.
    My thermometer is calibrated in 2 deg. increments. Yet we see temperatures rendered to 2 decimal places. I defy anyone to be able to sense .03 degrees of change through their skin. And so we will try to move heaven and earth to ‘prevent’ change we can’t control.

  120. Thanks Henry for your response however my point is that scientists use averages. I live in Australia and I am fully aware of the depletion of the Ozone Layer and that it is thinner in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North, however if the Southern Hemisphere is subject to more intense solar energy (ultraviolet)than the North and granted the south is mainly water, and the North is warming more than the south, you have to ask – is it land mass/albedo that sets the temperature and not the Sun.

  121. ferdberple says:
    September 17, 2012 at 7:00 am
    That is one theory. The 100k year problem suggest it is not the whole story.
    Indeed, the whole story is a bit more involved and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit has a 400k period and is near zero every 400k years, so the 100k cycle does not operate for about 100k years every 400k years, in particular, the coming 100k years. During such periods the 40k-yr variations of the axial tilt provide the necessary modulation. I include that variation in the general term ‘orbital variations’ [although not strictly correct]. The main point is that this variation will be there even for a completely constant sun.

    William says:
    September 17, 2012 at 8:55 am
    The last solar magnetic cycle interruption occurred during the 8200 year BP
    Whatever is the cause for the YD etc, it is not the ‘mystical solar magnetic cycle interruption’ [you have still not defined what you man by that]. Even during the Maunder Minimum we know that the solar cycle operated normally as cosmic rays were modulated as today [or perhaps even a bit more strongly]

    vukcevic says:
    September 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
    There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Just shows that there is no physical coupling between the two.

  122. askwhyisitso says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/f10-7-flux-sea-level-and-the-holocene/#comment-1080776

    Henry says
    Less ozone shielding from <0.5 um radiation means more UV in the SH oceans. Water absorbs in the UV (blue )and therefore most of that radiation is converted to heat. The heat of the SH oceans was taken to the NH by weathersystems and currents. That is why the NH is warming and the SH (landmass) did not warm (much).
    So, it is the sun. Maxima started dropping in 1995 at pretty much the same time when ozone started increasing again. There are few here people that believe there is a connection, i.e. small changes in the distribution of the solar constant due to solar activity causing a different set of reactions on top of our atmosphere, producing amongst other things, more ozone.

  123. For those endlessly bickering over ‘what is is’ or what verb can be nound…

    English, even “scientific” English, has wide range and significant ambiguity in it. In English, nouns can be verbd and verbs can be nound. “Power Sander”… I power sanded the car. “Shotgun” I shotgunned the trees. (And don’t get me started on ‘shotgunned the answer’…) “Fry” as in “Fry that steak” can be “french fry” or “We’re having a big fry at my place, bring your fish!” ( Or fish for fish …)

    Then we have endless bickering over just when is a glacier glaciering. Heck, I’m surprised nobody pointed out that “ice age” is often used for “Ice age glacial period”. We are, right NOW, in an “ice age”; but most folks will not think so. (Most scientists might, at least those in or near the field; but don’t as psychologists…) So does it really matter?

    Leif used the term correctly (as used in papers having to do with ice ages). The alternative use ( as in “Glacier park had a minor glaciation event in the LIA but has now retreated”) would be accepted as OK by most anyone not in an “ice age” mind set. Hey, it’s English… it does that kind of thing… you need to pick up “correctness” from context.

    Me? I try to regularly and fully disambiguate such things (but do not always succeed) with longer phrases, like: “An ice age glacial” or “A small glacier with increased glaciation during the LIA”. The extra verbage makes the meaning clear (even if not strictly matching Strunk, or any other “Style Guide”…) I don’t know what “reviewers” require, and hope I never need to find out…

    It really isn’t worth it to haggle such petty stuff. It’s haggled way to much as it is. So don’t waste your haggle on it…

    Since I’m here… For all those doing a bicker, that is bickering, having bickered, your bicker is best bickered with some lunar solar tidal causality. The sun can be correlated with Jupiter and climate via an orbital resonance match that has actual causality via a Lunar / Tidal / Ocean actual causality:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full.pdf

    Wiggle matching is NOT enough. You can causal it all you want, but the mechanism is lacking in a wiggle match, so you will be, in the end, correlated back to reality…

    As per the Younger Dryas:

    There is very strong evidence for a big rock fall from space into the ice shield over N. America (and leaving a major platinum deposit being mined in Canada, BTW). Ring the Bell of Earth with a Giant WHACK! – what happens to all those Be and Magnetic values? I know I don’t know… so on those major “excursion” events, using a uniformitarian approach may be limiting and using a bit of catatrophism on it just might be helpful.

    You may now resume your regularly scheduled “did so” “did not” “You can’t verb that noun!” “I’ll noun it if I want to”…

  124. Interesting few paragraphs down towards the end of that paper you just referenced:

    “Moreover, we have noticed a similar tendency on the decadal
    time-scale. The plotted arcs of the 18.03-year Saros cycles, shown
    in Fig. 1, based on accurate orbital data, are more regular than
    those plotted in Fig. 2, based on assuming constant lunar months.
    The irregularities that we find in tidal strength and timing over
    longer periods might further decrease if we prescribed more
    exact motions of the moon and earth, as well as prescribing
    variable climatic precession.
    [A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be
    resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the
    outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the
    average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1y10 of
    that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun’s rotation
    about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the
    latter a manifestation of planetary resonances (13).]“

  125. Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm
    vukcevic says:
    September 17, 2012 at 11:58 am
    There is a big question mark about the TSI reconstructed from close magnetic flux, since there is a similar but % -wise far greater variability in the Earth’s magnetic field.

    L.S: Just shows that there is no physical coupling between the two.
    …………………….
    Not necessarily.

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

    Correlation is too strong too be ignored by any scientist searching for the true cause.
    Suggested alternatives:
    a) close flux of the CMEs (has strength enhanced with frequency of occurrence)
    b) Internal amplification (e.g. – polar field and next SSN cycle)
    c) ‘Remnant’ magnetism type positive feedback (e.g. alternator)
    d) External forcing for both, sun and the Earth
    e) Combination of two or more of the above

  126. vukcevic says:
    September 18, 2012 at 1:52 am
    Correlation is too strong too be ignored by any scientist searching for the true cause.
    What a load of self-serving crap. Correlation is lousy, and your suggested ’causes’ don’t work. You have found a new word ['closed' flux]. The open flux follows the closed flux [open = floor + coefficient * square root of closed].

  127. Hi doc
    Your vigorous protestations are suggesting that your are in a direct conflict with your own data.
    – re: Closed flux In comparison, the recent reconstruction of Y. Wang et al. (2005) is based on solar considerations alone, using a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed flux that generates bright faculae. yours truly IPCC
    – re: What a load of self-serving c… no need to comment that one

    On more general note:
    progress of science requires understanding of natural process not a denunciation .

  128. Leif Svalgaard said
    “…so the 100k cycle does not operate for about 100k years every 400k years, in particular, the coming 100k years. During such periods the 40k-yr variations of the axial tilt provide the necessary modulation.”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    So perhaps the Younger Dryas was the 41k World reasserting itself ?

  129. vukcevic says:
    September 18, 2012 at 5:52 am
    Your vigorous protestations are suggesting that your are in a direct conflict with your own data.
    More crap. Don’t you think I take my own data into account.

    - re: Closed flux In comparison, the recent reconstruction of Y. Wang et al. (2005) is based on solar considerations alone, using a flux transport model to simulate the long-term evolution of the closed flux that generates bright faculae. yours truly IPCC
    1: not recent [already outdated]
    2. based on faulty Group Sunspot Number
    3. I am one of the foremost experts on this subject and have, in fact, peer-reviewed several of Wang [and Sheeley]‘s papers on this so no need to dig your hole any deeper
    4. You have learned a new word ‘closed’ flux, but apparently have no idea what it means and how it relates to the rest. The SSN is a good measure of the ‘closed flux’. The heliospheric magnetic field is a mixture of open flux [mostly polar fields] and closed flux [mostly CMEs] and is well described by this formula: HMF = floor + coefficient * SQRT(SSN) as Wang points out ["should scale with the square root of the sunspot number"]. There is some confusion in the literature where some people call ALL of the HMF ‘open’, but that is a detail.

    - re: What a load of self-serving c… no need to comment that one
    I take it would be painful to realize how true that statement is. But you do not need to comment on that pain, just accept my true statement.

    progress of science requires understanding of natural process not a denunciation .
    Your comments and suggestions show abundantly that you have no understanding of any of those natural processes, and nonsense pseudo-science should be denounced for what it is.

    J Martin says:
    September 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm
    So perhaps the Younger Dryas was the 41k World reasserting itself ?
    I don’t think so as the duration the YD was much too short for that.

  130. Hi Doc
    That sounds to me (and anyone who could read the ‘sentiment’ as well as the words) as a pretty strong endorsement.
    I shall get in touch with Dr. Dickey at JPL, she might help to get my result published possibly as a ‘letter to the Editor’ in Nature or similar.
    Thanks.

  131. Irreproducible results ?!
    Well, you got both sets of data, TSI and the ETHZ. It is bi-decadal change in the magnetic field :
    Bz year x – Bz year (x-20), at Latitude –90 degrees, Longitude 0 degrees (south pole).
    Now, if your Excel failed to calculate and plot that and doesn’t look like this http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMCa.htm
    then either your Excel or your computer has a problem, it is in the need of urgent attention.
    Science is not interested in if someone dislikes result for any reason whatsoever.
    Science wants to know the data then science wants to know why.
    Science has data by curtsey of Wang, Lean , Svlgaard, Finlay and Jackson.
    Vukcevic just compared the two sets of data and found they correlate.
    Science now wants to know why!
    It is a mighty big question and answer may not please everyone, but science doesn’t care about that. Come on doc, its not that bad even if you are wrong for once.
    I assume no one else beside two of us is any more reading this webpage, lets declare we do not agree, no need to spoil our long friendship, from which I have learned:
    I should investigate what I am told not to.
    You can have the last word.

  132. Henry@JimG
    your graph is about right. I am saying energy-in was the highest in 1995, but the max. of energy-out (when earth was the warmest) was ca. 1998…., acc. to most data sets.
    According to my calculation we will continue to fall in temps. until 2039
    …better buy some extra warm cloths…

  133. Henry@Vukcevic
    I am not sure how you can reconstruct TSI back in time by 200 or 300 years. I think the first distribution of TSI (for wavelength) was established in the early 70ties. I don’t know how and if it was done again since, or even how many times this distribution (over wavelengths) was measured again? I believe it is the variance in the distribution of the solar constant that causes a “differing” shield, e.g. differing amounts of ozone & , which in turn leads to warming and cooling periods of ca. 44 years (1 cycle =88 years)

  134. HenryP says:
    September 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    Henry@JimG
    “your graph is about right. I am saying energy-in was the highest in 1995, but the max. of energy-out (when earth was the warmest) was ca. 1998…., acc. to most data sets.
    According to my calculation we will continue to fall in temps. until 2039
    …better buy some extra warm cloths…”

    Already have them. Live in Wyoming. Was hoping for some Global Warming.

  135. Henry@Leif
    My own data set shows a steady decline from 1998 as reported by JIM G. and HADCRUT 3. We have fallen by about 0.2 or 0.1 degree C since 2000.
    UAH, as I understand it, has a problem, I told you. If you look at the UAH data you get no correlation whatsoever. All of my data for means, maxima and minima I can put in binominals with high correlation, >95%.
    My data set also shows that further cooling is coming, regardless of CO2
    Not reporting the truth on this is not fair, e.g. to the tomatoes planters in Anchorage, where it cooled by almost 1.5 degrees C since 2000.

Comments are closed.