Solar cycle 24 continues weakly, perhaps weakest of the space-age

NOAA SWPC has updated their plot page of solar metrics, and the slump continues.

At spaceweather.com Dr. Tony Phillips writes:

SO THIS IS SOLAR MAXIMUM? Forecasters have long expected the Solar Max of 2013 to be the weakest of the Space Age. It might be even weaker than they thought. As shown in this 20-year plot of sunspot counts vs. time, the sun is underperforming:

Sunspot numbers are notoriously variable, so the actual counts could rapidly rise to meet or exceed the predicted curve. For now, however, the face of the sun is devoid of large sunspots, and there have been no strong flares in more than a week. The threshold of Solar Max looks a lot like Solar Min. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of X-class solar flares in the next 24 hours.

===================================================

Here’s the other metrics, which are also “underperforming”.

The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005.

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

288 Responses to Solar cycle 24 continues weakly, perhaps weakest of the space-age

  1. GlynnMhor says:

    For all the ridicule heaped upon Theodor Landscheidt, his predictions of a Grand Solar Minimum seem to be working out much better than the temperature projections of the AGW alarmists.

  2. john says:

    Ice age anyone?

  3. P. Solar says:

    OK, it’s looking pretty clear at this stage that cycle 24 has given its best. Predictions need to be scaled down once again and now to 65-70 range.

  4. Do you have a graphic comparing this low “max” to the maunder minimum? It’s way too early to tell how this will impact our planet isn’t it?

  5. The Panel prediction of 90 was too high to begin with [as I pointed out already back then] but was a compromise [so much for science]. My own prediction stands at 72. An unknown element is the effect of the Livingston and Penn effect, which will lead to an undercount of sunspots compared to to the magnetic fields present: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf
    There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.

  6. vukcevic says:

    Ok sunspot output is a bit mean, but the global field (judging by the polar measurements) has played according to the rule (as ‘set’ by the vukcevic formula)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious

  7. I would point out that Leif Svalgard predicted a Cycle 24 solar max at a SSN of 72.

    However, I would not rule out a later cycle increase or a flattened top cycle like 23 was. Here is the comparison of some weak cycles, including this one.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png

  8. The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005
    That ‘step’ is an artifact created by using months as time unit and the single strong storm in September, 2005. What drives Ap is the interplanetary conditions [magnetic field, density, speed, CMEs, etc]. These do not show anything special around October 2005: http://www.leif.org/research/Oct-2005.png [as I have pointed out many times].

  9. Henry Clark says:

    After the peak/plateau of the current solar cycle finishes is going to be interesting, likely terra incognita for the modern era. For instance, while the minimum following cycle 22 and the minimum following cycle 23 both had 0 sunspots, the latter had substantially less magnetic deflection of cosmic rays than the former (illustrating how not all minimums are equal, not having a flat floor), and, from past history, there is reason to believe vastly more variation in GCR flux than seen during recent decades would occur if transitioning towards a Grand Minimum after the current cycle 24 ends a few years from now.

    http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg

    The last solar cycle (1996-2008, the temperature plateau) was almost identical to cycle 20 of four decades ago in average cosmic ray count, though differing by 3% from the high solar activity cycles of 21 and 22 (1976-1996, warming and the global warming scare), but a few years from now could come a difference of 10% and beyond, combined with the AMO moving into the post-peak phase of its oscillation…

  10. Edim says:

    It will not go much higher in sunspot numbers, but it’s not maximum yet. It’s a beginning of the plateau, which will be centered around 2014. It’s a weak prolonged cycle. Next minimum not before 2020.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

  11. The AGW industry will shortly be plugging AGC. “Look!” they’ll bleat, “the climate is changing. We said it would a part un petit detail. Send research money!”

  12. Johanus says:

    Leif Svalgaard said:
    “An unknown element is the effect of the Livingston and Penn effect, which will lead to an undercount of sunspots…”

    Then we should be looking at the solar microwave flux (e.g. 2800MHz) levels, which don’t seem to be affected as much by the L&P effect. It is a more reliable (less subjective) way of measuring solar magnetic activity. I believe we can reconstruct flux levels back as far as the 19th century, is that not correct?

  13. vukcevic says:
    November 6, 2012 at 10:54 am
    Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious
    Now that you have seen the light, I don’t need to tell anybody anymore.

    Henry Clark says:
    November 6, 2012 at 11:13 am
    For instance, while the minimum following cycle 22 and the minimum following cycle 23 both had 0 sunspots, the latter had substantially less magnetic deflection of cosmic rays than the former (illustrating how not all minimums are equal, not having a flat floor)
    Every second minimum have a [low] flat top, while the intervening minima have a sharp [high] peak. The reason for that is known and has to do with the sign of the solar polar fields. This last minimum was not significantly special, e.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
    Compare the three peaks at Hermanus [red curve]. Or Thule: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif

  14. JohnD says:

    Maybe in 2005 the IPCC replaced the sun with a cfl (cosmic fluorescent lightsource), at night, when we weren’t looking…

  15. Sparks says:

    There was lots of articles online around 2004-2009 claiming that solar cycle 24 would be the most active cycle ever experienced since 1755, which would (they claimed) increase the effect that greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere, which, would dangerously raise the planets temperature etc…

    The alarmist scientists quoted by the news media Muppet’s have already conceded that an increase in solar activity will raise the planets temperature, so, therefore they will now have to conceded and acknowledge that also the lack of recent solar activity and a continuation of weaker solar cycles have the ability to cool the planets temperature. They will also have to conceded and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past.

    Check Mate, game set and match!

  16. J. Seifert says:

    Folks, we have the world famous solar researcher Mrs. Judith Lean of GISS and she
    predicts the global temps of 2014 will be maxed, whether there is more Sunspots
    or less,… sunspots are insignificant ….do not be frightened by a few missing Sun-fly
    specks … because the evil CO2 will get us 100% Doom and Gloom….We are all doomed
    don’t you feel it?…. Forget the micro-driver “sunspots” and concentrate on the macro-drivers….and get ready everybody, 2100 is nearer than you think…..JS

  17. Johanus says:
    November 6, 2012 at 11:26 am
    Then we should be looking at the solar microwave flux (e.g. 2800MHz) levels, which don’t seem to be affected as much by the L&P effect. It is a more reliable (less subjective) way of measuring solar magnetic activity. I believe we can reconstruct flux levels back as far as the 19th century, is that not correct?
    The microwave flux is a better indicator, but not because it is more objective. The L&P effect is a reduced number of spots for a given amount of magnetic flux. The 299Mhz or F10.7 cm flux can be reconstructed back to [at least] the 1840s: slides 13-14 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20and%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf

  18. Sparks says:
    November 6, 2012 at 11:53 am
    They will also have to concede and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past
    No, they won’t ‘i>have to concede that, because it is most likely not true: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf

  19. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
    There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.

    Perhaps you need to consult Vukcevic formula
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    which shows exactly what the sun is up to

    Hey ‘What it is we don’t know’ but the ‘vukcevic’ with correlation R^2 = 0.92 ‘we know is spurious’.
    LOL
    What happened to ‘more like SC14, not SC5,’ not even Dalton, you gone all the way back to Maunder?.

  20. Elizabeth says:

    So it looks clear now that to date anyway that ONLY David Archibalds SSN prediction was correct. He predicted a very low solar max of roughly 40 +/-15SSN 3-4 years ago? . I remember many of the “experts” here laughing off/dissing DA constantly. I for one would welcome another update by DA here

  21. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Every second minimum have a [low] flat top, while the intervening minima have a sharp [high] peak. The reason for that is known and has to do with the sign of the solar polar fields. This last minimum was not significantly special, e.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg

    For the last minimum following cycle 23, compared to the minimum following cycle 21, while the http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg plot has the count at Pc=9.2 GV reach about the same value in both cases, it also shows a difference appearing at lower GV values.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 11:33 am
    “Compare the three peaks at Hermanus [red curve]. Or Thule: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif

    The difference is noticeable even if just taking the http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif plot and drawing a line at the last minimum for improved readability, adding a horizontal red line to that neutron monitor plot:

    http://s9.postimage.org/jz6qpr7zz/lineadded.gif

    The minimum after cycle 19 comes closer to the minimum after cycle 23 but still does not reach the same value, while the minimum after cycle 21 does not even come close.

    Moreover, clearer than either of the above graphs is rather

    cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=11&endyear=2012&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

    Such shows that, while the neutron count of the minimums of the four prior cycles depicted from the 1960s onwards did not exceed around 5% to around 7.5% on the scale used there, the last minimum reached around 11% on the same scale.

  22. Sparks says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    “No, they won’t ‘i>have to concede that, because it is most likely not true:”

    Leif, could you be more specific to what you believe I was inferring, thanks.

  23. Archibald outsmarted the solar specialists. And they still do not know what the H the sun is doing.

  24. Henry Clark says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    The minimum after cycle 19 comes closer to the minimum after cycle 23 but still does not reach the same value, while the minimum after cycle 21 does not even come close.
    There are no significant differences between any of the minima taken in pairs that exceed the statistical variation from station to station.

    cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cg
    It is difficult to maintain the same calibration over decades and Oulu has not been able to do this successfully.

    Sparks says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    Leif, could you be more specific to what you believe I was inferring, thanks.
    Why don’t you explain yourself. You said: “solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century”. My interpretation of that is that meant ‘stronger than at other times the past several centuries’. Correct me if you think that is not what you meant and you support the notion that activity in the later half of the 20th century was nothing special.

  25. Henry Clark says:

    Sparks:

    Good point on the already-failed predictions.

    I have never met anybody in the core of the CAGW movement honest enough to concede anything ever under any circumstances, though. There are always two versions of data and history on anything affecting the movement, from sea level history to temperature history: (1) reality prior to recent CAGW-convenient revisionism and (2) propaganda afterwards. The real history of solar activity versus climate over the centuries and decades can be seen in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg though.

  26. Jim Cripwell says:

    I wonder if someone can answer a question for me. When it is said that sunspots “disappear”, what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that the magentic strength is so weak, that the sunspot does not form at all? Or does it mean that the sunspot forms, but because the magentic strength is so weak, that there is no contrast with the solar background, so we cannot see it?

  27. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    “There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know.”

    Perhaps it is digesting (or puking up) some of that Dark Matter that you indicated is theorized to be hiding inside the sun since none can be found anywhere in our local vacinity?

  28. Henry Clark says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cg…
    It is difficult to maintain the same calibration over decades and Oulu has not been able to do this successfully. Here you can see how Oulu has drifted over time compared to Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Thule.png
    Such drifts can have several causes, one is the changing geomagnetic field which affects Oulu much more than Thule [the latter being so close to the magnetic pole]. And here is Oulu vs. Hermanus http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Hermanus.png
    If one compares Oulu with several other stations you can see how Oulu has drifted. The triangles show Oulu divided by the mean of the other stations mentioned on the plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png

  29. Jim Cripwell says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    Does it mean that the magnetic strength is so weak, that the sunspot does not form at all? Or does it mean that the sunspot forms, but because the magnetic strength is so weak, that there is no contrast with the solar background, so we cannot see it?
    A combination of both, with the first being dominant.

  30. MattN says:

    Looks like a max to me. For a dead guy, Landescheidt is making lots of experts look like fools…

  31. Jim G says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Perhaps it is digesting (or puking up) some of that Dark Matter that you indicated is theorized to be hiding inside the sun since none can be found anywhere in our local vicinity?
    Dark Matter is not black or ‘dark’, but rather ‘invisible’, i.e. does not interact with electromagnetic radiation [i.e. light].

  32. Billy Liar says:

    Jan Alvestad at:

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

    has, for several months, postulated that solar max occurred in February 2012 at a smoothed suspot number of 66.9.

    Funnily enough, on this site:

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

    a certain Leif Svalgaard, in January 2005, predicted a max SSN of 70, beaten only by De Jager & Duhau who predicted 68 in December 2008. The overall pattern, including timing, was most closely predicted by Choudhuri in March 2007.

    Obviously, Leif is going to tell me the fat lady has yet to sing but it sure looks like it’s going to be a win for the physical modelers.

  33. Billy Liar says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    Obviously, Leif is going to tell me the fat lady has yet to sing but it sure looks like it’s going to be a win for the physical modelers.
    Success has many fathers [including all the ones that are right for the wrong reasons]. Failure is an orphan…

  34. Jim Cripwell says:

    Leif, Manhy thanks. Jim.

  35. David Archibald says:

    Elizabeth says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    Thankyou for your kind words. Yes, things are turning out much as expected. What is going to surprise people from here is just how long the ramp down from solar maximum will be – 12 years. That is longer than the average solar cycle.

    In hindsight, I should have picked up earlier that this is a normal De Vries cycle event. The last one was the Dalton Minimum. Ours has come along right on schedule. In the last one thousand years, only the Medieval Warm Period seems to have missed out on one.

  36. Elizabeth says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    ONLY David Archibalds SSN prediction was correct. He predicted a very low solar max of roughly 40 +/-15SSN 3-4 years ago? .
    In that case he is already wrong…

  37. RHS says:

    Based on the graph here (courtesy of the solar page), extreme cooling events do not always appear to follow a minimum event:
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/4
    Both the Dalton and Maunder minimums certainly had their extreme cooling, but these were also during and towards the end of the Little Ice Age. But, Solar Cycles 12 & 20 do not appear to have been as extreme weather wise.
    Kind of like Roulette, round and round it goes, where it stops, no knows…

  38. Sparks says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    “Correct me if you think that is not what you meant and you support the notion that activity in the later half of the 20th century was nothing special.”

    Leif, No, bad Leif!
    I read the http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf
    in fact I rebloged a post about it while you were in Oslo, I respect your work, and I was not inferring anything to it at all. maybe I should have finished my point by saying;

    ‘They will also have to conceded and acknowledge that solar activity has been how Leif Svalgaard explains how it was in the later half of the 20th century and how it was in the past.

    Check Mate, game set and match!’

    Thank you, for your pedantic and semantically correct point, where would the fun in this be with out it :)

  39. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
    The Panel prediction of 90 was too high to begin with [as I pointed out already back then] but was a compromise [so much for science]. My own prediction stands at 72. An unknown element is the effect of the Livingston and Penn effect

    That effect shows up now in graph #’s 1 and 2 above. Simply draw a line between the peaks of SC23 and SC24 (current) and there’s that L&P slope. Extending the line to the bottom suggests that SC24 will disappear spotwise sometime in 2014-2015 timeframe. Speculative, sure, but what else is new.

  40. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    “Here you can see how Oulu has drifted over time compared to Thule: http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Thule.png

    If manually overlaying the plots and drawing a blue line from the post-cycle-21 minimum to the post-cycle-23 minimum on the Thule plot meanwhile, plus a pink line between such on the Oulu plot, the following is highlighted:

    http://s11.postimage.org/hporvji77/thuleoulu.gif

    The Thule and Oulu plots are not identical, but one thing in common is that both show the solar minimum after cycle 23 as having a significantly higher peak count than the minimum after cycle 21, like the original Thule plot illustration I did at http://s9.postimage.org/jz6qpr7zz/lineadded.gif implied.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    Such drifts can have several causes, one is the changing geomagnetic field which affects Oulu much more than Thule [the latter being so close to the magnetic pole]. And here is Oulu vs. Hermanus http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Hermanus.png

    Variation in the geomagnetic field has an effect, but an illustration can be done with data from the IMP-8 satellite, far from the geomagnetic field source, orbiting tens of earth radii out, a number of times farther out than the outermost part of the Van Allen belts.

    As implied in http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg , the Hermanus plot depicts a much lower peak count in the mid-1990s (the solar minimum following cycle 22) than for the solar minimum following cycle 21. In contrast, not only the Thule and Oulu plots but also the Sanae plot and a cosmic ray plot from the IMP-8 satellite at http://astro.nmsu.edu/~bwebber/Imp8.jpg depicts the solar minimum following cycle 22 as reaching about as high of a count as the solar minimum following cycle 21.

    IMP-8 did not continue operation through the time of the solar minimum following cycle 23. However, judged from the preceding, if the IMP-8 satellite had continued operation through then and without excessive adjustment, its results would presumably have again been closer to Thule and Oulu than to that Hermanus plot.

    In other words, it appears that the IMP-8 satellite, an observer far away from Earth, would in that event have measured the solar minimum following cycle 23 to have substantially higher peak count than those following cycles 20 and 21, much like Thule (as well as Oulu) measured it to be several percent higher.

    Besides, unequal cosmic ray flux at those minimums is what is plausible when the solar magnetic field was not identical between those minimums, with illustrations of that including figure 1 of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.4396v1.pdf if comparing the minimum following cycle 23 on the far right of the plots to the prior minimums.

  41. Henry Clark says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    The triangles show Oulu divided by the mean of the other stations mentioned on the plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png

    Even there, adding a red line from the middle of those others in that graph makes blatant the following, of how, despite a particularly zoomed-out graph, the minimum following cycle 23 is still seen to be several percent higher peak count than the minimum following cycle 21:

    http://s9.postimage.org/c7s36sxwv/lineadded2.gif

  42. azleader says:

    This is a VERY big deal… that is 4 months in a row when we should be streaking toward Solar max.

    With all the other indicators already out there, it is becoming more and more obvious to solar physicists that we are headed toward solar quiescence… and chillier times ahead. :(

  43. Sparks says:

    Henry Clark says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    Thanks Henry,
    In this Cagw based climate change – global warming situation/issue, where energy policy, tax hikes and laws are involved, all the convenient revisionism doesn’t sit well with me either, what happens when political policy or a law is pushed in under a flawed understanding or a misrepresentation of the science such as the hockey stick version of the temperature record?
    It can be said that science always evolves but that leaves policy makers, advisers and promoters with two choices, one is to concede that they are wrong and the other involves trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

  44. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Just shows that the solar scientists don’t have all the answers yet.

    I can picture the alarmists, in private, praying to sun to ramp its activity up… and quickly, please…. Even althought the sun has nothing to do with it because it’s all man made CO2’s fault…

  45. Birdieshooter says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am..
    “One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.”

    If a Maunder Minimum is indeed is in the cards, how many more years until you begin to have a high level of confidence that it is coming and then how many more years before it starts to affect our climate?

  46. Geoff Sharp says:

    One of the interesting aspects of SC24 is that it is shaping up to replicate the GSN version of SC5. In our first chance to measure the first cycle of a grand minimum with accuracy it may be revealed the output does not always follow the typical bell shape curve. Talk of a Maunder Minimum is way overstated.

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

  47. Birdieshooter says:
    November 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    If a Maunder Minimum is indeed is in the cards, how many more years until you begin to have a high level of confidence that it is coming and then how many more years before it starts to affect our climate?
    20 years, and I don’t think it will have any significant effect on the climate.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 6, 2012 at 6:52 pm
    One of the interesting aspects of SC24 is that it is shaping up to replicate the GSN version of SC5.
    First: the GSN is flawed and should not be used.
    Second: the data for SC5 is so poor that we have no real idea what it looked like
    Third: the contemporary observers say that ‘they had never seen to many sunspots as during SC5′

  48. Paul Westhaver says:

    What about period?

    With a reduction in the max, and maybe a schedule advance of the max, would it be safe to assume that the the minimum is going to occur sooner? Say 2020?

  49. Richard111 says:

    With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. Also why no mention of the current UV level from the sun and its effect on the atmosphere?

  50. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 9:38 pm
    First: the GSN is flawed and should not be used.

    There is little if any difference between the average SSN and GSN (group sunspot number) since 1880s, however in the earlier period the GSN appear to be more realistic.
    Solar activity is not only controlling our climate, but it can be shown that geological records in the far North Atlantic (within Arctic circle), where magma is constantly seeping into the ocean floor, there is good correlation to the solar activity
    .
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
    Thus there is a direct Arctic – sun link.
    Is this coincidence?
    No.
    What about Antarctic?
    Continental configuration there is different but the link is even stronger:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm

    Inevitable conclusion is that the Earth’s poles are directly responding either to solar activity or to a mutual cause.
    Dr. Svalgaard is entirely wrong to claim that correlations are ‘spurious’ since he has clearly failed eider to fault the data or correlations, so arm waving and pleading it’s ‘spurious’ in the Arctic, its ‘spurious’ in the Antarctic isn’t what science should be about.
    Oh, and that is not all
    Polar fields correlation is, you guessed is ‘spurious’.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    Temperature variability correlation to the solar-earth link, oh yes, yes that is ‘spurious’ too
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    So if data can’t be faulted than Dr. S calls on his fallback ‘spurious’ claim.

  51. vukcevic says:

    Correction: The first link should be:
    Thus there is a direct Arctic – sun link.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm

  52. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    J Martin says:

    November 6, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    I’m speculating on colder than the Maunder from 2100 on.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/how-the-temperature-datasets-tell-us-extra-co2-has-little-effect/

    I’m speculating I’ll be dead by then!

  53. If I remember, Richard111, they keep the same way of counting the sunspots as they did back then so the stats wont need to be adjusted.

  54. Silver Ralph says:

    vukcevic says: November 6, 2012 at 10:54 am
    Ok sunspot output is a bit mean, but the global field (judging by the polar measurements) has played according to the rule (as ‘set’ by the vukcevic formula)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious.
    ______________________________________________

    The master of the wiggly line strikes again. Oh hail to the master.

    Most interesting Vuk. But what do the lines represent, and what does the graph tell us? How is this drunken-spider-drawn image relevant to this discussion??

    .

  55. Ray Tomes says:

    Long term solar proxies show regular cycles of 104 and 208 years, see both
    http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/cycles-in-sunspot-number-reconstruction-for-11000-years/ (104.3 and 207.7 years) and
    http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/analysis-of-be10-records-as-a-solar-irradiance-proxy/ (104.7 and 206.9 years)
    and the modern sunspot data shows greatest correlation after 210 years. All of these facts makes the current weak sunspot cycles entirely predictable.

  56. TFNJ says:

    Thanks again Leif. These sunspot posts are the only ones where it is worthwhile reading through the comments – largely because of the replies from a heavyweight scientist in the field concerned.
    But a note for Anthony: too many of the graphs on the Solar Page are incomprehensible – no legends, no explanation. Have you a tame expert who could tidy it all up please?
    If the projections of a new Dalton or Maunder are correct this could be even more important than gazing ata Michaels Mann’s navel (sarc).

  57. Silver Ralph says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    Dark Matter is not black or ‘dark’, but rather ‘invisible’, i.e. does not interact with electromagnetic radiation [i.e. light].

    While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?

    If Dark Matter reacts to gravity the majority of it should be within the Sun and along the Ecliptic, drawn there by gravitational action. However, as I understand it, the Galaxy is supposed to have a ‘halo’ of Dark Matter. If Dark Matter forms a halo around galaxies, and by implication around solar systems, then surely it is only weakly effected by gravity. If so, then only a smattering will be inside the Sun.

    .

  58. Silver Ralph says:

    vukcevic says: November 7, 2012 at 12:48 am
    Correction: The first link should be:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
    _______________________________________

    GSN-NAP?

    Let me guess — Global Spider Network – Network Amplitude Probabilities.

    Or is the GSN Global Spider Network just having a short sleep?

    .

  59. Gail Combs says:

    Sparks says: @ November 6, 2012 at 11:53 am
    They will also have to concede and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past…
    ________________________________
    No they did not concede that. Actually the ‘Team’ and the IPCC went to great lengths to bury that and continue to do so. It was called Judithgate.

    Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one physicist

    …As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD), Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.

    The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

    R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”

    [see original article for Dr. Willson's letter]

    Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge…..

    [see original article for Dr. Hoyt's letter]

    …And the comment from the representatives of the Norwegian government on Chapter II, Working Group I (solar forcing) are very striking in the context of solar forcing.

    (Note 2-26 from the Norwegian government, ref. No. 2018-42 Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second Order Draft)

    “I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author.”…..

    The mystery of the vanishing graphs

    Since they did not bother to ask the astro physicists, IPCC is kept in dark about the Sun. IPCC reports have some 3000 pages, but the most important segments – about Sun – are just a few short and vague articles.

    While in other places IPCC is rich in graphics, strangely you cannot find there any graph of cosmic radiation, sunspot cycle length or geomagnetism. Which is odd, because these are the key indicators of solar activity. Shouldn’t the IPCC reports be an exhausting compendium of the latest scientific knowledge? ….

    [see original article for graphs]

    Mendozagate: A sequel to Judithgate

    IPCC assessed the solar activity development without asking the solar physics or astronomers. And they plan doing this in the Fifth Report (AR5, 2010-2015) again. In June 2010 they published (here) the names of the staff for the next IPCC report and – if I counted correctly – the solar chapter has only one solar physicist again (Blanca Mendoza, a sample study of hers here). The boss of this chapter is to be Mr.Shindell from GISS, a colleague of the climate madman Jim Hansen, who endorsed Keith Farnish’s book promoting eco-terrorism last year….
    http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/

    Dr. Svalgaard if you have a problem with the work of Dr. Willson and Dr. Hoyt please take it up with them. Their letters were written to Dr. Scafetta in September 16 of 2008 for inclusion in Dr. Nicola Scafetta’s Climate Change and Its Causes – A Discussion About Some Key Issues (Presented at EPA, Feb 2009) LINK

    For the rest of us, Dr Richard C. Willson is Principal Investigator of the ACRIM ( Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) team. Dr. Nicola Scafetta is listed as a Co-Investigator so these are the guys collecting the actual data from ACRIMSAT. LINK

  60. Alex the skeptic says:

    It’s such a pity that solar cycles are so long, (or my life expectancy is so ‘short’). I would like to live to 100 so I would be able to watch the outcome of this highly inetersting solar story.

    I have one question: Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?

  61. vukcevic says:

    Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious.
    ______________________________________________
    The master of the wiggly line strikes again. Oh hail to the master.
    Most interesting Vuk. But what do the lines represent, and what does the graph tell us? How is this drunken-spider-drawn image relevant to this discussion??

    Hi Silver
    You got sense of humor, but the astronomy isn’t your forte:
    Solar magnetic field (Hale) cycle, it is in the bases of Babcock-Leighton sunspot theory. Our Dr.S uses its amplitude to foretell strength of the next cycle.
    11.862=Jupiter’s year, the magnetic giant of the solar system
    19.859=Jupiter-Saturn : two giant magnetospheres merge

    Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
    Let me guess — Global Spider Network – Network Amplitude Probabilities.

    Arachnophobia ?
    No need to fear, it is something much larger than a giant tarantula and far more important
    It is Group Sunspot Number and North Atlantic Precursor.
    North Atlantic has a ridge between Greenland and Scotland
    http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/Dickson_map_550_52088_100563.jpg
    dividing the North Atlantic into two distinct parts joined by few shallow channels controlling the warm Atlantic waters inflow into Nordic seas (and further to the Arctic ocean) and the cold Arctic waters overflow into N. Atlantic, the essential components of the N. hemisphere’s temperature.
    This is very active tectonic area, particularly in the Iceland area, hence
    North Atlantic Precursor NAP-geological records.
    Why Precursor?
    Because it tells future changes in the N.Atlantic temperature changes
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm

  62. Project722 says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    “Perhaps you need to consult Vukcevic formula
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    which shows exactly what the sun is up to”

    Vukcevic – could you please explain in laymans terms what you are trying to convey with your chart alongside Dr. Svalgaard’s? I can see the polar fields of the sun weakening, but what is the 92% correlation? Specifically, in your words, what is the sun “up to”?

  63. Gail Combs says:

    Richard111 says: @ November 6, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. [That is what Geoff Sharp tried to address with his layman's count. Lief S. comments on it are scathing scroll down to comment section to see his comments. link contains forbidden word so 'google'] Also why no mention of the current UV level from the sun and its effect on the atmosphere?
    ____________________________
    There is mention of the UV/EUV see:

    NASA – EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability

    …..Almost none of the drama of Solar Maximum is visible to the human eye. Look at the sun in the noontime sky and—ho-hum—it’s the same old bland ball of light.

    “The problem is, human eyes are tuned to the wrong wavelength,” explains Tom Woods, a solar physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “If you want to get a good look at solar activity, you need to look in the EUV.”

    EUV is short for “extreme ultraviolet,” a high-energy form of ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths between 1 and 120 nanometers. EUV photons are much more energetic and dangerous than the ordinary UV rays that cause sunburns. Fortunately for humans, Earth’s atmosphere blocks solar EUV; otherwise a day at the beach could be fatal.

    When the sun is active, solar EUV emissions can rise and fall by factors of hundreds to thousands in just a matter of minutes. These surges heat Earth’s upper atmosphere, puffing it up and increasing the air friction, or “drag,” on satellites. EUV photons also break apart atoms and molecules, creating a layer of ions in the upper atmosphere that can severely disturb radio signals.

    To monitor these energetic photons, NASA is going to launch a sensor named “EVE,” short for EUV Variability Experiment, onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory this winter…

    Also see:
    http://ilws.gsfc.nasa.gov/ilwsgoa_woods.pdf

    NASA: EUV Images

  64. Gail Combs says:

    Silver Ralph says: November 7, 2012 at 2:05 am
    Explanation of The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) by vukcevic is here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-.htm

    (I get frustrated by no explanations on graphs too)

  65. Gary Parnell says:

    My frustration is that certain media outlets are still crying wolf about “MASSIVE SOLAR FLARES PREDICTED! SUN IS OUT OF CONTROL!” I hear all sorts of local folks fretting and worrying about how the Sun has become dangerous and that we’re all on the brink of complete technological destruction. Some press outlets are really harping on the “rising potential for solar flares,” never once mentioning how flares are actually less than expected, less than in the past, and certainly much less than the same time last cycle. I understand that our technology becomes more and more susceptible to solar slaps, but usually that particular point is not made. It’s put out like the Sun is some evil monster that is out of control. Well… technically… it is out of control: our control. Thus the fear. Come on, Sun! Shine! Slap us with us some sweet lovin’ warmth.

  66. vukcevic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 12:45 am
    There is little if any difference between the average SSN and GSN (group sunspot number) since 1880s, however in the earlier period the GSN appear to be more realistic.
    Before 1880s GSN is wrongly calibrated and is 50% too low: http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf

    Gail Combs says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:02 am
    Dr. Svalgaard if you have a problem with the work of Dr. Willson and Dr. Hoyt please take it up with them.
    I don’t have a ‘problem’ with their work. It is what it is. But that alone does not make it correct. All TSI measurements before SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm have systematic errors http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL045777.pdf “[26] Because a change in solar irradiance imparts a direct radiative climate forcing, drifts in solar radiometers that are mistaken for true solar irradiance variations can be misinterpreted as causing natural‐driven climate change. Examples include the much‐debated issue of the irradiance increase between cycle minima in 1986 and 1996, evident in the ACRIM composite (but lacking in other composites and the model) and the low irradiance levels in the PMOD composite during the 2008 minimum”

    Silver Ralph says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:45 am
    While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?
    Yes.

    Alex the skeptic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:31 am
    Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?
    Yes, but not because of our better instruments [sunspots are deliberately counted using small telescopes http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png ]. The modern count is biased because it is counting large spots more than once, i.e. a large spot may be counted as 5 spots, while a small one only as 1 http://www.leif.org/research/Effect-of-Weighting-on-SSN.pdf

  67. beng says:

    Interesting that the sun is spotless again. For the last few months, there have been subdued but pretty reliable spots getting nearer and nearer the equator — closer in the N hemisphere than the southern. That seems to indicate it’s getting very close to or is at “max”. Next step, according to my education here, is polarity shifts for the N hemisphere spots.

    And the core keeps merrily along fusing hydrogen at a constant rate, completely indifferent to what’s happening at the surface.

  68. Gail Combs says:
    November 7, 2012 at 5:50 am
    With all the wonderful astronomical technology of today I wonder if we are counting spots that would not have been observed 200 years ago. [That is what Geoff Sharp tried to address with his layman’s count.
    Except that we still today use small telescopes [on purpose] and that Geoff’s attempt is fundamentally wrong on several counts.

  69. Project722 says:

    Also, has anyone been paying attention to the degree of ionization in the ionosphere/thermosphere? Particualy the F1 layer? It is known that during the previous deep minimum we just had that this upper boundry layer contracted by as much as 28% and according to NASA they say 60% of the contribution to this collapse is “unaccounted” for. The problem I see is that this rapid increase in ionization began during the minimum when it should have been low and continues to this day, along with a still contracted F1. What are the consequences of the combination on heavy ionization coupled with a contracted upper layer other than drag on sattellites? Obviously you cant keep packing more and more ions/atoms into the same space before something bad happens.

  70. Alex the skeptic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:31 am
    Is the today’s ‘space-age’ sunspot count biased towards more counting more sunspots than would have been counted by the ‘rudimentary’ technology available during Maunder’s time?

    Yes, but not because of our better instruments [sunspots are deliberately counted using small telescopes http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-37mm.png ]. The modern count is biased because it is counting large spots more than once, i.e. a large spot may be counted as 5 spots, while a small one only as 1

    Here is today’s observations [from the reference station that all other observers are normalized to]
    http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20121107.JPG
    You can see there are 5 sunspot groups. In the upper right is a little table that shows the number of spot assigned to each of the 5 groups. There are 19 in all. The sunspot number would then be 10*groups+spots = 10*5+19 = 69. But if you count the spots actually visible on the drawing [try it!] you find there are only 9 spots in total, so the real sunspot number should be 10*5+9 = 59.

  71. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:07 am
    Obviously you cant keep packing more and more ions/atoms into the same space before something bad happens.
    The F1 layer is at about 200 km height. For every 50 km you go up in the atmosphere, the density drops by a factor of a thousand, so the density 200 km up is 1000*1000*1000*1000 = 1,000,000,000,000 times smaller than at the surface so at that LOW density not much bad can happen.

  72. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    What drives the climate?

    ’o sole, ’o sole mio, sta nfronte a te

    (The Sun, my own Sun,
    it’s right in your face)

  73. Ed Zuiderwijk says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:44 am
    What drives the climate? ’o sole, ’o sole mio, sta nfronte a te

    Sun that gives all things birth
    Shine on everything on earth!
    If that’s too much to demand
    Shine at least on this our land
    If even that’s too much for thee
    Shine at any rate on me
    Piet Hein (Danish Poet, 1905-1996)

  74. Project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:07 am
    Obviously you cant keep packing more and more ions/atoms into the same space before something bad happens.
    The F1 layer is at about 200 km height. For every 50 km you go up in the atmosphere, the density drops by a factor of a thousand, so the density 200 km up is 1000*1000*1000*1000 = 1,000,000,000,000 times smaller than at the surface so at that LOW density not much bad can happen.

    Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?

  75. Resourceguy says:

    So you are saying solar cycle predictions are done by committee? That’s dumb!

  76. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
    Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
    The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is 'standard' and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.

  77. Resourceguy says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:43 am
    So you are saying solar cycle predictions are done by committee? That’s dumb!
    Well, not entirely dumb as there is input from ~12 experts http://www.lund.irf.se/helioshome/Cycle24PredictionPanelA.gif as well as from several external scientists. So there is debate and discussion and the problem can be examined from many sides.

  78. Project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
    Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
    The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is 'standard' and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.

    True. I understand that. But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower. As you go forward by the year you will see gradual and rapid uptick in ionization. If you go all the way back to the years coming into the previous solar max its nowhere near the level we are at now. And IMO I don’t think we can chalk this up to a cosmic ray contribution either, as we would have also seen this at last minimum, and didn’t.

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/digisonde/scaled.cgi?endTime=20121108&var=foF1&pwidth=1Y

  79. Project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:30 am
    Thank you for the explanation Dr. So there’s plenty of wiggle room. That’s good to know. Any ideas though on what caused this “unaccounted” for shrinkage that we don’t normally see? Or what is causing this runaway ionization in the F1?
    The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is 'standard' and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.

    True. I understand that. However if you look at the FoF1 plot data on the HAARP digisonde on their website and scale to yearly output you will see an uptick around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect ionization to be lower, then going forward by the year we see a gradual and rapid uptick. (Which I would say in OTHER cycles would be normal, but considering how our sun has been in a coma…) Going further back to before the previous maximum and comparing to present coming into current maximum we are very juiced up. IMO I don’t think we can chalk this up to a GCR contribution as we would have seen this in previous years and did not.

  80. The model that is used to ‘account’ for the shrinking dates back to the 1970s and is in need of updating [but is 'standard' and so a bit sacrosanct]. Approaching solar max we would expect the ionization to increase.

    Leif, that model is calibrated against known decay rates for satellites in low Earth orbit, thus it is base upon observation, not simulation. This model was updated in the early 90’s with the ODERACS experiment where calibrated spheres were ejected from the Shuttle cargo bay and their rates of decay measured. Also in the early 90’s I flew a payload that measured the density of the atmosphere by measuring the impact of molecules on the Shuttle by looking at the deceleration that comes from these impacts. We also have real time data today for atmospheric density as the International Space Station flies in low Earth orbit and we have extremely precise measurements of its decay rate.

    There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle. This is an extremely important area of interest for the USAF in monitoring orbital debris and thus the atmosphere and its effect on drag is an ongoing area of research and measurement. So I do question the statement that the shrinking of the atmosphere is based on computer models that need updating.

  81. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 7, 2012 at 9:03 am
    Sun that gives all things birth
    Shine on everything on earth!
    ……………
    Piet Hein (Danish Poet, 1905-1996)

    Gail Combs says:
    I get frustrated by no explanations on graphs too…

    Gail
    Sun gives life and warmth to the seas and the land
    Solar magnetic cycles with the Earth’s do blend
    To make the cold North Atlantic waters oscillate
    Geomagnetic storms move the Arctic’s magma flow
    And suppress Antarctica’s magnetic field down below
    With little effort Vuk can all graphically demonstrate
    (spurious Montenegro non poet)

  82. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:08 am
    But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower.
    Just by eye-balling the summer values [the winter values are noisy] and plotting them together with the microwave flux and the sunspot number http://www.leif.org/research/foF1-F107-SSN.png I see nothing out of the ordinary.

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:33 am
    There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle.
    Thanks for the update. So, there is nothing ‘unaccounted’ for. Some earlier papers I read on that were still using the old Jachia model and that one did not account well for the data. So, the myth of unaccounted for changes is just that: a myth.

  83. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:08 am
    But if you look at the FoF1 plot data from the HAARP digisonde and scale it back to a yearly output you will see an increase around 2006-2007 at minimum when we would expect it to be lower.
    Just by eye-balling the summer values and plotting them together with the microwave flux and the sunspot number http://www.leif.org/research/foF1-F107-SSN.png I see nothing out of the ordinary.

    Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:33 am
    There has been a definite contraction of the atmosphere and the expansion/contraction is extremely well correlated to the sunspot cycle.
    Thanks for the update. So, there is nothing ‘unaccounted’ for. Some earlier papers I read on that were still using the old Jachia model and that one did not account well for the data. So, the myth of unaccounted for changes is just that: a myth.

  84. Vince Causey says:

    Silver Ralph,

    “While Dark Matter does contribute to gravity, does it react to gravity?”

    That which we call the effect of gravity, is no more than curvature in space-time. Bodies are forced to travel in straight lines unless acted upon by a force (Newton) but space-time curvature means that the shortest distance is in fact a curved trajectory. A curved trajectory through space-time appears as an acceleration through space.

    Another rule of thumb, is that bodies move unaided along trajectories such that their clocks show the greatest elapsed time. This results in an acceleration towards a centre of mass.

    I would suggest that based on such fundamental properties as space-time curvature, and the effects of gravity on time, dark matter would indeed react to gravity, otherwise it would have the ability to move in and out of different dimensions, which we can’t even be sure exist (string theory not withstanding). Not impossible, but implausible.

  85. James at 48 says:

    While this particular oscillator is rife with harmonics and ringing, so there is the possibility of a false inflection point, we may have reached the peak and are now on the way down. That’s really bad.

  86. James at 48 says:

    Throwing a bone to the doomers … only 43 days until 12/20/2012! :)

  87. vukcevic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:46 am
    Geomagnetic storms move the Arctic’s magma flow
    And suppress Antarctica’s magnetic field down below

    Some people simply cannot learn. You are approaching this
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  88. vukcevic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    20.20GMT: sudden strong geomagnetic storm from nowhere
    It is not from nowhere, but is related to the expected sector boundary crossing at that time: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_7d.html

  89. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    Some people simply cannot learn. You are approaching Kruger effect

    Hi Doc
    Ah, psychoanalysis. There are a lot of things you’re better off not knowing.

    I only translate data into graphs.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A-A.htm

  90. Project722 says:

    Can someone explain to me what the “dark count” measures and why it lies within the range of 40-48? It can be found on the SDO-EVE Diodes plot along with irradiance.

  91. vukcevic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    I only translate data into graphs
    Any fool can do that, and does.

  92. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Can someone explain to me what the “dark count” measures and why it lies within the range of 40-48? It can be found on the SDO-EVE Diodes plot along with irradiance.
    A measure of the noise in the system can be had by not letting sunlight into the detector and see what reading you get [the dark current].

  93. ; says:

    Leif Svalgaard says

  94. Doug Proctor says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
    …There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.

    Hmm. Pattern is more like precursor to Dalton than Maunder. Maunder is a lot more catastrophist, though. Is there any more reason than excitement to go all the way to Maunder?

  95. ; says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (re timing of possible Maunder Minimum):
    “..20 years, and I don’t think it will have any significant effect on the climate”.

    Leif,

    My apologies if you have already explained this before to more regular readers, but why do you think that a Maunder Minimum in the sunspot count would not have any significant effect on the climate? I am sure that you have a clear and credible scientific reason for stating this.

    Also, do you have any thoughts on the possible causes of the historically recorded long period of erratic, generally bad weather in the northern hemisphere that is often rather dramatically referred to by casual commentators as the ‘Little Ice Age’ and loosley equated by them to the period of the Maunder Minimum?

    With regards,

    Larry Kirk

  96. Doug Proctor says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says: November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
    Hmm. Pattern is more like precursor to Dalton than Maunder.
    On what is that supposition based?
    Is there any more reason than excitement to go all the way to Maunder?
    If SC25 will be as low as 7 as we wildly speculate here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Penn-Liv-Sval-ApJ.pdf then we have a Maunder. This is, of course, speculative.

  97. Gail Combs says:

    I know what is wrong with the sun! The United Nations imposed a Hydrogen tax.

  98. Larry Kirk says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    why do you think that a Maunder Minimum in the sunspot count would not have any significant effect on the climate?
    Simply because of the inconvenient and unpopular truth that the Sun has not varied enough: http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

  99. Project722 says:

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Can someone explain to me what the “dark count” measures and why it lies within the range of 40-48? It can be found on the SDO-EVE Diodes plot along with irradiance.
    A measure of the noise in the system can be had by not letting sunlight into the detector and see what reading you get [the dark current].

    Noise? I assume by dark current you mean EM energy?
    So why is this noise reading significant? What does the measure tell us? Does it correlate or correspond to other sun related activity?

  100. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    So why is this noise reading significant? What does the measure tell us? Does it correlate or correspond to other sun related activity?
    I expressed that poorly. What I should have said is that any electronic measurement has a background level that is due to e.g. thermal noise in the detector. To get the real signal one must subtract that background. To measure the background level [the 'dark current'] simply switch off the Sun [put the cover back on the instrument] and see what current you still see. This should not correlate with solar activity for a well-built instrument.

  101. Project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    So why is this noise reading significant? What does the measure tell us? Does it correlate or correspond to other sun related activity?
    I expressed that poorly. What I should have said is that any electronic measurement has a background level that is due to e.g. thermal noise in the detector. To get the real signal one must subtract that background. To measure the background level [the 'dark current'] simply switch off the Sun [put the cover back on the instrument] and see what current you still see. This should not correlate with solar activity for a well-built instrument.

    Still…what does the dark current tell us and why is it important?

  102. Resourceguy says:

    Okay if the cycle forecast is done by committee then how are the expert forecasts evaluated and compiled? Is it a central tendency range rule mean and how are the outliers handled?

  103. u.k.(us) says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    ….”To measure the background level [the 'dark current'] simply switch off the Sun [put the cover back on the instrument] and see what current you still see.”….
    ===============
    There is a switch ?

  104. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    Still…what does the dark current tell us and why is it important?
    Imagine you are to go on a flight to some distant place. There is a weight limit of 50 pounds for your suitcase. How do you check that it doesn’t weight too much? What I do is to take the suitcase with one hand and stand on the scale and note the combined weight of the suitcase and me. Then I let go of the suitcase and weight only me. Subtracting my weight from the combined weight of the suitcase and me, gives me the weight of the suitcase. My weight, that I subtract, is the ‘dark current’.

  105. Larry Kirk says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6.36pm
    Simply because of the inconvenient and unpopular truth that…

    Many thanks. I see your point entirely!

    And your final slide has pre-empted my next question, as to why you do not think there is an amplification of that weak signal due to its modulation of incoming cosmic rays. The measurement of historical cosmic ray proxies obviously shows that has not happened during previous solar minima or earlier weak solar cycles.

    (On the subject of cosmic rays and their potential role in cloud nucleation: it had always puzzled me as to why if this theoretical effect was actually significant, cloud cover was not permanent at both poles, where the Van Allen belts come down to earth and let far more cosmic rays in, and why cloud cover elsewhere did not wax and wane on a regular cycle, in parallel with the solar cycle ..at least as a noticeable signal on top of that due to ocean current and atmospheric humidity variations).

    With regards,

    LK

  106. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    Still…what does the dark current tell us and why is it important?
    I note that you called it the ‘dark count’. In my own work we measure a current so I used that word. If one is counting photons, ‘count’ would be better, of course. But to check, could you give me the exact URL where you found the ‘dark count’, so I can check that I’m not just making too many assumptions.

  107. u.k.(us) says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:38 pm
    There is a switch ?
    Let us wait for Doug’s URL. But, yes, there would be such a mechanism.

  108. Resourceguy says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:17 pm
    Okay if the cycle forecast is done by committee then how are the expert forecasts evaluated and compiled? Is it a central tendency range rule mean and how are the outliers handled?
    We all sat around a large table and evaluated by talking about the forecasts presented. Everybody had to convince all the others that the arguments were sound and the forecast good and point out weaknesses and error bounds. Outliers are beaten into the ground :-). At the first meeting we did not reach a unanimous decision so had to announce that the panel was split. At a later meeting [after much more work] we decided to accept the majority opinion. In a sense, you may say that each expert was peer-reviewed by 11 others. This is a much higher level of review than in normal peer-review of a paper for a Journal. We try to agree on a common number, and did not just average all the forecasts under discussion. In spite of all our effort, I think that we agreed on a number that is a bit too high. I raised that issue at our last meeting, but did not found a fertile ground for that opinion, so let the issue slide.

  109. Project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    Still…what does the dark current tell us and why is it important?
    I note that you called it the ‘dark count’. In my own work we measure a current so I used that word. If one is counting photons, ‘count’ would be better, of course. But to check, could you give me the exact URL where you found the ‘dark count’, so I can check that I’m not just making too many assumptions.

    Sure,

    http://solarimg.org/artis/

    Scroll down the page – it will say EVE-3Day.

  110. Project722 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    Sure, http://solarimg.org/artis/
    From the description of the instrument: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/publications/PDFs/spie6689_21_5.pdf
    “The ESP configuration is shown in Figure 1. ESP has a filter wheel in front of the entrance aperture with three redundant Al filters, a visible light (fused silica) filter, and a dark filter. Each thin-film Al filter rejects the visible light while transmitting EUV radiation to the diffraction grating. The fused silica filter may be used to determine the amount of visible light that may reach the EUV channels as a scattered light and its signal should be subtracted from the EUV measurements. The dark filter is to measure each channel’s dark (background) current.”
    So my explanation was basically correct, except for this:
    “High-energy Solar Energetic Particles (SEP) (more than 40 MeV) can penetrate the ESP housing and opto-mechanical components and deposit some energy in the detectors thus adding particle related signal to the EUV signal. ESP’s dark channel may be used as a proxy for the SEP related signal, which may be subtracted from the EUV channel.”.
    The dark current is contaminated by Solar Energetic Particles that leak into the instrument, so the dark count DOES depend on solar activity.

  111. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard, on page 15 of your PDF quoted above you state that large variations of TSI are doubtful, 11 year cycle has 0.1% variation, and longer periods not yet detectable. However I note that long cycles of 208 years and others show up very clearly in solar proxies such as C14 and Be10 as well as in climate. Is it possible that these changes are not due to TSI but rather to small amounts of high energy events which we do know vary by very large percentages. We know that high energy particles affect cloud cover and that this must affect temperatures on Earth. Is TSI just not the main act?

  112. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I post this here as a precautionary tale for those seeking patterns in assorted solar, magnetic, and climate-related indexes, searching for matches in timing and possible linkages.

    I was playing with the UAH LT data at WoodForTrees. Besides the usual 13-mo (1 yr + 1 mo) smoothing (running centered average), I wanted to see how it looked with longer smoothing periods. Here is 1+1, 5+1, 10+1, and 15+1:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:13/plot/uah/mean:61/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:181

    Find the patterns. Identify the points you will match up with other indexes to confirm the timing.

    Be careful with noisy data. Question if the sampling rate is high enough to capture the detail you want without distortion.

    And be wary as some systems being measured come with built-in smoothing. Your pattern matching attempts may be doomed from the start. Try to smooth your other data to match, and as witnessed with that graph, you may just end up chasing non-existent artifacts.

  113. Brian H says:

    A few years ago I was expecting 24max to be in the 50s. Looks like it will top off in the 60s, tho’.

  114. Ray Tomes says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    However I note that long cycles of 208 years and others show up very clearly in solar proxies such as C14 and Be10 as well as in climate.
    Longer periods show up intermittently, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Production-of-14C.png
    The ‘very clearly’ is not so clear.

    Is it possible that these changes are not due to TSI but rather to small amounts of high energy events which we do know vary by very large percentages.
    The variations in TSI [before 1978] are really determined from cosmic ray proxies, so TSI as such is not the issue. These ‘small amounts of high energy events’ should then also not show up in cosmic ray proxies..

    We know that high energy particles affect cloud cover
    No, we don’t KNOW that. We know that they produce ionization [which Wilson got the Nobel prize for in 1927], but we don’t know if that is efficient enough to actually produce clouds. Careful modeling suggests that it is not.

  115. Brian H says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    A few years ago I was expecting 24max to be in the 50s.
    Based on what?

  116. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    vukcevic says:November 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    I only translate data into graphs
    Any fool can do that, and does.
    ………………………………
    Some record data – useful
    Some analyse data – useful
    Some propose hypothesis – useful
    Some arm wave and scream ‘spurious’ – obscurants (preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.)

  117. Tom in Florida says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    “Imagine you are to go on a flight to some distant place. There is a weight limit of 50 pounds for your suitcase. How do you check that it doesn’t weight too much? What I do is to take the suitcase with one hand and stand on the scale and note the combined weight of the suitcase and me. Then I let go of the suitcase and weight only me. Subtracting my weight from the combined weight of the suitcase and me, gives me the weight of the suitcase. My weight, that I subtract, is the ‘dark current’.”

    Leif is referring to the tare weight.
    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tare-weight.html

  118. vukcevic says:
    November 7, 2012 at 11:34 pm
    Some propose hypothesis – useful
    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

  119. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: November 8, 2012 at 4:44 am
    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority….
    Hooooooh, that sounds terribly serious, …I’m off to see a shrink before turning into a pothead.

  120. rstritmatter says:

    Just a brief comment as an observer of this discussion. Still being in kindergarten as far as the principles of physics etc. involved in the scientific determination of these matters, I am forced by default to pay close attention to the modes of argument. This is a tip for Dr. Leif S., for what it is worth: You will be much more convincing if you stop being so darned condescending and, all too frequently, insulting towards, those like Vukevic who are practicing methodologies you don’t respect. I think everyone gets the point that you don’t respect them. You don’t need to beat that dead horse. It only produces sympathy for your critics and weakens the ethos of your own arguments. Citing stuff like Dunning-Kruger doesn’t help either. Everyone knows that experts, historically speaking, have very often been wrong.

  121. vukcevic says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:40 am
    Hooooooh, that sounds terribly serious, …I’m off to see a shrink before turning into a pothead.
    A shrink will not help in your particular case. Study a bit of physics instead and try to learn.

    rstritmatter says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:46 am
    Everyone knows that experts, historically speaking, have very often been wrong.
    The problem with Vuk is that he is not even wrong.

  122. Resourceguy says:

    @ Leif: Thanks. You might want to check out the central tendency forecast process at the Federal Reserve which is also compiled from a group of expert Fed system forecasts. But then again even that defined process only generates a range and not a point estimate over time and the results have been steadily ratcheted down in many recent gatherings. At least the process does not involve debate style and undue influence and it does kick out the outliers with defined methods.

  123. Resourceguy says:
    November 8, 2012 at 6:42 am
    At least the process does not involve debate style and undue influence and it does kick out the outliers with defined methods.
    In our case, the debate and science arguments back and forth were essential elements of the process. Outliers are eliminated by convincing [if possible] the proponents that their arguments are weak or invalid. Our mandate was to produce a single number, if possible, by unanimous decision. We did not quite accomplish that, but we tried hard. The problem with a formal, defined process is that the process itself may restrict the free flow of ideas and is, in fact, contrary to how science works.

  124. Gail Combs says:

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    Leif Svalgaard, on page 15 of your PDF quoted above you state that large variations of TSI are doubtful, 11 year cycle has 0.1% variation, and longer periods not yet detectable. However I note that long cycles of 208 years and others show up very clearly in solar proxies such as C14 and Be10 as well as in climate. Is it possible that these changes are not due to TSI but rather to small amounts of high energy events which we do know vary by very large percentages….
    __________________________________
    You might want to look at Dr. Feyman’s work on the correlation of Nile River records and Aurora records.
    http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2006/2006JD007462.shtml
    and the pdf:
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/lookingatearth/1/06-1989.pdf

    And here is another paper.
    Late Holocene forcing of the Asian winter and summer monsoon as evidenced
    by proxy records from the northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau

    [you will have to search for the title since the link contains chinese charaters]

    a b s t r a c t
    Little is known about decadal- to centennial-scale climate variability and its associated forcing mechanisms on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. A decadal-resolution record of total organic carbon (TOC) and grainsize retrieved from a composite piston core from Kusai Lake, NW China, provides solid evidence for decadal- to centennial-scale Asian monsoon variability for the Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau during the last 3770 yr.

    Intensified winter and summer monsoons are well correlated with respective reductions and increases in solar irradiance. A number of intensified Asian winter monsoon phases are potentially correlated with North Atlantic climatic variations including Bond events 0 to 2 and more recent subtle climate changes from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. Our findings indicate that Asian monsoon changes during the late Holocene are forced by changes in both solar output and oceanic–atmospheric circulation patterns. Our results demonstrate that these forcing mechanisms operate not only in low latitudes but also in mid-latitude regions (the Northern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau).

    And the U.S. Geological Survey paper: Variations of Solar Activity Affect Regional Hydro-climate So there are your correlations of climate rainfall patterns to solar irradiance.

    …The historic records of the geomagnetic index aa and 36 month moving averages of Mississippi River streamflow are compared in the following graph….
    The mechanism responsible for the linkage is thought to involve five important processes:

    * Variable solar activity causes variation in total solar irradiance (energy) that reaches the top of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    * Variable solar activity controls the flux of galactic cosmic rays which may affect the formation of low-level clouds that control atmospheric albedo (reflectance).

    * Variations in total solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface are amplified by changes in atmospheric albedo;

    * The variable solar energy is absorbed by tropical oceans creating large pools with different amounts of stored energy;

    * Pools of ocean water with varying amounts of stored energy are transported by major ocean currents (Ocean Conveyor Belt) to other global locations where;

    * Differential evaporation rates from oceanic areas alter global atmospheric pressure patterns (i.e., jetstream position and associated atmospheric vorticity);

    These patterns dictate regional precipitation and temperature distribution and, consequently, the regional hydrology.

    This mechanism is outlined in two papers (Perry, 2006) and (Perry, 2007)….

    And yes Dr. S I know correlation does not mean causation. However we also know the ocean, which is 70% of the surface area of the earth, is penetrated by and absorbs the higher wavelengths of the sun’s spectrum. Graph 1 and Graph 2 Water is also the main absorber of the sunlight in the atmosphere Graph 3 (Allegedly water in the atmosphere is responsible for about 70% of all atmospheric absorption of radiation.) Also data shows the global relative humidity from 1948 to 2008 has decreased Graph 4 as has the Albedo.

    We know that TSI over the short term does not vary much Graph 5. However that is TOTAL solar insolation and NASA has discovered that the mix of wavelengths that makes up that total does vary a lot more than the total. NASA link 1 and link 2 An article in Nature link and a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Space Physics

    Oh, and the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences at Pulkovo has this graph of TSI link

    As far as I can tell the jury is still out and the sun/earth’s climate links are complicated so the correlations are murky and not straight forward.

  125. Resourceguy says:

    @Leif: Okay, but it was science peer review that also gave us this paper http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091021115151.htm
    This is only a suggestion of what can happen with an ill-defined consensus process. Or maybe there is a research opportunity here to conduct personality tests of climate scientists! A few dissections might be in order as well.

  126. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    Jim G says:
    November 6, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Perhaps it is digesting (or puking up) some of that Dark Matter that you indicated is theorized to be hiding inside the sun since none can be found anywhere in our local vicinity?
    “Dark Matter is not black or ‘dark’, but rather ‘invisible’, i.e. does not interact with electromagnetic radiation [i.e. light].”

    I know the theory, but unlike some, only accept it as that, a theory, which is, by the way, much too convenient an answer as to why observations do not fit the present theory of relativity. Now that a great deal of new information is coming re type 1A supernova light, the cosmological constant, etc. and is causing respected cosmologists and astromomers to believe that the universe may well be infinite in size (see Berman’s Universe, Astronomy Magazine last month’s issue) there will be more questioning of the Big Bang, Dark Matter, the microwave background source, and consensus science in general. Theories can, after all, be improved upon, if one thinks outside of the box, and does not worry so much about consensus.

  127. Gail Combs says:
    November 8, 2012 at 7:38 am
    As far as I can tell the jury is still out and the sun/earth’s climate links are complicated so the correlations are murky and not straight forward.
    There are more than 2000 papers claiming such correlations.

    Resourceguy says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:00 am
    @Leif: Okay, but it was science peer review that also gave us this paper
    And let some of Scafetta’s papers through :-)

    This is only a suggestion of what can happen with an ill-defined consensus process.
    It is important to science that the process is ill-defined

    Jim G says:
    believe that the universe may well be infinite in size
    I think it is clear that the universe is infinite in size, although one must be careful what one means by that. Infinite or not has no bearing on Dark Matter. However one theorizes about DM, DM is a observational fact forced upon us in spite of our theories.

  128. Jim G says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
    a theory, which is, by the way, much too convenient an answer as to why observations do not fit the present theory of relativity
    Observations fit very well. There are no known exceptions to General Relativity. It is, in fact, precisely GR that shows us that DM exists, by gravitational lensing.

  129. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 8, 2012 at 10:28 am
    Jim G says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:25 am
    a theory, which is, by the way, much too convenient an answer as to why observations do not fit the present theory of relativity
    “Observations fit very well. There are no known exceptions to General Relativity. It is, in fact, precisely GR that shows us that DM exists, by gravitational lensing.”

    An excellent example of circular logic! In reality gravitational lensing allows us to see the movement of distant objects, that movement is too rapid/and or the wrong direction to be explained by the visible matter in the vacinity and its estimated mass so some THEORIZE that there is “dark matter” in addition to the visible matter creating sufficient additional gravity that is causing the unexplained movement. One might also theorize that there is something else, as yet unexplained, going on. No dark matter has been discovered, anywhere, only gravitational effects that can, so far, only be explained by the theory that there is something called dark matter causing those gravitational effects. It is a theory which allows unexplained observations to be explained, conveniently within relativity theory, as we PRESENTLY understand it. Consensus science at its best.

  130. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm):

    (Regarding clear 208 year period suggested by Tomes)
    Leif: Longer periods show up intermittently, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Production-of-14C.png The ‘very clearly’ is not so clear.
    Ray: Perhaps I should not have put “very”, but the 208 year cycle is significant. You can see the spectrum and the 208 year cycle filtered from Be10 and C14 records on my pages at http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/analysis-of-be10-records-as-a-solar-irradiance-proxy/ and http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/cycles-in-sunspot-number-reconstruction-for-11000-years/ and the result is somewhat similar to your graph at the 208 year level.

    Is it possible that these changes are not due to TSI but rather to small amounts of high energy events which we do know vary by very large percentages.
    Leif: The variations in TSI [before 1978] are really determined from cosmic ray proxies, so TSI as such is not the issue. These ‘small amounts of high energy events’ should then also not show up in cosmic ray proxies.
    Ray: I don’t quite understand what you are saying here. I don’t see why high energy events should not show up in cosmic ray proxies. I am suggesting that TSI is perhaps the wrong place to look for changes in Earth’s climate as it has rather small variations. But in other energy ranges the solar fluctuations have huge percentage ranges, even multiple orders of magnitude on time scales of minutes. These look to me like potential solutions to how the Sun can affect the Earth. Do you agree that this is better possibility than FSI?

    Ray: We know that high energy particles affect cloud cover
    Leif: No, we don’t KNOW that. We know that they produce ionization [which Wilson got the Nobel prize for in 1927], but we don’t know if that is efficient enough to actually produce clouds. Careful modeling suggests that it is not.
    Ray: This is at least an open debate isn’t it?

  131. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Jim G on November 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm:
    In reality gravitational lensing allows us to see the movement of distant objects, that movement is too rapid/and or the wrong direction to be explained…

    I was unaware the distant specks were moving fast enough behind other distant specks and blobs for actual movement to be detected during the incredibly brief time we’ve had good enough instruments for acceptably precise observations, that is traversing movement, not the towards/away-from us detected by Doppler shift. Last I noticed, we’re still finding out previously identified stars are actually clusters and whole galaxies.

    Gravitational lensing, as I’m aware of it, is detected by doubled images and other optical distortions, movement is not required. Although movement is part of experiments involving the lensing effect of our own sun.

    I found an online gallery of images, some show the results of simulations but most are real, showing dark matter revealed by lensing AND the shapes of galaxy clusters.
    http://www.space.com/14768-dark-matter-universe-photos.html

    To me, some of the real images are vague enough I wonder if my brain is seeing non-existent patterns. But for most of the real images, it is more likely that what is seen is not random, is caused by something. I do not like it when climate modelers say global warming must be caused by increases in the special A-CO₂ molecule because nothing else works in their models. But in explaining the evidence like these images, dark matter really is the only remaining logically-possible reason.

    As an aside, the simulations of dark matter distribution do tend to resemble a neural network, more generally a common fractal pattern. Also like mapping the spaces between cottage cheese curds, or the material of a foam. Somewhat interesting. Also interesting is the Face of God on slide 9, but that’s likely false pattern recognition.

  132. Steve says:

    So, being a comon person and after having reading all the above. The sunspot count is uncertian as compared to the distant past and also it has nothing to do with the temp. of the earth. Is this correct?

  133. Steven Mosher says:

    “As far as I can tell the jury is still out and the sun/earth’s climate links are complicated so the correlations are murky and not straight forward.”

    The argument from ignorance.

    Here is what we know. We know ( pretty well) that the earth is warmed by the sun. Turn TSI off and we freeze. I don’t think anyone here wants to doubt that. Yup, the sun influences the climate. And we know, as Dr. S has pointed out, TSI doesnt change much. It certainly doesnt change enough to explain the differences you see in climate.

    That means.

    1. Other factors besides the sun are required to explain the wiggles.
    2. Other sun factors are required to explain the wiggles.

    For option one we have climate science ( and yes GHGs ) decades of research and results. Its clearly not complete but its the best science we have. Best means it explains the most phenomena as well as can be expected. Not perfect, a work in progress with many gaps of knowledge to be explored.

    For option 2? well you got graphs of data with unexplained lines drawn on them. You have speculations about correlations between some aspect of the sun and some limited phenomena of the climate. hey look, you give me any signal from any solar characteristic and I will connect it to the climate.. some river, some rainfall, the pile of things you could sort through looking for a correlation is so vast that it would be shocking if you didnt find “correlations”.

    Does that mean 2 is wrong? of course not. Its not even well formulated enough to be wrong.
    Something in the sun dunnit. ya leprachuans.

  134. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm:
    Ray: Perhaps I should not have put “very”, but the 208 year cycle is significant. You can see the spectrum and the 208 year cycle filtered from Be10 and C14 records on my pages at…

    Heh. I Googled for Be-10 data and found a 2009 WUWT post by David Archibald arising from an argument with Leif.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/

    Leif Svalgaard said then:

    It is a common human frailty that when one believes strongly in a cause [AGW or more rabidly Anti-AGW] a certain blindness or perhaps expressed better – selective vision, sets in and drives people to less than candid use of Figures and Data. So it is with this post.

    The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls. The production rate may be set by solar activity [the current paradigm says the Heliomagnetic Field. HMF], but the deposition rate in the ice and wood depends on terrestrial factors, climate, geomagnetic field, and volcanic eruptions [as 10Be attaches to aerosols]. Beer and McCracken have in two recent papers [see references in links below] attempted to reconstruct the ‘equivalent’ Climax Neutron Monitor count from the 10Be data and from that the driving HMF.

    We have looked carefully at their reconstruction and are in the process of submitting a paper addressing serious issues we see with their result. a preliminary report was presented at last year’s SORCE meeting in Santa Fe: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20From%20McCracken%20HMF.pdf with some background information in http://www.leif.org/research/Consensus-I.pdf
    (…)

    Perhaps you should review the old argument about Be-10 and C-14 records there before launching a new one here.

    Perhaps Leif has an update to the issue as well.

  135. Ray Tomes says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says (November 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm):

    Ray: … You can see the spectrum and the 208 year cycle filtered from Be10 and C14 records on my pages at…

    Kadaka: Heh. I Googled for Be-10 data and found a 2009 WUWT post by David Archibald arising from an argument with Leif.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/

    Leif Svalgaard said then:
    … The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls.

    Kadaka warns about bringing Be10 and C14 into this.

    Ray: I do not make any assumptions about what Be10 and C14 records mean. I do think that they probably have something to do with solar variations, but there may well be more to the story. I leave that to physicists who may get it right or wrong. But I do say that the 208 year cycle in both these series is really present, and that it is modulated so that Leif’s statement about sometimes present is reasonable. Right now we are at the down phase of the 208 year cycle. This cycle is also found in temperature and it seems pretty safe to say that the Sun is a factor in the temperature changes even if we do not understand the mechanisms.

    It seems appropriate to quote a great cycles researcher at this point.

    “… insofar as cycles are meaningful, all science that has been developed in the absence of cycle knowledge is inadequate and partial. Thus, if cyclic forces are real, any theory of economics, or sociology, or history, or medicine, or climatology that ignores non-chance rhythms is manifestly incomplete, as medicine was before the discovery of germs.”
    – Edward R. Dewey (1967)

    My thanks also to Gail Combs for her links and comments, but the 2nd link (to PDF) does not work.

  136. Geoff Sharp says:

    It seems Beer, McCracken AND Steinhilber are in opposition with Leif on two fronts.

    1. The solar proxy record and its amplitude.
    2. Solar output is governed by planetary influence.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/290

  137. Shawnhet says:

    Stephen Mosher:”1. Other factors besides the sun are required to explain the wiggles.
    2. Other sun factors are required to explain the wiggles.

    For option one we have climate science ( and yes GHGs ) decades of research and results. Its clearly not complete but its the best science we have. Best means it explains the most phenomena as well as can be expected. Not perfect, a work in progress with many gaps of knowledge to be explored.”

    The trouble with this argument is that “gaps in knowledge” is just another name for ignorance. Fundamentally to assume that 2 will ultimately fill all the gaps is just as fallacious as 1 will. However, we have to assume something to do science.

    IAC, the argument for an additional solar driver is quite a bit stronger IMO than you imply above. Just to pick a couple, there are pretty good relationships btw for instance solar proxies and the movement of the ITCZ or the incidence of Bond events, things that AFAIK, climate science can’t explain well(if it assumes TSI doesn’t change much).

    Climate is very complicated which makes definitive answers pretty hard to come by, this doesn’t mean we should make rush decisions either way.

    Cheers, :)

  138. Ray Tomes says:

    Steven Mosher says (November 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm):

    Steven: … That means.

    1. Other factors besides the sun are required to explain the wiggles.
    2. Other sun factors are required to explain the wiggles.

    For option one we have climate science ( and yes GHGs ) decades of research and results. Its clearly not complete but its the best science we have. Best means it explains the most phenomena as well as can be expected. Not perfect, a work in progress with many gaps of knowledge to be explored.

    For option 2? well you got graphs of data with unexplained lines drawn on them. You have speculations about correlations between some aspect of the sun and some limited phenomena of the climate. hey look, you give me any signal from any solar characteristic and I will connect it to the climate.. some river, some rainfall, the pile of things you could sort through looking for a correlation is so vast that it would be shocking if you didnt find “correlations”.

    Does that mean 2 is wrong? of course not. Its not even well formulated enough to be wrong.
    Something in the sun dunnit. ya leprachuans.

    Ray: I look at things from a cycles perspective because I find that it exposes new understanding. When very long term data is available, the need for Leprechauns is greatly diminished because statistics give us bounds within which correlation should fall. I would say that as far as 1 goes, there can be natural oscillations of Earth’s climate system including ocean movements etc. Regarding 2, there are heaps of other solar measurements than just TSI. They often have their own peculiar fluctuations, but nearly always cycles are present. Cycles are a great method to work out cause and effect chains because, like fingerprints, they leave their mark as a set of frequencies. Provided of course that you have enough data to measure the frequencies accurately. then the Leprechauns are not needed.

    As a cycles researcher, I am amazed to see how little people notice even really strong cycles in solar data. x-ray data shows changes of several orders of magnitude, often with cycles of 160 minutes. Kotov, a Russian astronomer, has written much on this cycle in the Sun, the solar system, in binary stars and even in other galaxies. Only cycles researchers come to see to what extent certain cycles periods pervade the entire observable universe. Just saying, widening perspective can be a good thing.

  139. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 8, 2012 at 3:30 pm:
    It seems appropriate to quote a great cycles researcher at this point.

    Edward R. Dewey:

    Dewey devoted his life to the study of cycles, claiming that “everything that has been studied has been found to have cycles present.” He carried out extensive studies of cyclicity in economic, geological, biological, sociology, physical sciences and other disciplines. (…)

    In 1947 Edward R.Dewey and Edwin F. Dakin published their book Cycles: The Science of Prediction which argued the United States economy was driven by four cycles of different length. Milton Friedman dismissed their theory as pseudoscience:[2]

    I see a possible pattern, too early to call it a cycle though…

  140. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Geoff Sharp on November 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm:
    It seems Beer, McCracken AND Steinhilber are in opposition with Leif on two fronts.

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    – Marcus Aurelius

  141. Ray Tomes says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says in a very long-winded innuendo-filled way (November 8, 2012 at 3:51 pm):
    … In 1947 Edward R.Dewey and Edwin F. Dakin published their book Cycles: The Science of Prediction which argued the United States economy was driven by four cycles of different length. Milton Friedman dismissed their theory as pseudoscience:[2]

    I see a possible pattern, too early to call it a cycle though…

    Ray: Milton Freidman was talking through his hat. I just recently added to that page that Schumpeter (another famous economist) also stated about the 4 cycles in economics. I accidentally discovered the same economic cycles in different data from a different country in a different time period. When I gave a talk on it at the statistical association in NZ in about 1978, the local economists told me the names of all the cycles and then said that they didn’t exist. Why is that? Because economists would lose their jobs if the truth was known.

    I have many volumes of cycles analysis work done by Edward Dewey. One volume has more than a thousand reports of cycles by scientists, economists and others, many in peer-reviewed journals. Dewey’s work always conformed to the best scientific and mathematical practice of his day. He consulted Feynman about what conclusions could be drawn (I recommend the paper http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf as a summary) and he used Bartel’s test for the significance of cycles. I have tried to remove that stupid opinion by Freidman and other nonsense from wikipedia but it is a battle. People keep putting stuff about the business cycle in the article when Dewey stated clearly that what was called the business cycle was not a proper cycle. They want a straw man to knock down.

  142. Sparks says:

    Leif, how does the sun cool the Earth?

    It’s and honest question. You can also explain how the sun warms the planet, that would otherwise be a frozen ball.

    Also, another, unrelated question I have. Why is Neptune a cold and windy planet.

  143. Sparks says:

    Gail Combs

    You know what my point is. They will eventually have to. But do I think they will. Certainly not.

  144. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 8, 2012 at 5:40 pm:
    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says in a very long-winded innuendo-filled way…
    In only 13 words.

    I have many volumes of cycles analysis work done by Edward Dewey.
    Indeed. When I Googled “edward dewey” your Dewey page on your site was result #3, with #1 being Wikipedia and #2 being the Resident Evil character of that name. Quite an accomplishment.

    You do not see the problem. You are enamored with a man who saw cycles everywhere. You want to see cycles everywhere. Cycles are deterministic, they provide order and structure. Predictability.

    But reality is chaotic, there is essential randomness. Essential. Reality is not fully predictable. You cannot describe everything with cycles. Dewey was wrong. And as you seek to emulate Dewey, you are also wrong.

  145. Brian H says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Brian H says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    A few years ago I was expecting 24max to be in the 50s.
    Based on what?

    Brilliant intuition.
    >:p

  146. David Archibald says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    November 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm
    Geoff that is a fabulous paper. Full of goodies including:
    “The strong coherence for the 208 yr band with a constant relative phase shows that solar activity and the planetary torque are phase locked. Note that phase locking arises naturally when parametric autoresonance occurs.”
    And:
    “In other words, there is highly statistically significant evidence for a causal relationship between the power spectra of the planetary torque on the Sun and the observed magnetic activity at the
    solar surface as derived from cosmogenic radionuclides.”
    They even have an explanation for the Livingstone and Penn disappearance of sunspots effect:
    “Thus the tiny tidal e ffect could influence the magnetic storage capacity of the tachocline by modifying the stratification of entropy, and thereby altering the maximum field strength of the flux tubes that can be stored there.”

    We won’t stop having de Vries cycle (208 year) events just because they are inconvenient. All over, red rover. Planetary influence on the Sun is “highly statistically significant”.

  147. Sparks says:
    November 8, 2012 at 6:16 pm
    Leif, how does the sun cool the Earth?
    I don’t think it does. The Earth cools because it is sitting in cold [2K] almost empty space.

    Also, another, unrelated question I have. Why is Neptune a cold and windy planet.
    Neptune is cold because it is far from the sun, and windy because it rotates rather fast. Jupiter and Saturn are windy too, but their gravity is higher so a bit less windy.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm
    Perhaps you should review the old argument about Be-10 and C-14 records there before launching a new one here.
    We are conducting a workshop on thus topic http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf
    You may find the list of participants of interest. Geoff might also have a look.

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    This is at least an open debate isn’t it?
    If it is, we cannot say that we KONW.

  148. Sparks says:

    Geoff Sharp said something.
    I’m going to tell Geoff to get his fu*n act together.

  149. Sparks says:

    Leif, how does the sun cool the Earth?

    This time use the brains God give you.

  150. Sparks says:

    Neptune is cold an windy.

  151. Sparks says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:45 pm
    Leif, how does the sun cool the Earth?
    I don’t think it does. The Earth cools because it is sitting in cold [2K] almost empty space.

  152. Geoff Sharp says:

    David Archibald says:
    November 8, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Geoff that is a fabulous paper. Full of goodies including:

    Yes, was amazed when I learned of the authors involved. But not too many are discussing it here?

  153. Sparks says:

    Leif, how does the sun warm the Earth?

  154. Sparks says:
    November 8, 2012 at 10:10 pm
    Leif, how does the sun warm the Earth?
    By supplying an almost constant stream of photons each with a certain amount of energy. The Earth reflects some the photons back into space, but 70% get through and are absorbed by [mainly] the surface thus warming it. Now, you may have meant the atmosphere of the Earth. In that case the heat from the surface is [mainly] conducted and convected aloft.

  155. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm
    But not too many are discussing it here?
    The paper is at variance with and disagrees with your Angular Momentum ideas if you want discussion.

  156. Sparks says:

    Leif, So the sun can cool our Earth by not supplying an almost constant stream of photons each with a certain amount of energy. Interesting.

  157. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 8, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    The paper is at variance with and disagrees with your Angular Momentum ideas if you want discussion.

    I am not so sure, the torque calculations need to be explained more clearly, but the solar path around the SSB appears to be a key component. Solar torque and AM are very closely related and show the same perturbations at the key positions.

    I have some reservations about any spectral type of data analysis when it comes to solar records. When you understand grand minima principles it becomes clear this type of analysis will never find any real cycle. The 208 years is merely an artifact or most common spacing between solar downturns.

    A post dedicated to this paper is required.

  158. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Leif, going by how the cycles & connections crowd looks at things, perhaps the “how does the sun cool” is related to this bit from that link:
    Nature of the solar wind during Grand Minima. Both Parker and Eddy suggested that the solar wind might have been of “gale force” in all directions during the Maunder Minimum.

    Maunder Minimum, solar wind, Little Ice Age. Throw in a few graphs from Vuk showing the strong correlation and it’s obvious the Sun can cool. Etc.

    Thanks for the link. Been awhile since my Physics Bach., never really used it. I don’t recognize the participants and the exact theories they propound. But it was a good read for the science, and my absorption and retention rates are increasing.

    Self-study may be slow, but as opposed to my college experience I am learning, and not just where to find what info in which textbook.

  159. vukcevic says:

    Of course, we (including Dr.S) know that planets affect solar cycles. What otherwise would be random outbursts of magnetic activity, feeds into Jupiter’s powerful and huge magnetosphere that extends beyond Saturn, with which it regularly merges with, and from the chaos there is order governing the solar magnetic field
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    However randomness is not totally eradicated and is reflected to a minor degree in variability of cycle length and amplitude.

    Of far more consequence is how this affects the Earth and its climate. Having solid crust, liquid outer core and solid inner core, due to internal differential rotation, a ripple arises in its liquid core where its magnetic filed is generated. The rest is here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    Steven Mosher:
    The CO2 curve is boring, geomagnetic oscillations are far more fun
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A-A.htm

  160. Ray Tomes says:

    Kadata says:
    You do not see the problem. You are enamored with a man who saw cycles everywhere. You want to see cycles everywhere. Cycles are deterministic, they provide order and structure. Predictability.

    Did you at least look at http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf ?
    Did you read about Dewey’s consultation with Feynman regarding interpretation of cycles?
    If not, then you have a close and prejudiced mind.

    Dewey and I see cycles everywhere because they are everywhere. This is attested to by proper statistical procedures and proven to work by the ability to make forecasts. Using multiple cycles allows the best predictions of sunspot numbers and global temperatures.

    But do not presume to know my needs and motives.

  161. Ray Tomes says:

    Geoff Sharp says (November 8, 2012 at 11:03 pm):
    … The 208 years is merely an artifact or most common spacing between solar downturns.

    Are you referring to just the last few hundred years of instrumental records of SSNs? Because solar proxies (both C14 and Be10) show the 208 year cycle for about 10,000 years. That hardly should be classified as an artifact.

  162. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:36 am

    Are you referring to just the last few hundred years of instrumental records of SSNs? Because solar proxies (both C14 and Be10) show the 208 year cycle for about 10,000 years. That hardly should be classified as an artifact.

    Hi Ray, I was referring to the Holocene record. Email me one day and we will discuss.

  163. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:15 am
    Of course, we (including Dr.S) know that planets affect solar cycles. What otherwise would be random outbursts of magnetic activity, feeds into Jupiter’s powerful and huge magnetosphere
    As usual you are violating the laws of physics. The solar wind is supersonic and disturbances do not travel upstream towards the Sun, but as usual you refuse to learn.

  164. project722 says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:15 am

    Of course, we (including Dr.S) know that planets affect solar cycles. What otherwise would be random outbursts of magnetic activity, feeds into Jupiter’s powerful and huge magnetosphere that extends beyond Saturn, with which it regularly merges with, and from the chaos there is order governing the solar magnetic field
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    However randomness is not totally eradicated and is reflected to a minor degree in variability of cycle length and amplitude.

    Of far more consequence is how this affects the Earth and its climate. Having solid crust, liquid outer core and solid inner core, due to internal differential rotation, a ripple arises in its liquid core where its magnetic filed is generated. The rest is here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    I find your comments interesting. It would make sense that during a cycle of low polar magnetic strength and umbral field strength fading, that there would have to be another electromagnetic driver that influences the sun. I’m curious, are you partial to the electric universe model?

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 5:44 am

    vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:15 am
    Of course, we (including Dr.S) know that planets affect solar cycles. What otherwise would be random outbursts of magnetic activity, feeds into Jupiter’s powerful and huge magnetosphere
    As usual you are violating the laws of physics. The solar wind is supersonic and disturbances do not travel upstream towards the Sun, but as usual you refuse to learn.

    With all due respect Dr. I believe you are making false assumptions. I believe many planets are magnetically tethered to the Sun and work outside of the space-time continuum. We have even confirmed the existence of magnetic portals and flux ropes from our own planet that have direct connections to the Sun that work independently of the IMF. What can be inferred from this is that if there is a magnetic field present, there is electric current and influence would be bi-directional.

  165. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    Solar torque and AM are very closely related
    Not at all. The torque is gravitational and has nothing to do with AM.

  166. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 8, 2012 at 11:03 pm
    Solar torque and AM are very closely related
    Not at all. The torque is gravitational and has nothing to do with AM of the planet.

  167. project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:08 am
    We have even confirmed the existence of magnetic portals and flux ropes from our own planet that have direct connections to the Sun that work independently of the IMF. What can be inferred from this is that if there is a magnetic field present, there is electric current and influence would be bi-directional.
    No. the flux ropes are from the Sun and are part of the IMF. The solar wind plasma which is electrically neutral drags the frozen-in magnetic field with it from the Sun and impacts the Earth and planets. Very high-energy electrons from solar flares are not frozen-in and bounce freely back and forth between the foot-points of the flux ropes. Since the go in both directions they do not constitute a current, and their density is very low having no effect on anything.

  168. project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:42 am

    project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:08 am
    We have even confirmed the existence of magnetic portals and flux ropes from our own planet that have direct connections to the Sun that work independently of the IMF. What can be inferred from this is that if there is a magnetic field present, there is electric current and influence would be bi-directional.
    No. the flux ropes are from the Sun and are part of the IMF. The solar wind plasma which is electrically neutral drags the frozen-in magnetic field with it from the Sun and impacts the Earth and planets. Very high-energy electrons from solar flares are not frozen-in and bounce freely back and forth between the foot-points of the flux ropes. Since the go in both directions they do not constitute a current, and their density is very low having no effect on anything.

    Are you using the terms flux ropes and portals interchangeably? It is my understanding that flux ropes and portals are of different origins. The portals are a result of the reconnection process (X points) and open/close many times a day.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/mag-portals.html

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

  169. project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:19 am
    Are you using the terms flux ropes and portals interchangeably? It is my understanding that flux ropes and portals are of different origins. The portals are a result of the reconnection process (X points) and open/close many times a day.
    There are no such thing as ‘portals’. The portals is a dumbing-down term used in press releases. What happens is that when a small parcel of solar wind impacts the magnetosphere, the magnetic field in the parcel can easily connect with the Earth’s field if its direction is just right. As the solar wind is extremely variable, there are always some parcels somewhere on the boundary between the solar wind and the magnetosphere where the field directions are suitable for reconnection. The more of such parcels, the more reconnection do you get. This is a purely local process taking place at the Earth and does not feed back to the Sun. It is like water flowing over a waterfall not influencing the river 100 miles upstream from the fall.

  170. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
    Because solar proxies (both C14 and Be10) show the 208 year cycle for about 10,000 years.
    No, they show that sometimes there are hints of a 200-yr cycle, but most of the time there are not.

  171. Gail Combs says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    November 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    “As far as I can tell the jury is still out and the sun/earth’s climate links are complicated so the correlations are murky and not straight forward.”

    The argument from ignorance….
    _______________________________
    No that is argument from having to deal with confounding factors in chemical processes where what is actually effecting the chemical reaction/product is completely unclear. I have knocked my head against plant production problems where it took three or more separate factors in just the right mode to produce the problem we were trying to solve. That is why I laugh at the Climastrologists who say they KNOW what is causing climate variations.

    The lab had all the data production could want and the engineers STILL could not determine what caused the problem. You and the rest arguing from your Ivory Towers don’t have even a list of all the factors that could effect climate yet and you have the GALL to say I am arguing from ignorance? At least I have taken the first step on the road to knowledge and acknowledged that I do not know everything.

    If you guys are such gods why haven’t you been able to produce ONE climate model that actually works for more that a few days out? HMMmmmm

  172. project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:31 am

    project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:19 am
    Are you using the terms flux ropes and portals interchangeably? It is my understanding that flux ropes and portals are of different origins. The portals are a result of the reconnection process (X points) and open/close many times a day.
    There are no such thing as ‘portals’. The portals is a dumbing-down term used in press releases. What happens is that when a small parcel of solar wind impacts the magnetosphere, the magnetic field in the parcel can easily connect with the Earth’s field if its direction is just right. As the solar wind is extremely variable, there are always some parcels somewhere on the boundary between the solar wind and the magnetosphere where the field directions are suitable for reconnection. The more of such parcels, the more reconnection do you get. This is a purely local process taking place at the Earth and does not feed back to the Sun. It is like water flowing over a waterfall not influencing the river 100 miles upstream from the fall.

    So what is NASA showing us on the ISWA website with the Earth Sun magnetic field line/footprint connectivity cygnet? The flux ropes?

  173. project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:17 am
    So what is NASA showing us on the ISWA website
    Give the full URL, please

  174. Steven Mosher says:

    Gail

    “That is why I laugh at the Climastrologists who say they KNOW what is causing climate variations.”

    Then you are laughing at the sun nuts. You will be hard pressed to find any climate scientist who claims to KNOW what causes climate variations. Just read the IPCC. You will see frank admissions of wiggles that are not currently explained. Are gross trends explained. Yes. Do they claim to know what causes every variation? Nope. You have to read the curve fitting solar nuts to see that kind of hubris. And evern there they only attempt to explain the least important system characteristic: Surface Air Temperature. or on occasion they will explain the odd river level or lake level in the cherry picked case of the week

  175. vukcevic says:

    Since the solar activity is plainly magnetic end electric phenomenon taking place in the solar plasma, that the electric and magnetic forces rather than weak gravitation are likely primary causes.
    Magnetic clouds (ropes) are magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun constituting closed electric and closed magnetic circuits.
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=910
    Electrons are counter streaming in both directions, but in different layers. Although arithmetic sum of currents may be zero, because of layering there is still bi-directional electric current flow
    R.P. LEPPING, from Laboratory for Solar and Space Physics NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, claims: MCs (magnetic clouds) are 1/4AU in diameter (at the earth’s orbit-rem.mv), … have axial fluxes of 10^21Mx and carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps.
    http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/cloud_movie.gif
    Magnetic cloud spreads out through the heliosphere, engulfing planetary magnetospheres.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NZZr9TF1qI0
    It is possible that most of energy is carried by the magnetic field, which is occasionally short-circuited by planetary magnetospheres (reconnection), when energy is released, and the magnetic loop interrupted.

    and since it is a close magnetic circuit, the interruption will be registered ad the source (solar surface) hence a planetary magnetic feedback.

  176. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:40 am
    It is possible that most of energy is carried by the magnetic field, which is occasionally short-circuited by planetary magnetospheres (reconnection), when energy is released, and the magnetic loop interrupted. and since it is a close magnetic circuit, the interruption will be registered ad the source (solar surface) hence a planetary magnetic feedback.
    An electric engineer should know that this is nonsense. There are no ‘magnetic circuits’ to be short-circuited. Any change in the magnetic configuration is carried downstream [away from the Sun] at ten times the speed by which magnetic changes can propagate upstream [the Alfven speed]. Your learning disability shows itself again. Dunning-Kruger were right.

  177. Steven Mosher says:

    Ray

    “Ray: I look at things from a cycles perspective because I find that it exposes new understanding. When very long term data is available, the need for Leprechauns is greatly diminished because statistics give us bounds within which correlation should fall. I would say that as far as 1 goes, there can be natural oscillations of Earth’s climate system including ocean movements etc. Regarding 2, there are heaps of other solar measurements than just TSI. They often have their own peculiar fluctuations, but nearly always cycles are present. Cycles are a great method to work out cause and effect chains because, like fingerprints, they leave their mark as a set of frequencies. Provided of course that you have enough data to measure the frequencies accurately. then the Leprechauns are not needed.”

    Ray. The cycle IS the leprechaun. They merely come in different colors. You miss the point of confirmation bias and data snooping entirely. Yes there are many solar measurements. In fact, there are an infinite number of solar measurements. That is, an infinite number of ways of characterizing observations and combining them. It is necessarily the case that if you look hard enough and long enough you will find a cycle. And if you don’t there are any manner of ways you can fool yourself mathematically to create them ex nihilo. And, as you know, there are an infinite number of ways of measuring the climate. Correlation, even long term correlation, is easy to find. In fact you must find it.

    That is the fundamental problem with data driven approaches. All data confesses. If it doesnt, transform it. Shift it. add a constant, take the reciprocal, you’ll find the cycle. You have to.
    The test comes when you actually have to put together a physical theory that predicts phenomena not used to construct your system.

    Let’s take Scaffeta as an example. After a modest amount of fiddling we have a ‘theory’ ( a curve fit) that explains global air temperature. Fine. What’s that “theory” say about ENSO. opps. nothing.
    It says nothing because its not a physical theory about the climate, its an exercise in cyclomania. That disease is addictive because one can always find the drug. Put another way, the philosophy that there are cycles in everything is metaphysics. Pure and simple non falsifiable metaphysics. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that popper tried to banish from science. But nostradamus lives and he worships the sun. It explains everything and therefore nothing.

  178. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:40 am
    carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps.
    A single small sunspot the size of the Earth across carries a current of the order of 1000 billion amps.

  179. Jim G says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    From Jim G on November 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm:
    In reality gravitational lensing allows us to see the movement of distant objects, that movement is too rapid/and or the wrong direction to be explained…

    “I was unaware the distant specks were moving fast enough behind other distant specks and blobs for actual movement to be detected during the incredibly brief time we’ve had good enough instruments for acceptably precise observations, that is traversing movement, not the towards/away-from us detected by Doppler shift. Last I noticed, we’re still finding out previously identified stars are actually clusters and whole galaxies.”

    Since the theoretical dark matter is by definition dark, the only thing that can actually be seen is the supposed gravitational effects of the supposed dark matter which cause movement. The mass and location of the supposed dark matter are then inferred by those supposed gravitational effects.

  180. Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Since the theoretical dark matter is by definition dark, the only thing that can actually be seen is the supposed gravitational effects of the supposed dark matter which cause movement. The mass and location of the supposed dark matter are then inferred by those supposed gravitational effects.
    That is how the supposed planet Neptune was detected in 1846.

  181. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:40 am
    carry a total axial current (IT ) of about a billion amps.
    A characteristic of a competent engineer is the ability to intuitively have a feel for proportion and sizing, not proposing using a single strand of knitting yarn to hold up a suspension bridge.
    Even if a planet could disrupt that current and even if you somehow by magic could feed that disruption back to the Sun it is many orders of magnitude too small to have any significant effect.

    Let us make a more precise calculation, starting with this:
    Osherovich, V. A.; Garcia, H. A.
    Geophysical Research Letters (ISSN 0094-8276), vol. 17, Nov. 1990, p. 2273-2276.
    The return flux (RF) sunspot model is applied to a round, unipolar sunspot observed by H. Kawakami (1983). Solving the magnetohydrostatic problem using the gas pressure deficit between the umbral and quiet-sun atmospheres as a source function, a distribution of electric current density in an untwisted, unipolar sunspot as a function of height and radial distance from the sunspot center is observed. Maximum electric current density is about 32 mA/sq m at the bottom of the sunspot.

    Take the radius of the spot to be 10,000 km, then its area is 3×10^14 sqm. That area times the current density 32×10^-3 A gives a current of 10^13 = 10,000 billion amps and this is for a quiet spot. An active spot that gives rise to CMEs has a current many times larger, so your proposed mechanism is five orders of magnitudes too weak.

    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 10:24 am
    Since the theoretical dark matter is by definition dark, the only thing that can actually be seen is the supposed gravitational effects
    Educate yourself a bit about gravitational effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

  182. project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:23 am

    project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:17 am
    So what is NASA showing us on the ISWA website
    Give the full URL, please

    http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/IswaSystemWebApp/
    This should take you the the list of available cygnets. Go to page 10 under the solar tab, select the 1st or second on the left called “Earth-Sun Connectivity”. Hover over the image to get a description of what the cygnet does. In short this shows our magnetic footprint on the Sun. If you look currently our magnetic footprint is on the backside of the Sun.

    Then on the same page to the right you will see another cygnet called “Earth Magnetic Connectivity WSA ENLIL Gong.” Hover over image for description. This shows you field lines that Earth has and what their current location is on the Suns corona where its originating.

    I believe these 2 cygnets are supposed to work in conjunction, according to their description. And if you are correct these may be the flux ropes we have been talking about.

  183. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    …….
    You are trying to confound the readers by referring to the solar wind.
    Magnetic clouds are only present in a subset of observed interplanetary coronal mass ejections.
    i.e. it is not same as the common ‘garden’ solar wind.
    Magnetic cloud has closed magnetic field i.e. the magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun
    http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=910

    Even if a planet could disrupt that current and even if you somehow by magic could feed that disruption back to the Sun

    No need for magic, here is simple analogy: an ordinary magnetic needle of a compass has magnetic loops that are rooted at both of its ends, do a simple test by interrupting the magnetic field loops by a piece of iron and observe the ‘feedback’

    it is many orders of magnitude too small to have any significant effect.

    Although only a small amount of energy is involved at any time, effect is cumulative increasing CMEs’
    frequency and strength.
    Alternatively, sun may have natural resonance which has a harmonic component in the region of 11 years.
    Heard of platoon of soldiers marching on a bridge?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angers_Bridge

  184. HenryP says:

    The sun is doing exactly what can be predicted from the data
    \
    for the following 8 years we are at the maximum cooling rate
    After that we will start climbing a bit again
    until it starts warming again
    from around 2038
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    Have a nice global cooling!!
    although I am sure there will be enough idiots who believe the cooling (“climate change”) could be due to human activities.

  185. project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 11:31 am
    In short this shows our magnetic footprint on the Sun.
    No, those are not the ‘feet’ of the flux ropes, but instead the feet of the ‘open’ field lines: field lines of one polarity that start at the sun and stretch out into space. What normally are called the ‘flux ropes’ are closed loops like this one http://www.leif.org/research/Flux-Rope-Near-Sun.png
    As the loop is dragged out to the Earth and beyond, its stays connected to its feet, until at some distance further out, perhaps past Mars, the connection is finally broken and the ‘loop’ becomes a ‘cloud’. For some loops the connection can break much earlier and they become clouds much closer. This is all very dynamic.

  186. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 11:47 am
    Magnetic clouds are only present in a subset of observed interplanetary coronal mass ejections.
    So are rare and have even less effect

    No need for magic, here is simple analogy: an ordinary magnetic needle of a compass has magnetic loops that are rooted at both of its ends, do a simple test by interrupting the magnetic field loops by a piece of iron and observe the ‘feedback’
    Try that in a plasma. The analogy fails because the solar wind/magnetic cloud is not a vacuum [or non-conductor like air]. Alfven showed that in 1942 and got a Nobel prize for it.

    Although only a small amount of energy is involved at any time, effect is cumulative increasing CMEs’ frequency and strength.
    First of all, you can’t get it back to the sun. Second, as the sunspot dies there is no cumulative effect.

    Heard of platoon of soldiers marching on a bridge?
    It is more like an ant on the bridge.

    But, again, you refuse to learn. Don’t be such a bad example to your children.

  187. project722 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 11:31 am
    In short this shows our magnetic footprint on the Sun.
    No, those are not the ‘feet’ of the flux ropes, but instead the feet of the ‘open’ field lines: field lines of one polarity that start at the sun and stretch out into space. What normally are called the ‘flux ropes’ are closed loops like this one http://www.leif.org/research/Flux-Rope-Near-Sun.png
    As the loop is dragged out to the Earth and beyond, its stays connected to its feet, until at some distance further out, perhaps past Mars, the connection is finally broken and the ‘loop’ becomes a ‘cloud’. For some loops the connection can break much earlier and they become clouds much closer. This is all very dynamic.

    I understand about open field lines. Clearly though the NASA app says otherwise and shows instead the magnetic field lines connectivity from the sun that terminate on earth. It says “This plot shows the magnetic connection points from the earth onto the suns surface/corona”. These look like open field lines from the Sun that have a connecting layer on the earth. So if they are not the flux ropes or portals, what are they besides just regular magnetic field lines and what purpose do they serve?

  188. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    “Educate yourself a bit about gravitational effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

    You obviously did not read completely and/or completely understand what I wrote. If you are going refer folks to a site on the subject, wikipedia is notoriously poor, as anyone can edit it. Here is one, of many others, you might consider http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html.

  189. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 10:39 am
    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “Since the theoretical dark matter is by definition dark, the only thing that can actually be seen is the supposed gravitational effects of the supposed dark matter which cause movement. The mass and location of the supposed dark matter are then inferred by those supposed gravitational effects.
    That is how the supposed planet Neptune was detected in 1846.”

    Yes, but since then, if you have not heard, we have actually observed it directly, not so for dark matter.

  190. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 9, 2012 at 8:34 am):

    Ray Tomes says:
    Because solar proxies (both C14 and Be10) show the 208 year cycle for about 10,000 years.

    Leif: No, they show that sometimes there are hints of a 200-yr cycle, but most of the time there are not.

    Actually, the analysis of the entire records show a significant cycle throughout. For Be10 the significance is p<0.0002 and for C14 there are two peaks with significance of p of 0.05 and 0.02. These are according to Bartels test which looks for common phase and amplitude of the cycle on each cycle period occurrence. At these levels the test is failed that the phase and amplitude are random scatter about zero. In Be10 we can say that this is surely a real cycle.

    The two significant components for C14 does explain why your chart shows the cycle appears as present sometimes only, and that is because of the beats between these components. This is no different than saying that Sodium emits in the yellow part of the spectrum. Further analysis shows two lines in the spectrum so Sodium's yellow is not there much of the time.

    In general all cycles show modulation. This is to be expected when you think about it, because there are always other forces at work than the simple oscillation. I have found that often the modulation period is matched to other known cycles. In this case the C14 modulation period is close to the 2300 year reported cycle in many related phenomena. Because only about 4 cycles of that longer cycle are present we cannot be definitive about that conclusion.

  191. project722 says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    I understand about open field lines. Clearly though the NASA app says otherwise and shows instead the magnetic field lines connectivity from the sun that terminate on earth.
    It was an open field line until it encountered the Earth.NASA does not say otherwise.

    So if they are not the flux ropes or portals, what are they besides just regular magnetic field lines
    They are just ‘regular field lines’ with the property that an electron shot out along one at the sun will not return to the sun, but get lost somewhere in interstellar space. In a sense that is a useful definition of an ‘open field line’, because strictly speaking there are no ‘open’ field lines.

    and what purpose do they serve?
    Nature does have ‘purpose’.

    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    You obviously did not read completely and/or completely understand what I wrote.
    I don’t think you wrote anything that was amenable to understanding. Wikipedia and the site you mentioned do not disagree [and I do also know something about this].

    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    ”That is how the supposed planet Neptune was detected in 1846.”
    Yes, but since then, if you have not heard, we have actually observed it directly, not so for dark matter.

    Snide remarks [“if you have not heard”] reflect badly on you. Dark matter enjoys the same situation as Neptune did between the time its position was calculated and the time it was observed. No difference, except observation is a bit harder for DM, but there are serious experiments aimed at that goal.

  192. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    I have found that often the modulation period is matched to other known cycles.
    Clearly, cyclomania cannot be rationally discussed as it seems to be an article of faith for believers.

  193. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    I have found that often the modulation period is matched to other known cycles.
    Clearly, cyclomania cannot be rationally discussed as it seems to be an article of faith for believers.
    That said, the intermittent cycle do contribute to the power spectrum:
    http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-FFT.png
    There are many other peaks and people find them correlated with planets, climate, and whatnot.

  194. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    ……………
    Now you should have said:
    “the Earth has a magnetosphere, why don’t we see one year cycles?”
    We do but 400 days one. The Earth’s magnetosphere gets in the way of Jupiter’s every 1.0928 years, and the most SS cycles show this interference, particular at the stronger part of the normal sunspot cycle. Transition is short about (one month or so) few CMEs are required to show the effect:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sub-cycle.htm

    p.s. Children have grown up so I can fool around.

  195. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says
    “Snide remarks [“if you have not heard”] reflect badly on you.”

    Leif, I can’t believe you said that. You, the King of snide remarks, you surely certainly do not seem to be able to take what you dish out! Aside from that, dark matter has yet to be directly observed and is a matter of theory, or in some cases, dogmatic belief.

  196. Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    There are many other peaks and people find them correlated with planets, climate, and whatnot.
    A good way to see how stationary the patter is, is to split that data into subsets and see how the peaks fare: http://www.leif.org/research/10Be-FFT-Subsets.png
    Now the peaks don’t look too hot [to me at least]. You can do other subsets or a sliding window subset scheme, etc, and people do this and find all kinds of fascinating things. None of which is compelling.

  197. vukcevic says:
    November 9, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    “the Earth has a magnetosphere, why don’t we see one year cycles?”
    For the same reason that the other magnetospheres don’t produce cycles: magnetic and electric influence can’t travel upstream fast enough. They are all swept away by the supersonic solar wind.
    Children have grown up so I can fool around
    No reason to make a fool of yourself in public, though.

    Jim G says:
    November 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
    you surely certainly do not seem to be able to take what you dish out!
    No need to stoop to my level.
    Aside from that, dark matter … is a matter of theory, or in some cases, dogmatic belief.
    Or in some cases dogmatic disbelief. About theory:
    “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment”

  198. vukcevic says:

    Ray Tomes says: November 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    …….
    Hi Ray
    It appears that the Earth’s magnetic field has a ripple with various periods (100, 165, 490 .. etc. years) as contained in the data of the 400 year long magnetic records. Some of these periods coincide with the solar, some do not. But in general they are by one order of magnitude stronger than the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit. It is certain that if the ripple’s existence is a true, that the cosmic rays and consequently C14 and 10Be nucleation would be strongly modulated by such ripple.

  199. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:34 am

    No, they show that sometimes there are hints of a 200-yr cycle, but most of the time there are not.

    This is a key statement that is not understood by many. The 200 year cycle is what shows up most with FFT type analysis, but in fact is not all that common. The timing between the different levels of grand minima can vary between 90 years and 250 years, it would take a Sporer minimum to occur each N/U conjunction for a strong 90 year signal which obviously does not occur over the Holocene and in fact is very rare. There are many combinations of possible outcomes that tend to group at the 200 year end because over the Holocene grand minimia are mostly weak. The underlying 172 year cycle is hidden but IS the dominating force of the Holocene. I tried in the past to make this easy to understand with Willis, using an analogy of a hour hand on a clock that is a 3 pronged trident, each one of the points on the trident can be different each time it passes 12 o’clock. When all 3 prongs are strong you get a Sporer type minimum.

    I think the recent paper dealing with solar torque is also finding the same outcome.

  200. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 9, 2012 at 12:32 am:

    Did you at least look at http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf ?
    Did you read about Dewey’s consultation with Feynman regarding interpretation of cycles?
    If not, then you have a close and prejudiced mind.

    Actually I have unsuccessfully tried several times to right-click download it. Finally I opened link in new tab. The URL you provided somehow is redirected to:
    http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdfcase_for_cycles.pdf

    This throws a “300 Multiple Choices” error:

    The document name you requested (/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdfcase_for_cycles.pdf) could not be found on this server. However, we found documents with names similar to the one you requested.

    Available documents:

    * /cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdf (common basename)

    Now that I can finally get the document, first I notice it is self-published, by Dewey’s foundation.

    First “evidence” is a claimed rigid periodicity of 9.6 years in Canadian lynx pelts, from colonial times to present. This is immediately suspicious due to long harsh Canadian winters thus trade would be suppressed at times that would be peaks. The data is presented with a “ratio scale”, something like logarithmic, distorting the data into the supplied 9.6yr triangular waveform. The major effect noticeable is the 20th century drop in sales as alternatives to animal pelts for winter coats were developed.

    Further reading reveals the Canada lynx’s diet is primarily composed of snowshoe hares, whose populations follow a 10-year cycle. However that’s only an average, ranging 7 to 17 years, peaks among the different populations do not occur simultaneously.

    The second example is monthly sales of an New England textile plant, Jan 1931 to Oct 1940. A 3 month cycle is noted. What could possibly be the cause?

    Thankfully in this modern age, we have discovered the existence of seasons, with the attendant seasonal buying of clothes.

    I went to the end of the document, searching for sources. None there. But I did find Table 4. From the Wikipedia Dewey entry, it is seen Dewey liked his “magic numbers” arising from multiples of 17.75. This table shows purported cycles following those numbers.

    Among those listed with Theoretical Cycles of 17.75 yrs was “Sunspots, alternate cycles reversed”, with Observed Length of 17.66 yrs.

    Despite that, I pressed on, trying to confirm 17.724 yrs observed for “Variable Star, Scorpius V 381″, as that would have no connection to other cycles on Earth or even from this solar system. But that is an old cataloging system designation, I can find no match in list of stars in Scorpius. Googling only reveals that description in another book of cycles giving Dewey’s numbers.

    Finally I have found the closest match:
    http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/cepheus-constellation/

    V381 Cephei is a red supergiant with an apparent magnitude of 5.66, approximately 3,663 light years distant. It is a pulsating variable star. It belongs to the spectral class M1lbpe+ and has about 9 or 10 solar masses.

    Other designations: HR 8164, HD 203338.

    From here I find HR 8164 accompanies the eclipsing binary W Cephei.

    Much searching later, two things are clear:
    1. The periodicity of HR 8164 is not readily available.
    2. The periodicity of variable stars can be very variable, I cannot find such specified as precise as two decimal places of a year.

    Summary:
    Dewey specifies the rigidity of the timing of cycles, when such rigidity is not supported by the data, to impossible precisions. He likes his “magic numbers”. He also gives dubious evidence, such as 17.75 yrs for “A large mail-order house”, a social phenomenon of short duration (Sears catalog), and sunspot timing, among others.

    In short, he is obviously searching for cycles, of durations matching select numbers suitable for claiming interconnections, and will find the data matches his expectations, even when it really doesn’t.

    Conclusion: Pseudoscience.

  201. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:18 am

    Not at all. The torque is gravitational and has nothing to do with AM of the planet.

    That is not my understanding of the paper. The tidal force is acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge which in turn is being acted on by the solar oscillation away from the SSB.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/abreu1.png

    This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper, 0 – 0b

  202. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    The tidal force is acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge …
    This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper

    The red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.

  203. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm
    This is shown by the red arrow in the above diagram from the paper o-ob
    That arrow is not a force, just the vector in the x direction showing the position, not a force.
    The thick red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.

  204. Ray Tomes says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says (November 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm):
    Actually I have unsuccessfully tried several times to right-click download it. …

    Ray: Thank you for pointing out this problem. I will get it attended to. A link that works (for other people’s benefit) is http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdf

    I will just examine one of the topics that you chose to criticise …

    Kadaka: First “evidence” is a claimed rigid periodicity of 9.6 years in Canadian lynx pelts, from colonial times to present. This is immediately suspicious due to long harsh Canadian winters thus trade would be suppressed at times that would be peaks. The data is presented with a “ratio scale”, something like logarithmic, distorting the data into the supplied 9.6yr triangular waveform. The major effect noticeable is the 20th century drop in sales as alternatives to animal pelts for winter coats were developed.

    Ray: Maybe you can explain how a yearly cycle can interrupt a 9.6 year cycle. That makes no sense at all as multiple winters occur every 9.6 year cycle. Ratio scale is an old term for exactly the same thing as logarithmic scale. It does not distort anything into a triangular waveform. Rather, it allows both the earlier data with lower figures and the later data with higher figures to be seen on a comparable percentage change basis in each cycle. So you cannot see the 9.6 year cycle? It is very widely accepted as a real cycle and is significant at p=0.00000059 so your graph reading is rather lacking.

    Kadaka: Further reading reveals the Canada lynx’s diet is primarily composed of snowshoe hares, whose populations follow a 10-year cycle. However that’s only an average, ranging 7 to 17 years, peaks among the different populations do not occur simultaneously.

    Ray: The figures of 7 to 17 years quoted are probably misleading as to the actual constancy of the cycle (just as with sunspots). The hare and lynx cycles are similar and lead initially to the idea that it was a predator-prey cycle. However the phases are not really in accord with that idea, and many other creatures follow the same 9.6 year cycle and some of these do not eat each other. These different occurrences of 9.6 year cycles are listed in table 3. Whenever Dewey found such sets of similar cycle periods he found that they also showed common phase. This is a big clue that they all have a common cause. The only possible hint of the cause in this case is that ozone follows a 9.6 year cycle.

    Ray: If you do not find Dewey’s paper fascinating, then I think that you are not a true scientist. If you really cannot see the 9.6 year cycle and think that taking logs makes cycles, then your maths and graph skills are not up to doing science.

  205. Ray Tomes says:

    Kadaka, one more thing that you write is “In short, he [Dewey] is obviously searching for cycles, of durations matching select numbers suitable for claiming interconnections, and will find the data matches his expectations, even when it really doesn’t.”

    Ray: This is a totally unjustified assumption on your part. He gathered data on all cycles that he could find which were significant. Many of these cycles studies were done by other scientists in many different fields. The old FSC had as board members many well known scientists, administrators etc., and they had great respect for Dewey. When many cycles periods had been found by analysis, not by magic or assumption, a histogram was made of the periods and the location of peaks was found. Only then did he construct the table showing ratios of 2 and 3 which linked many of the common cycles.

    Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena. You will see that some of these appear in the Be10 and C14 spectral analysis. Also, many harmonically related cycles in solar phenomena, noted in peer review articles by Bai et al, including 155 days, 78 days, 52 days, 26 days in solar phenomena of many types. These values linked by 2 and 3 ratios can be extended much further and also link up with other cycles periods found by Dewey that did not fit the ratios from 17.75 years.

    My own independent research (before I heard of Dewey), using different data from a different country in a different time period to Dewey found the same pattern of cycles periods. I used a base of 35.6 years, very close to Dewey’s 17.75 years times 2.

    Only years after Dewey’s work has understanding of how non-linear systems can generate 2 and 3 ratios been understood. He was ahead of his time.

  206. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena.
    Ray, those cycles are called ‘harmonics’ of the fundamental cycle and are artifacts [and not cycles on their own] caused by the shape of the cycle not being a pure sine curve. Here is an example http://www.leif.org/research/FTT-Pure-Distorted.png
    Should a Cycle Researcher know this already?

  207. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm):

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    Such ratios of 2 and 3 are also found in many studies by scientists since then. Examples are 104 and 208 year cycles in Be10 and C14. Periods of 11, 22, 44, 88, 176 and 352 years are found in many solar and climate phenomena.
    Ray, those cycles are called ‘harmonics’ of the fundamental cycle and are artifacts [and not cycles on their own] caused by the shape of the cycle not being a pure sine curve. Here is an example http://www.leif.org/research/FTT-Pure-Distorted.png
    Should a Cycle Researcher know this already?

    Leif, I am well aware of harmonics of cycles due to the cycle shape. The shape of the 11 year sunspot cycle clearly causes harmonics of 11 years to be present, especially 5.5 years. However it cannot cause a 352 year cycle. And whereas 2nd and 4th harmonics may happen in this way, higher order harmonics are not usual, and certainly not following a power of 2 series. Rather, such a series only results from *multiple iterations* of non-linear relationships. The existence of 352 years and 88 years in solar proxies shows quite clearly that the 11 year cycle is a result of a long cascading effect of such non-linear relationships rather than a fundamental cycle. For anyone who wants to unravel the mystery of such relationships, they have to give up some of the entrenched beliefs. When that is done, the entire structure of the Universe can be shown to result from cascading non-linear harmonics. See http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

  208. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif, sometimes the various harmonics are found in different but related series. For the best examples of this see my summary of 155 day and related solar cycles http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/CRI200510-solar154day.pdf
    Note that, just as 352 year cycle is sub-harmonic of 11 years and is unlikely to be caused by it, the 155 day cycle is a sub-harmonic of the solar rotation period. Explain that!

  209. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    That arrow is not a force, just the vector in the x direction showing the position, not a force.
    The thick red arrow shows the gravitational force on the bulge. No other forces are in play.

    Then why even bother showing the vector if it is not important. The vector arrow is creating extra torque on the gravitational force applied from the planets IMO. This is one of the topics that needs to be fleshed out clearly in a separate post. These questions should addressed to the authors.

  210. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm
    The vector arrow is creating extra torque on the gravitational force applied from the planets IMO. This is one of the topics that needs to be fleshed out clearly in a separate post. These questions should addressed to the authors.
    The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.

  211. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    the entire structure of the Universe can be shown to result from cascading non-linear harmonics.
    With such a basis how can rational discussion even be possible.

  212. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.

    Solar torque is already created by the movement around the SSB as we are all aware. I think the authors are implying additional torque is created from the tidal mechanism acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge. I will wait for an answer from a suitably qualified astronomer.

  213. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif, I gave you the link. Its up to you if you do irrational replies or not. But you did not answer the point about how do you get 352 year and 88 year cycles from an 11 year one, did you?

  214. u.k.(us) says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    “The position vector is not creating extra torque, and there is no need to ask the authors [you can ask anyway] because everybody with even a minimum of physics knowledge knows this.”
    ================
    Care to convince those of us without ?

  215. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    Solar torque is already created by the movement around the SSB as we are all aware.
    No, because there is no such force acting on a sun in free fall.

    I think the authors are implying additional torque is created from the tidal mechanism acting on the elliptical tachocline bulge.
    I would think they would also explicitly mention the ‘torque’ you postulate, rather that just implying it. They calculate the total torque thus “The torque Ni exerted by the i-th planet with mass mi at position ri from the solar barycenter is given by the following expression (see derivation in Appendix B): Nx i = …The total torque is the vector sum over all the planets”
    No mention of torque due to movement around the SSB. The calculation of the torque includes the mass of the forcing body. What is the mass of the SSB?

    I will wait for an answer from a suitably qualified astronomer
    I suggest that Shirley from JPL would qualify http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
    “However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” … “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem. … The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type”

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    But you did not answer the point about how do you get 352 year and 88 year cycles from an 11 year one, did you?
    No, but answered how you get 44 year cycles. As I showed the 352-yr cycle is not stable. There are certainly longer-term variations of solar activity, but they are intermittent as I said.

  216. u.k.(us) says:
    November 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm
    Care to convince those of us without ?
    http://www.leif.org/research/Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Shirley-JPL.pdf
    “However, in order for some external agency to alter the rotation state of an extended body or any of its parts, we require a torque, which may be represented most simply as a force with a non-vanishing moment arm when referenced to the rotation axis of the body. As previously described, the freely falling orbital motion of the Sun is unable to supply the required moment arm at any location; there are no differentials of force or acceleration within the Sun arising solely due to the orbital revolution” … “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem. … The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type”
    Convinced?

  217. Sparks says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 10:11 am

    “A single small sunspot the size of the Earth across carries a current of the order of 1000 billion amps.”

    FFS, so how many amps does a Jupiter sized sun spot have?

  218. Sparks says:
    November 9, 2012 at 7:46 pm
    FFS, so how many amps does a Jupiter sized sun spot have?
    Obviously 100 times as many, which will make the effect of the disruption of the flux rope 100 times smaller.

  219. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ok Leif, so you are going to attempt to confuse by invoking a non relevant argument about free fall. Very typical of your style.

    I will wait for the experts.

  220. Geoff Sharp says:
    November 9, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    Ok Leif, so you are going to attempt to confuse by invoking a non relevant argument about free fall. Very typical of your style.
    The free fall is the important bit, but if you read Appendix B of the Abrey paper you’ll see for yourself that there is no mention of the SSB. The vector xb in Figure B1 is not used for anything.

    I will wait for the experts
    Ask them.

  221. u.k.(us) says:

    At some point, you might ask , if these are free falling objects…..
    Where is the center of mass, dark matter, or just lots of dust ?

  222. u.k.(us) says:
    November 9, 2012 at 9:30 pm
    At some point, you might ask , if these are free falling objects…..
    Where is the center of mass, dark matter, or just lots of dust ?

    The center of the masses are where the masses are observed to be. Otherwise we could not predict their positions as well as we do.

  223. Ray Tomes says:
    November 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    the 155 day cycle is a sub-harmonic of the solar rotation period. Explain that!
    The power spectrum of the solar microwave emission http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-F107.png shows the solar rotation period near 27 days and a smaller peak at twice, thrice, etc that. The 155-day peak does not look too hot.

  224. HenryP says:

    Leif Svalgaard says

    Clearly, cyclomania cannot be rationally discussed as it seems to be an article of faith for believers.

    Henry says
    Simple observation of the maximum temps of weather stations will do.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    It seems I am not the only one who figured out about the 88 year cycle.
    e.g.
    Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

    Alexei N. Peristykh

    Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Paul E. Damon

    Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
    link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml

    So, global warming and now global cooling have been with us, like forever, or at least for as far as I can see. It is all part of a number of natural processes.. Are we all agreed on that?

  225. Ray Tomes says:

    I agree with Leif that the main consideration for the Sun’s orbit is that it is in free fall. Over and above that there is only the differential forces which are called tidal forces because acceleration varies with distance. But tidal forces are dominated by Jupiter, Venus, Earth, Mercury in that order, and the other outer planets have very little effect. All the stuff about spin-orbital coupling means nothing in terms of real effects. Calculating the Sun’s motion is largely irrelevant, except for a coincidence about calculations …

    There is another force that has not been considered by physicists and astronomers. Einstein showed that (e.g. during a Solar eclipse) horizontally traveling light is bent twice as much by gravity as in Newtonian physics. This is a real effect of GR. Most scientists don’t even think about this GR effect on the Sun of the planets and just assume that it is negligible. But it is not. The central core of the Sun is made of of about 1 part in 10^5 of radiant energy with the rest being matter. This radiant energy is accelerated on average 5/3 times as much as the matter (5/3 because 1 direction is towards the accelerating mass and 2 at right angles). That means that as the Sun moves about by a distance about equal to its own size, the radiant energy tries to move 5/3 times as much. Because the matter dominates the radiant energy by 10^5 times, the actual displacement of the centre is much less. In fact all the motion of the centre in the plane of the solar system is undone by solar rotation about 14 days later. However 10% of the effect in out of the plane of the solar system because the Sun’s rotation axis is 6 degrees tilted. The important part of the Sun’s motion is therefore the motion in the z direction.

    Using this, I have calculated the planetary effects on the Sun (mainly gas giants) and with one extra assumption I can calculate the sunspot numbers with r=0.66. That extra assumption is that the Sun has a natural resonance for solar cycle of 10.5 years. This method also explains why the Sun can come to an almost complete halt as the resonance is hit head on by the forces.

    Rog Tallblock has taken up this idea and fond that the Solar z-axis motion is very highly correlated to Earth LOD (length of day). See http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/a-g-foster-jr-lod-and-sea-level/
    Even Earth temperature is correlated.

    I mentioned a coincidence at the top of this post. The planetary effect turns out (due to Kepler’s laws) to be correlated to the COM motion with the one extra term for planetary motion inclination angle.

  226. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 9, 2012 at 9:53 pm) :

    The power spectrum of the solar microwave emission http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-F107.png shows the solar rotation period near 27 days and a smaller peak at twice, thrice, etc that. The 155-day peak does not look too hot.

    Ray: Did you look at the references in my article on 155 day period? Here is an example, that shows many harmonics of solar rotation simultaneously. The harmonics are pretty much as you might expect given solar rotation and the structure of the neutral sheet. But sub-harmonics adhere to ratios of 2 and 3 as described by Dewey, and predicted by my harmonics theory based on cascading non-linear effects.
    Article: http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/harmonically-related-solar-cycles-in-uv/
    Graph expanded: http://cyclesresearchinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solar-mgii-index-cycles-harmonics-subharmonics.png

    The entire 250+ years of sunspot records shows the 155 day period with very high significance. Many references to this just mention during solar maximum. However if sunspot numbers are transformed to square root of ssn, then the fluctuations at minimum become about equal to those at maximum. This almost entirely removes the modulations. (Lesson: many times modulations by longer cycles are because our data is in a slightly wrong form.)

  227. HenryP says:

    Ray Tomes
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/#comment-1142113

    Henry@Ray Tomes

    Interesting comment.
    Can you tell me if and how this also relates to the apparent 44 year warming and 44 year cooling periods that I found by evaluating heat coming into the atmosphere? (88 year sine wave)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly.See here.
    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
    To quote from the above paper:
    A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    (The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
    Indeed one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).
    Now put my sine wave next to those dates? Coincidence or not?
    1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
    1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
    1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming

  228. pkatt says:

    Just a tiny comment. In the predictions for solar activity dated 1999, 4th paragraph 1st line states’ “The extra ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation created by magnetic fields around sunspots also cause the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up and expand. ” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast14oct99_1/ … so the sun has no effect on our climate??? Really? Or is it just the agenda line since global warming was locked into the public troff

  229. pkatt says:
    November 10, 2012 at 2:31 am
    “The extra ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation created by magnetic fields around sunspots also cause the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up and expand”
    The upper atmosphere [that is above 100 miles up] expands, not the lower atmosphere where we are.

  230. Resourceguy says:

    Science is not done by committee and the last time it famously failed was during the ether theory episode. Einstein did a complete end run around that one to overturn it,

  231. Resourceguy says:
    November 10, 2012 at 6:07 am
    Science is not done by committee and the last time it famously failed was during the ether theory episode
    The ether theory was not done by committee.

  232. HenryP says:

    pkatt says
    “The extra ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation created by magnetic fields around sunspots also cause the Earth’s atmosphere to heat up and expand”
    Henry says
    So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals Ox & NxOx & HxOx reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone (O3) & others are increasing.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  233. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 9, 2012 at 3:38 pm:
    Maybe you can explain how a yearly cycle can interrupt a 9.6 year cycle. That makes no sense at all as multiple winters occur every 9.6 year cycle.
    If you cannot see how the deep Canadian winters would be a time of hunkering down and waiting for warmer spring weather, in the ancient times before snow mobiles and roads being regularly plowed for easy automobile traffic when travel overland and also by water would be difficult if even possible, thus trade would be suppressed, thus you would not have the maximums dictated by the rigid timing occurring in the depths of those winters, then you are accepting numbers without considering their implications.

    So you cannot see the 9.6 year cycle? It is very widely accepted as a real cycle and is significant at p=0.00000059 so your graph reading is rather lacking.
    Here it says it was mathematically calculated as 8 years.

    Here, in an application of chaos theory, an apparent 10-yr cycle emerges.

    Several “about 10 years” found.

    Ah, finally found 9.6 here:
    Figure 1. Canada lynx fur returns from the Northern Department of the Hudson’s Bay Company from 1821 to 1910. The Northern Department occupied most of western Canada. The cycle for these data averages 9.6 years. Data are from Elton and Nicholson (1942).

    Further searching reveals Elton and Nicholson 1942 to be a seminal work, often cited as a source of the trapping numbers. Finally found a copy here.

    First thing to notice is the quality of the data. Dating issues, dropouts, the researchers grouped and adjusted figures as seemed logical to them. Also peaks were not synchronous across the different regions. Several pages of discussing the data later, we find this:

    Between the peak years of 1752 and 1935 there were 19 complete cycles, giving an average period of 9.63 years. The frequency of variation around this average cannot be stated reliably from the total figures for Canada, because there is doubt as to the exact year of some of the peaks, e.g. 1809 might be 1808, 1913 might be 1914. It can be partly determined in another way, by counting all complete periods between peaks in Table 6, for the separate regions. Owing to the gaps in records for 1892-6 and 1914, the later series cannot be used except for the last cycle in James Bay, Lakes and Gulf. The result of this is to give a picture of the periodicity mainly for 1821-85. The frequency is: 1 cycle of 7 years, 6 of 8 years, 16 of 9 years, 20 of 10 years, 3 of 11 years, and 1 of 12 years. Of 47 cycles that can be measured, 36 or 78% are 9 or 10 years. The average of the whole lot is very near that given by the total curve for a longer period, but is not directly comparable.

    You are insisting on the rigidity of the timing, calculating that 9.6 yrs fits the data near perfectly. But as seen, that is merely the average of this distribution.

    Repeatedly I find a ten year periodicity specified, but the modern use of 9.6 only once, referring to Elton and Nicholson.

    You will have to supply the references for the data that yields 9.6 with the excellent agreement you specified, as Dewey goes further than Elton and Nicholson, out to 1962-63. Given the data massaging by Elton and Nicholson to get a usable database, a comparison with the massaging that yields the excellent agreement is indicated.

    Repeatedly I find acceptance of a 10 year period. You appear alone in specifying a rigid 9.6 year period. Dewey noted it as “the average time interval between crests or troughs”. What is widely accepted is 10 years, not 9.6. Hopefully someday you will realize the difference.

  234. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    “No need to stoop to my level.”

    A great self deprecating and very humorous comment. I shall try to comply with the intent of your comment. I do enjoy our disagreements and find your solar comments very valuable. Dark matter, not so much. Have a good weekend.

    Jim

  235. Ray Tomes says:

    HenryP asks Ray Tomes November 10, 2012 at 2:28 am:

    Can you tell me if and how this also relates to the apparent 44 year warming and 44 year cooling periods that I found by evaluating heat coming into the atmosphere? (88 year sine wave)?

    Henry, I consider the 88 year cycle to be well enough established to be real. However it is not as strong as the 208 year cycle or the 55-60 year cycle in global temperatures. These dominate the recent centuries, along with the up phase of the 2300 year cycle which is impossible to properly separate from any AGW factor. So that is why the 88 year cycle doesn’t get the timing right for peak at 1998 while both the 208 and ~60 year cycles do.

    When I examine the 87.6 year cycle in the C14 solar proxy it contributes an amplitude variation of 5 in SSN and has a low at about 1993.

  236. Ray Tomes says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says (November 10, 2012 at 9:41 am):

    Kadaka: If you cannot see how the deep Canadian winters would be a time of hunkering down and waiting for warmer spring weather, in the ancient times before snow mobiles and roads being regularly plowed for easy automobile traffic when travel overland and also by water would be difficult if even possible, thus trade would be suppressed, thus you would not have the maximums dictated by the rigid timing occurring in the depths of those winters, then you are accepting numbers without considering their implications.

    Ray: I don’t argue that Canada has tough winters. But they happen roughly every year. That has no effect on a 9.6 year cycle. It it was a 9.6 month cycle then you might have a point. I can see no point in what you say.

    Kadaka: Here it says it was mathematically calculated as 8 years. …
    Here, in an application of chaos theory, an apparent 10-yr cycle emerges. …
    Several “about 10 years” found. …
    Ah, finally found 9.6 here:
    Figure 1. Canada lynx fur returns from the Northern Department of the Hudson’s Bay Company from 1821 to 1910. The Northern Department occupied most of western Canada. The cycle for these data averages 9.6 years. Data are from Elton and Nicholson (1942).

    Ray: The 2nd link appears to have the full data that Dewey used and I have available. It is a pity that they do not know enough about data treatment to take logs, so they over emphasize the later period where numbers are much higher. You can see this in the graph of Fig 1 A which effectively throws away over 50% of the data.

    Kadaka: Further searching reveals Elton and Nicholson 1942 to be a seminal work, often cited as a source of the trapping numbers. Finally found a copy here.

    First thing to notice is the quality of the data. Dating issues, dropouts, the researchers grouped and adjusted figures as seemed logical to them. Also peaks were not synchronous across the different regions. Several pages of discussing the data later, we find this:

    Between the peak years of 1752 and 1935 there were 19 complete cycles, giving an average period of 9.63 years. The frequency of variation around this average cannot be stated reliably from the total figures for Canada, because there is doubt as to the exact year of some of the peaks, e.g. 1809 might be 1808, 1913 might be 1914. It can be partly determined in another way, by counting all complete periods between peaks in Table 6, for the separate regions. Owing to the gaps in records for 1892-6 and 1914, the later series cannot be used except for the last cycle in James Bay, Lakes and Gulf. The result of this is to give a picture of the periodicity mainly for 1821-85. The frequency is: 1 cycle of 7 years, 6 of 8 years, 16 of 9 years, 20 of 10 years, 3 of 11 years, and 1 of 12 years. Of 47 cycles that can be measured, 36 or 78% are 9 or 10 years.
    The average of the whole lot is very near that given by the total curve for a longer period, but is not directly comparable.

    You are insisting on the rigidity of the timing, calculating that 9.6 yrs fits the data near perfectly. But as seen, that is merely the average of this distribution.

    Repeatedly I find a ten year periodicity specified, but the modern use of 9.6 only once, referring to Elton and Nicholson.

    You will have to supply the references for the data that yields 9.6 with the excellent agreement you specified, as Dewey goes further than Elton and Nicholson, out to 1962-63. Given the data massaging by Elton and Nicholson to get a usable database, a comparison with the massaging that yields the excellent agreement is indicated.

    Repeatedly I find acceptance of a 10 year period. You appear alone in specifying a rigid 9.6 year period. Dewey noted it as “the average time interval between crests or troughs”. What is widely accepted is 10 years, not 9.6. Hopefully someday you will realize the difference.

    Ray: I have loaded a graph of rate of change of log of lynx numbers with a 9.6 year cycle fitted. See http://ray.tomes.biz/images/lynx-delta-9.6-year-cycle.jpg The data that I have runs from 1735 to 1948 (and comes from FSC publication by Dewey) and so allows an accurate determination of cycle period. What are you trying to prove? If you are arguing that there are several data points that are suspect, then I agree with you. But it is quite clear that this is a 9.6 year cycle and not a 9.5 or 9.7 or any other thing outside that range. I don’t dispute that there are regional differences but that does not alter the fact that the cycle is 9.6 years.

  237. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 9, 2012 at 9:53 pm):

    The power spectrum of the solar microwave emission http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-F107.png shows the solar rotation period near 27 days and a smaller peak at twice, thrice, etc that. The 155-day peak does not look too hot.

    Actually there are two peaks at 150 and 158 days in that graph which are the highest peaks between 30 and 200 days in the spectrum. Aren’t they?

  238. Ray Tomes says:
    November 10, 2012 at 3:29 pm
    Actually there are two peaks at 150 and 158 days in that graph which are the highest peaks between 30 and 200 days in the spectrum. Aren’t they?
    Simply because they are riding on a rising background. There are 16 peaks that are higher still up to 1200 days, aren’t there? Also all significant cycles?

  239. u.k.(us) says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    November 9, 2012 at 7:22 pm
    …..Convinced?
    ==============
    I have not even begun to pick your brain.

  240. u.k.(us) says:
    November 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm
    “Convinced?” I have not even begun to pick your brain.
    I think your brain is the important one for this process…

  241. Ray Tomes says:

    Ray: Actually there are two peaks at 150 and 158 days in that graph which are the highest peaks between 30 and 200 days in the spectrum. Aren’t they?

    Leif: Simply because they are riding on a rising background. There are 16 peaks that are higher still up to 1200 days, aren’t there? Also all significant cycles?

    Ray: Not simply because of that, but it is a factor. There are also substantial peaks at 2 and 3 times the solar rotation period as well as 6 times (155 days) and 12 times. All these are *exactly* the pattern that I described to you, isn’t it? . The big peak at 3800 days is the 11 year sunspot cycle, and another at half of that. It is inaccurately placed because FFT is not the best method for locating cycles peaks, especially for periods which fit only a relatively small number of times into the full data (11 years for 64 years data, less than 6 cycles). My analysis is done with CRI package called CATS which determines frequencies in between what FFT does. See http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cats/index.shtml allowing far more accurate periods to be determined than with FFT.

  242. Ray Tomes says:
    November 10, 2012 at 5:50 pm
    allowing far more accurate periods to be determined than with FFT.
    Granted that FFT is not the best, but if a true cycle is there, FFT will find it. FFT may miss a lot of the spurious cycles that other methods can deliver. With your superior method do you find any other peaks between 155 and 2000 days?

  243. Geoff Sharp says:

    Ray Tomes says:
    November 10, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Ray, you are wasting so much time and energy on cyclomania. Email me from my blog and I can explain the principles I have found in detail that might put a new light on your research.

  244. HenryP says:

    Ray Tomes says
    So that is why the 88 year cycle doesn’t get the timing right for peak at 1998 while both the 208 and ~60 year cycles do

    henry says
    with maximum temps we are looking at energy-in. Earth stores energy in, in water, in vegetation, in chemicals, etc. There is also its own core which moves around a bit and there is volcanic action. So energy-in can never be at the same time as energy out (means). There must be a lag, of at least a couple of years. However, if you do my plot from the relevant data (excepting that they are correct,i.e. r2=0.998 on the binomial)
    data in degrees C or K per annum are:
    0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs)
    0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs),
    0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and
    -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)

    what (cycle) fit would you make of it ?

  245. Ray Tomes says:

    Leif Svalgaard says (November 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm):

    Granted that FFT is not the best, but if a true cycle is there, FFT will find it. FFT may miss a lot of the spurious cycles that other methods can deliver. With your superior method do you find any other peaks between 155 and 2000 days?

    Ray: FFT will find all peaks, but has an uncertainty of up to 0.5 in the number of cycles that fit in the time period. I generally calculate to precision 0f 0.01 cycles in the period and find accuracy is generally +/-0.1 cycles but sometimes better. So for 23000 days data, a 150 day cycle will occur some 150 times and can be determined to +/-0.1 day.

    Periods in days of 10.7 cm solar flux found in that range (Bartels P in brackets):
    150.0 (.043), 159.5 (.028), 222.4 (.050), 288.0 (.022), 398.0 (.023), 1970 (.18 so not sig), 3940 (.009).

  246. Ray Tomes says:

    Steven Mosher says (November 9, 2012 at 9:55 am):

    Ray: I look at things from a cycles perspective because I find that it exposes new understanding. When very long term data is available, the need for Leprechauns is greatly diminished because statistics give us bounds within which correlation should fall. I would say that as far as 1 goes, there can be natural oscillations of Earth’s climate system including ocean movements etc. Regarding 2, there are heaps of other solar measurements than just TSI. They often have their own peculiar fluctuations, but nearly always cycles are present. Cycles are a great method to work out cause and effect chains because, like fingerprints, they leave their mark as a set of frequencies. Provided of course that you have enough data to measure the frequencies accurately. then the Leprechauns are not needed.

    Steven: Ray. The cycle IS the leprechaun. They merely come in different colors. You miss the point of confirmation bias and data snooping entirely. Yes there are many solar measurements. In fact, there are an infinite number of solar measurements. That is, an infinite number of ways of characterizing observations and combining them. It is necessarily the case that if you look hard enough and long enough you will find a cycle. And if you don’t there are any manner of ways you can fool yourself mathematically to create them ex nihilo. And, as you know, there are an infinite number of ways of measuring the climate. Correlation, even long term correlation, is easy to find. In fact you must find it.

    Ray: Steven, you entirely misrepresent what I do. I do not manufacture cycles. They are very clearly evident in most time series. Fourier Analysis is a widely accepted means of looking at time series. It is not me that is out of step with scientific practice. Any transformations done are only for the purpose of getting data in the most suitable form and never an attempt to make a cycle appear that was not there before. An example is that in sunspot numbers the fluctuations are much greater at the peaks than at the troughs. I sometimes use square root of sunspot numbers because then shorter term cycles (e.g. 155 day cycle) can be easily followed through both peaks and troughs of the 11 year cycle.

    Steven: That is the fundamental problem with data driven approaches. All data confesses. If it doesnt, transform it. Shift it. add a constant, take the reciprocal, you’ll find the cycle. You have to. The test comes when you actually have to put together a physical theory that predicts phenomena not used to construct your system.

    Ray: Shifting, adding a constant or taking a reciprocal have absolutely no effect on making a cycle where there was not one. Physical theories are grossly over-rated. Fine for something very simple. But when it comes to solar models, climate models, economic models, there is no such thing as a sensible theory that has a meaningful mechanism. Box and Jenkins showed that all the economic models could be beaten by a technique that relied only on statistics. The same is true of predicting the recent small peak in sunspots. There is no physics theory that you can put forward that gives even a hint of meaning to this. But a number of cycles researchers did predict a low cycle, based on 104 and 208 year cycles that are well established in the Sun. (Yes, Liev, they are modulated cycles, but all cycles are, and we are in the strong phase of 208 year cycle).

    Steven: Let’s take Scaffeta as an example. After a modest amount of fiddling we have a ‘theory’ ( a curve fit) that explains global air temperature. Fine. What’s that “theory” say about ENSO. opps. nothing. It says nothing because its not a physical theory about the climate, its an exercise in cyclomania. That disease is addictive because one can always find the drug. Put another way, the philosophy that there are cycles in everything is metaphysics. Pure and simple non falsifiable metaphysics. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that popper tried to banish from science. But nostradamus lives and he worships the sun. It explains everything and therefore nothing.

    Ray: And you have a useful theory that explains solar variations, global temperatures and ENSO? Actually, mathematical models can be built that will include many different types of data and often make useful predictions. But in general long term predictions are not possible of complex systems. Back in 1977 I was using mathematical models to try and make economic forecasts. I was not not looking for cycles, but regression equations that would predict a year or two ahead. Even though I did not put any search for cycles in my method, a number of very clear cycles jumped out at me. Using these cycles I was able to make far more accurate predictions than any economists made. My method was to get many different time series and look at rates of change of them (which is generally what we want to know about most) and use factor analysis to find the underlying dimensions of the processes. These can then be used to predict each other using regression equations. The factors found were highly cyclic (even you would agree) and the regression equations continued the cycles ahead.

    Ray: ENSO is not easy to predict very far ahead. I have looked at it and it is a hard one because the cycles present are not of stable period. Cycles analysis methods recognize such things, and all of these (rhythmic cycles vs irregular) were described by Dewey many decades ago. Any improvements in ENSO prediction will come from non-linear system studies as a general technique, not from physical models.

  247. Ray Tomes says:

    HenryP says (November 11, 2012 at 1:25 am ):

    with maximum temps we are looking at energy-in. Earth stores energy in, in water, in vegetation, in chemicals, etc. There is also its own core which moves around a bit and there is volcanic action. So energy-in can never be at the same time as energy out (means). There must be a lag, of at least a couple of years. However, if you do my plot from the relevant data (excepting that they are correct,i.e. r2=0.998 on the binomial)
    data in degrees C or K per annum are:
    0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs)
    0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs),
    0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and
    -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)

    what (cycle) fit would you make of it ?

    Ray: We went through a peak in 1998. :-)
    (Not sure that I fully grasped what you wanted from me.)

    A high correlation is not necessarily significant. You have to look at issues of degrees of freedom, and at autocorrelation of data. People often try to predict raw temperature series. It isn’t hard to get a high correlation because temperature this year was high, and so it will be next year. By changing models to use annual rate of change, the correlation will be much less, but the prediction will be more accurate.

  248. HenryP says:

    Henry@ Ray Tomes
    I do appreciate your reaction to my comment. Maybe I was not so clear, as English is not my first language.

    Ray Tomes says
    By changing models to use annual rate of change, the correlation will be much less, but the prediction will be more accurate.

    Henry says
    I did change to rate of change. But this is not a model. This is statistics. These are the results from a careful randomly selected sample of weather stations. And I still got r2=0.998 on the binomial.

    data in degrees C or K per annum are:
    0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs)
    0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs),
    0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and
    -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
    You can accept that these data (of observed maxima) of the change in global maximum temperature are correct.

    Even though the binomial looks very good, I still think the sine wave fit (wavelength 88 years) seems more probable to me.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Also note the sine wave from Anchorage from 1942 (shown below in the above blog quote).

    This means that “global warming” theoretically started around 1927 because the global temp. records from before that time cannot seriously be taken as correct. In fact, I doubt if anyone can find me a calibrated thermometer from before 1920.
    Accepting that my sine wave is correct means that we are globally moving in an 88 year cycle of fluctuating energy-in.
    So my final question is: Accepting, or assuming – if you don’t trust me- that my results are correct, do you accept my 88 year sine wave as being correct or would you have or propose another best fit for my data (like 104 years?)?

  249. Phil. says:

    I’m not quite sure why the lynx population oscillation period is of interest here since it’s the result of a classic prey-predator interaction?

  250. Ray Tomes says:

    Phil. says:
    November 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    I’m not quite sure why the lynx population oscillation period is of interest here since it’s the result of a classic prey-predator interaction?

    Ray: It was thought to be so, and it may partially be so. However a number of other species follow the same 9.6 year cycle, and many of them do not eat each other. Something else is going on to do with the environment. One possible clue is that ozone shows a 9.6 year cycle also.

  251. Phil. says:

    Ray, so do snowshoe hares but their max population occurs a couple of years before the peak in the lynx population. Exactly as you’d expect due to the prey-predator interaction, particularly as the main cause of death for the hares is predation nor starvation etc.

  252. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Ray Tomes on November 13, 2012 at 7:34 pm:
    One possible clue is that ozone shows a 9.6 year cycle also.
    Which would naturally follow from a 9.6 yr cycle in solar UV output.

    Let us know when you find that one as well.

  253. Ray Tomes says:

    Kadata, I do not have any data for UV time series longer than about 9 years. Do you know of any?

  254. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Ray Tomes,

    NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
    Solar Indices Data
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?t=102827&s=1&d=8,4,9

    Select “Solar Ultraviolet Emissions”. Read the descriptions of the different datasets, of assorted types of direct measurements and proxies. Then try the SOLAR2000 model, note the “E10.7″ index. In the description is the link for a 1947-2002 “extracted dataset” covering 5 solar cycles. If you click through to the space weather site looking for more, under “Products” you want SIP, Space Irradiance Platform (new name for SOLAR2000).

    Back at the original link page, select “Solar Radio Flux: Flux”. See “Descriptive Information” to read about Solar Radio Data. Then you can examine the 2800MHz (10.7cm, F10.7) solar data. “Penticton_Observed” runs from 1947 to current. If you can figure out or find out how SOLAR2000 got E10.7 from F10.7, then you can make a 1947-current E10.7 database, and have over 65 years of the UV proxy to play with.

    You could creatively cobble the other UV databases together. You’re looking at timing, normalize then scale the Y data as needed to line up the overlaps, etc. Within the limit of matching like to like, of course.

  255. HenryP says:

    kadaka says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/#comment-1147081

    Henry says
    The only possible correlation I found between my fit (from the available data)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    is that ozone declined from around 1950 when (natural) warming started and that ozone started rising from 1995 when (natural) cooling started. Ozone is not the only chemical being manufactured up there “on top” by UV from oxygen. There are also a number of other HxOx and NxOx compounds also being formed by the UV coming in. More of all of these causes more back radiation (by more EUV or FUV) , and hence we now have cooling as ozone & others are increasing.

    I cannot relate to values of the E-10 and F-10 and Lya being quoted accept that everything seems to come back to normal on the zero dates of around 1950 and 1995, meaning perhaps that you have to see those oscillations in an another plain, going up or down.

    In all of this, it is important to see the first parameter/variable of the heat coming in through the atmosphere as the most important: maximum temperatures.

    I challenge anybody here to come up with a fit for the data of maxima that I obtained?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/#comment-1144912

  256. Ray Tomes says:

    Thanks kadaka. It turns out I already had data from 1947 to 2010. I have to get used to different names for the same thing. One day it is 2.8 GHz, another 10.7 cm and then another it is UV. :-)

    Of course this time series is dominated by the 11 year sunspot cycle which averages 10.8 years over this period, and so a cycle at 9.6 years is not easy to see. In fact these two periods only make beats over a period of 86 years, so cannot properly be split in a shorter period such as 63 years as we have. Anyway,the strongest period is 10.8 years followed by a cycle of 8.4 years. But that period will be a bit unreliable because it is so close to a much stronger period that it cannot be properly resolved from. There is a period of about 8.47 years in longer term sunspots, so it may be that same peak that shows up. The multiple peaks in sunspots near 11 years cannot be resolved in this UV data.

    Conclusion: Not enough data to be sure, but no sign of a 9.6 year cycle.

  257. HenryP says:

    So sorry you guys did not get it. Or you did not want to get it.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-202
    It is plain. Too easy.
    Natural global warming and natural global cooling have been with us, like, forever, or at least for as far back as I can see….
    Don’t worry about the carbon. Start worrying (a bit) about the cold…

  258. Ray Tomes says:

    Henry, I agree that natural cycles are the dominant factor in climate change, and most of this comes from the Sun. The longer time frame we look at the bigger the cycles fluctuations are. Although we are in a downtrend on the 50-60 year climate cycle for another 15 years, it will then turn up. On the 208 cycle we will be downward for this entire century. But the 2300 year cycle is still heading upward. Who knows when the next ice age downtrend will click in. We do not (yet) have the precision of cycles timing for that. While Carbon is not a serious problem I suspect, human pollution is. CO2 isn’t pollution, it is plant food. Regards, Ray

  259. Resourceguy says:

    No Leif, blending models in a committee is not science.

  260. lsvalgaard says:

    Resourceguy says:
    November 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm
    No Leif, blending models in a committee is not science.
    1: what do you know about this? Have you ever been in a committee or panel to decide something?
    2: who said ‘blending’? The work of the panel was to examine each proposal and eliminate the ones that we did not think would make the cut, until only one was standing.

  261. HenryP says:

    Sorry to ask, which model was the last one standing? Henry

  262. lsvalgaard says:

    HenryP says:
    November 18, 2012 at 4:11 am
    Sorry to ask, which model was the last one standing? Henry
    Mine

  263. HenryP says:

    Henry@leif
    That is great! Congratulations.
    But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    which is not a model.

  264. vukcevic says:

    Hi doc
    I assume you wouldn’t discuss this with your host:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm

  265. lsvalgaard says:

    HenryP says:
    November 18, 2012 at 10:53 am
    But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
    http://www.leif.org/research/

    vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2012 at 11:36 am
    I assume you wouldn’t discuss this with your host
    I’m in Japan [Nagoya today] to talk science

  266. vukcevic says:

    Dr. S
    Science will take care of itself; I hope you have a good stay
    Mt Fuji from Nagoya : http://www.japanican.com/tours/tourdetail.aspx?tc=GMT01NGOONFUJI

  267. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    Science will take care of itself
    No, science needs constant nurture to prevent pseudo-science creeping in. Here is some science:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Total-Field-Pacific.png showing the variation of the total field for locations surrounding Japan.

  268. tallbloke says:

    Hey Mosher, have a look at this photograph and tell me that there are no cycles going on.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/further-terrestrial-evidence-of-planetary-cycles-affecting-climate/

    The beach ridges are regular as clockwork at 45, 90, 180 and 360 years. All of them important planetary periodicities.

    Or do you fancy hving a go at explaining them with Richrd Mullers volcanoes and co2 theory?

    You ignorant schmuck.

  269. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    November 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    ………
    Ah, so you are interested then. There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust. All good places are in the ocean with strong currents, and high seismic activity, next to Honshu another good example is area north of Svalbaard (Gakkel Ridge), try 82N,0E, but it trails Honshu by further dozen or so years.

  270. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    Ah, so you are interested then. There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust
    No, just pointing out that your correlation is spurious and your explanation wrong. Not that I think you’ll take any notice. Both Honolulu and Sitka are places with volcanic activity so should qualify on that account. Hunting around for places where the seem to be a correlation is called ‘cherry picking’. What you do is pseudo science at its worst.

  271. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    There are few places where the thermal convection may be in a closer contact with the crust
    Both Honolulu and Sitka are places near the ocean with volcanic activity and thin crust so should qualify on that account. Places with almost the same variation as your spurious correlation but far from volcanic areas and the ocean and with a very thick crust are Dehra Dun and Irkutsk http://www.leif.org/research/Pacific-Total-Field.png
    In any case, the secular variation is due to changes in the circulation in the core so your ‘considerations’ don’t apply.

  272. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says: November 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm
    …….
    It is not disputed that there is great variability in the change around the globe, there is both positive and negative ‘correlation’. From the dipole at 3000km down we should expect more uniformity; changes in the field might be happening closer to the surface.
    This is obvious by looking at the secular variability (Z) and the distances between hot spots in 1940 epoch http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_sv_1940.pdf
    when secular variability went ‘nuts’; but this was the consequence of the Earth’s magnetosphere found itself well within the solar feedback loop as demonstrated here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sub-cycle.htm

  273. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 1:39 am
    this was the consequence of the Earth’s magnetosphere found itself well within the solar feedback loop as demonstrated here:
    Two wrongs do not make a right.

  274. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    November 19, 2012 at 5:24 am
    ………
    At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk in 1940 epoch compared to many others. Here is a comparison SC17 and SC23 which are in all other respects very similar:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
    Do you have an explanation?

  275. HenryP says:

    HenryP says:
    November 18, 2012 at 10:53 am
    But where is it for me to admire, and compare it to my own,
    LeifS says
    http://www.leif.org/research/

    ehhhhh,
    which one are we talking about here (scratch my head, scratch my head)

  276. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 7:47 am
    At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk
    A wrong explanation is worse than no explanation.
    You can learn more by consulting http://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~cathy/Classes/SIO229/planet-earth.pdf
    The main field is the sum of the crustal field [which does not vary] and the core field [which does]. The variation of the core field did not go berserk in 1940, but the data collection improved. As IAGA points out http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrfhw.html “The IGRF has achieved worldwide acceptability as a standard and has proved valuable for many applications, BUT INAPPROPRIATE USE COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR RESULTS”

  277. lsvalgaard says:

    HenryP says:
    November 19, 2012 at 10:31 am
    which one are we talking about here (scratch my head, scratch my head)
    There are many that deal with that topic. It is a good idea to read them all [with obvious titles].For example http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf

  278. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 7:47 am
    At least I have the ‘explanation’ why secular variability went berserk
    The correct explanation can be found here:
    http://www.agu.org/wps/ChineseJGeo/46/46.04/articles/xwy.pdf
    “errors in the high-degree Gauss coefficients in the IGRF 1945-1955 models. In other words, these errors have notable effects on the determination of the secular variation”

  279. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    November 19, 2012 at 10:38 am
    The variation of the core field did not go berserk in 1940, but the data collection improved. As IAGA points out http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/IAGA/vmod/igrfhw.html “The IGRF has achieved worldwide acceptability as a standard and has proved valuable for many applications, BUT INAPPROPRIATE USE COULD SERIOUSLY DAMAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR RESULTS”

    Not exactly.
    The variation of the surface field did go berserk in epoch 1940, time of SS cycle 17.
    I have added secular variation for SC15 (epoch 1920) and it is very much as that of 2000.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
    Epoch 1950 is also more volatile than normal, but that is because SS cycle 17 spans two epochs.
    Credibility of my results is fine.

  280. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am
    The variation of the surface field did go berserk in epoch 1940, time of SS cycle 17.
    One more time [you are hard of learning]: the unusual ‘behavior’ of the secular variation of the main field [the surface or crustal filed does not vary] at that time was due to errors in the reference models. When those are corrected, there is nothing special about 1940.

  281. vukcevic says:

    Dr. S do look again, 1920,1940 & 2000 compared
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E17-23.gif
    I will leave it to you.

  282. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm
    Dr. S do look again, 1920,1940 & 2000 compared
    Perhaps you should look again.
    The correct explanation can be found here:
    http://www.agu.org/wps/ChineseJGeo/46/46.04/articles/xwy.pdf
    Errors in high-degree harmonics will seriously influence the estimation of the secular variation.
    “However, quite different features are noted in the contour maps for four intervals from 1940 to 1960. In these contour maps there are many small-scale cells with the maximum yearly rate 150 nT/a, and no obvious westward drift can be detected. These unusual features may be ascribed to the errors in the high-degree Gauss coefficients in the IGRF 1945»1955 models. In other words, these errors have notable effects on the determination of the secular variation.”

  283. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 11:23 am
    Credibility of my results is fine.
    It is a mark of true pseudo-science that even after a correlation has been shown to be spurious because of errors in the data, the pseudo-scientist still maintains that everything is fine. The secular variation errors and the GSN errors are good cases in point.

  284. vukcevic says:

    You may think so, but there is always strong possibility that there was no explanation why 1940-1950 epochs should be so much more active, and then someone has a ‘brilliant’ idea, “our models don’t look right lets correct the data”, …hmm, they still do it elsewhere. Fortunately the scientists at NOAA knew better and wisely left it on their data files.
    Now we have an explanation here
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sub-cycle.htm
    Spurious! – Svalgaard of Stanford declares angrily.

    Have a nice journey back.

  285. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    November 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    You may think so, but there is always strong possibility that there was no explanation why 1940-1950 epochs should be so much more active, and then someone has a ‘brilliant’ idea, “our models don’t look right lets correct the data”, …
    It is a mark of true pseudo-science that even after a correlation has been shown to be spurious because of errors in the data, the pseudo-scientist still maintains that everything is fine. The secular variation errors and the GSN errors are good cases in point.

Comments are closed.