Solar gains in Spain may cause warmists pain

From the FECYT – Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology via Eurekalert comes this interesting note about solar forcing. It seems there’s a 2.3% per decade increase in solar radiation observed in Spain. Surely this is more than enough to account for the warming there? Cloud cover is said to be the issue, as Dr. Roy Spencer has previously pointed out, it only takes a small amount of cloud cover change to make a warming trend. – Anthony

Spain receives ever more solar radiation

Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s. Credit: SINC

Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3% every decade since the 1980s, according to a study by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds, which has increased the amount of direct radiation reaching us from the Sun.

“The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of + 3.9 W m-2 [2.3% more] per decade.” This is the main conclusion of a study published in the magazine ‘Global and Planetary Change‘ by researchers from the University of Girona and the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH, Switzerland).

The season-by-season data show the same “significant” increase in solar radiation impacting the nation: + 6.5 W/m2 per decade during the summer, + 4.1 W/m2 in autumn, + 3.2 W/m2 in spring and + 1.7 W/m2 in winter.

“These data relate to global solar radiation, in other words the increase in direct radiation reaching us from the Sun plus diffuse radiation which is scattered previously by clouds, atmospheric gases and aerosols,” explains one of the authors, Arturo Sánchez-Lorenzo, currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Girona.

What is intriguing is that the scientists found a decrease in the diffuse component, because of which direct radiation has increased to a proportionately higher degree. Only in 1991 and 1992 did diffuse radiation rise, and this was due to the ashes from Mount Pinatubo. In general, however, we can observe a downward trend of – 2.1 W/m2 per decade between 1985 and 2010.

VIDEO: Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s.Click here for more information.

“The explanation lies in the fact that in Spain the amount of cloud has decreased markedly since the 1980s – as we have ascertained through other studies – and the tropospheric aerosol load may also have decreased,” states Sánchez Lorenzo. “It seems to be very simple: fewer clouds result in higher solar radiation on the surface,” he continues.

According to the scientists, this increase may also go hand in hand with more ultraviolet rays, an excess of which presents a health risk, potentially leading to skin cancer.

More global brightening

The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”. The fall in the diffuse component has also been observed in Central European and Eastern countries.

The team behind the study has not yet analysed the solar radiation data for 2011-2013 provided by the Spanish State Meteorological Agency, but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.

“Studies such as these may be of interest to the solar energy industry, especially in countries like Spain, where not only do we already have a lot of direct solar radiation but now we are getting even more,” affirms one of the other authors, Josep Calbó, who is a professor at the University of Girona.

###

References:

A. Sanchez-Lorenzo, J. Calbó, M. Wild. “Global and diffuse solar radiation in Spain: Building a homogeneous dataset and assessing their trends”. Global and Planetary Change 100: 343–352, 2013.

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

About these ads

298 thoughts on “Solar gains in Spain may cause warmists pain

  1. Having solar panels everywhere is going to make solar changes too obvious to hide. This should be amusing.

  2. The increasing sunshine must be the reason that folks are still skiing in the Pyranees. This is more fantasy from the Chicken Little group.

  3. lsvalgaard says:

    June 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
    So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…
    ========================================

    Why are you comparing regional surface solar radiation changes to Global effects from the sun?

    There’s some evidence that Global albedo decreased during the late 20th Century, in line with increasing solar activity, and increased slightly during the early-21st Century, in line with decreasing Solar Activity: lsvalgaard says:

  4. Global warming is based on a positive feedback from a reduction in cloud optical thickness letting more solar radiation in. The feedback assumption is about 0.75 W/m2 per 1.0C increase in temperatures.

    The cloud feedback is less than the water vapor feedback but it is still a make or break factor in the theory. Lower feedback values significantly reduce the eventual climate sensitivity. At 50% of the assumption, the CO2 sensitivity falls by about 0.6C. At a negative feedback value of the same amount (and we don’t really know if clouds will be a positive or negative feedback), the climate sensitivity falls by 1.5C.

    This study might indicate it is, indeed, a strong positive feedback. Or maybe it is actually the aerosol reduction that caused the changes in solar radiation rather than temperatures affecting clouds.

  5. Snowlover123 says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm
    Why are you comparing regional surface solar radiation changes to Global effects from the sun?
    The article says:
    “The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”. The fall in the diffuse component has also been observed in Central European and Eastern countries.”

  6. a scandal brewing:

    6 June: News Ltd. Australia: AAP: Program sparks broader legionnaires’ fears
    CONCERNS have been raised about the safety of thousands of hot water systems, amid a deadly outbreak of legionnaires’ disease at a Brisbane hospital…
    One patient has died and another is in intensive care after being infected at the hospital.
    The legionella bacteria has been found in taps at the hospital and an electrical engineer has linked the outbreak to a state government energy efficiency program.
    The electrician, who worked on the government’s defunct Climate Smart program, says the hot water system at the Wesley was turned down to 50 degrees to save power.
    He said the government ignored warnings that the move could encourage the growth of harmful bacteria in hot water systems…

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/no-early-end-to-qld-legionnaires-outbreak/story-e6frfku9-1226659037176#ixzz2VTZNB9HB

    6 June: ABC Australia: Legionnaires’ disease outbreak: Wesley Hospital took more than a week to notify Queensland Health
    But a Brisbane electrician who worked for the State Government’s now defunct Climate Smart Program says anyone who used that service would have had their hot water system temperatures reduced to 50C to save energy…
    “Anybody that had the Climate Smart service had the temperature of their hot water system reduced [from] 65 to 70 degrees down to 50.”…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-07/electrician-says-efficiency-program-put-homes-businesses-at-risk/4739254

  7. I’m not a climatologist, so I ‘d welcome any correction or explanation. My understanding is that cloud cover will reflect a certain amount of the sun’s rays back into space and will also reflect heat rising from the earth back toward earth. The former effect promotes cooling, while the latter effect promotes warming. Which is greater? Does the impact of greater cloud cover in the net produce more warming or more coolilng?

  8. Well remember that “an increase in clouds” (or a decrease) means for some climate significant time scale; not just last night’s weather.

    More clouds reflects, and blocks more sunlight, which therefore will never reach the deep ocean storage bin.

    If those clouds get warmed by LWIR from the surface, they will simply radiate to space even faster.

    According to Frank Wentz et al, a 1 deg. C increase in global surface Temperature gives a 7% increase, in global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, and global precipitation. Perish the thought that such increases might be accompanied by about a 7% increase in cloudiness (in total area, total density, and total persistence time, in some combination).

    I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. They can’t transport “heat energy” back to the surface; they can only lose it to space.

  9. Dr Spencer also alluded to this in one of his recent posts. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/surface-radiation-budget-wheres-the-proof/
    The Wild, et al presentation of an analysis of over 40 BSRN sites revealed an increase of 3 w/m per decade of shortwave radiation from 1992 to 2012 and an increase of 2 w/m per decade of long wave down welling radiation. The global brightening and dimming cycle appears to also be a sixty year cycle and look a lot like the PDO/AMO combination cycle that Joe always points to. It looks to me that the brightening peaked about the same time (2005) that the North Atlantic heat content did.

  10. Lukewarmers cognitive dissonance. The conviction that CO2 has a moderate effect on warming (of say 0.7-1.5 K per doubling of CO2) is increasingly difficult to maintain. A few days ago WUWT presented a study involving CFC’s and cosmic rays that claimed there’s essentially no signal from CO2. Others show that weather patterns (such as PDO) or solar activity patterns essentially account for all the warming since 1900. Of course, all this can be linked and I have not tried to separate cause and effect. Still, where is the CO2 signal. I know Roy Spencer is al but mocking the guys who are “slaying the sky dragon” and he does that with more than just thought experiments. However, there is something really strange going on even for us lukewarmers. Where is the CO2 signal? We cannot possibly maintain that there is a climate sensitivity of about 1K and at the same time find that the warming during the 20th century was caused by everything else but CO2. Can we?

  11. Leif Svalgaard says:

    “This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
    So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…”

    Leif, I understand what you are implying, that a weaker sun seems to be correlated with FEWER clouds, not more, the opposite of the hypothesis that a weaker sun will let in more cosmic rays, create more cloud condensation nuclei, and therefore more clouds.

    But there are three things to keep aware of:

    1. The sun has only been weaker for less than a decade, while the increase in sunlight, and the decrease in cloud cover, in Spain has occurred in every decade since the 1980s.
    2. Spain isn’t the world, it is one data point.
    3. The decrease in pollution has been worldwide since the late 1980s, and the solar brightening started around 1990; thus the increase in sunlight correlates better with the decrease in sulfate and other human emissions that block sunlight and help clouds form.

    Summary: one place doesn’t really tell us anything, but IF it did, it would be more likely to say that reducing sulfate warmed the planet, as opposed to a weakening sun failed to increase cloud cover.

    But in reality….this study doesn’t really tell us much at all about worldwide cause and effect for temperatures, it just is an interesting data point.

  12. John says:
    June 6, 2013 at 8:29 pm
    2. Spain isn’t the world, it is one data point.

    The article says:
    “The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”.

    Don’t you read the articles?

  13. I guess it’s about the position of the polar front. Spain did have huge problems a few years ago with little rain and rivers drying up. Means less low pressures(rain) and more high pressures(dry)?

  14. stuart L says:June 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    I have the same question as David in Cal.
    Cloud cover means it is cooler during daytime but warmer at nightime

    If you don’t get the heat during the day, there is less heat to retain at night, resulting in overall cooling.

  15. We see this phenomenon in the Arctic sea ice data. The rate of change between peaks (spring and fall slope) doesn’t change so much year over year, but the duration of the melt season has grown over time. The date for X m2 is earlier on decline and later on recovery for all values of X. The obvious conclusion is the air is cleaner and there is more insolation at the high latitudes. Surely there are other conclusions. But if the Earth were warming year over year one would expect a change in slope.

  16. The rise in atmospheric pressure observed in temperate regions of both hemispheres since the climatic shift of the 1970s has been well documented (Leroux). It is the result of renewed higher pressure anticyclones moving deeper toward the equator that feed stronger anticyclonic agglutinations, typical of a rapid mode of circulation observed during cooling periods. Thus one can expect wider areas with fewer clouds and increased insolation even if the solar output is weakening, as this paper presents. As seen in South America for a few years now, winter weather tends to be clearer sky with plummeting temperatures. Russia, China and Western Europe have also experienced strong cold snaps (Moscow had its coldest winter in a century about two years ago). Meanwhile in summer we have seen heat waves in both hemispheres (USA, Russia, and Australia). These regional extreme temperatures are a consequence of these high pressure agglutinations.
    That all this happens during a weakening of solar output is in fact very logical. But since we have been repeatedly told by eminent solar scientists that the TSI variations cannot alone account for climatic shifts, this suggests that more research could focus on mechanisms that could amplify small variations in order to directly influence the nature and speed of atmospheric circulation beyond the known astronomical longer term changes.
    BTW there is an interesting debate on Jo Nova’s blog about lunar influence on climatic cyclical variations such as ENSO. Obviously the science is not settled.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/can-the-moon-change-our-climate-can-tides-in-the-atmosphere-solve-the-mystery-of-enso/#comment-1282843

  17. For amateurs who like to play climate science the essential requirement is to understand N. Atlantic; it is assumed that professionals do.
    Spanish weather is governed by the atmospheric pressure in the nearby Atlantic:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-AI.htm

    Data from Azores show that the winter pressure is driven by Icelandic Low (Reykjavik pressure is inverted) while in the summer since 1980s, there is a total disconnect between two.
    Why would this occur?
    Icelandic Low in the summer months has been progressively weaker and moving further north ( cause: solar-geological ).
    There are time lags involved, but current data show that reversals of the previous 30 year trends are taking place. Some will attribute this to strong presence of the ~60 year cycle in the N. Atlantic.

  18. There are 3 important points about (aerosol seeded) cloud decreases.

    1. They warm the surface and then the troposphere, although by less. The exact opposite of GHG warming. Hence the divergence between surface temperature measurements which have increased over this period, and troposphere temperatures which have increased hardly at all. Clear evidence that surface warming was not caused by GHGs.

    2. They increase minimum temperatures disproportionately, especially in winter at mid to high latitudes for reasons I explain in the link below. Essentially, almost half of the increase in minimum temperatures is spurious.

    3. An analysis of Australian temperatures and clouds by an Australian statistician (also documented at the link below) shows all the cloud decreases and temperature increases occur between 6 am and 12 am. This is clearly the result of decreased locally produced smoke, primarily from fires for heating and to a lesser extent cooking. And not due to any solar or galactic effect, which would not conform human routines.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html

  19. Jon says:
    June 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    I guess it’s about the position of the polar front. Spain did have huge problems a few years ago with little rain and rivers drying up. Means less low pressures(rain) and more high pressures(dry)?
    Last year was a dry one, but I would not say that has been the norm in recent years. This year water reservoirs are in record levels, and also 2010 and 2011 were years with plenty of water.

  20. Errrr, but this finding is in direct contravention to the established wisdom that the sun in dimming. I thought it was an established fact that the-evaporation rates were decreasing, due to increased aerosols and increased high altitude aviation activity (contrails).

    So which is the correct data here?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031166/abstract

    http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

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

    .

  21. (better edition)

    Errrr, but this finding is in direct contravention to the established wisdom that the sun is dimming due to atmospheric conditions. I thought it was an established fact that pan-evaporation rates were decreasing, due to increased aerosols and increased high altitude aviation activity (contrails).

    So which is the correct data here?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL031166/abstract

    http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/jetcontrailsrecentresearch.pdf

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

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

    .

  22. George E Smith : “I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. They can’t transport “heat energy” back to the surface; they can only lose it to space.”
    ——
    If I point an IR thermometer at a cloud I get a reading of the temperature of that cloud, which must be heat energy radiated back to the surface.

  23. Well here in Christchurch n.z.
    More often than not the sunnier than normal the month is the cooler on the avg the month is.

  24. ralfellis says:
    June 7, 2013 at 1:36 am
    “Errrr, but this finding is in direct contravention to the established wisdom that the sun in dimming. I thought it was an established fact that the-evaporation rates were decreasing, due to increased aerosols and increased high altitude aviation activity (contrails).

    So which is the correct data here?”

    As you can see even the wikipedia about global dimming says
    “Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.[1]”

    They must call it a “very slight reserval” as otherwise they would have to consider that sunlight, not CO2, is the driver of the recent warming.

    So in Jimbo Wales’ NPOV-speak, Global Brightening is the very slight reversal of Global Dimming.

  25. My solar pv system is producing about 25% more this year compared to last year. I think I might be a bit early for predicting a trend for the future though.

  26. lsvalgaard says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
    So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Yes, because a cooler sun means less evaporation over the oceans and, hence, less clouds.

    Perfect match.

  27. Jon says:
    June 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    I guess it’s about the position of the polar front. Spain did have huge problems a few years ago with little rain and rivers drying up. Means less low pressures(rain) and more high pressures(dry)?
    ———————————————————————————————————
    The last winter was the wettest in decades in Spain. At times, they got even more precipitation than we here in Germany did.

    Some say, the Jet Stream has relocated southward and the lows, which used to hit central Europe before, are now bound for Spain and the Mediterranean Sea. (A closer look at the precipitation data of Spain, Morocco an Algeria should provide some very interesting results.)

  28. These are huge measured changes in surface forcing compared with the calculated CO2 forcing.

    For this paper-
    Forcing of +3.9 W/m^2/decade slope
    Temp trend = 0.07 C/decade (from GHCN v3 for Spain)
    Average full-sun forcing over 25 yr period = 5 W/m^2 during day.
    Spain averages about 5 hours of peak solar per day.
    Average forcing over 25 year period = 5*5/24 = 1.04 W/m^2
    Sensitivity = 0.07 C/W/m^2 for 25 year period

    But there have been other papers-

    Changes in surface shortwave solar irradiance from 1993 to 2011 at Thessaloniki (Greece)
    A.F. Bais*, Th. Drosoglou, C. Meleti, K. Tourpali, N. Kouremeti
    International Journal of Climatology, December 7, 2012
    They say data from 1990 – 2011 shows a global increase in shortwave downward radiation from the sun of 0.33% per year. Given an average peak sun hours per day of 5, this corresponds to a 24 hour averaged forcing of 0.7 W/m^2 per year. Taken over a period of 19 years, that amounts to a peak forcing of 13.3 W/m^2, or an average forcing of 6.7 W/m^2 over a 19 year period. Global temperatures from 1990 – 2011 have increased by 0.34 C.
    This gives a climate sensitivity over a 20 year time frame of 0.05 C/W/m^2.

    Variability of the surface radiation budget over the United States from 1996 through 2011 from high-quality measurements, by John A. Augustine, Ellsworth G. Dutton, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres.
    “A significant upward trend in downwelling shortwave [solar radiation](SW-down) of +6.6 Wm−2 per decade dominates the total surface net radiation signal…The dramatic surface net radiation excess should have stimulated surface energy fluxes, but, oddly, the temperature trend is flat.”

    The temperature increase from 1996 – 2011 for US is 0.00 C according to NCDC. Over this time, increase is 11.5 W/m^2, or average of 5.7 W/m^2. With 5 hrs/day, this gives 24 hour average of +5.7*5/24 = 1.2 W/m^2.
    Sensitivity over 14 year period is 0.0/1.2 = 0.00 C/W/m^2.

    And of course, from NREL monthly data on solar insolation averaged at stations over 30 years, along with average monthly temperatures at the same location, the climate sensitivity over the U.S. over a 0.5 year time frame is 0.085 C/W/m^2.

    To summarize:
    For the U.S., we have a 0.085 C/W/m^2 over 0.5 years.
    For the U.S., we have a 0.00 C/W/m^2 over 15 years.
    For Spain we have 0.07 C/W/m^2 over 25 years.
    Globally we have 0.05 C/W/m^2 over 20 years.

  29. Little confusion. Isn’t “global brightening” an increase in albedo, the opposite of what’s described in the column?

  30. Leif, the CRF/Solar cloud effect is expected to be confined to areas over the ocean. The effect would not be noticable in areas that already have sufficient aerosols for cloud nucleation.

  31. David in Cal says:

    “Does the impact of greater cloud cover in the net produce more warming or more coollng?”

    I would think that it is a cooling affect since there would be less rays reaching the surface in the first place reducing the amount that reflects back to earth.

  32. george e. smith says June 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    If those clouds get warmed by LWIR from the surface, they will simply radiate to space even faster.


    I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. They can’t transport “heat energy” back to the surface; they can only lose it to space.

    Do you have anything more than your conjecture to support this?

    Temps aren’t all that warm ‘at altitude’ so the radiative efficiency isn’t going to be ALL that great … [some] satellite images, or sounder imagery/data ought to exist to support this.

    .

  33. Here’s the same trend for the UK:

    and by looking at the spikes shows it is directly related to the AO/NAO and hence the jet stream position, which is then determining cloud cover.

  34. I think it’s plausible the cloud formation due to CRF could cause a reduction in clouds over land. It would likely reduce total water vapor availible for clouds over land.

    Ocean circulation is probably the main factor (which may be related to solar activty and magnetic field) though.

  35. In reply to:
    aaron says:
    June 7, 2013 at 5:02 am
    Little confusion. Isn’t “global brightening” an increase in albedo, the opposite of what’s described in the column?
    William:
    The term ‘global brightening’ is perhaps confusing. Due to a reduction in planetary cloud cover in the regions in question (not the entire global only in the specific regions, specific regional global brightening would be a more accurate term), there is less sunlight reflected off into space. The additional sunlight that reaches the ground causes the regional warming which the warmists call global warming (the warmists should also if they were concerned about clarity and the cause of the observed warming should have stated specific regional warming).

    The warming in the last 20 years was regional warming not global warming.

    The logical points noted below (supported by peer reviewed analysis) supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 20 years was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover due to solar magnetic cycle changes not an increase in atmospheric CO2.
    A consequence of that assertion is the warming in the last 20 years is reversible. As CO2 warming is not reversible, significant cooling would prove that the majority of the warming in the last 20 years was due to changes in planetary cloud cover rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. This would also explain why there has been a lack of warming for the last 16 years.

    The regions of the planet that warmed in last 20 years (high latitude and primarily in the Northern hemisphere) are the same regions where there is ‘global brightening’. The regions of the planet that warmed in the last 20 years are the same regions that have cyclically warmed and cool in the past. It is known from analysis of sea sediment and ice cores that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the past cyclic warming and cooling periods. The logical question that should have been asked is the warming in the last 20 years due to the same mechanisms that caused warming in the past?

    It is interesting as there has been an abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle we will have a chance to determine by observation rather than by models, theoretical calculations, and predictions how much of the warming in last 20 years was due to solar modulation of planetary clouds vs increases in atmospheric CO2. There is this year the start of cooling in the same regions that experienced warming in the last 20 years.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    The AGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where there this the most amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space. The warming in the last 20 years is not in the tropics. In addition the AGW theory predicted that due to increased water vapor there should be significant warming in the tropics roughly 8 km above the earth. There is no observed warming in tropics at roughly 8km above the earth. The likely reason for the fact that there is no tropical tropospheric warming is that planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics to resist any forcing change (this assertions are supported by peer reviewed papers).

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    … The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO2 forcing alone. …
    An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/ decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g ~1. Models giving values of greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
    These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

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

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    … We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling.

  36. lsvalgaard says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds
    So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…

    Are you suggesting that during weak solar cycles/ less solar activity, the sun produces less cloud cover as it is unable to drive enough moister into the air that will form clouds which in-turn will keep the geographic area that the clouds form over warm a night?

    Would this process also cause an increase in fog during autumn, winter and spring?

  37. William Astley says:
    June 7, 2013 at 8:49 am
    The warming in the last 20 years was regional warming not global warming.
    From http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1 :
    “Available satellite-derived products qualitatively agree on a brightening from the mid-1980s to 2000 globally

    The logical points noted below (supported by peer reviewed analysis) supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 20 years was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover due to solar magnetic cycle changes
    There is no support for such an assertion. Many people claim just the opposite: lower solar activity = more cosmic rays = more clouds. Most likely, both of these contradictory claims are wrong.

    Sparks says:
    June 7, 2013 at 8:56 am
    “This increase is linked to the decreased presence of clouds”
    ‘So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…’
    Are you suggesting that during weak solar cycles/ less solar activity, the sun produces less cloud cover

    I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover. Whether these things are related is another matter, but any claim that they are must account for the above empirical fact.

  38. Let’s eliminate confusion as to correlations between solar brightening, on the one hand, and reduced airborne pollutants, on the other, in several different parts of the world. I use the term “several parts of the world” because places like southern Asia have been increasing such pollutants, as the US and OECD Europe and Russia have been decreasing them. See:

    “Anthropogenic and natural contributions to regional trends in aerosol optical depth, 1980–2006,” Streets et al., JGR, 2009.”

    Look at Figs 5 and 6 specifically.

    Bottom line: solar brightening in different parts of the world is well correlated with reduced airborne pollution, whether the trends of pollution is up (south Asia, where solar dimming has been occurring), or the US and OECD Europe (poluttion slowly dropping since early 1980s, starting data point in study) and Russia (pollution dropped most dramically in early 1990s, when FSU dissolved.

    A weaker sun has only been in the last 6 or so years, hasn’t it?

  39. Clouds are part of the strong feedback system, very little to do with sun variability or aerosols. Read the Willis’ post on the Pacific Ocean.

  40. So much confusion here that I hardly know where to start.

    I’d like to see the Spanish numbers for 2011 and 2012.

    Suffice it to say that global cloudiness has been increasing since about 2000 but slowly and the Spanish observations show a peak in 2005 and a slight fall by 2010.

    Interestingly both the recent Spanish peaks in sunshine correlate well with the last two El Nino events.

    So what we have here is a pause in increasing sunshine for Spain rather than a fall in sunshine for Spain because the global trend of increasing cloudiness has been disguised for Spain by that location’s sensitivity to El Nino events.

    As I’ve been saying for years the climate shifts that we have seen are a result of a continual interaction between bottom up oceanic effects and top down solar effects.

    Each region responds slightly differently depending on its position relative to the nearest climate boundary or jet stream track.

    The fact is that global dimming has been in train since about 2000 but Spain has a lagged effect due to local and regional factors such that so far it only registers a pause since 2005.

    If the sun stays quiet I expect La Nina to become more dominant and Spain to then join the rest of the globe in dimming.

    Meanwhile our CO2 emissions will continue to rise.

  41. lsvalgaard says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:22 am

    I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover. Whether these things are related is another matter, but any claim that they are must account for the above empirical fact.

    That’s great, I agree with this position.

  42. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 10:42 am
    If the sun stays quiet I expect La Nina to become more dominant and Spain to then join the rest of the globe in dimming.
    The global brightening is not confined to Spain, but is a global phenomenon [perhaps with the exception of India and China]. As the article explains: “The increase in global solar radiation is a phenomenon that has been observed in other parts of the world for almost 30 years, especially in developed countries, and it has been named “global brightening”.

  43. The Wild (not Wilde) paper referred to by Leif at:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

    concludes with this:

    “We cannot exclude the possibility that we are currently
    again in a transition phase and may return to
    a renewed overall dimming for some years to come”.

    My view is that the current transitional period is about to register a clear change to dimming and may already have done so when the 2011 to 2013 numbers are in.

    The cause will be solar changes altering climate zone positioning and jet stream tracks which together affect global cloudiness far more than any other factor.

  44. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 10:50 am
    My view is that the current transitional period is about to register a clear change to dimming and may already have done so when the 2011 to 2013 numbers are in.

    The article says:
    “The team behind the study has not yet analysed the solar radiation data for 2011-2013 provided by the Spanish State Meteorological Agency, but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.”

  45. That paper says this too:

    “The latest updates on solar radiation
    changes observed since the new millennium
    show no globally coherent trends anymore”

    Precisely.

    At the turn of the millennium decreasing solar activity between cycles 23 and 24 started to have an impact on global cloudiness trends.

    Since 2008 I have been telling you all that it was in 2000 that I first noticed the reversal of the earlier trend in jet stream behaviour.

    That reversal in trend has consolidated over the past 13 years.

  46. To Leif Svalgaard:

    Here I was thinking that the amplitude of solar cycles, and the numbers of sunspots, were the appropriate proxies for short term solar influences. This isn’t my field, so I’m going to defer to you, Leif. When I suggested that the drop in solar activity was just the last six years or so, I was thinking about how weak the current solar cycle has been.

    Looking back over longer periods, here is a NASA link showing sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum, with a big drop in the early 1800s (Dalton miminum). There doesn’t seem to be much of a downturn from the late 1980s in that data.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php

    Here’s another graphic, this one also showing a pretty slight drop since around 1990:

    But if you say that there has been a significant weakening since 1987, I won’t argue — it is your field.

  47. “but the data from other European weather stations suggests that this brightening is still on the rise.”

    That contradicts everyone’s recent experience of West European weather.

    The UK media have been full of news about cloudy cool rainy summers since 2006 and recent European winters have been much colder than before.

    However more equatoward jets in winter would place Western Europe north of the jets in winter rather than under them so there could be brightening in winter offsetting dimming in summer.

    As I said, the regional experiences are substantially affected by the location relative to the nearest climate zone boundary or jet.

    On that basis Spain could become dimmer for 2011 to 2013 (being more often under the jets) whilst the rest of Europe could become brighter (being more often north of the jets).

    Much better to look at the world as a whole and Wild clearly expresses that the global signals are inconclusive since 2000.

    The Earthshine project comes down more clearly in favour of dimming at the surface since 2000 on the basis that the Earth has become brighter from space due to more clouds.

  48. Brian H said on June 7, 2013 at 10:35 am:

    Should there be a net figure for direct minus diffuse?

    Nah. Direct plus diffuse equals total illumination, or insolation, whatever the exact circumstance is.

    Think of a windowless room in your house. Direct light onto the desk is from a lamp with a mini flood light, there is a shaded ceiling fixture supplying diffuse light. Direct on or off with diffuse on or off has meaning. What is physically described by direct minus diffuse?

  49. Several questions above about direct and indirect (scattered) solar radiation, and how both vary with cloud cover.

    This may clear up the issue:

    Assume a perfectly clear atmosphere, or – equally – solar radiation in the absence of an atmosphere effect (the moon for example ) . Radiation at the bottom of atmosphere (surface) = radiation at top of atmosphere (TOA).

    Turn a panel flat – facing up – and only the direct radiation can be absorbed. Received radiation is a function of solar radiation times a function of latitude times a function of time of day.

    However, the actual radiation you can receive on a vertical surface at the surface of the planet (bottom of atmosphere) is the direct radiation from the sun, plus the reflected radiation from other surfaces nearby: the ground, or a roof shingle if the panel were on top of a building, or a mirror-like surface near the solar panel.

    So, radiation received on a vertical surface could be more than a flat surface: Received radiation is a function of solar radiation times a function of latitude times a function of time of day times (perhaps) a multiplier of the nearby surfaces albedo and surface area. So you could get more radiation on a vertical panel than a flat panel, right?

    Now, in the real world, .

    Clouds scatter the radiation and dust and aerosols scatter the incoming radiation around. Both also absorb the radiation available at top of atmosphere.

    A flat panel then gets direct radiation from the sun (as always a function of latitude and time of day), plus a part of the scattered radiation from the whole sky. The indirect (scattered) radiation has been measured between 22% and 38% of the direct radiation. So, available radiation at the panel is between 1.22 and 1.38 times the theoretical direct radiation at the surface.

    BUT, nothing is the real world is free. Depending on cloud density and coverage and dust levels, only between 88% and 20% of the top-of-atmosphere radiation arrives at that real-world flat panel on the surface. The rest is reflected back up or absorbed. Air Mass (actual hour-by-hour thickness of atmosphere with respect to the theoretical thickness at the the equator) and “lambda” (an exponential factor of the transmittal of energy through the real atmosphere) are used to correct the theoretical top-of-atmosphere radiation to the theoretical radiation available at the bottom of atmosphere.

    So, you may get received radiation = 80% of that 1.38 of the theoretical direct radiation.

    increase cloud coverage both increases (raises that 1.22 multiplier factor up to 1.38 perhaps) but at the same time reduces the amount of solar radiation transmitted through the atmosphere from 80% transmitted to only 30% transmitted. Consider, for example, the heat you feel standing in the sunshine on a clear day. Nice, very sharp definition of your shadow on the green grass, right? You are getting almost only direct radiation. You are getting reflected radiation from the grass (lower planet albedo due to higher CO2 levels.)

    Now, go to the beach (or a snow-covered field), but on a cloudy day. Large amounts of diffuse radiation from the whole sky, almost no defined edge to your shadow, and maybe even shadows from different directions. Lots of energy reflected up from the ground (the beach or the snow) into your eyes and on to your skin. You get sun-burned anyway. All of this makes the “calculation” of albedo very, very tricky to both measure and to account for in models.

    After all, if radiation is reflected from the top of clouds, can it be absorbed below the clouds?

  50. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
    As I said, the regional experiences are substantially affected by the location relative to the nearest climate zone boundary or jet.
    No matter what the data shows one way or the other you always claim that they support your ideas, so nothing new there. You also quote selectively and ignore “on the other hand…” and this “However, such renewed dimming and associated impacts would likely have a limited persistence,
    since emerging nations will be forced to implement air quality measures in face of increasingly pressing health problems. Thus, with the foreseeable inevitability and undisputable necessity for clean air regulations and aerosol reductions also in emerging nations, potential dampening of global warming by a renewed dimming could only be temporary, and greenhouse gases will ultimately become the sole major anthropogenic forcing factor of climate change”. and “Brightening continues beyond 2000 at sites in Europe and the United States”

    John says:
    June 7, 2013 at 10:56 am
    But if you say that there has been a significant weakening since 1987, I won’t argue
    One problem is the cyclic nature of solar activity. Perhaps slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Observations.pdf will clarify things.

  51. And Trenberth: what stability did you work with to determine a “missing” 0.58W/m2?

    Another Positive Trenberth Event: observation of a decrease in cloud cover that wasn’t supposed to be there. And the reaction, I’m sure: Small, local changes are part of the normal variability, but are not signficant on the global level as we “know” these events are random and cancel each other out.

    So we know from the Central UK data (Bright Sunshine Hours) that there has been an increase in bright sunshine and, therefore, decrease in cloud cover, since the 1960s. The decrease stopped in 2010 (NothingSettledNothingCertain.com). Now we know from Spain. Next ….. the Arctic and Greenland?

    Wouldn’t that be a burn?

  52. vukcevic says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm
    This graph says it is the sun that does it
    not via TSI, UV, SSN or GCR, but I suspect by individual geomagnetic storms of a particular strength and polarity

    Nonsense.

  53. It is unusual that significant theory issues (What portion of the regional warming that has occurred in the last 20 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes Vs the increase in atmospheric CO2? As noted above the regional warming observed is not in agreement with the AGW theory. There are multiple observations that are not in agreement with the AGW theory.) can be resolved by direct live observation. When the solar magnetic cycle slows down there is a 10 to 12 year delay before there is cooling in the high Arctic regions.

    There is a mechanism reason for the delay in cooling. Thermal lag cannot explain the delay. There is now observed cooling in the same regions that experienced regional warming in the last 20 years. The current observed cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.

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

    Little Ice Age
    The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions ….
    Europe/North America
    ….The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps caused by fluorosis after the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783.[20] Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early 15th century), as crops failed and livestock …. …. Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier … ….Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]… …. Historian Wolfgang Behringer has linked intensive witch-hunting episodes in Europe to agricultural failures during the Little Ice Age.[36]

    Antarctic
    Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note “other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear.”

    William: There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the year.

    Australia
    There is limited evidence about conditions in Australia, though lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north of the continent, the limited evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, while coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the LIA.[53] Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that, over the last 500 years, the 17th century was the coldest in that continent,

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256

    Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
    The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. … ….The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years. These models show that 60 per cent of the annual and winter temperature variations are explained by solar activity. For the spring, summer and fall temperatures autocorrelations in the residuals exists, and additional variables may contribute to the variations. These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5 ±2C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 C. A systematic study by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum [15] (called SSH11 in the following) of the correlation between SCL and temperature lags in 11 years intervals, for 16 data sets (William: solar cycles), revealed that the strongest correlation took place 10 to 12 years after the mid-time of a solar cycle, for most of the locations included. In this study the temperature series from Svalbard (Longyearbyen) was included, and a relation between the previous sunspot cycle length (PSCL) and the temperature in the following cycle was determined. This relation was used to predict that the yearly average temperature, which was -4.2 C in sunspot cycle (SC) 23, was estimated to decrease to -7.8 C in SC24, with a 95% confidence interval of -6.0 to -9.6C [15]. SSH11[15] found that stations in the North Atlantic (Torshavn, Akureyri and Svalbard), had the highest correlations.

  54. The chart above that shows that “Solar radiation in Spain has increased by 2.3 percent every decade since the 1980s” looks very similar to My resonance Model derived from the ephemerides DE 102, this model stretches back to 1850, it should not be read as a statistical trend, but as a physical position or “resonance” in relation to Solar activity over the stated interval of time.

    The reason why I have used ephemerides DE 102 only between 1875-2050, even tho it covers the span from 1411 BC to 3002 AD, is because the more accurate positions are given by DE 102 for time around the present epoch over the interval between 1850 – 2050.
    The accuracy of the angular positions of these objects degrade as the time interval is extended and estimated as:

    - less than 1 arc-second for the Mercury through Saturn;
    - a few arc-seconds (up to 4″) for Uranus through Neptune;
    The rate of growth of position errors over of time is about 0.04″ per century for the Earth and Mars, about 0.06″ per century for the Venus, and about 0.14″ per century for the Mercury (Unused). The outer planets have progressively larger errors.

    This resonance Model below, also derived from the ephemerides DE 102, but stretching between 1749-2040 will not be as accurate as the model above over the interval between 1850-2050. But, it does give me a good idea of where the resonance plot will be after the time interval is corrected for, until I have the time to update my ephemeris to the latest data.

  55. Solar radiation reacing the surface has been been increasing over the recent decades while global cloud levels have declined. The UK also supports other countries world-wide with increasing sunshine levels during the same period.

    There are signs since 2006 that global low clould levels have stabilized or even very slightly increased. My view was the world’s warming globally was mainly caused by more solar radiaition reaching the surface and when this stopped increasing global temperatures would fail to increase further.

  56. Leif said:

    “You also quote selectively and ignore “on the other hand…” and this “However, such renewed dimming and associated impacts would likely have a limited persistence,”

    I quote the bits that involve data but ignore the bits that are subjective opinion.

    Leif accepts subjective opinion whenever it suits him but if it does not suit him he rejects it.

    It is not a demonstrable fact that human emissions of particulates will override the effect of naturally induced dimming, it is merely an agenda driven guess.

  57. Thanks to Matt G and Sparks.

    Both your charts add to my submissions and detract from Leif’s.

    William Astley kindly reprised some of the historical evidence that led to my conclusions.

    Solar variations clearly affect global air circulation, global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.

    The mechanism involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows the climate zones and jets to shift latitudinally thereby affecting global albedo.

    It is the temperature of the stratosphere which is key. It must cool naturally (more towards the poles) when the sun is active and warm naturally (more towards the poles) when the sun is inactive which is contrary to current climatology but that must be so to get the latitudinal shifts to occur in the observed direction.

  58. William Astley says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    The current observed cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.
    Most reasonable researchers would say that the LIA was global… so wet weather is global?

    Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    I quote the bits that involve data but ignore the bits that are subjective opinion.
    Subject to your subjective opinion as driven by your agenda. That much is clear.

    It is not a demonstrable fact that human emissions of particulates will override the effect of naturally induced dimming, it is merely an agenda driven guess.

    Wild: “In polluted regions, on the other hand, cloud microphysics effects tend to saturate with the logarithmic sensitivity to CCNs, whereas the direct extinction of SSR by aerosols becomes more relevant, which increases proportionally to the aerosol loadings. Absorbing pollution layers further heat and stabilize the atmosphere and attenuate SSR and related surface evaporation. This generally leads to a suppression of convective cloud formation and dissolves clouds in layers heated by absorbing aerosol (known as the semi-direct aerosol effect) (Ramanathan et al.
    2001).”

  59. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Solar variations clearly affect global air circulation, global cloudiness and the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the climate system.
    The mechanism involves a change in the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles which allows the climate zones and jets to shift latitudinally thereby affecting global albedo.

    This is your problem: you have not specified any mechanism nor how solar variations can affect anything.

  60. Leif:

    Neither you nor Wild have demonstrated that aerosol effects are significant in the face of naturally induced dimming (or brightening for that matter).

    I have specified a mechanism as you well know since you have commented extensively on it. I agree that it is not yet proven but it has been specified and thus far it fits ongoing observations.

    I previously gave you an extensive list of observations that would falsify it but none have yet occurred.

  61. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    I have specified a mechanism as you well know since you have commented extensively on it. I agree that it is not yet proven but it has been specified and thus far it fits ongoing observations.
    I have asked you many times to be specific, but you have never delivered. An unspecified mechanism will always fit anything.

    I previously gave you an extensive list of observations that would falsify it but none have yet occurred
    And never will, as you are not specific.

  62. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    Thanks to Matt G and Sparks.
    Both your charts add to my submissions and detract from Leif’s.

    I’m not exactly clear on what Leif and yourself disagree on, Leif stated to me above;
    ” I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover. Whether these things are related is another matter, but any claim that they are must account for the above empirical fact.”
    Which is his position, It sounds sensible to me and I think it is correct.

    I have also just noticed this chart that Mat G Posted from the Met office,

    How is it possible that this Met office chart of Sunshine also matches this resonance Model derived from the ephemerides DE 102?

  63. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    I have specified a mechanism…
    Let me give you an example of a statement that is not a mechanism:
    “high solar activity moves the jet-stream”.
    This is no mechanism because it does not say how that happens and by how much.

  64. Leif.

    You leave me speechless (almost).

    You know full well that my contention is that a change in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun when the level of solar activity changes alters ozone quantities in stratosphere and mesosphere preferentially towards the poles. The consequence is a change in the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator which allows the jets and climate zones to shift latitudinally with effects on global cloudiness and albedo.

    That is a mechanism. All that remains is to support or rebut that proposition.

    As for quantification, no one has the data I need so I suggest the professionals go to it but in the meantime the real world climate observations are illustrating it perfectly.

    Not surprising really because instead of applying ideology I simply asked myself what scenario could result in what we observe whilst complying with the basic laws of physics.

    Sparks:

    Leif considers that solar variations have little or no effect on climate but nonetheless he thinks that global cloudiness decreased whist the sun became less active and increased whilst the sun was more active.

    In fact global cloudiness decreased whilst the sun was active (up to about 2000) and has been increasing whilst solar activity has declined (since 2000).

    It is true that solar activity was declining slightly throughout cycles 21,22 and 23 but I would aver that throughout those 3 cycles the level of activity was high enough to keep the level of cloudiness decreasing. Only at the end of cycle 23 did solar activity decline sufficiently to reverse the trend in cloudiness.

    You will see from both your charts that we have just passed a peak and are now on a decline in tune with reducing solar activity.

  65. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
    You know full well that my contention is that a change in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun when the level of solar activity changes alters ozone quantities in stratosphere and mesosphere preferentially towards the poles.
    A contention is no mechanism. For it to be a mechanism you must specify what particles, what ‘wavelengths’ and how much they change for a specified level of solar activity, how the ozone is altered, and by how much and what the preferences are. Without that all you have is hand waving.

  66. So you hide behind a perverse definition of ‘mechanism’?

    We know that the precise balance of ozone creation / destruction is what determines stratospheric temperatures over time.

    We have seen that the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and may now be warming with the sun less active (the cooling has certainly stopped).

    We know that a warmer stratosphere pushes the stratosphere down and a colder stratosphere pulls it up.

    We know that solar effects on the atmosphere are greater at the poles than above the equator due to the lower height of the atmosphere and the magnetic field lines converging at the poles.

    We know that the MWP and today saw zonal / poleward jets and the LIA (and glaciations) saw more equatorward / meridional jets.

    We see that the global cloudiness trend went into reverse at the same time as the jets began to become more meridional and at the same time global warming stalled as did the earlier increase in ocean heat content. All those factors correlate with the decline of solar activity from cycle 23 to cycle 24.

    Put it all together and there is a clear mechanism.

    That mechanism covers all observations to date and I will not give up on this until the real world behaves in a way inconsistent with that mechanism.

    Wake me up when we see a long term trend of more zonal jets at a time of inactive sun or an increasingly positive AO whilst the sun stays quiet or clouds decreasing again whilst the jets stay meridional.

    In the meantime I suggest you keep an open mind as will I.

  67. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
    Leif considers that solar variations have little or no effect on climate but nonetheless he thinks that global cloudiness decreased whist the sun became less active and increased whilst the sun was more active.
    Not at all, I don’t think there is any such physical relationship. I said: ” I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover. Whether these things are related is another matter, but any claim that they are must account for the above empirical fact.”

  68. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    So you hide behind a perverse definition of ‘mechanism’?
    What you are describing is a number of coincidences which are no mechanisms. My definition is precise.

  69. Leif said:

    “I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover.”

    Well, that is wrong.

    Clouds decreased while the sun was active and have been increasing with the less active sun.

    “the Earthshine project now shows us that both global cloudiness and global
    albedo are increasing again since the late 90s:

    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf

    Increased cloudiness and albedo are indications that the climate system is
    receiving less solar energy overall and is therefore a sign of reducing energy
    content for the system as a whole contrary to AGW theory.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to ocean heat content over the next
    few years. There are suggestions that it recently peaked and may start to trend
    down and if does turn downwards that will confirm the significance of the
    cloudiness and albedo changes.

    Standard climatology proposes that, when the sun is more active, all the
    layers of the atmosphere warm and, when the sun is less active, all the layers of
    the atmosphere cool. That did not happen during the recent warming spell.

    Whilst the thermosphere and troposphere warmed from the more active sun the
    stratosphere and mesosphere actually cooled. Now that the sun is less active that
    cooling trend in the stratosphere has changed to a warming trend so it is likely
    that the stratosphere and mesosphere actually respond to changes in the level of
    solar variability oppositely to the thermosphere and troposphere as part of an
    entirely natural process.

    Standard climatology has proposed that human CO2
    and / or CFCs upset what was assumed to be the natural order of things. This
    article will try to show that that basic assumption which has been incorporated
    into all current climate models and theories may be wrong.

    from here:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

  70. Nowadays were pretty quick to put out wildfires, does anybody know if there were more or less acres burned by wildfires 30 years ago and earlier?
    How much do wildfires affect cloud formation?

  71. That Earthshine article said:

    “The overall decrease in cloud amount from
    1985 to 2000 is about 4–5% with a recovery
    of about 2–3% from 2000 to 2004″

    What has happened since 2004?

    2000 to 2004 wiped out half the decrease from 1985 to 2000.

    The start of the recovery in 2000 is exactly in accordance with the date when I say I first noticed a change in jet stream behaviour.

  72. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    “I’m pointing out that observations show that during the decreasing solar activity, there was also decreasing cloud cover.”
    Well, that is wrong.

    Well, that is what the article implied. But here is a recent analysis that might educate you a bit:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Stratosphere-Trends-2012.pdf

    “A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends”

  73. l have to agree with Stephen Wilde here.
    Because here in the UK at least a more southern tracking jet has lead to cooling temps in recent years. With a increase in sunshine during the winter (colder weather) but a decrease in sunshine during the summer (cooler weather).

  74. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    The start of the recovery in 2000 is exactly in accordance with the date when I say I first noticed a change in jet stream behaviour.
    Stratospheric temperatures have not recovered since 2000, they continue downwards…

  75. No answers there, Leif.

    “The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with
    attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change
    using climate models.”

    I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.

    Let me know if I just saved you a few million in research expenditure :)

  76. Leif said:

    “Stratospheric temperatures have not recovered since 2000, they continue downwards”

    Really?

    Your own paper shows them pretty much flat since the late 90s.

    Give it time.

    The cessation of the cooling trend correlates with the decline in solar activity.

    We are currently at the peak of cycle 24 so that is probably holding back the warming process.

  77. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm
    “The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with
    attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change
    using climate models.”

    That is concerning the models. There is no muddle when it comes to the data.

    I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.
    The data disagrees with your suppositions. Same thing here: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

    BTW, the temperature trends in the stratosphere are smallest in the polar areas. Figure 3.

  78. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm
    I suggest that you try my solution of an active sun altering the ozone creation / destruction balance so as to cool the stratosphere preferentially towards the poles and an inactive sun doing the opposite.
    Figure 1 shows just the opposite: warmer at solar max and colder at solar min.

  79. Leif said:

    “So, no recovery.”

    So no decline either. Where does that get you except to appear deceitful? At least I only said it ‘may’ now be warming and pointed out that we need to give it time. You categorically tried to imply a continuation of the earlier declining trend which is clearly false.

    I think this makes it clearer:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723

    As regards the size of the temperature trends above equator and poles I fail to see the relevance.

    The bottom up oceanic effects obviously have a powerful effect at the equator.

    The top down solar effects may well have a smaller effect above the poles but what matters is the net effect of both effects combined on the equator to poles gradient of tropopause height.

    I have always said that the climate outcome is determined by the interplay between the two with a miniscule effect from GHGs but so small as to be not discernible on a multi centennial time scale.

    From MWP to LIA to date the shift appears to have been 1000 miles or so latitudinally. Our emissions might contribute a mile or so at a stretch.

    The glacial / interglacial shift is even larger.

  80. “Figure 1 shows just the opposite: warmer at solar max and colder at solar min.”

    In a single cycle the tiny variation in TSI has the primary effect.

    Across multiple cycles the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths becomes more dominant.

    It is the latter which I say is the cause of significant climate changes, not the former.

  81. Leif said:

    “So, no recovery.”

    So no decline either. Where does that get you? At least I only said it ‘may’ now be warming and pointed out that we need to give it time. You categorically tried to imply a continuation of the earlier declining trend which is clearly false.

    I think this makes it clearer:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723

    As regards the size of the temperature trends above equator and poles I fail to see the relevance.

    The bottom up oceanic effects obviously have a powerful effect at the equator.

    The top down solar effects may well have a smaller effect above the poles but what matters is the net effect of both effects combined on the equator to poles gradient of tropopause height.

    I have always said that the climate outcome is determined by the interplay between the two with a miniscule effect from GHGs but so small as to be not discernible on a multi centennial time scale.

    From MWP to LIA to date the shift appears to have been 1000 miles or so latitudinally. Our emissions might contribute a mile or so at a stretch.

    The glacial / interglacial shift is even larger.

  82. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    Across multiple cycles the change in the mix of particles and wavelengths becomes more dominant. It is the latter which I say is the cause of significant climate changes, not the former.
    In the three cycles since we have satellite data on stratospheric temperature, the stratosphere has steadily cooled as solar activity has decreased. The decrease in solar activity has little to do with the long-term cooling trend, so this ‘correlation’ is probably spurious. In any event it is the opposite of what you claim.

  83. “But is not related to solar activity.” (the glacial / interglacial climate shifts)

    Didn’t say it was.

    The Milankovitch cycles mimic a change in solar variability but the negative system response is just the same via a shift in the global air circulation pattern.

    “In the three cycles since we have satellite data on stratospheric temperature, the stratosphere has steadily cooled as solar activity has decreased”

    I dealt with that but you didn’t notice.

    There was a slight decrease in solar activity across cycles 21, 22 and 23 but not enough to stop the solar induced cooling trend in the stratosphere. Throughout that time solar activity remained high enough to keep cooling the stratosphere.

    From the late 90s solar activity dropped enough to stop the stratospheric cooling trend.

    We now need to wait and see if the stratosphere does actually start to warm whilst the sun remains inactive.

    I think it will. You think it won’t.

    So be it. The cards are on the table.

  84. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    The Milankovitch cycles mimic a change in solar variability but the negative system response is just the same via a shift in the global air circulation pattern.
    No, they do not mimic the changes of the ‘mix of particles and wavelengths’.

    From the late 90s solar activity dropped enough to stop the stratospheric cooling trend.
    The cooling has continued unabated:

    The cards are on the table.
    Not that simple, as you continue to say all the time that all the data already fully support your [wrong] ideas. If you now change your tune and claim that we have to wait and see then it is hard to maintain that you have been right all along. Especially since the data show that you have not.

  85. Interesting discussion. Questions for either or both of you: is it correct in general that high frequency solar UV destroys ozone while lower frequency solar UV creates ozone? Does an increase in solar activity increase the higher frequencies of solar UV more than lower? Does a decrease in solar activity decrease the higher frequencies more than the lower? Does ozone contribute to stratospheric warming?

    If those are all true, then the higher solar activity in the 20th century could account for some stratospheric cooling and current solar minimum should ultimately result in stratospheric warming

  86. Camus says:
    June 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    ??
    Difference between upper/middle stratosphere and lower stratosphere. A top-down solar effect might be expected to be most felt in the upper stratosphere.

  87. Re the effect of cloud trends on global climate, the mainstream position is that there are possibly different results for low-level and high-level clouds.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/

    I don’t know if the FECYT paper includes this sort of detail, but they have updated their research, including this caveat.

    “The results point to possible inhomogeneities in the CM SAF records around 1987 and 1994, possibly due to changes in the satellite instruments, although other factors such as the lack of aerosol retrievals in the CM SAF SSR are also discussed. Consequently, the study of the means and trends in the SSR derived from CM SAF is only recommended for the records after 1994.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713000916

    1994 to 2010 is a period in which surface/tropospheric temps appeared to have stalled or risen very little while solar radiation has increased due to fewer clouds. Assuming this study is a fair proxy for global, does this suggest the sun has little influence on surface/tropospheric temps?

  88. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
    The Earthshine project comes down more clearly in favour of dimming at the surface since 2000 on the basis that the Earth has become brighter from space due to more clouds.

    I like that answer to this question.

    Dr. S. thinks you need a mechanism for moving the jet stream around the solar cycle. Ask him if this works.
    Don’t let the title throw you off..

    Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere
    R.A. Haaser1, R. Davidson2 R.A. Heelis1, G.D. Earle2, S. Venkatraman1, and J. Klenzing3

    ..First storm observations by C/NOFS occur about 3-5 hours after the first southward-turning of the Bz reported by ACE/Wind, in agreement with previous studies suggesting that phase fronts in the thermosphere propagate from the polar regions toward the equator with velocities of about
    500 – 800 m/s3,4,5.
    Evening and nighttime neutral wind perturbations in figures were noticably higher than those occurring during the day [II., IV.] .This is likely the result of stronger daytime ion density motions and gradients in the ionosphere/thermosphere system. Most of the storms are observed in the southern magnetic latitudes, except for the [IV.] Jan 2012 storm. As expected, a majority of the observed storms, demonstrated equatorward perturbations of meridional neutral winds (including the Jan 2012 storm), propagating away from the nearest magnetic pole, on the order of about
    100 m/s.
    However, one exception to this rule was the set of [V.] Mar 2012 storms which appear to exhibit poleward flow. This storm occurs when northern magnetic pole rotates through midnight during the storm onset. Such a case is consistent with equatorward meridional winds propagating across the equator into the opposing hemisphere, similar to the model prediction by Fuller-Rowell et. al [1994]…

  89. Carla says:
    June 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    Dr. S. thinks you need a mechanism for moving the jet stream around the solar cycle. Ask him if this works. Don’t let the title throw you off..
    … Storm Time Meridional Wind Perturbations in the Equatorial Upper Thermosphere

    This will not work as the upper thermosphere is MUCH too thin, like a trillion times thinner that the troposphere..

  90. Dr. Svalgaard, recent IBEX results are saying the H ENA has ahh disappeared. Since like 2009 to 2011. Possibly solar activity picked up a little related. I wondering if they considered a shift.
    As in:
    “An unexplained 10–40 degree shift in the location of some diverse neutral atom data at 1 AU”
    Michael R. Collier a,*, Thomas E. Moore a, David Simpson a, Aaron Roberts a,
    Adam Szabo a, Stephen Fuselier b, Peter Wurz c, Martin A. Lee d, Bruce T. Tsurutani e
    or is the IBEX not going to miss shifting flow patterns?

    I highly recommend this NASA Tv conference Dr.S.
    Scientists Discuss Space Matter

    IBEX lead Dave McComas, Scientist Pricilla Frisch and Dr Eberhard Mobius.
    And a Special Invited guest Seth Redfield (Remember “Cloud Tripping The Milky Way” Redfield and Linsky?) Seth is also involved in locating and plotting nearby astrospheres in the cloud maps. This is all too cool.

    Quote from Dr. David McComas IBEX Lead.
    “””The heliosphere is then dominated more by the Interstellar Magnetic Field than by pressure. Makes the magnetic field component even more important. My picture of the heliosphere now is that this is even more compressed by the Interstellar Magnetic Field and less driven by the inflowing pressure.”””
    E. Mobieus says of those pesky neutrals, “they just punch their way in”

  91. Carla says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:21 pm
    Dr. Svalgaard, recent IBEX results are saying the H ENA has ahh disappeared. Since like 2009 to 2011. Possibly solar activity picked up a little related.
    Of course, the outer heliosphere is determined by the interaction between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, but none of that has any influence on the Sun because the solar wind is supersonic.

  92. lsvalgaard says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:43 pm

    You didn’t watch the NASA conference yet did you? No, critiquing on the first watch either, Dr. S. The findings Dr. S., in our generation how cool is this?

  93. Carla says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    You didn’t watch the NASA conference yet did you?
    No, because the findings are known to researchers in the field. No need to watch the dumbed down version.

  94. Leif thinks that a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of cooling.

    AGW proponents think that a stall in tropospheric warming since 1998 nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of warming.

    One cannot overcome that sort of mental block until the data becomes even more overwhelming.

  95. Hmmm … according to the paper, the solar radiation increased by 9 W/m2 over the period of the study, 1990-2012.

    And according to the BEST data, the temperature in Spain went up by about 1°C over the same period.

    Other things being equal, this puts the climate sensitivity over the period at about four-tenths of a degree per doubling of CO2.

    Of course, other things are never equal …

    w.

  96. From Willis Eschenbach on June 8, 2013 at 12:04 am:

    Hmmm … according to the paper, the solar radiation increased by 9 W/m2 over the period of the study, 1990-2012.

    Huh? Says above:

    “The mean annual G series over Spain shows a tendency to increase during the 1985-2010 period, with a significant linear trend of + 3.9 W m-2 [2.3% more] per decade.”

    Found a link to the paper’s paywall:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112002238

    It’s Elsevier and they want $39.95, so they’re not going to get it, but the abstract is there. From 1985-2010, if that’s 25 years and not 26, at 3.9 Wm^-2/decade that’s a 9.75 Wm^-2 increase (round that as you please).

    I checked out your BEST link. What are these fools calling an “Annual” figure? After playing with a sample in the spreadsheet, I find the “January” 2012 value is an average of August 2011 to July 2012. Thus from the start of 1/2012, what I would expect, they’ve averaged 5 months back with 7 months forward. Likewise 12/2011 averages 7/2011 to 6/2012. They’re filling up column entries with monthly “annual” figures that are really just 12-mo running means, and can’t even indicate the center properly.

    Who programmed up that cluster-BEST anyway?

  97. Stephen Wilde says:
    June 7, 2013 at 11:21 pm
    Leif thinks that a cessation of stratospheric cooling since the late 90s nonetheless amounts to an unabated continuation of cooling.

  98. On 12 March 2012 I flew to Madeira. On the way I observed a vast area of smoothed water — 20,000 sq miles plus — where wave action was reduced. Something was smoothing the surface.

    If this phenomenon is now common then fewer salt aerosols will be produced by breaking waves. This will lead to fewer clouds and warming.

    I have postulated that the smoothed areas are caused by oil and surfactant pollution — human spills. Someone has mentioned surfactant production by phytoplankton, and the fact that we are producing a huge fertiliser boost from the Haber process and from dissolved silica run-off may mean we have changed the ecology of the ocean surface. Or it may change of its own accord, changing cloud amounts as it does.

    Lower albedo will not produce a tropospheric hotspot and as such would match reality better than the models.

    Warming may not be CO2 at all.

    JF

  99. vukcevic says:
    June 8, 2013 at 7:19 am
    It is indeed nonsense to declare reliable data ‘nonsense’.
    The nonsense is to claim they are physically connected.

  100. Too funny! I haven’t read the thread till this morning but I guessed that someone would say something like this: “See!!! The Sun drives the changes!!! It’s the Sun!!!”

    The point of the study has nothing to do with solar changes. It has to do with intrinsic variability (Earth bound). Earth is a marvelous place, quite capable of letting in and blocking out the rays of the Sun not only on a daily or monthly basis, but over yearly, and much longer spans of time. It is also quite capable of letting stored heat escape through the layers of goop we call the atmosphere. Only something very powerful could manage that. Any measure of Earth’s intrinsic factors clearly leads a reasoned person to put Earth at the head of the list of temperature anomaly changes. The tiny measures of solar changes are simply not capable of creating those sustained oscillations. And neither are minute molecular CO2 additions to the atomsphere.

    Why the obsession with tiny? Bigger is better. Earth’s intrinsic factors, as a sustained driver, are bigger.

    I used to think the Sun was the driver of the change in temperature but only for a couple months. Then I got schooled. It’s Earth’s “window shade” that’s letting in too much Sun on my face and causing my physician to declare, “That has got to come off.” Not to worry though. Tis only a little scar on me lip.

  101. From Pamela Gray on June 8, 2013 at 7:48 am:

    Why the obsession with tiny? Bigger is better.

    So says our favorite almost-5-ft-tall Irish pixie.

  102. barry says:
    June 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    “1994 to 2010 is a period in which surface/tropospheric temps appeared to have stalled or risen very little while solar radiation has increased due to fewer clouds. Assuming this study is a fair proxy for global, does this suggest the sun has little influence on surface/tropospheric temps?”

    This misses the bigger picture where solar radiation reaching the surface due to fewer clouds mainly occurred from 1983 until 2000. The change from 1994 was only little compared to what happened before and the stall in surface temperatures did not end by 1994. In fact the change has mainly stabilized since 2000 and that is likely why surface temperatures have stalled.

    Overall global cloud levels declined until 2000 and global temperatures behaviour changes with global cloud levels. This suggests the sun has a large influence on recent surface temperatures not little.

  103. Matt G says:
    June 8, 2013 at 8:22 am
    Overall global cloud levels declined until 2000 and global temperatures behaviour changes with global cloud levels. This suggests the sun has a large influence on recent surface temperatures not little.
    More accurately: ‘this suggest that cloud cover has a large influence on recent surface temperatures’. You can keep the ‘sun’ in your assessment by rephrasing: ‘This suggests the amount of sunlight that gets past the clouds has a large influence on recent surface temperatures’, which nobody would quibble with.

  104. “—and the stall in surface temperatures did not end by 1994.”

    Should read ,”—and the stall in surface temperatures did not start by 1994.

  105. vukcevic:
    There are good data from Icelandic records going back to 1600, and they show

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm

    a remarkable ‘wiggle match’ with both solar and N. Atlantic SST for the last 130 years.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    Nonsense repeated is still nonsense.

    My ‘nonsense’ is only surpassed by the nonsense of those who think they talk sense.

  106. vukcevic says:
    June 8, 2013 at 8:48 am
    My ‘nonsense’ …
    You can safely leave the quotation marks. It is nonsense to claim that tectonic forces in Iceland cause solar activity 6 years later.

  107. L.S. It is nonsense to claim that tectonic forces in Iceland cause solar activity 6 years later.

    Misleaders mastering misinterpretations.
    Solar activity and the tectonic forces in Iceland are synchronous; it is the N. Atlantic SST that is 6-7 years out of phase

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm

    It is delayed due to ocean currents flow, Subpolar gyre -SPG, the home of AMO and distributor of heat across North Atlantic has an assumed internal time constant of similar magnitude
    http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~born/publications/spg_ipsl.pdf page 17

  108. Pamela Gray says:
    June 8, 2013 at 8:12 am
    Leif! Ouch. That will leave a mark on NASA’s backside.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 8, 2013 at 8:13 am
    ‘That’ what?

    “No need to watch the dumbed down version.”

  109. lsvalgaard says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:52 pm
    William Astley says:
    June 7, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    The current observed cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.
    Most reasonable researchers would say that the LIA was global… so wet weather is global?

    William:
    The Little Ice age was global in that it affected both hemispheres. There was regional cooling in the LIA however not global cooling. The fact that there is regional warming and cooling supports that assertion that the cause of the regional warming and cooling has not TSI changes but rather solar magnetic cycle changes that modulate planetary clouds. (i.e. The mechanism must explain the regional limitation of the observation, the fact that warming is cyclical, and the fact that it affects both hemispheres simultaneously.)

    Each of the above observational eliminates other hypotheses for explaining what has happened. Ocean current changes cannot affect both hemispheres simultaneously and cannot cool and warm both hemispheres simultaneously. TSI changes cannot explain what is observed as the warming and cooling is regional both hemisphere. There are cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate again and again with what is observed.

    The LIA cooling more or less is a reversal of the warming in the same regions of that planet that experienced warming during the Medieval Warm period.

    The fact that the warming and cooling is regional and is cyclical and that it correlates to solar magnetic cycle changes provides smoking gun evidence that the sun is causing what is observed. Don Easterbrook in this forum provided a summary of the extraordinarily rapid and unimaginably strong Heinrich type abrupt climate change events. The physical explanation for the Heinrich events is the same as the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, the only difference is the magnitude of the solar change. There is a physical explanation for abrupt termination of both the glacial period and the interglacial period. The end of the glacial and interglacial cycle is abrupt not gradual.

    The mechanisms that cause cyclic warming and cooling and abrupt super warming and super cooling are a variation of the Svensmark and Tinsley modulation of planetary cloud cover (low level clouds and high level cirrus clouds). The inhibiting of the cloud modulation mechanism was caused by the current abrupt change to the sun.

    I have solved how the sun caused what is observed current and past. There are fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect. As I have noted I have looked at astrophysical anomalies and have found a pattern. There are specialists in astrophysics that have developed a mechanism that is on the same line as what I am proposing for the sun.

    As there is now observational evidence of cooling (it appears we will have 1970’s cooling in the next couple of years, certainly before the US 2016 election) and there is now observational evidence that there will be an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle (it appears the sun will be spotless in roughly a year). I will provide a full explanation of the warming that has been observed in the last 20 years, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, and what to expect next, when there is public announcements concerning the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle and cooling.

  110. lsvalgaard says:
    “So fewer and fewer clouds along with a less active sun…”

    Cloud amounts in the mid latitudes (developed countries) are dominated by the jet stream position, and a less active Sun (slow plasma, dearth of coronal holes etc) leads to negative AO/NAO conditions and a more southerly jet track giving increased cloud cover. Globally, a less active Sun lowers the cloud base and increases low level cloud amounts at the expense of mid level clouds.
    Activity was reasonably high from 1999 to 2007: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg

  111. vukcevic says:
    June 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
    Solar activity and the tectonic forces in Iceland are synchronous
    In http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm the ‘geological record’ is moved forward half a solar cycle for best fit, thus precedes solar activity by half a cycle.

    William Astley says:
    June 8, 2013 at 9:47 am
    I have solved how the sun caused what is observed current and past. There are fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect.
    This explains why you are resistant to learning.

    I will provide a full explanation of the warming that has been observed in the last 20 years, what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, and what to expect next, when there is public announcements concerning the interruption to the solar magnetic cycle and cooling.
    Since you have never explained what an ‘interruption’ is, don’t expect any such announcements, so your secret is safe.

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 8, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Globally, a less active Sun lowers the cloud base and increases low level cloud amounts at the expense of mid level clouds.
    The opposite of what is observed…

  112. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 8, 2013 at 10:08 am
    a less active Sun (slow plasma, dearth of coronal holes etc)
    Generally the solar wind plasma is slowest and the coronal holes less prominent at high solar activity. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png showing that the pressure of the solar wind is at minimum near solar max. High solar wind speed and large coronal holes occur during declining solar activity just before solar minimum. You can see that clearly in the Sargent Recurrence Index which measures the prevalence of coronal holes http://www.leif.org/research/Sargent-Recurrence-Index.png

  113. Leif Svalgaard says:
    In http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/STNA.htm the ‘geological record’ is moved forward half a solar cycle for best fit, thus precedes solar activity by half a cycle.

    You are again misinterpreting.
    For best fit the SST not SSN !
    In here

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S-T.htm

    SSN and NAP are in real time and well matched from 1880 to 2012.
    However here NAP is moved forward by 6 years

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

    in order to compare to the SST, now concurrence with SSN is less apparent, but since it is an integrated signal there is a still high degree of correlation but not as good as S-T link .

  114. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The opposite of what is observed…”

    That’s because you’re going by TSI only.

  115. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Generally the solar wind plasma is slowest and the coronal holes less prominent at high solar activity [...] showing that the pressure of the solar wind is at minimum near solar max.”

    You switched from speed to pressure there, and I can see that it is slowest from a year or so after minima, right where the big Nino’s are: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg

  116. vukcevic says:
    June 8, 2013 at 11:09 am
    For best fit the SST not SSN !
    As I said, your wiggle matching is nonsense.

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 8, 2013 at 11:25 am
    You switched from speed to pressure there, and I can see that it is slowest from a year or so after minima, right where the big Nino’s are: http://snag.gy/ZsI8G.jpg
    as is clear from your graph, flow speed is lowest near solar maximum [which is also clear from the physics of the solar wind - there are more closed field lines at maximum].

  117. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 8, 2013 at 11:37 am
    As I said, your wiggle matching is nonsense.

    Since all your other attempts have failed. See you next time.

  118. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “as is clear from your graph, flow speed is lowest near solar maximum”

    1997/8 and 2009/10 are just after minimum which is the usual low point:

  119. lsvalgaard says:
    June 7, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    Carla says:
    June 7, 2013 at 9:52 pm
    You didn’t watch the NASA conference yet did you?

    No, because the findings are known to researchers in the field. No need to watch the dumbed down version.

    Just a casual stamp collector here. Casual observers learn from reading, visuals and discussions like that conference.

    What is the current rank of gov’t spending on the Space programs. I had heard at one time that it ranked 3rd. Of course it is behind the spending of the Military. So it is important these little visuals we get from NASA to help us understand what is going on in our local section of the galaxy.

    Some of the earlier research on the local interstellar clouds were indicating a Micro Interstellar Cloud (MIC) separating the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) (where we reside in but are near the edge of) from the neighboring cloud called G cloud. Because the MIC cloud was between two larger clouds they thought that it might be filamentary and turbulent. The Voyager 1 recently discovered that there is a huge intensely strong magnetic highway or magnetic convergence region. Based on how many times Voyager 1 flopped in and out of this region may be indication of a turbulent filamentary region associated with the convergence of LIC and G clouds in this region of the inner arm.

    Not done here yet could be some “Holy Grail,” coming from a university in Wisconsin.

  120. From vukcevic on June 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm:

    I read almost all of your papers and many of the links, but I do learn from what I see in the data:

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

    If you were not so trivializing and dismissive you could learn something new too, from the link above.

    First graph, I see a sine wave added to something else, added to a slope line. I do not know where this compound sine wave comes from, although the coloration tells me it is somehow “Natural Variation”.

    There is an inset graph, “Future is ‘cool’”. It looks like a mirror image. The previous amplitude sequences had small-medium, small-medium. You mirror it, straight line is negative as shown, and pattern would be medium-small, as shown. No explanation why it should go negative, and that pattern should flip.

    Huh? Main graph is absolute °C on Y-axis, “Future” is anomaly of unknown base.

    At second graph, I find out the CET record, starting circa 1660 and having a positive trend to the linear fit to current times, has a natural drop starting in 2006, so that’s why that trend line went negative. After three and a half centuries, suddenly based on six years data it’s been determined the CET has a long natural drop coming, that’ll last longer than 140 years by the length of that plotted trend line.

    350 years later, 6 years says it’ll flip over to long-term cooling. Okay…

    Natural variability function is a simple equation directly derived from the CET data, in the long term it is trend-less, the function is directly added to the CET 350 year long trend of 0.250 C/ century.

    You derive from CET, so the resulting equation theoretically describes CET, then you add the equation back to CET, reinforcing the description on the CET.

    Much like taking the linear fit of some data, merging the line to the data. And marveling at how well the “improved” data resembles a linear fit?

    Third graph. That compound sine is “CET syntesis from its 3 harmonic components”.

    It’s synthesis, syn + thesis.

    Somewhere you must have decided the CET was frequency-based, as you have found harmonics.

    Wait, you’ve actually been using a ‘CET synthesis’ instead of the real CET, from which you derived the “natural variability” equation, which gets added back into this ‘CET synthesis’ to yield that compound sine “Natural Variability” in the first graph?

    Too much unexplained. Cooling trend will be 1/2 the warming trend, based on only 6 years data? Questionable derivations with too much “self reinforcement”. Etc.

    Besides, the ranges of values around your “great fits”, makes me feel you were asked what is 1+1, you responded with 1.7 +.6/-.3, thus both 2.2 and 1.5 can equal 1+1.

    At this point, I have pushed onward into your page half-again as deep as did before I declared it nonsense, just in case it redeemed itself later.

    And came across your special “North Atlantic Geological Records” (NA Precursor) again. You know, it looks like you traced a city skyline on the left 1650-1860, many block shapes, then finished with the woods next to it, many little zigzags and curves. Why has the nature of the data changed so dramatically?

  121. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 8, 2013 at 12:16 pm
    1997/8 and 2009/10 are just after minimum which is the usual low point
    And 1970 and 1980 are the usual low points right at maximum. The fact is that coronal holes and high-speed solar wind [which presumably are when any effects are] usually occur just before solar minimum, c.f. the Recurrence Index. The flow pressure [which must be one of the determining factors] is lowest at solar maximum.

    vukcevic says:
    June 8, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    I read almost all of your papers and many of the links
    but learn almost nothing from them as you say:
    but I do learn from what I see in the data
    No, you misinterpret what you see and don’t learn from the data. Learning is acquiring knowledge from well-established, sound principles.

    If you were not so trivializing and dismissive you could learn something new too, from the link above.
    What you claim is trivial, unfounded, and unsound, often even against the laws of physics. Such things are naturally dismissed.

  122. MattG @ here

    I don’t know where the data for your chart comes from, but I am going from the study that is the topic of this post. The researchers have said that the data pre-1994 is unreliable. From their viewable charts of the data, there is a 3w/m2 increase in global solar radiation from 1994 to 2010. Assuming, as the researchers indicate, that their local results are reflected globally, and that there has been little to no surface/tropospheric warming from about 1996, then does this suggest that solar influence on surface/tropspheric temperatures is insignificant?

  123. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 8, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    ………………
    It is simple as it can get, you read too much into it..
    First graph is an ‘abstract’ of what is to follow.

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

    Spectrum analysis identified 3 primary periods shorter than 100 years, anything longer (which appears to be there) may or may not be in the data, but also inherent result of the analysis.
    Combination of the above frequencies (with the longest period less than 100 years) for a time span of 3-400 years gives as result a trend-less ‘wiggle’, but since the CET has 0.25C/century rising trend; this rising trend is added to the trend-less spectral reconstruction.
    Why is this done?
    To be able to extrapolate few decades in the future. The 0.25C/century rising trend is incorporated in the equation for the total length of the extrapolation, and despite it the shorter likely ‘future CET trend’ does reverse, as shown in the inset and in the graph 2.

    I shall leave rest for another occasion, since any post longer than 3-4 paragraphs are often ignored.

  124. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “And 1970 and 1980 are the usual low points right at maximum. The fact is that coronal holes and high-speed solar wind [which presumably are when any effects are] usually occur just before solar minimum, c.f. the Recurrence Index. The flow pressure [which must be one of the determining factors] is lowest at solar maximum.”

    Again, I was talking about velocity not pressure, and many more cycles have the lowest speeds just after minimum as can be seen by the Ap index.

  125. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:26 am
    Again, I was talking about velocity not pressure, and many more cycles have the lowest speeds just after minimum as can be seen by the Ap index.
    The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity. The pressure is what compresses our magnetosphere and is therefore the important agent in the interaction between the solar wind and the earth.

  126. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 12:56 am
    Combination of the above frequencies (with the longest period less than 100 years) for a time span of 3-400 years gives as result a trend-less ‘wiggle’, but since the CET has 0.25C/century rising trend; this rising trend is added to the trend-less spectral reconstruction.

    it should be:
    Combination of the above frequencies (with the longest period less than 100 years) for a time span of 3-400 years gives as result a trend-less ‘wiggle’, but since the CET has 0.25C/century rising trend (which is not result of the such combination of frequencies, and is due to some other factor such as solar, CO2, tectonic, etc), this rising trend is added to the trend-less spectral reconstruction.

  127. barry says:
    June 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    The data is from the ISCCP.

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/index.html

    I don’t agree with the conclusion that any global cloud data is unreliable pre 1994 (it it still very useful), it still covers most of the planet with about 6 percent missing. This conclusion is only based on the bias for not liking what is seen. It is the same bias why some rather use a much inferior surface temperature record to satellite data. if this data is unreliable what word could describe the much poorly represented surface temeprature data. Around 1999 a 4 percent gap missing in the satellite data was replaced with newer technoogy observing the region. Hence, it is unreliable pre 2000 if you are going to include the data pre 1994 to 1983 as unreliable. (that is because the data is generally the same until 1999)

    The global satellite data doesn’t support this conclusion for the Spain solar radiation data and neither does the UK sunshine data..

    “1994 to 2010 is a period in which surface/tropospheric temps appeared to have stalled or risen very little while solar radiation has increased due to fewer clouds.”

    (this awful software won’t let me type any more directly)

    More accurately surface temperatures significantly increased form 1980 until 1998, while solar radiation increased due to fewer clouds. This stabalized after 2000 for both solar radiation reaching the surface and global temperatures. This is supported with sunshine levels in different countries too.

  128. Leif,
    I can not agree with that statement from the link you provided in a response above.

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp?MR=1

    The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases.

    This is purely a Hypothetical (Get out of jail free card) assumption from those who have been proven wrong when they claimed have claimed for over 25 years (most of my existence) that anthropogenic CO2 would cause the Warming, now their so-called “mechanism” causes Ozone depletion and cooling that overrides the “warming”, I read what you also said to Stephen Wilde; that he did not have a “mechanism” with low solar activity having any effect.

    Is it not suspicious sounding at all to you if after the fact, Anthropogenic CO2 models failed, there is now a switch to Ozone depletion and Anthropogenic CFCs as a new “mechanism” to explain away the failure? That’s called “a slight of hand” scientist or not.

    I have also said that it is my opinion that successive weak solar cycles do appear to effect temperatures around the Earth and not just on earth but on other planets too. As hand waving “mechanisms” go the Colossal natural factors will trump anthropogenic fantasies about trace gases every time.

    Talking about trace gases!! Is it a major kink in the “green house effect” when it comes to planetary temperature, which it is always claimed by “climate scientists” that all planets emit more energy than the amount of solar energy absorbed? Because this claim is untrue, Uranus emits less energy than the amount of solar energy it absorbs. So, there are factors not yet understood and never discussed by the school of ‘anthropogenic climatology’, I suspect when they get wind of this we should expect paper after paper on how clouds of methane and traces of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere have a “Green House Dampening Effect” on Uranus.

  129. Sparks says:
    June 9, 2013 at 8:02 am
    I can not agree with that statement from the link you provided in a response above.

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp?MR=1

    The link showed data. The verbiage one could agree/disagree with according to one’s bias [which will then show for all to see], but that was not the point. The data was.

    Because this claim is untrue, Uranus emits less energy than the amount of solar energy it absorbs
    How do you know? and BTW, Uranus lies on ‘its side’. At times we are looking at its south pole [don't remember which, but that doesn't matter]. If someone was looking at the Earth’s south pole, they might also say that it emits less energy [being cold] than the Earth gets from the sun. Anyway, because of the axis tilt, Uranus’s weather and climate show extreme seasonal variations of which we have only the poorest of observations.

  130. Leif Svalgaard says:

    June 9, 2013 at 8:25 am
    ..Uranus’s weather and climate show extreme seasonal variations of which we have only the poorest of observations…

    New Horizons is headed for Pluto and should be revealing some new information.
    November 28, 2012
    Halfway Between Uranus and Neptune, New Horizons Cruises On
    Today the New Horizons spacecraft passed the halfway point between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, zooming past another milepost on its historic trek to the planetary frontier

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html

    Interstellar..IceCube..information overload..
    But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region.
    Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess, reconnection occurs inn heliotail.
    Why some of the difference in polar regions climate change.

    get your laundry done ok

  131. Leif you bring up an important point about observation. One of the purest forms of observation is simply to draw what you see in close detail, no bias, no assumptions. Wildlife artists demonstrate this most basic and purest form of scientific observation. We would all be improved by remembering how to observe, and then do it again, and again. Too many self-named “climate scientists” seem too eager to get to the other stages of the scientific method, believing that there is nothing more to observe and why bother, it isn’t important to their results anyway.

    Our own Bob Tisdale demonstrates how to observe. I would bet he is near the top of the few who have spent untold hours simply observing and describing ocean heat moving around our globe.

    If we fail in this first and supremely important scientific step, we end up saying something profoundly stupid about Uranus because we failed to notice we were looking at the butt end.

  132. Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
    But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region. Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess, reconnection occurs in heliotail.
    There is no such variation. There is a very small variation [fraction of a percent] related to the heliographic latitude of the Earth and controlled by the polarity of the solar polar fields [thus regulated from the 'inside' of the heliosphere]

    Why some of the difference in polar regions climate change.
    So, no difference is to be expected [nor observed].

  133. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 8:25 am

    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp?MR=1

    “The link showed data. The verbiage one could agree/disagree with according to one’s bias [which will then show for all to see], but that was not the point. The data was.”

    I accept that your point was about the data, But, In this case, do you agree with the accompanied verbiage?

    If someone was looking at the Earth’s south pole, they might also say that it emits less energy [being cold] than the Earth gets from the sun.

    Can we? oh, and I thought climate scientists were claiming that the green house effect was global, it seems that the data is dependent on the orientation of the satellite instruments or the planet itself. So, we could look at Jupiters poles and discover that it is also cooler and produces less energy than it absorbs or any other planet and moon for that matter.
    Also, can you elaborate on how the weather and climate show extreme seasonal variations caused by the tilt of Uranus without showing any apparent Green house effect?.

    Something fishy is going on, and I don’t accept “Lack of data” as an excuse, In that case I’ll throw out every paper written on the subject. If there is a lack of data why is there so much written and being claimed?

    (I hope I don’t come across as sounding too sarcastic or bemused about this subject, as I am genuinely very interested and have been studying it.)

  134. Sparks says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:42 am
    I accept that your point was about the data, But, In this case, do you agree with the accompanied verbiage?
    There is no doubt that greenhouse gases cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower. The question is ‘how much’? and that is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated.

    Also, can you elaborate on how the weather and climate show extreme seasonal variations caused by the tilt of Uranus without showing any apparent Green house effect
    We simply do not enough data to answer that question, as the ‘year’ on Uranus is very long [84 years].

    If there is a lack of data why is there so much written and being claimed?
    much of what is claimed is by people that have an agenda and is therefore not reliable. As far as I know the data isn’t there.

    Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
    But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region. Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess
    The annual variation [12 months repeated in right-hand side] of the Neutron Monitor Counts at Thule [near geomagnetic pole] 1958-2008 http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Ray-Annual-Variation-Thule.png
    The lower panel shows the variation with the right perspective [relative to zero counts].

  135. Leif Svalgaard says to vukcevic
    No, you misinterpret what you see and don’t learn from the data. Learning is acquiring knowledge from well-established, sound principles.
    What you claim is trivial, unfounded, and unsound, often even against the laws of physics. Such things are naturally dismissed.

    Get cartload of firewood and get rid of the heretic (person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma).

  136. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:17 am
    Get cartload of firewood and get rid of the heretic (person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma).
    Your opinion is not controversial, just wrong and is not worth wasting firewood on.

  137. Pamela Gray says:

    June 9, 2013 at 9:31 am
    If we fail in this first and supremely important scientific step, we end up saying something profoundly stupid about Uranus because we failed to notice we were looking at the butt end.

    Try this out Pamela. Why are the solar systems, planetary dipoles laid out the way they are? Like Leif said Uranus is laying on its side or so that is our perception from our vantage point.
    But.. the solar dipole cycles.
    Earths north pole Negative.
    Jupiter and Saturn north pole Positive.
    Uranus and Neptune north pole Negative.
    So it goes outward negative, positive, negative. All the planets are interacting with their system as they orbit from upwind to downwind around their sun. Earth in particular is unique in its orbit due to proximity with its sun. We have the good fortune of orbiting through a halo on our upwind, downwind swing. 75% water. give or take

  138. Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:22 am
    Earth in particular is unique in its orbit due to proximity with its sun. We have the good fortune of orbiting through a halo on our upwind, downwind swing. 75% water. give or take
    There is no upwind/downwind difference.

  139. Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
    But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region. Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess
    Colleagues of mine long ago used a diurnal variation to infer the direction of the Galactic Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA074i016p04157.pdf

  140. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:20 am
    Your opinion is not controversial, just wrong

    Hi doc
    Look at this: Ob and Yenisey are two largest sources of the Arctic’s fresh water inflow, discharging ~32,000 m3/sec of fresh water in the Arctic Ocean. Some 12 years later portion of these waters will pass through the Denmark Strait with the East Greenland Current, one of the main contributors to the sub-polar gyre -SPG, affecting salinity and thermo-haline circulation. The SPG is the home of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscilation and the AMO.
    And what I see in the data is the direct correlation of the AMO (generated by the SPG) with geomagnetic changes 12 years earlier, at the delta of the two great Siberian rivers 6,000km away.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm

    Further away the correlation progressively weakens.
    Just result of observations.

    Is this against the laws of physics as you understood it or just plain coincidence lasting whole of 170 years decade by decade?
    I can email you raw data.

  141. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:43 am
    And what I see in the data is the direct correlation of the AMO (generated by the SPG) with geomagnetic changes 12 years earlier, at the delta of the two great Siberian rivers 6,000km away.
    There are umpty thousand such spurious correlations, but correlations are not causations. And no knowledge can be derived from them, unless a plausible physical mechanism can be extracted from the data.

  142. There are umpty thousand such spurious correlations,

    Wrong.
    I scanned all of N. Hemisphere in bocks of 10×10 degrees latitude-longitude (in 9 sweeps, each sweep does 360 degrees in steps of 10) and there isn’t another one.
    How do you know that is spurious?
    And it just has to happen at the confluence of large volumes of salty water, electrically highly conductive and fresh water, far less conductive.
    So you opt out for coincidence lasting for 15 decades?

  143. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:25 am

    Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:22 am

    There is no upwind/downwind difference.

    You might want to have a look at figures 1 and 2 especially 2.. A coincidence in this is that it bears a striking resemblance to our now famous IBEX ribbon. The location the magnetic equator has my curiosity.
    ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
    P. Desiati
    Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center (WIPAC)
    Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    A. Lazarian
    Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison,

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075.pdf

    Here is a link to the slide presentation for the above.

    http://www.nucleares.unam.mx/mfu4/Talks/Desiati.pdf

    You might want to more closely examine the next article Dr. Svalgaard, the Parker/Sweet model looks a bit turbulent in the tail region. Turbulence is becoming noisy and pesky.

    Cosmic rays and stochastic magnetic reconnection in the heliotail
    P. Desiati1,2 and A. Lazarian2
    1Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
    2Dept. of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin

    http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/19/351/2012/npg-19-351-2012.pdf

  144. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 11:08 am
    “There are umpty thousand spurious correlations
    perhaps you over-interpreted the word ‘such’…

    I scanned all of N. Hemisphere in blocks of 10×10 degrees latitude-longitude (in 9 sweeps, each sweep does 360 degrees in steps of 10) and there isn’t another one.
    thus looking for one…

    And it just has to happen at the confluence of large volumes of salty water, electrically highly conductive and fresh water, far less conductive.
    And so? the magnetic effects of such are extremely small. No viable mechanism there. And no explanation for the strange multi-year lag.

    So you opt out for coincidence lasting for 15 decades?
    The data is not reliable so far back. The mark of a spurious correlation is one that ‘works’ even with poor data [sometimes even better].

  145. Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 11:17 am
    The location the magnetic equator has my curiosity.
    ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES

    You have no sense of proportions. That presentation was for extremely rare TeraVolt cosmic rays which are many thousands of times more energetic than the ordinary cosmic rays and are not modulated at all by solar activity.

  146. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:16 am

    There is no doubt that greenhouse gases cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower. The question is ‘how much’? and that is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated.

    Therefor the accompanied verbiage which clearly states “The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases.”
    Is nothing but complete nonsense and they can not attribute a human mechanism to the data.

    Surly, to make such an extraordinary statement like this you would disagree with their use of this data in this way? especially as it is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated. No mechanism has been shown.

    Basically what these people playing scientist are saying is; the fluctuations that the data shows is as a matter of fact, the interactions between human-emitted CFC’s and human-emitted CO2, if it’s Warming it’s human CO2 and if it’s cooling it’s human CFC’s.

    So what they have claimed to have found in the data is a new kind of artificial system that has all the understood behaviors of a Natural system.

    Ah… Life! Ah… finds away! /jk

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 10:16 am

    “There is no doubt that greenhouse gases cool the upper atmosphere and warm the lower. The question is ‘how much’? and that is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated.”

    Therefor the accompanied verbiage which clearly states “The main reason for the recent stratospheric cooling is due to the destruction of ozone by human-emitted CFC gases.”
    Is nothing but complete nonsense and they can not attribute a human mechanism to the data.

    Surly, to make such an extraordinary statement like this you would disagree with their use of this data in this way? especially as it is still not fully understood, nor demonstrated. No mechanism has been shown.

    Basically what these people playing scientist are saying is; the fluctuations that the data shows is as a matter of fact, the interactions between human-emitted CFC’s and human-emitted CO2, if it’s Warming it’s human CO2 and if it’s cooling it’s human CFC’s.

    So what they have claimed to have found in the data is a new kind of artificial system that has all the understood behaviors of a Natural system.

    Ah… Life! Ah… finds away! /jk

  148. Dr. Svalgaard: “The data is not reliable so far back. The mark of a spurious correlation is one that ‘works’ even with poor data [sometimes even better].”

    Wrong again ?
    I marked on the graph

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm

    the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious, prior and after, pre Gauss resolution of the data is too low to establish correlation..
    You also use Woolf’s magnetic data from the same period, for correcting the sunspot number, and you do not say that data is not reliable, but anyway there is a good correlation since 1900.
    What I am suggesting is that geomagnetic storms electric currents induction at confluence of the salty (conductive) and fresh (less conductive) waters in some way affects mixing, changing salinity and consequently is reflected in the degree of icing-up (which could be reflected in the atmospheric pressure over Arctic), or even the imprint is carried all the way from Arctic into the North Atlantic.
    Hence there is same delay between atmospheric pressure and the AMO.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-NAO.htm

    This means that the change is the atmosphere is nearly immediate, while ocean currents take much longer time.
    No coincidence, it is a natural process taking place, which you as a scientist of repute are wrong to dismiss as
    you misinterpret what you see and don’t learn from the data. What you claim is trivial, unfounded, and unsound, often even against the laws of physics.

  149. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
    the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious, prior and after, pre Gauss resolution of the data is too low to establish correlation..
    There were no observations in the Yamal region that far back, so Gauss is irrelevant.
    Your ‘mechanism’ is not viable as we have discussed at length elsewhere.
    which you as a scientist of repute are wrong to dismiss
    Scientists evaluate claims from their store of knowledge and understanding of how nature works and I find your stuff wanting and hence dismissable.

  150. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
    What I am suggesting is that geomagnetic storms electric currents induction …
    To get a second opinion write up what you think you have and submit it to reputable scientific journal, or if you think is it truly revolutionary submit it the Nature or Science magazines.

  151. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    As you well know data is from A. Jackson’s gumf1 data base, which is world wide accepted, and you once described as ‘the best there is’. And as confirmation there is atmospheric pressure measured accurately in Reykjavik for more than 150 years.
    So data is no god when it contradicts you view:
    As in the Antarctic geomagnetic magnetic field and solar activity

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

    data must be wrong even when fully correlates with your own work
    as in the Arctic, must be wrong since it matches solar activity

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

    as in the Loehle’s reconstruction, you often quote as the temperature reference

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

    Time to reconsider ?

  152. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 11:59 am
    the year when Gauss introduced magneto-graph, and the difference is obvious,
    As an example of your wrong-headed ‘analysis’, you talk about the effect of geomagnetic storms [which is a worldwide effect] and what looks like [because you don't say what it is] the secular variation of the field in the Yamal Region [70N, 70E]. The secular variation is internal to the Earth and is due to processes in the core and has nothing to do with geomagnetic storms.

  153. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    Time to reconsider ?
    no, because you correlate oranges and apples. Now, if I am completely wrong and you are correct, I must be incompetent and unable to recognize good science when I see it. That is, in effect, what you are saying. I am, however capable of recognizing bad ‘science’ when I see it, and yours certainly qualifies, or rather, since it is not science at all, Pauli’s saying ‘that it is not even wrong’ applies.

  154. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm
    It is not just one or the other exclusively, solar or the Earth’s core, it is cross-modulation of two at the receptor.
    You are regressing back into nonsense…

  155. It is not consensus but contradictions that move science forward.
    You do it your way as academia stipulates, and I value results of it.
    I do it my way, you don’t see or don’t wish to see any value in it, that is your choice and it is fine with me.

  156. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    It is not consensus but contradictions that move science forward.
    It are valid contradictions that move science forward, not amateurish nonsense, no matter how entertaining. And I am concerned with your dilution of the value of WUWT. I often am met with the question why I bother frequenting a blog that harbours cranks and the like.

  157. Leif Svalgaard says:

    June 9, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 9:22 am
    But here goes..Southern hemisphere winter, earths orbit on heliosphere upwind side, GCR deficit region. Northern hemisphere winter, earths orbit heliosphere downwind side, GCR excess
    Colleagues of mine long ago used a diurnal variation to infer the direction of the Galactic Magnetic Field: http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA074i016p04157.pdf

    Thanks for the link Dr. S. Figures 2a and 2b from your link are comparable to the figure 2, I directed your attention too.

  158. Carla says:
    June 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    Thanks for the link Dr. S. Figures 2a and 2b from your link are comparable to the figure 2, I directed your attention too.
    Yes, it seems that we back then had a pretty good idea about what to expect.

  159. Leif Svalgaard says:

    June 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    “I often am met with the question why I bother frequenting a blog that harbours cranks and the like.”
    =============
    Don’t encourage us Leif, we’ve only just begun :)

  160. u.k(us) says:
    June 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    Don’t encourage us Leif, we’ve only just begun :)
    You have not yet reached the lofty heights of some others here.

  161. Leif Svalgaard says:

    June 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm
    ===========
    I know when to back off, and wait for the explanation.
    I also know when there won’t be one.
    Great fun.

  162. To answer some of ‘constructive criticism’ above and in order to clarify the method used, I have added the Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s graph from recent WUWT post, which does employ the same principle.
    I used 3 principal components to create multi-decadal variability, enabling me to produce more detailed future trends, this time in the CET, but it is worth noting that the instrumental record for global temperature has similar trend.

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

  163. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”

    Yet the Ap minima match the velocity well:

    “The pressure is what compresses our magnetosphere and is therefore the important agent in the interaction between the solar wind and the earth.”

    Velocity is proportional to temperature, which is the important factor.

  164. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”

    Did you not reconstruct the velocity from the geomagnetic record here?:

  165. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 10, 2013 at 5:43 am
    “The Ap index is a composite of speed and magnetic field strength and the mimina in Ap are mainly caused by minima in the magnetic field, not in velocity.”

    Yet the Ap minima match the velocity well
    Because the velocity of sometimes low when the magnetic field is low. The dominant factor is the magnetic field.

    Velocity is proportional to temperature, which is the important factor.
    No, the temperature has really no effect on the earth. The flow pressure and the magnetic field determine the effects on the Earth.

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:08 am
    Did you not reconstruct the velocity from the geomagnetic record here?
    Yes, by first removing the dominant effect of the magnetic field [determined from the IDV index], the small residual has a dependence on the solar wind speed. Again: the dominant factors are the field and the pressure.

  166. Leif,
    We’re all cranks huh? :)

    Actually, it may seem like that sometimes, but I think it’s a case of; when people know all there is to know about a subject, they like to explore it a bit further and move into unknown territory, If you were to ask me any textbook question about the sun for example, I could give you the correct textbook answer, I could even quote Wikipedia until the cows come home, personally for me It gets boring, there’s no challenge and no mystery when there’s nothing new to learn. The other point is; if every commenter of this blog agreed with everything you say and quoted directly from the great work you have done, would you become board? I think you wouldn’t even reply and eventually stop commenting here altogether. I enjoy hearing all the different views, the advanced overly complex explanations of simple processes makes my day, I do take scientific subjects seriously and I’m not being condescending but sometimes you do have to have a laugh!

    The most annoying occurrence I’ve noticed on blogs is when two or more stubbornly arrogant personalities clash, two or more intelligent people battling it out to the death over mildly trivial issues like spoiled brats is hilarious, but also can be annoying.

  167. Sparks says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:15 am
    We’re all cranks huh? :)
    No, there are only a handful of those. They show up every time and peddle their nonsense ad nauseam.

    Actually, it may seem like that sometimes, but I think it’s a case of; when people know all there is to know about a subject, they like to explore it a bit further and move into unknown territory.
    Our resident cranks do not know much about their subjects [although they claim so], and about moving into unknown territory there are well-worn and correct ways of doing that. Al Gore supposedly once said “when you don’t know anything, everything is possible”. This seems also to be the credo of our cranks [we all know who they are - perhaps with the exception of themselves].

  168. I read that the Sun’s core is 27 times the diameter of Earth. I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out? or is it just considered to be this size. an internet search and cross checking in some books I own is producing different values. should I just average these values and use that? lol

  169. Sparks says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    I read that the Sun’s core is 27 times the diameter of Earth. I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out?
    since you have not specified what you mean by the sun’s ‘core’ it is a bit hard to formulate a meaningful answer. But, I’ll assume you mean the volume of the sun where energy generation by fusion of hydrogen to helium takes place. If so, I can be specific: a good number for the radius of the core is 20% of the solar radius or 22 earth radii. Of course, the boundary is not infinitely sharp so the ‘radius’ is somewhat fuzzy.

  170. Sparks says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    I was just wondering where this figure came from, is the size of the suns core worked out?
    We have very accurate models of the sun’s interior and can calculate e.g. the temperature. Where the temperature is high enough fusion sets in. The fusion process is extremely gentle. The rate at which energy is generated is so low that it would take several weeks to bring an ordinary tea kettle of water to a boil.

  171. “””””….._Jim says:

    June 7, 2013 at 6:16 am

    george e. smith says June 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    If those clouds get warmed by LWIR from the surface, they will simply radiate to space even faster.


    I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. They can’t transport “heat energy” back to the surface; they can only lose it to space.

    Do you have anything more than your conjecture to support this?

    Temps aren’t all that warm ‘at altitude’ so the radiative efficiency isn’t going to be ALL that great … [some] satellite images, or sounder imagery/data ought to exist to support this……”””””

    “””””…..I have no idea how clouds could produce a positive feedback. …..”””””

    That isn’t a conjecture; it’s a simple statement of fact “I have no idea.” I would welcome YOUR ideas , on how “clouds might transport heat energy back to the surface.”

    As you know, in the atmosphere “heat energy” consists of the random kinetic energies of gazillions of air molecules in constant collision with each other. Because of the natural altitude-Temperature lapse rate, the clouds are cooler than the surface. The second law implies that of its own accord, heat energy can only move from warmer to cooler Temperature locations. That would be upward to space; not downward toward the surface. That leaves EM radiation as a mechanism for energy to move from the clouds to somewhere else. That energy would consist of the specific resonance emission frequencies of the various infra-red active components of the atmosphere, i.e. the GHGs; plus the thermal radiation emitted by ALL bodies hotter than zero Kelvins, including the non-IR active gases. That of course is NOT black body radiation, since the atmosphere is not a black body (nothing is).

    Now any EM emission from the clouds, is inherently isotropic in angular distribution, so half will go up towards space, and half down towards the surface. So that is certainly downward energy transport; it is NOT heat energy transport.

    When that reaches the surface 70% of it is going to encounter water, and be absorbed in the top 10-50 microns of the water surface. That is likely to result in enhanced evaporation, rather than convective or conductive transport to the ocean depths; the evaporation keeps the surface Temperature lower than the underlying layers, preventing downward heat energy flow.

    As for air Temperatures at altitude; warmer radiates faster than colder, no matter what the absolute Temperatures are.

    We are told that surface emitted LWIR radiation, warms the atmosphere (above what it otherwise would be}. So does incoming solar radiation that is absorbed by GHG such as H2O, O3, and CO2. That warmer atmosphere will radiate faster, removing energy from earth faster, than if the atmosphere did not warm.

    I have no dispute with the claim that GHGs warm the atmosphere; but that speeds up the cooling to space. Your car’s radiator, is pressurized, so it can rise in temperature without boiling, for the very specific reason, that that gets rid of heat energy faster, thereby cooling your engine better.

    You don’t need satellite imagery to show that warm things cool by radiation faster than cool things. It is the hottest north African and middle eastern deserts, that cool the earth fastest, not the frozen wastes of Greenland or Antarctica. In fact the cool more than ten times faster, than the coolest places on earth.

    I’m quite open to any explanation of how warmer clouds warm the surface (which after all was the very source of the heat energy, and the LWIR that heated the cloud in the first place
    (along with the sun of course))

  172. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “No, the temperature has really no effect on the earth. The flow pressure and the magnetic field determine the effects on the Earth.”

    Determine what effects on the Earth? Velocity/temp variations correlate far better to atmospheric teleconnections and ENSO than the pressure changes do.

  173. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 11, 2013 at 4:41 am
    “No, the temperature has really no effect on the earth. The flow pressure and the magnetic field determine the effects on the Earth.”
    Determine what effects on the Earth? Velocity/temp variations correlate far better to atmospheric teleconnections and ENSO than the pressure changes do.

    Effects happen by the way of transfer of energy. Velocity in itself does not transfer energy to systems on the Earth. The flow pressure is a measure of the kinetic energy of the solar wind and is therefore the agent of interest.

  174. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    a good number for the radius of the core is 20% of the solar radius or 22 earth radii. Of course, the boundary is not infinitely sharp so the ‘radius’ is somewhat fuzzy.

    Thanks Leif, that is the sort of answer I was looking for, I can work with 20% of the solar radius as a good estimate.

    The fusion process is extremely gentle. The rate at which energy is generated is so low that it would take several weeks to bring an ordinary tea kettle of water to a boil.
    Now that’s an interesting factoid I did not know! I’ve read similar tea pot analogies about pressure differences on earth.

    I noticed that the sun is effectively blank again, this is normal for weak solar cycles but this has to effect the count, will it now be weaker than thought? and do you think we are now seeing a decline?

  175. Sparks says:
    June 11, 2013 at 11:07 am
    I noticed that the sun is effectively blank again, this is normal for weak solar cycles but this has to effect the count, will it now be weaker than thought? and do you think we are now seeing a decline?
    My prediction still stands at 70, but the final result will probably be a bit lower because of the Livingston&Penn effect, but it is hard to judge what the trend is, compare with cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

  176. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2013 at 5:48 am
    “Effects happen by the way of transfer of energy. Velocity in itself does not transfer energy to systems on the Earth. The flow pressure is a measure of the kinetic energy of the solar wind and is therefore the agent of interest.”

    So how does a CME cause the thermosphere to heat up and expand? and do coronal hole HSS’s also heat and expand the thermosphere?

  177. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 11, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    So how does a CME cause the thermosphere to heat up and expand? and do coronal hole HSS’s also heat and expand the thermosphere?
    The main cause of the expansion of the thermosphere is ultraviolet light and x-rays from the Sun. Geomagnetic activity contributes to the expansion. The process is powered by solar wind magnetic energy added to and stored in the Earth’s magnetosphere. The magnetotail is unstable and the energy is from time to time released in explosive events that generate electric currents in the thermosphere. These currents help heat the thermosphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

  178. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The main cause of the expansion of the thermosphere is ultraviolet light and x-rays from the Sun. Geomagnetic activity contributes to the expansion. The process is powered by solar wind magnetic energy added to and stored in the Earth’s magnetosphere. The magnetotail is unstable and the energy is from time to time released in explosive events that generate electric currents in the thermosphere. These currents help heat the thermosphere.”

    The spikes correlate to the Ap index spikes, which is well after the x-rays and UV peak from the preceding flares, e.g. the X-flares early March 2012.
    “Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.”:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

  179. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:59 am
    “Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.”:
    Which has nothing to do with solar wind velocity or temperature.

  180. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2013 at 11:11 am

    “My prediction still stands at 70, but the final result will probably be a bit lower because of the Livingston&Penn effect, but it is hard to judge what the trend is, compare with cycle 14:”

    Just out of interest, with your suggestion to use cycle 14 as a comparison, Last night I plotted Jupiters distance from Earth derived from ephemerides DE 102 1875-2040 and added it to the Greenwich monthly sunspot area record 1875-2012, to look at the timing and periodicity between Solar cycle 14 and our current cycle.

    The orbital periodicity between Jupiters distance from Earth and the current cycle 24 does appear to correlate with Cycle 14, I’ve also added a 24 month trend line, and there seems to be an interesting timing relationship. If the timing relationship does exists between the the suns magnetic cycles of activity and the timing of the solar-systems orbiting bodies, possibly as an artifact left over from the formation of the solar-system as the planets and sun both formed together, it should be possible to build a tool from the ephemerides data to help us accurately calculate the start of a solar cycle and the length of it and when it will end.

    As for the modulation of a solar cycle (how active it will be) I have a very interesting resonance model that I’ve been trying to understand better, which has an interesting modulation and equal timing relationship to that of the sunspot record.

    Greenwich monthly sunspot area record 1875-2040. Jupiters distance from Earth derived from ephemerides DE 102. 1

    Greenwich monthly sunspot area record 1875-2040. Jupiters distance from Earth derived from ephemerides DE 102. 2

    Greenwich monthly sunspot number record 1749-2040. Ephemerides DE 102.

  181. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Which has nothing to do with solar wind velocity or temperature.”

    The CME early March 2012 caused the rapid heating of the thermosphere, not UV and x-rays as you claim. Now you’re tying to tell me that this has “nothing to do with solar wind”? Pull the other one it’s got bells on.

  182. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    The CME early March 2012 caused the rapid heating of the thermosphere, not UV and x-rays as you claim.
    The major heating agents are UV and X-rays. Occasionally a CME has a strong magnetic field which causes electric currents in the magnetosphere and thermosphere. This combined with a strong flow pressure [density spike] caused the heating. You can see the evolution of the solar wind around that time here

    http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2012%2c02%2c09

    http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2012%2c03%2c07

    Note how the Kp index at the bottom follows the magnetic field spikes [orange curves]. It is the magnetic field and density spikes that are instrumental in geomagnetic activity and heating the thermosphere over and above what the UV and x-rays do.

  183. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The major heating agents are UV and X-rays. [..] It is the magnetic field and density spikes that are instrumental in geomagnetic activity and heating the thermosphere over and above what the UV and x-rays do.”

    The density spike was on the 7th, yet the main heating event according to SABER was the 10-14th:

    “You might enjoy this very educational link:”

    I did thanks:

    “According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”

    That would be the dearth of coronal holes and slow plasma from late 2008.

    Does the CO2 and NO in the thermosphere have absorption bands for UV and X-rays?

  184. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “A good measure of thermospheric heating is the density at 400 km altitude..”

    So how are these plots created?:

  185. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    The density spike was on the 7th, yet the main heating event according to SABER was the 10-14th
    The were significant magnetic field spikes on the 8th and 12th, and a density spike on the 11th-12th when solar wind speed was low.
    You are really twisting and turning here. You should know that looking at a single cherry-picked event without having a precise quantitative theory helping to interpret the data is next to meaningless.

    “That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
    That would be the dearth of coronal holes and slow plasma from late 2008.

    No, what it means is that the models [dating back to the 1970s] that should account for the difference needs to be revised or recalibrated. You quote very selectively from Emmert, and ignored his poignant comment: “There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing. The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached.”

    Does the CO2 and NO in the thermosphere have absorption bands for UV and X-rays?
    The main absorber is Oxygen.

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    So how are these plots created
    measuring the radiation from those species.

  186. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    yet the main heating event according to SABER was the 10-14th
    Moving the goal posts also helps. According to SABER describing the plot you showed: “For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy…”

  187. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    “That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
    That would be the dearth of coronal holes and slow plasma from late 2008.

    Well, there were not any fewer CMEs than at the previous minimum in 1996-1997.

  188. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “You quote very selectively from Emmert, and ignored his poignant comment:”

    It’s hard to imagine that explaining for the unaccounted 60%.

    “Well, there were not any fewer CMEs than at the previous minimum in 1996-1997.”

    Well the Ap index was much lower in 2008/9 than 1996/7.

  189. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    “You quote very selectively from Emmert, and ignored his poignant comment:”
    It’s hard to imagine that explaining for the unaccounted 60%.

    Just shows how poor the model is. The model takes into account heating both from solar UV and X-ray and from geomagnetic activity.

    “Well, there were not any fewer CMEs than at the previous minimum in 1996-1997.”
    Well the Ap index was much lower in 2008/9 than 1996/7.

    Because the solar wind magnetic field was lower.

    You really has to come off your misconception that the solar wind speed/temperature is the driving force. Try to find something else to correlate with.

  190. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    “That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
    That would be the dearth of coronal holes and slow plasma from late 2008.

    A careful analysis of the 2008/9 minimum with an updated model http://ihy.boulder.swri.edu/IAUWG/WEBPAGES/PAPERS/solomon.pdf
    concludes “Measurements from instruments on the SOHO and TIMED spacecraft, and by suborbital rocket flights, indicate that solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance levels were lower than they were during the previous solar minimum. Analysis of atmospheric drag on satellite orbits indicate that the thermosphere was lower in density, and therefore cooler than at any time since the beginning of the space age. However, secular change due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which cool the upper atmosphere, also plays a role in thermospheric climate. Simulations by the NCAR Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model are compared to thermospheric density measurements, yielding evidence that the primary cause of the low thermospheric density was the unusually low level of solar extremeultraviolet irradiance”
    That should go a long towards settling your problem.

  191. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    That would be the dearth of coronal holes and slow plasma from late 2008.No, as
    Solomon et al. note “Solar EUV images indicate lower radiance from areas of “open” solar magnetic field known as coronal holes. Low-latitude coronal holes were particularly prevalent during the declining phase of solar cycle 23 and the minimum of cycle 23/24, which could offer an explanation for the lower EUV irradiance”..

  192. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “That should go a long towards settling your problem.”

    It actually highlights the problem. Yes there were many trans-equatorial coronal holes during the weak period of solar activity in question, but you and I both know, as I remember you remarking upon it too, that the numbers of coronal holes were well down from late 2008 to early 2010. So we lose a bit of EUV because of low latitude CH’s, and then claw back a bit, because there were less holes, and many were very small, so it doesn’t really add up.

    http://heliophysics.nasa.gov/SolarMinimum24/papers/Solomon2011.pdf

    http://ccar.colorado.edu/muri/SolomonEtAlGrl2010.pdf

  193. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 6:30 pm
    the numbers of coronal holes were well down from late 2008 to early 2010.
    There were not anomalously few coronal holes during that time, see Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
    There are most coronal holes near minimum and fewest near maximum as you can also see. In any case the dominant effect is from EUV/X-rays, so your fundamental thesis that solar wind speed/temperature are dominant drivers is simply not supported by the data over many solar cycles.
    so it doesn’t really add up
    Experts [including myself] find that things add up fine. As Solomon notes: “NCAR Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model are compared to thermospheric density measurements, yielding evidence that the primary cause of the low thermospheric density was the unusually low level of solar extremeultraviolet irradiance” and “The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate through model simulations that the solar and terrestrial observations are compatible, and mutually supporting”. and “The model densities are in good agreement with global average densities shown in figure 3 for 1996 and 2008, and the density decrease is very close to the 29% inter-minima difference derived from satellite drag measurements.”
    So, the situation is well under control and our understanding seems robust.

  194. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “There were not anomalously few coronal holes during that time, see Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf

    I don’t see the figures there, but here’s the head count, and there were many months where they thin right out during that time, mostly small and weak too if you look at the Max speed:

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

    “Experts [including myself] find that things add up fine.”

    I’m not arguing that the EUV was low, I just don’t buy their coronal idea, it doesn’t add up, there were less holes and they were often very small. And what about Emmert’s missing 60%?

  195. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    I don’t see the figures there
    Scroll to page 12.

    but here’s the head count, and there were many months where they thin right out during that time, mostly small and weak too if you look at the Max speed:
    Doesn’t go back to the previous minimum. My Figure 3 shows the fraction of the Sun covered by coronal holes.

    I’m not arguing that the EUV was low, I just don’t buy their coronal idea, it doesn’t add up, there were less holes and they were often very small.
    You don’t buy it because you are fixated on your misconception. The Solomon paper is a careful analysis of the numbers and the theory.

    And what about Emmert’s missing 60%?
    Due to obsolete model. Solomon’s work is with the latest and greatest and finds no stuff missing.
    There is no doubt about what the dominant driver of thermospheric heating is.

  196. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    mostly small and weak too if you look at the Max speed
    It is not the speed that is important, but the area of the holes: a large area means less EUV and less heating of the thermosphere.

  197. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    mostly small and weak too if you look at the Max speed
    The whole discussion about coronal holes and solar wind speed is just about a straw man. The principal agent is the EUV/X-ray flux. That was very low in 2009, hence an expanded thermosphere. The modeling performed by Solomon reproduces the observations, so we have to go by that.

  198. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Scroll to page 12.”

    That’s polar hole decline.

    “It is not the speed that is important, but the area of the holes: a large area means less EUV and less heating of the thermosphere.”

    There may have been some larger low latitude ones earlier in 2008, but the strong decline was from much later in 2008 and they became smaller from there on, though to 2010. Mean meanwhile Woods says:
    “But the total coronal hole area might not be the most appropriate component for the solar EUV irradiance”

    “Note that there were more coronal holes at the 2008/9 minimum than at the 1996/7 minimum. This is one of the reasons for the colder thermosphere as more coronal holes means less EUV:
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4524.pdf

    One would expect to see more high speed streams with an increase in number and size of trans-equatorial CH’s, http://snag.gy/7OSW2.jpg http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg

  199. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 3:31 am
    That’s polar hole decline.
    There may have been some larger low latitude ones earlier in 2008
    Again the decrease in EUV is not confined to low-latitude holes. Although holes near disk center may have a larger effect.

    “But the total coronal hole area might not be the most appropriate component for the solar EUV irradiance”
    Another example of your selective quoting. Just before that he also says: “there are several large coronal holes at low-latitudes in 2008; whereas, there were few, if any, low-latitude coronal holes during the 1996 minimum”.

    One would expect to see more high speed streams with an increase in number and size of trans-equatorial CH’s
    Is irrelevant as it is the EUV that is important, not the speed.

  200. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Is irrelevant as it is the EUV that is important, not the speed.”

    No it’s the number of CH’s that is important (reduced), and that the speeds were lower during the recent minimum is some confirmation that they were often smaller too. Or look here:

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

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

    “Another example of your selective quoting. Just before that he also says: “there are several large coronal holes at low-latitudes in 2008″

    I already dealt with that, they were earlier in 2008 before the sharp decline in activity.

  201. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 9:20 am
    No it’s the number of CH’s that is important (reduced), and that the speeds were lower during the recent minimum is some confirmation that they were often smaller too.
    I already dealt with that, they were earlier in 2008 before the sharp decline in activity.

    I’m not sure what you are claiming. The facts are that thermospheric density is controlled mainly by EUV; coronal holes emit less EUV; active regions emit more EUV; so a combination of more coronal holes and fewer active regions explain quantitatively the lower thermospheric density observed in 2008-2009. This has nothing to do with solar wind speed or temperature. This is the fundamental fact you have to embrace.

  202. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “so a combination of more coronal holes and fewer active regions explain quantitatively the lower thermospheric density observed in 2008-2009″

    I can see from the solen list that there were fewer coronal holes then, I also remember this clearly as I monitor them all the time, and I clearly remember you saying how few coronal holes there were back then.

  203. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
    “so a combination of more coronal holes and fewer active regions explain quantitatively the lower thermospheric density observed in 2008-2009″
    I can see from the solen list that there were fewer coronal holes then, I also remember this clearly as I monitor them all the time, and I clearly remember you saying how few coronal holes there were back then.

    The solen list does not go back to the previous minimum in 1996/1997 and the whole issue with the thermosphere was why its density 2008/9 was lower than in 1996/7. The reason is that there were more coronal holes in 2008/9 than in 1996/7 [regardless of how many coronal holes there are now] hence less EUV plus that there were fewer sunspots hence also less EUV, net result: lower thermospheric density. The more accurate model used by Solomon quantitatively confirms just that. So no mystery, and no issue with solar wind temperature [or speed].

  204. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
    I can see from the solen list that there were fewer coronal holes then…
    As per Solomon [with the usual caution]: “The only reasonable result is that the solar 26 to 34 nm irradiance from SOHO SEM appears 15% lower in 2008 than in 1996. This EUV decrease could possibly be explained by the abundance of low-latitude coronal holes during this current cycle minimum, unlike in 1996″. The thermospheric density was low not just in 2009 but “During 2007–2009 thermospheric densities at a fiducial altitude of 400 km were the lowest observed in the 43-year database” [Emmert].

  205. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 9:48 am
    I can see from the solen list that there were fewer coronal holes then…
    To continue the Emmert quote [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043671/abstract ] “The density anomalies appear to have commenced before 2006, well before the cycle 23/24 minimum, and are larger than expected from enhanced thermospheric cooling by increasing concentrations of CO2. The height dependence of the mass density anomalies suggests that they are attributable to a combination of lower-than-expected exospheric temperature (−14 K) [due to lower EUV] and reductions in the number density of atomic oxygen (−12%) and other species (−3%) near the base of the diffusive portion of the thermosphere [anthropological ?]“.

  206. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The reason is that there were more coronal holes in 2008/9 than in 1996/7..”

    More low latitude holes than 1996/7, but highly infrequent for a minimum, down to one or two per month at times, and often very small too.

  207. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 10:07 am
    “The reason is that there were more coronal holes in 2008/9 than in 1996/7..”
    More low latitude holes than 1996/7, but highly infrequent for a minimum, down to one or two per month at times, and often very small too.

    To say that you must have extensive statistics for that number for several minima. No such statistic exists, but we don’t really need that for discussing the difference between 1997/7 and 2008/9. Perhaps this link http://inspirehep.net/record/844965/plots will set you straight: “During the current solar minimum (2006-2009) low-latitude CHs occur more frequently and they occupy an area larger when compared to the previous solar minimum(1995-1997)”.
    The Sargent Recurrence Index http://sss.leif.org/research/Sargent-Recurrence-Index.png is often used as a proxy for the extent of low-latitude coronal holes. It is a quantitative measure of the tendency of solar activity to recur after one rotation [as coronal holes often do]. As you can see 2008/9 ranks highest of all minima since 1868.

  208. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 15, 2013 at 10:20 am
    The Sargent Recurrence Index http://www.leif.org/research/Sargent-Recurrence-Index.png is often used as a proxy for the extent of low-latitude coronal holes.
    Was fat-fingered. Moving the keyboard a few millimeters closer helped turning sss into the coreect www :-)

    pochas says:
    June 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
    UV comes from the corona as the plasma picks up energy (somehow) on the way outward, correct?
    UV [actually EUV and x-rays] comes because the corona is HOT [millions of degrees]. The corona expands also because it is hot.

  209. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The Sargent Recurrence Index http://www.leif.org/research/Sargent-Recurrence-Index.png is often used as a proxy for the extent of low-latitude coronal holes. It is a quantitative measure of the tendency of solar activity to recur after one rotation [as coronal holes often do]. As you can see 2008/9 ranks highest of all minima since 1868.”

    OK I’m looking, and I’m seeing one of the fastest drop off’s in the whole series.

  210. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 10:44 am
    OK I’m looking, and I’m seeing one of the fastest drop off’s in the whole series.
    At the time where the thermospheric density is recovering, so very consistent with the role of EUV in controlling the thermosphere. We are perhaps making progress in your understanding of this fundamental fact.

  211. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “At the time where the thermospheric density is recovering, so very consistent with the role of EUV in controlling the thermosphere.”

    No the drop is at the end of 2008 when the thermosphere collapsed, I thought the recovery didn’t get under way till early 2010?

  212. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 10:53 am
    No the drop is at the end of 2008 when the thermosphere collapsed, I thought the recovery didn’t get under way till early 2010?
    The thermosphere collapsed starting in 2006. Emmert:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043671/abstract ] “The density anomalies appear to have commenced before 2006, well before the cycle 23/24 minimum”
    so you have not made any progress in your understanding yet.

  213. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The thermosphere collapsed starting in 2006. Emmert:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043671/abstract ] “The density anomalies appear to have commenced before 2006, well before the cycle 23/24 minimum”
    so you have not made any progress in your understanding yet.”

    “This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

    The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

  214. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 11:03 am
    The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
    so? The ‘explanation’ is based on the old [1970s] Jachia model. The superior model used by Solomon explains the magnitude well as the result of more coronal holes [less EUV] and much lower solar activity [even less EUV]. No mystery, no dependence on solar wind.

  215. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The superior model used by Solomon explains the magnitude well as the result of more coronal holes”

    I still don’t accept that, there were fewer holes even if there were relatively more low latitude ones. The amount of EUV decline is not totally certain either.

  216. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 11:15 am
    I still don’t accept that, there were fewer holes even if there were relatively more low latitude ones. The amount of EUV decline is not totally certain either.

    http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~avi/Abr+Linker-CHs-ApJ712-2010.pdf

    Low- and mid-latitude coronal holes (CHs) observed on the Sun during the current solar activity minimum (from 2006 September 21, Carrington rotation (CR) 2048, to 2009 June 26, CR 2084) were analyzed using Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope and STEREO-A SECCHI EUVI data. From both the observations and Potential Field Source Surface modeling, we find that the area occupied by CHs inside a belt of ±40◦ around the solar equator is larger in the current 2007 solar minimum relative to the similar phase of the previous 1996 solar minimum

    But, of course not, people hooked on their own ideas often do not accept the cruel verdict of data and reality. So, I presume that no matter what the data, the modeling, the science say, you will not accept any of that. I have tried hard to explain what we know about this subject, but, clearly, to no avail. What else is new?

  217. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “..(from 2006 September 21, Carrington rotation (CR) 2048, to 2009 June 26..”

    Only the last 6 months of that is relevant.

    “But, of course not, people hooked on their own ideas often do not accept the cruel verdict of data and reality.”

    What like there really was a dearth of coronal holes from late 2008? Which is odd, as I clearly remember you talking about the lack of holes back then.

  218. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “So, you only want to consider the last six months of 2009″

    No read your own link again, to 2009 June 26 is the first 6 months of 2009.

  219. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
    “So, you only want to consider the last six months of 2009″
    No read your own link again, to 2009 June 26 is the first 6 months of 2009.

    That does not make much sense for your claim that there were fewer [or weaker or whatever] coronal holes during that time.

    The link says: “from 2006 September 21 to 2009 June 26 were analyzed using Solar and Heliospheric Observatory/Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope and STEREO-A SECCHI EUVI data. From both the observations and Potential Field Source Surface modeling, we find that the area occupied by CHs inside a belt of ±40◦ around the solar equator is larger in the current 2007 solar minimum relative to the similar phase of the previous 1996 solar minimum”, so up to the time that you consider relevant the were more and larger coronal holes relative to the previous minimum. If we consider solar wind speed it was 391 km/s for the year preceding the sharp increase of thermospheric density in mid-2009, while for the time 2012Sep-2013Apr near solar max [before the latest upswing] the speed was [as is often the case at solar max] a low 377 km/s.
    So, again, the thermospheric density is determined by EUV/X-ray and nor by solar wind temperature/speed. This is the fundamental fact you have to learn and accept. If you will not, then what is there to discuss? One can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink.

  220. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “That does not make much sense for your claim that there were fewer [or weaker or whatever] coronal holes during that time.”

    They were weaker and fewer for much of the rest of 2009 too, as I have said all along.

    “If we consider solar wind speed it was 391 km/s for the year preceding the sharp increase of thermospheric density in mid-2009, while for the time 2012Sep-2013Apr near solar max [before the latest upswing] the speed was [as is often the case at solar max] a low 377 km/s.”

    It’s not as low as it got in 2009: http://snag.gy/aLpr0.jpg
    but has the 2012Sep-2013Apr dip you cherry picked resulted in any change of thermospheric density?

  221. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 15, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    They were weaker and fewer for much of the rest of 2009 too, as I have said all along.
    You need to be specific. How weaker and how fewer for exactly what period compared to exactly which period? For the last half of 2009 the speed was 359 km/s while the density increased rapidly http://www.leif.org/research/Thermosphere-Density-2009.png so you are claiming that the weaker and fewer coronal holes resulted in that slow solar wind speed and rapidly increasing thermospheric density.

    It’s not as low as it got in 2009: http://snag.gy/aLpr0.jpg
    The difference is very small. In 2009 the speed was 367 km/s compared to the 377 km/s for my selected solar maximum interval.

    but has the 2012Sep-2013Apr dip you cherry picked resulted in any change of thermospheric density?
    The thermospheric density must have gone up as solar EUV has increased because solar activity has picked up. and one would not expect any change in the first place due to the low solar wind speed as such is not the cause of variations of thermospheric density. My interval was picked as a time of low solar wind speed to see if it would had any influence on the density as we would hardly expect a reversal of the sharp rise in the 2nd half of 2009 seen here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2009.png . There is no published real-time data on the density [that I know of, although the US Air Force maintains {a proprietary} one] so we cannot show you yet what the actual density was, but since the density follows the EUV/X-ray flux very closely, the X-ray flux is a good proxy. Here is the X-ray data up to the present: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2002-2013.png
    Emmert et al. have recently reviewed their data and state:
    Observations of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in Earth’s thermosphere
    J. T. Emmert et al. Nature Geoscience 5, 868–871 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1626
    “Carbon dioxide occurs naturally throughout Earth’s atmosphere. In the thermosphere, CO2 is the primary radiative cooling agent and fundamentally affects the energy balance and temperature of this high-altitude atmospheric layer. Anthropogenic CO2 increases are expected to propagate upward throughout the entire atmosphere, which should result in a cooler, more contracted thermosphere. This contraction, in turn, will reduce atmospheric drag on satellites and may have adverse consequences for the orbital debris environment that is already unstable. However, observed thermospheric mass density trends derived from satellite orbits are generally stronger than model predictions, indicating that our quantitative understanding of these changes is incomplete. So far, CO2 trends have been measured only up to 35 km altitude. Here, we present direct evidence that CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere—probably the primary driver of long-term thermospheric trends—are increasing. We analyse eight years of CO2 and carbon monoxide mixing ratios derived from satellite-based solar occultation spectra. After correcting for seasonal–latitudinal and solar influences, we obtain an estimated global increase in COx (CO2 and CO, combined) concentrations of 23.5±6.3 ppm per decade at an altitude of 101 km, about 10 ppm per decade faster than predicted by an upper atmospheric model. We suggest that this discrepancy may explain why the thermospheric density decrease is stronger than expected”
    So you can see that it is not only the Sun that plays a role here.

  222. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “How weaker and how fewer for exactly what period compared to exactly which period?”

    I gave you the period and the data already several times.

    “..so you are claiming that the weaker and fewer coronal holes resulted in that slow solar wind speed and rapidly increasing thermospheric density.”

    You know I’m not, but there was an uplift in plasma speed in the middle of 2009.

    “My interval was picked as a time of low solar wind speed to see if it would had any influence on the density..”

    We cannot check that without the density data for the period.

    “..the density follows the EUV/X-ray flux very closely, the X-ray flux is a good proxy. Here is the X-ray data up to the present: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2002-2013.png

    I cannot see any strong rise in X-ray from mid 2009 there.

  223. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 16, 2013 at 7:20 am
    I gave you the period and the data already several times.
    You have given several contradictory statements [and no data - just words], so now is your chance to set the record straight.

    You know I’m not, but there was an uplift in plasma speed in the middle of 2009.
    The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’. In spite of the falling speed, the density increased. In your picture, falling speed should result in lower density; this is clearly contradicted by the data.

    I cannot see any strong rise in X-ray from mid 2009 there.
    Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/TIMED-2009.png
    But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Xrays.png
    There is no reason this relation should not hold after 2009 [except the small correction due to CO2 cooling]

  224. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “You have given several contradictory statements [and no data - just words], so now is your chance to set the record straight.”

    That’s a fabrication. You steered the conversation to the Thermosphere collapse of 2009 and gave the solen links for evidence of fewer and weaker coronal holes during that time.

    “The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’.”

    Arbitrary period selection, the uplift is mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg

    “But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Speed.png

    Vaguely, I would prefer to examine raw temperature data to check for correlations to plasma speed, daily data ideally.

  225. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 17, 2013 at 6:49 am
    Thermosphere collapse of 2009 and gave the solen links for evidence of fewer and weaker coronal holes during that time.
    You are confusing things. The issue is whether there were more coronal holes during the 2008/9 minimum compared to the 1996/7 minimum. The solen list does not go that far back, but I have given you several references to the fact that 2008/9 had more CHs than 1996/7.

    “The speed the first half of 2009 was 376 km/s, the last half 359 km/s, so no ‘uplift’.”
    Arbitrary period selection, the uplift is mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg

    Mid-month? Why not mid-day or mid-hour? The fact is that as the speed fall from the first half to the second half, the density surged. The period was the time of that surge, so not arbitrary.

    “But you should be able to see the strong connection between Xrays and Thermospheric density here http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Speed.png”
    Vaguely, I would prefer to examine raw temperature data to check for correlations to plasma speed, daily data ideally.

    Temperature where? In the thermosphere? I don’t think we have those. The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature. If there is correlations on a daily basis there will also be correlation on longer time scales, and that is not observed. Read Qian/Solomon’s review carefully and learn.

  226. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “You are confusing things. The issue is whether there were more coronal holes during the 2008/9 minimum compared to the 1996/7 minimum. The solen list does not go that far back, but I have given you several references to the fact that 2008/9 had more CHs than 1996/7. ”

    No you are confusing things. My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9, which there was, they were very infrequent in several months. OK there was a shift away from polar to low latitude, but the total numbers were down and they were smaller and weaker generally, as you noted at the time.

    “The fact is that as the speed fall from the first half to the second half, the density surged. The period was the time of that surge, so not arbitrary.”

    No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month: http://snag.gy/YGoNK.jpg

    “The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature.”

    Infra-red?: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg

  227. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
    No you are confusing things. My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9
    ‘absolute decline’? What is important is the deecline relative to the previous minimum in deciding why the density this minimum was lower.

    No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month
    Since you seem to think that the density matches the solar wind speed on a daily basis, the decrease of wind speed from mid-2009 to end-2009 should have resulted in a similar decrease in density, while in fact just the opposite [the surge] was seen.

    “The density [determined by drag on satellites] is the means to get the temperature.”
    Infra-red?: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg

    That plot shows the cooling due to CO2 and NO.

    What you have to accept and understand is that “The primary energy input to the thermosphere/ionosphere system is solar irradiance. The thermosphere absorbs solar irradiance in XUV (the soft X-ray ultra-violet, 1–30 nm), EUV (extreme ultra-violet, 30–120 nm), and FUV (far ultra-violet, 120–200 nm). The solar EUV ionizes, dissociates, and excites the thermospheric constituents, creates the ionosphere, and heats the thermosphere” [Qian/Solomon].
    A secondary [smaller] energy source is “Geomagnetic storms which occur as a result of a sudden increase of dynamic pressure in the solar wind, and changes in strength and orientation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). These geomagnetic storms generate rapidly changing energy inputs, and occur predominantly at higher levels of solar activity”. Storms are very rare at low activity and play almost no role in the heating at such times.

  228. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
    My issue was whether there was an absolute decline in number and size of coronal holes during 2008/9
    Let me try one last time: Emmert et al. noted that the thermosphere had ‘collapsed’ in 2007-2009 compared to earlier solar minima and the issue was the possible reason(s) for that. As the density is controlled by the EUV flux, one explanation could be that there were less EUV during the 2007-2009 minimum. Now, if there were fewer coronal holes 2007-2009 that might be a cause of some excess EUV and more thermospheric heating. However, observations clearly show [and all investigators agree on this] that there were more CHs, so the resulting deficit of EUV could be a contributor to the collapse. Solar activity was much lower in 2007-2009 than in 1996-1997 and since active regions also are a source of EUV that would help explain the decline. Finally, CO2 cools the thermosphere, and the density has been decreasing steadily the last 35 years as CO2 has risen. so that could be yet another contributor to the decline of the density. Modelling with old [obsolete] models of the thermosphere did not fully explain the decline, so there was a puzzle. However, the most recent models [Solomon] can account for the difference, so there is no puzzle anymore. The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating are basically absent during solar minima.

  229. Leif says:
    “The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating are basically absent during solar minima.”

    Thanks for the last paper link, that helps, eg:
    “A large (X17) centrally located solar flare can cause ∼30–40% density enhancement on the day side. The flare response in neutral density can be best observed on the dayside at low to mid-latitudes. A large geomagnetic storm (Kp = 9) can cause density enhancement on the order of ∼100–200%.”

  230. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 17, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    Thanks for the last paper link, that helps, eg:
    “A large (X17) centrally located solar flare can cause ∼30–40% density enhancement on the day side. The flare response in neutral density can be best observed on the dayside at low to mid-latitudes.

    The response is due to the large increase of EUV and Xrays [not solar wind]

    A large geomagnetic storm (Kp = 9) can cause density enhancement on the order of ∼100–200%.”
    such storms are very rare, typically 4 per typical solar cycle. There has not been a single one since 2005, so their [short-lived] effect has been negligible.

    I doubt that the paper helped as it seems you are still stuck in the same rut, trying to find things out of context that might seem to support your ideas.

  231. Ulric Lyons says:

    June 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
    ..No the density surged following the speed increase at mid month: ..

    Sorry to interrupt, but I thought Dr. S. said you needed some energetic particles. They are there toooo for your time period.
    I input March 2012 and botta boom botta bing. Energetic particles..

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/sis/Counts.cgi?LATEST=0&YEAR=2012&MONTH=3&DAY=1&DOY=-1

    Check out the 27 day mass He spectra too.. from this link to ACE satellite data.

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA/level3/summaries.html

    But that’s not why I am here today.
    Wondering if Dr. S. is up on solar rotation differential? Just checking.

    INTERNAL-CYCLE VARIATION OF SOLAR DIFFERENTIAL ROTATION
    K. J. Li et al. 2013 ApJS 206
    The latitudinal distributions of the yearly mean rotation rates measured by Suzuki in 1998 and 2012 and Pulkkinen & Tuominen in 1998 are utilized to investigate internal-cycle variation of solar differential rotation. The rotation rate at the solar equator seems to have decreased since cycle 10 onward. The coefficient B of solar differential rotation, which represents the latitudinal gradient of rotation, is found to be smaller in the several years after the minimum of a solar cycle than in the several years after the maximum time of the cycle, and it peaks several years after the maximum time of the solar cycle. The internal-cycle variation of the solar rotation rates looks similar in profile to that of the coefficient B. A new explanation is proposed to address such a solar-cycle-related variation of the solar rotation rates. Weak magnetic fields may more effectively reflect differentiation at low latitudes with high rotation rates than at high latitudes with low rotation rates, and strong magnetic fields may more effectively repress differentiation at relatively low latitudes than at high latitudes. The internal-cycle variation is inferred as the result of both the latitudinal migration of the surface torsional pattern and the repression of strong magnetic activity in differentiation.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/206/2/15

    VARIATIONS OF SOLAR ROTATION AND SUNSPOT ACTIVITY
    K. J. Li et al. 2011 ApJ 730 49
    The continuous wavelet transformation is used to study the temporal variations of the rotational cycle length of daily sunspot numbers from 1849 January 1 to 2010 February 28, from a global point of view. The rotational cycle length of the Sun is found to have a secular trend, which statistically shows a linear decrease by about 0.47 days during the time interval considered. The empirical mode decomposition analysis of the temporal variations of the rotational cycle length shows an acceleration trend for the surface rotation rate from cycles 11 to 19, but a deceleration trend from the beginning of cycle 20 onward. We cannot determine whether the rotation rate around the maximum times of the Schwable cycles should be faster or slower than that around the minimum times, implying no Schwable cycle in the long-term variations of rotation. The results obtained are compared to those from the literature. It is inferred that the variation of the rotational cycle length may be related to the variation of sunspot activity in the long run.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/730/1/49/ (Free Issue)

    Thanks carry on..

  232. Leif Svalgaard says
    “The response is due to the large increase of EUV and Xrays [not solar wind]”

    Well of course, it’s a flare, duh!

    “I doubt that the paper helped..”

    On the contrary, it is highly useful to have some figures rather than your solar-wind-doesn’t-do-this-and-doesn’t-do-that etc. I can get a much better idea of the proportions of the different causes of heating.

  233. Carla says:
    June 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    Wondering if Dr. S. is up on solar rotation differential? Just checking.
    I happen to be an expert on such matters, having published several papers on this over the decades. E.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf “the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation”, but this is off-topic for this article so we have to discus this at a more appropriate time.

    Ulric Lyons says:
    June 17, 2013 at 6:29 pm
    “I doubt that the paper helped..”
    On the contrary, it is highly useful to have some figures rather than your solar-wind-doesn’t-do-this-and-doesn’t-do-that etc. I can get a much better idea of the proportions of the different causes of heating.

    I have shown you with Figures and numbers how little the solar wind matters, but we can hope that the paper can make you appreciate the truth of that, and in that way guide you along a more realistic path for your further investigations into such things.

  234. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “I have shown you with Figures and numbers how little the solar wind matters, but we can hope that the paper can make you appreciate the truth of that..”

    The paper showed me that your claims of it doing nothing were not true, so I am grateful for that thanks. It is also useful to see the uncertainty levels of the satellite drag measurements from the Solomon papers.

  235. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 18, 2013 at 2:33 am
    The paper showed me that your claims of it doing nothing were not true
    It is a question of proportion. I’m [and the paper is] saying that the effect is so small that it has very little overall effect. To take an example, you picked up the statement that strong magnetic storms with Kp=9 can make a 100-200% increase as if that would be significant, but you ignore [or don't know] that such activity is very rare. Since Kp was instituted in 1932 there has been some 235,000 3-hour intervals [Kp is measured over a period 3 hours long]. Only 29 of those had Kp=9 which is less than 1 in 8000 of the whole.

  236. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “..but you ignore [or don't know] that such activity is very rare.”

    I don’t know how you arrived at that presumption, I am fully aware of their rarity. The value of it is as a measurement of the maximum event, at no point did I imply that they are common, and I was just quoting from the paper to respond to your claim: “The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating”. You sound like one of those government spokespersons that waters down the facts.

  237. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm
    “The solar wind [and in particular the solar wind speed] has nothing to do with this, as magnetic storms that otherwise might add a bit to the heating”. You sound like one of those government spokespersons that waters down the facts.
    As usual you quote out of context, the issue was whether the solar wind was the cause of the collapse of the thermosphere in 2008-2009. [there were no strong magnetic storms then.
    But I give up. I have tried to educate you on this subjects, but you are apparently quite learning-resistant.

  238. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “As usual you quote out of context, the issue was whether the solar wind was the cause of the collapse of the thermosphere in 2008-2009. [there were no strong magnetic storms then.”

    A lack of strong magnetic storms would then aid the collapse, as would the scarcity of coronal holes, and low plasma speeds, it all adds up.

  239. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 19, 2013 at 2:20 am
    A lack of strong magnetic storms would then aid the collapse, as would the scarcity of coronal holes, and low plasma speeds, it all adds up.
    There is a lack of strong magnetic storms at every minimum and there were more coronal holes in 2008-2009 than in 1996-1997, so it does not add up, but it doesn’t need to: As Solomon’s analysis shows the lack of EUV and the increase of CO2 are enough to explain the difference between the two minima.

  240. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 19, 2013 at 2:20 am
    low plasma speeds, it all adds up.
    To illustrate the non-importance of the solar wind speed take 2003 with the highest yearly average solar wind speed ever measured [543 km/s] and compare with the year before 2002 [440 km/s], yet the thermospheric density in 2003 was only half of that in 2002 in spite of the much higher solar wind speed. There were very large and dark coronal holes in 2003 compared to 2002, so much less EUV which explains why the density in 2003 was only half that of 2002. Again: the solar wind speed is not the determining factor, EUV is. As you could have learned from the Qian/Solomon review [but didn't].

  241. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “there were more coronal holes in 2008-2009 than in 1996-1997″

    I know that there were more low latitude CH,s in 2009 than 1996/7, but they were not very frequent or large. Do you have a list of high and low latitude CH’s for 1996/7 to compare total numbers?

  242. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “How much longer do we have to walk around in circles?”

    For as long as you avoid a direct response, i.e.;
    do we not see a rise in density later in the year as high as 2002?, page 15:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Thermosphere-Density-Review.pdf

    and; Do you have a list of high and low latitude CH’s for 1996/7 to compare total numbers?
    There is no contardiction there, but I could ask the question a different way if you prefer. Were there less high latitude CH’s in 2009 than 1996, and how many CH’s were there in 1996 on average per month of both high and low latitude?

  243. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 19, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    For as long as you avoid a direct response, i.e.;
    do we not see a rise in density later in the year as high as 2002?, page 15:

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Thermosphere-Density-Review.pdf

    Assuming you mean Figure 7 on page 161

    you can see that the rises in the density are due to enhanced EUV [e.g. in red boxes],
    so you can stop going in circles.
    Perhaps this plot http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2002-2003.png will make it even clearer. Note the drop in density in the autumn of 2002 and its even more dramatic drop in 2003 as solar wind speed really picks up.

    Do you have a list of high and low latitude CH’s for 1996/7 to compare total numbers?
    Do you? The experimenters and modelers have done the job for us: “In order to estimate the wavelength dependence of this change, the CHIANTI models [Dere et al., 1997; Landi et al., 2006] of the quiet sun (QS) and coronal hole (CH) differential emission measures (DEMs) were employed. A .50 CH proportion fit the SEM 26–34 nm average measurement for 1996, and a .68 CH proportion fit the SEM 26–34 nm average measurement for 2008″. So no more circles, please.

  244. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “you can see that the rises in the density are due to enhanced EUV [e.g. in red boxes]”

    You are just being selective with your evidence to attempt to prove your point, and you have missed the target altogether. I said later in the year [2002] not summer time! (red box 1 is ~3 months too early for the rise in density *later* in 2002, i.e. from when the rise in plasma speed occurs. The density is higher at the end of 2002 than in your red box)

    And red box 2 starts too early for the EUV spikes. The density is rising up to nearly 2002 levels before the rise in EUV.

    Also note the drop in speed at the start of 2003: http://snag.gy/3CPhe.jpg

    CHIANTI models? I wanted an observational head count, not a model.

  245. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 20, 2013 at 3:05 am
    And red box 2 starts too early for the EUV spikes. The density is rising up to nearly 2002 levels before the rise in EUV. Also note the drop in speed at the start of 2003:
    It would be nice if you would go to the trouble of providing data and times, rather than just words, like in:
    Perhaps this plot http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2002-2003.png will make it even clearer. Note the drop in density in the autumn of 2002 and its even more dramatic drop in 2003 as solar wind speed really picks up.

    CHIANTI models? I wanted an observational head count, not a model.
    Everything are models these days. The thermospheric density is derived from a model to fit the satellite orbit decays. The EUV flux is derived from a model using the coronal hole fraction, and so on.

  246. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Perhaps this plot http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2002-2003.png will make it even clearer. Note the drop in density in the autumn of 2002 and its even more dramatic drop in 2003 as solar wind speed really picks up.”

    No this plot derived from the satellite drag: http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2002-2006.png
    See the dramatic density rise at the end of 2003, building well before the EUV rise. And also the rise in density in the last 3 months of 2002.

  247. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 20, 2013 at 4:36 am
    No this plot derived from the satellite drag: http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-2002-2006.png See the dramatic density rise at the end of 2003, building well before the EUV rise.
    Not at all, the sharp spike at the end of 2003 was caused by the ‘Halloween’ eent, one of the biggest flares observed and a copious emitter of Xrays and EUV.
    The rest of your posts are not substantiated. Make a plot if you must, words don’t cut it.

  248. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Not at all, the sharp spike at the end of 2003 was caused by the ‘Halloween’ eent,”

    That’s at the end of October, and yet the density was on a rising trend from mid 2003.

    “The rest of your posts are not substantiated. Make a plot if you must,”

    Oh yes they are and here’s the plot:

  249. @Leif
    You are deliberately ignoring:
    1) the sharp density rise in the last quarter of 2002
    2) the sharp density rises through the second half of 2003
    3) the sharp decline in density mid 2004, 2005 and 2006, and lack thereof in 2003
    As you continue to deny the observational data, there is no point in continuing this debate.

  250. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 20, 2013 at 11:03 am
    1) the sharp density rise in the last quarter of 2002
    2) the sharp density rises through the second half of 2003
    3) the sharp decline in density mid 2004, 2005 and 2006, and lack thereof in 2003

    None of these are directly related to solar wind speed, but to increases of Xray and EUV [F10.7]. For example, the spike in October 2003 was caused by a sequence of some of the biggest flares ever with their copious radiation. Helped for a few hours by the extraordinary high solar wind magnetic field and flow pressure.

    As you continue to deny the observational data, there is no point in continuing this debate.
    Firstly: the density is the output of a model, secondly: this is not a debate, but an attmpts to teach you how this whole things works, but if you continue to flaunt your learning disability, there is, as you suggest, perhaps little point in continuing..:

  251. @Leif

    Again, wilfully ignoring the facts, density was rising sharply for several weeks before the 19th of October.

    “..but if you continue to flaunt your learning disability, there is, as you suggest, perhaps little point in continuing..”

    That’s exactly how I feel about you ignoring what the above data shows.

  252. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 20, 2013 at 7:12 pm
    Again, wilfully ignoring the facts, density was rising sharply for several weeks before the 29th of October.
    Again, the facts are that Xray/EUV [as measured by the F10.7 flux] was indeed rising several weeks before the flare, as you can see here [for two different satellites] http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Fall-2003.png as several active regions were crossing the disk and the X-ray flux increased by a factor of 100. That is what caused the rise in density. A couple of days after the flare, the density also got a boost from the strong magnetic field and flow pressure from the CME that hit the Earth, as I have explained many time now. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn something.

  253. Leif Svalgaard says:
    “Again, the facts are that Xray/EUV [as measured by the F10.7 flux] was indeed rising several weeks before the flare, as you can see here [for two different satellites] http://www.leif.org/research/Thermospheric-Density-Fall-2003.pn

    You are showing from September 29th there, which is largely flat for the first three weeks,
    and you filtered out the big rise that preceded it, leading up to your 2nd red box.

    Where’s the effect of the X-flares late May and early June 2003?

    Does the proton event effect density?: http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20031030_1013/index.html

  254. Ulric Lyons says:
    June 21, 2013 at 3:19 am
    and you filtered out the big rise that preceded it, leading up to your 2nd red box.
    Between the two red boxes the density was steadily dropping by almost a factor of ten.

Comments are closed.