Newsbytes: Sunspot Enigma – Will Inactive Sun Cause Global Cooling?

It is solar magnetic field strength, and geo magnetic field strength and all the secondary effects which impact the climate.
Weak magnetic fields equate to colder climate.
Strong magnetic fields will equate to a warmer climate.
Sometimes thresholds may be reached(abrupt climate change) ,sometimes not.( gradual temp change.)
Duration of time and degree of magnitude having much to do if thresholds are reached or not, also the beginning state of the climate of the earth to begin with coming into play.
The same climate forcings can have a different end result for the climate if the state of the climate is different at the start of those forcings.

“Will inactive sun cause global cooling?” Yup. Svensmark is correct (although the cosmic rays cause high, not low, altitude clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo).

Correlation is not causation. But it does give you good clues as to where to look.

Salvatore Del Prete
lf the Polar jet splits then the cooling could be sudden.
Because if the Polar jet splits then you are likely to get large blocking highs sitting in the middle.
So during the winter you are likely to get large pools of cold air sitting in the middle of these split jets. Now because you have got the jet flowing to the north and the south of these pools of cold air. Then its very likely there will be active weather fronts moving into this cold air both from the north and the south. What you are likely to get with this set up is not only cold but heavy snowfall as well. You will not want this sort Polar jet pattern setting in for to many years.

Brad says (July 24, 2013 at 11:50 am): “Good post, but I could have limited without the witch doctor section. Seems a bit petty and out of place.”
Q: What’s the difference between the Met Office and a witch doctor?
A: The witch doctor’s weather forecasts are occasionally correct. 🙂

taobabe says, July 24, 2013 at 2:22 pm
“The Sun, The Earth, and Near Earth Space”. A Guide to the Sun-Earth System by John A. Eddy, NASA Publication #NP-2009-1-066-GSFC. Free to download (either the entire book or in parts) here: http://ilwsonline.org/ilws_publications.htm

We need to build a wormhole, place an uploaded copy of a fast-grown human mind into it, using the wormhole itself as refrigeration and lower the end containing the upload into the sun so she can study the sun!

There is a course at UNE supervised by Associate Prof Robert Baker, that I am thinking of pursueing towards my MA, I have already got my BA majoring in archaeology and palaeoanthropology and GCA (Graduate Certificate in Arts) that is mid way between a BA and MA, but this one is about sea levels and climate change. At one instance I sat one first year course ‘Earth in Crisis” also a course “Archaeology of the Landscape” just to complete my BA, and found his theories quite interesting. He mentioned how the sun and sun spots does affect the rainfall in some areas. And rainfall of course is most important to Australia, as we flip from flood to drought in some areas frequently. We have some differing regions from monsoonal up North, tropical and sub tropical, temperate to Alpine and of course desert in the middle of the continent. But this 500 level course is on sea level changes or palaeoclimate changes. He has researched the area on the South Coast of NSW and found sea levels were much higher than today by 50 – 100 feet 3,500 years ago. They have fluctuated over the centuries too. Should be interesting in a many aspect pertaining to climate change generally.

Tom Hobbes, you could read my articles on Svenmark’s work, “Extraterrestrial Climate Influence” (The Svensmark Hypothesis):
“Scientists have only recently come to suspect that cosmic rays have an important influence on Earth’s climate. Cosmic rays are highly energetic charged particles that originate from various sources in outer space.”
“Scientists have found a link between cosmic ray levels and thunderstorms. There is also a positive correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and low-altitude cloud formation.”
“Ions created in the troposphere by cosmic rays could provide a mechanism for cloud formation.”
Do clouds disappear when cosmic rays get weaker? (Calder’s Updates, May 3, 2010):
“The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments” Henrik Svensmark says, “that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the Earth’s climate”. Most dramatic are the events called Forbush decreases. Ejections of gas from the Sun, carrying magnetic fields, can suddenly cut the influx of cosmic rays coming to the Earth from exploded stars.

Tom Olsen on July 24, 2013 at 11:34 am
Exactly! If you have 0.3C in 15 years, conclude that you have 0C in the next 15, the warmies concentrate on refuting one interpretation: “the warming is over.” They blag on about “it’s the sun” “it’s the ocean” “it’s the volcanoes” etc.
The ALTERNATIVE is more devastating for them – “the trend is intact, but only half as steep as you thought.” Because half the steepness means
– AGW truly is self limiting as fossil reserves expire
– there are No positive feedbacks.
We’re then free to enjoy the plant enhancing and other benefits of CO2 with trivial temp consequences when warming dies cyclically return.

Bushbunny,
Thanks for pointer to Robert Baker’s work. How interesting that he is in the department of cognitive studies!
There have been some fascinating geological studies of variations in coastal sea levels over here in Western Australia, particularly the Geological Survey publication (for which I infuriatingly cannot find a reference right now) that included the study of sea level fall and coastal retreat at Port Kennedy, over the past 9,000 years, since the recent post-glacial Holocene Climate Optimum. This has been very accurately dated, using radiocarbon measurements of fossil wood in the successive coastal dune lines. If you Google-map search ‘Port Kennedy’, Western Australia you can see the area on the satellite image; it is marked Port Kennedy Science Park. Sea level has quite clearly been falling here for the past 9,000 years.
Other fascinating recent geological deposits along the West Australian coast include the very large rock slab mega-tsunami deposits up in the northwest of WA, documented and described by former head of the geological survey, Professor Philip Playford: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/17798666/tsunami-finding-rocks-research/
Apparently there are also similar deposits on cliff tops along the NSW coastline in the Sydney area.
With regards,

taobabe, I think you started off on the right foot. I’ve never seen anyone get away with the P-word before! Plenty have wished to though, I’m sure. Keep asking those questions.. Cheers, LK

Do you remember how for years you were told by people that magical backerd’s radiation was uh gonna… boil your eyes out and prove you wrong about what you know of the migration of heat from one object to another?
Well, there’s a lot of posturing and stupidity going around regarding what the sun gives off: light,
and what the earth gives off: light.
They’re both the same thing and when you’re talking about light migrating from point to point of course you’re talking about photonic energy that either flies around, or it gets channeled when it’s entangled in the resonance spaces of an object’s electrons, in their orbitals. Nothing to see there, it’s well known it’s all the identical substance, and it’s also well known, there’s very little unusual, about the way it flows.
Remember how, for many years you’ve been seeing it told to you by all kinds of wackos, that the amount of light in the atmosphere is building up, and it’s infrared light, at the frequency the earth gives off?
And that it’s been proved there’s a connection with this light and the temperature of the earth?
Well, here’s what the practitioners of magic gas know, about light: a giant infrared light on, in the sky over everyone’s head, 24/7/365.25.
The American Meteorological Society: we’ve all heard of them:
A paper. Ah, what’s it say?
It says, “September 2011”. Ok.
It says “Volume 24 Issue 18, ok…
It says,
“Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains”
by
“P. Jonathan Gero,
Space Science and Engineering Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, ”
and
“David D. Turner
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma,
and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin, Madison”
Ok so they know kind of, how to read what Magic Gas is saying: it’s their very organization telling you, there’s radiation you don’t understand associated with climate, and that it’s rising.
Well guess what? These men laid out infrared detectors
checking on NOAA’s OWN STORY about there being a systematic connection to certain gases and infrared light.
They put out infrared downwelling energy detectors, for fourteen, count-em fourteen, years,
and when the fourteen years was up, while overall CO2 was rising, and man made CO2 was rising, guess what?
=====
The amount of earth frequency infrared light coming back out of the atmosphere, was less than when they started.
=====
This is the people telling you the original story: back radiation
checking their own story
and they discovered that across the southern Great Plains of North America, ground zero for the very foundational magic gas claims,
while the amount of man made CO2 increased and overall CO2 increased,
the amount of light they told you is in the atmosphere, because of CO2
was less than when they started checking, nearly fifteen years before,
using nearly three quarters of a million measurements.
=====
This is what those who believe in magic gas know, about photonic energy. They can’t even indicate to you, there’s a measurable component of light associated with their most fundamental and basic claim: that more gas, means more light: because that light is of itself the warmth being claimed to be generated by the presence of that gas.
There’s no escaping it. The paper’s firewalled of course but someone somewhere can get it.
Read what they say on the abstract here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim
=====
That’s from the people telling you “This here’s real complicated. It’s so complicated you don’t even understand. Because you ain’t uh… scientist so yew just caint tale, awl about them heaters. They are some kind, of tricky. Boy, howdy. Lemme tale yew.”
That’s their story. This is so complicated, they keep being wrong, because you’re stupid.
On the other hand, there’s this guy:
His name I got from here on these pages as he tried to get in a word edgewise among all the talk of magical back and forth-isms that happen without cause, to make the 168 watt in, 324 watt out magic gas mirror in GHE not be magical.
His name is Nicola Scaffetta and he’s an Italian.
He’s not into the “it’s awl two complicated for yew to understand” bit you hear from people telling you about a giant heater in the sky nobody can measure, but you’re crazy not to believe in.
He linked to another of his own papers here one day and I went to his site because I recognize correct mathematics when I see it on a subject and saw he was no scammer on the take.
I went to his web page at the University or wherever and in pure, dart board type fashion, picked as the first (it turned out the only relevant and clear one about climate) of his presentations,
this:
“Solar Activity and Climate
Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM & Duke University
The climate oscillations: analysis, implications and their astronomical origin.”
=====
For those of you who tire of the endless repetitions of seeing magic gas believers miss which way yet another instrument is going to point,
this man’s presentation will be like lightening striking, to reveal the entire valley of climatology’s, utterly un-credible, zombies, unable to simply make the math, meet the markers.
You think magic gassers have any credibility at all? Any at all?
You’ll remember why everyone knows they don’t when you see this man explain the Sun’s effect on your globe.
His English is very bad. When he says “oscillations” it sounds like “isolations”.
When he says “induced” it sounds like “inn dew said”.
When he says a few other words it’s really hard to understand and you have to have a full vocabulary in your head of the subjects at hand to derive the proper word to fill the gaps but it’s not too hard if you’re grasping his premise.
Oh – the word “heliosphere” or whatever, regarding the Sun,
he pronounces, as Latinized, “AY-lee-ohs-fear.”
=====
I’d suggest you simply cut to the chase but you kind of need to get into the flow of his deal, but if you’ve got any questions, you just cut forward, to about 20:00 where he says “this…black…LINE.”
If you go there and see that and wonder if he developed it without fail or interruption during the previous twenty minutes, then go back to the beginning of it and watch what he says.
Turns out the whole thing’s very simple. The inside of the sun’s not solid, and so the very most energetic point inside the sun, migrates around within it: and when planets’ orbits align one way, or the other, the gravitational pull, moves the gravitational center of the sun, affecting the amount of energy coming from the sun to any point on the map so to speak, around it.
Very simple,
Very clear.
He should be asked to make his presentation for readers everywhere climate is analyzed.
Nicola Scafetta:

iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25

Stephen Wilde says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:12 pm
Since my 2008 article I have created a stream of articles at climaterealists.com which, taken together, build up to a comprehensive climate overview from which I have extracted what I call a New Climate Model.
It is conceptual rather than mathematical but none the worse for that.
Nice comment – climate is also as much biology as it is physics. Maths is over-rated in regard to climate – mathematicians rushing into climate are rather like German armies invading Soviet Russia (I’m just reading Anthony Beevor’s new WW2 history so its an analogy on my mind). If maths have to be involved, it needs to be the right sort of maths – that of dissipative nonequilibrium-nonlinear oscillatory systems. Not back of envelope arithmetic.
FWIW I think there’s a danger the sun could become the new CO2 – proposed as the be all and end all of climate. Its not. I think small solar changes in output are best viewed as a weak forcer of an nonlinear oscillatory system. So the emergent wiggles will never exactly match the forcing wiggles and objective proof of the link with traditional linear based arithmetic and statistics will always be elusive. New nonlinear type tools are needed.
Look forward to seeing the new website.

Of course its the sun. The LIA occurred during a solar quiet time as did lowered temperatures during the Dalton minimum. If the sun is now in a quiet period then it will get colder models or no models.

David Gloss says:
July 24, 2013 at 5:15 pm
“I have only ever found one guy with a good theory on what is happening and why. His name is Fred Bailey and he has written books about his theory about solar chord science. His website is http://www.solarchords.com/. It is time to worry about coming crop failures in the northern hemisphere and the dwindling world food stocks due to ethanol farming.”
Was reading some of the info on the site link you provided and came across his solar cycle predictions by his solar chord method. Predicted cycle 23 to be 10 years and it was in reality 12.1 years. Kind of shows his method is not reliable. Also predicts cycle 24 will be 10 years long, most likely incorrect also.

There are some on this blog say that a Maunder type of solar minimum may lower global temperatures by only 0.1C Lets review what happens during low sunspot activity . I question this claim of 0.1C.and think it may at least 10 times higher when measured annually.
19 of the 30 coldest annual CET temperatures were during the three very low sunspot periods of Maunder Minimum. Dalton Minimum and the Modern Minimum of 1880-1910
20 of the 30 coldest winter CET temperatures were during the same three major minimums, regular minimums, or sustained low solar sunspot years
The period 1690-1699, the coldest decade, had an average annual temperature of 8.107C. The average annual decade temperature during 1981-2010 was 9.9 C. The annual average temperature 1940-1979 [the era before global warming was 9.48C] The annual average temperature shortly after MM, namely 1720-1729 was 9.3 C and 1730-1739 was 9.8 C
The coldest year during the same MM period of 1690-1699, namely1695 had an annual temperature of 7.25 C, or almost 2.65 C lower than our recent experience over the last 30 years
The average winter temperature during the same MM period was 2.59C. The average today is about 4 C
The winter of 1684 was the coldest in CET records
The same analysis of the period 1807-1816 during the Dalton Minimum shows annual temperatures of about 8.6C when annual sunspot number was zero during 1810. The winter of 1814 was the 4th coldest in CET records
If we check the record , global temperatures tend to drop near the end of long solar cycles and at the beginning of the next decade like One can see the global temperatures decline at the end of cycles # 9,13,14,20.

I would like to see some evidence that some model predicted a pause. I have heard it claimed 2 a century. This appears to run contrary to CO2 warming theory especially since it was claimed that CO2 is the dominant driver and dominates natural variability.
According to the theory, whenever there is an increase in global CO2 concentraions, there must be a corresponding increase in temperature; the temperature increase depending upon Climate Sensitivity. It is not sometimes there will be an increase in temperature, and some times there will not be any increase.
Now of course, natural variation muddies the water. One year natural variation may act to warm temperatures (e., the super El Nino of 1998), and in other years natural variation may act to cool temperatures. The upshot of this is that when natural variation is positive, when coupled with increasing CO2 emissions then there will be a lot of warming. When natural vaition is neutral, when coupled with increasing CO2 emissions there will be just the usual CO2 induced warming (depending upon Climate Sensitivity). When natural variation is negative, it will go in some way to cancel out the warming effect of CO2 caused by increased CO2 emissions. If as was alleged, CO2 is the dominant driver, even in this scenario there will be some very slight warming. If of course, CO2 is not the dominant driver, then negative natural variation could cause a temperature drop.
Now if models have predicted pauses of 10 to 15 yeras, they must have predicted periods when natural variation is a negative forcing exactly equal to the CO2 forcing brought about by rising CO2 emissions. So what negative natural variation did these model runs predict? To answer this, would help us to understand natural variation.
Further, during which periods did the models predict the pause and in particular at what CO2 levels. Given that CO2 emissions are rising unabated, the extent of the negative forcing of natural variation will have to be stronger during the second of the two predicted pauses. In other words what I am saying is that if temperatures were flat between say 1940 to 1960 (I have not checked, this is just an assumption being made for the purposes of argument0 then it would be easier for natural variation to cancel out the positive forcing of CO2 if at the time the CO2 levels were say 360 to 370ppm However, if we look at the period say 1998 to date, it is more difficult to cancel out the CO2 forcing now that CO2 levels are 390 to 400ppm. The negative natural variation forcing has to now be greater than it was during the period of 1940 to 1960.
This of course causes a major problem for the warmists since they were arguing that by late 1970s the forcing associated with CO2 at 1970s levels was now greater than natural variation such that the only thing that could explain the late 1970s onwards warming was CO2. But today the CO2 forcing is greater (given that CO2 levels have now reached 400ppm) such that it now has to be recognised that (i) natural variation is stronger than initially envisaged and upon which all the claims of cAGW were made, and (ii) given that natural variation is stronger than they envisaged to be the case, it can no longer be alleged that the only explanation for the post 1970s warming is CO2. It could now be natural variation.
As I see it, the pause at today’s high level of CO2 is fatal for an alarmist theory, and the only salvagable position is low Climate Sensitivity. This would not be a problem but for the political capital invested in the alarmist theory.
PS. I am one of those who considers that Climate Sensitivity is presently impossible to calculate from the limited data sets avilable (all of which have fundamandal issues, some more so than others), and I have yet to see compelling evidence that there is such a concept, or that CO2 at current levels at this stage of the Holocene plays any measurable role in influencing temperature.. .

Richard Vada says:
July 24, 2013 at 11:18 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////
For many years I have seen people suggesting that if back radiation is increasing this would have an adverse influence on telescopes and that ever increasing corrections would have to be made to these instruments to compensate for/offset the additional DWLWIR being caused by increased GHGs. These people have suggested that there is no findings that ever more corrections are being required, and hence this suggests that DWLWIR is not increasing.
I have not seen any data on the point, but it is a point of interest.

Measurement of the gradient of tropopause height from equator to poles would also be useful.

To Richard Vada:
Good information on the Gero & Turner paper. Actual measurements…
WHAT A CONCEPT!

Stephen Wilde: I think it will be found that the current recharge is a weak affair due to increased global cloudiness since 2000.
Is there evidence for increased global cloudiness since 2000?

Matthew Marler asked:
“Is there evidence for increased global cloudiness since 2000?”
Yes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
“Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. 1998 has been touted as one of the warmest years on record, and the time lag may have had to do with the thermal inertia of the oceans. Then the albedo increased, making the earth more reflective. Clouds have the greatest potential for changing albedo on a short time scale.”

Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Leif Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach don’t have any understanding of thresholds and why sometimes solar changes will result in a major climate change ,while at other times they will not. Many times solar changes are not to a degree of magnitude great enough to flip the climate into another climatic regime, or even be the dominate factor in promoting which way the climate may go. They can’t grasp that simple fact, and therefore reach all bogus conclusions, when it comes to solar /climate relationships.
You will both however be proven wrong before the decade ends.
Nicola Scafetta , is more with it but is still lacking.
Nicola Scafetta does not understand thresholds (abrupt climate change),does not understand(like his counterparts) how sometimes solar changes might cause a major climatic shift while at other time hardly any.
He does not understand the beginning state of the climate will give a different end result even if the same forcings are applied to the climate.
Does not understand all the secondary effects which will come from a long prolonged solar minimum period.
He tries to fit everthing into a neat cycle, and thinks climate change is slow and gradual ,inspite of all the past evidence to the contary.
He still buys into the greenhouse gas effect (ridiculous) as a factor in the determination of the climate, when the reality is the greenhouse gas effect is a product of the climate.
The state of climate science is a mess and all of you three have made major contributions, to the mess.

Matthew thanks. Time will tell and we will know before this decade is out who was most correct and who was wrong.
I think the cooling will start within 6 months of solar cycle 24 maximum ending, but ocean heat content lag has to always be considered.
This factor however should become less of a factor as we proceed through this decade and very quiet solar conditions prevail.
I am looking for a further decline in the AO oscillation to more negative values once very quiet solar conditions once again start to take effect.

I wonder if any of you guys here actually realize that a “quiet” sun, is actually a hotter sun, especially in terms of UV. Dark spots on the sun mean cooler areas. No spots on the sun mean more high energy, especially lower wavelengths. This affects the production of ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides, lying TOA, deflecting more sunlight to space.So, a hotter sun, makes earth cooler.
I think there are not too many people who figured it out, though,,,
Let me know if you agree with me on that? If you miss this, you miss the whole global cooling story,
i.e. why it will continue to cool, until ca. 2040
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

Stephen Wilde says
Sunspots are indeed cooler areas but is their coolness not more than offset by the hotter areas around them and it is those hotter areas that fire off more energetic wavelengths is it not?
Henry@stephen wilde
I am actually looking at it from the other end, where I have proven (for myself) a link between increasing ozone (& others) and declining maximum temperatures.
The increase in ozone production TOA only makes sense if we assume more E-UV bombardment.. From which it follows that a “quiet” sun is somehow producing more E-UV… ?
As you know, TSI does not vary much, but I suspect there is some variation in the distribution of TSI, shifting the solar irradiance peak a bit to left, but overall, energy output looks much the same…
btw, you did not answer me, on a previous post, either positive or negative, where I posed that in a cooling world (from the top) you would naturally expect more clouds and rain at lower latitudes, thereby increasing albedo and amplifying the cooling (on the bottom).

typo: ,,, are extraordinary and …

@ phlogiston
not just nonlinear — observation suggests multipath is even more important (e.g. interannual) — maybe conceptualize it (for now) as spatiotemporally turbulent mixing – riding a longer wave

I like to keep things simple. If I go outside on a cloudy day, and the sun suddenly comes out, there’s a dramatic difference in the thermal energy reaching me. I’m sure that if CO2 concentration suddenly dropped by 25%, I wouldn’t notice the difference. Therefore I conclude that cloud density and cover would be a major driver of our climate. Just a small long term shift in average cloud cover would be very significant – much more than CO2. Yet all the IPCC seems to say is that they don’t understand clouds, so ignore them.
I know CERN is working on this, with nothing significant reported yet. I also understand the relationship of negative feedback – increased heat/more water vapour/ more cloud/ less heat. I can’t help thinking that cloud influence pales most other things into insignificance.

henryy@stephen wilde
yes it seems we are now getting on the same wavelength…. good to exchange some ideas with you… thanks.
just to summarize to you all my results
1)maximum temps starting increasing around 1950,
ozone started dropping from 1951
2) maximum temps. are falling from 1995
ozone is increasing from 1995, both NH and SH, but % wise the increase in the SH is more spectacular. SH has all the oceans, our energy store. Increasing ozone (+peroxides + nitrous oxides) bounces more sun light off to space so that in total less energy is going into the oceans (SH, predominantly).
hence we are cooling, from the top.
3) Due to this, as agreed, higher latitudes > [40] will get some less clouds and moisture, and it will also become cooler there. I have proven this as well by studying some random rainfall data.
The lower latitudes 30 > x > -30 will get more clouds and rain, on average. But insolation at the equator is 684 whereas on average it is 342, so with the higher albedo, due to the increased clouds at lower latitudes, we are cooling from the bottom as well.
At this stage, we must realize that these changes are not much, in real terms, but they are now going to add up and I promise you that we all will be shivering from the cold, in about ten years from now. Unfortunately.
(my wife still laughs at me when I tell here it has been globally cooling and we already dropped 0.2 degrees C or K in the last dozen years or so)
4) now to agree on the mechanism is the important issue.
In the end, I think William Arnold had it right in the first place.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
to quote from the above paper:
“A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….
end quote
According to my table for maxima, end of warming was around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.
Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,now see:
1900 minimum flooding of the Nile – end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.
The flooding of the Nile follows the other observations, exactly, i.e. that means more rain and clouds between [30] latitudes from 1995-2040.
Seeing that he had the dates right, in line with my data events on ozone and maxima, I think the rest of that report might also be correct. It is our planets exerting a weight on the centre of the sun, changing not its output so much as the distribution of the TSI, especially E-UV.
Do you perhaps have a correlation of E-UV against SSN?
In hindsight, what a pity of all our time and resources wasted, on the idea that it is the CO2 that is warming our planet….
But what is going to happen when we reach the bottom of the wave? That is where we have almost a complete standstill in the speed of cooling. Any ideas? I am convinced 1932-1939 drought is going to happen again…..

henry@stephen wilde
you did not say what you think of william arnold’s theory? Is it the planets causing the obvious 90-odd year weather cycle?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
we reach the bottom in a couple of years?
The planet theory fits like a glove; it (the planetary system) is like an elastic band, preventing over-cooling and run away warming. It means of course that if a catastrophe hits one of those big planets we are in deep trouble…

I am in pretty much agreement with Stephen Wilde’s most recent postings. Mty studies lead to the same basic conclusions. Read some of my earlier post.

@ Stephen Wilde
Have you yet realized that terrestrial & solar jets are being controlled by the same thing?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/scd_sst_q.png
Supplementary: http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif

Paul Vaughan said:
“Have you yet realized that terrestrial & solar jets are being controlled by the same thing?”
If the change in particles and wavelengths is caused by changes in the solar jets then that would be a logical observation but I don’t need to consider that for my purposes.
Note too that the solar jets would still not be the whole story because the Earth’s jets are controlled more directly by the net energy budget and the solar effect is heavily modulated by the lagging ocean response.
My position is that anything that affects the net energy budget will affect Earth’s jets and climate zones because their movement is the negative system response adjusting the flow of energy through the Earth system.

Paul Vaughan said:
“a (previously) lurking variable is driving 2 systems in parallel”
Hi Paul.
That might be relevant to me if you suggest that the lurking variable affects the Earth’s jets directly without involving the sun’s jets first.
That is possible in principle if you are considering planetary movements but I don’t see that as able to significantly affect the temperature of the stratosphere and the equator to pole tropopause height gradient.
It seems to me to be far too small an effect to produce the air circulation shifts that we observe.

Ok Paul.
So what do you say is the previously lurking variable?
Must be powerful if it accounts for 80% of observed variability.

Ok Stephen
Ok Paul.
Are we are all agreed now here it is mainly the planets exerting a force on the sun that affects the weather on earth?
Then we are back to where William Arnold was / philosophized, (before the CO2 nonsense)
-God bless him, does he still live?-
If I read his dials correctly the planets (Jupiter and Uranus) will re-align similarly to where we were in 1934, in 2017. That would mean we only have a few years left before the dust bowl droughts 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I am trying to warn people of an impending disaster.
I can see from my own data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
that we could reach the bottom (constant speed= no difference in temps. = no difference in pressure= no rain ) around 2016
but William Arnold was out by at least 5 years in his prediction on the end of warming….
There could be a lag…?
please help me, if you can?

@Paul
I get that, SST can be correlated with SSN, but I hope you will see that SSN can be correlated with planetary movement.
This is what the paper from William Arnold is all about.
My best fit for the drop in maximum temps. shows that around 40 years ago counted from 2012, we reached the maximum speed of warming. All fits (with high correlation) show that in 1995 we turned from warming to cooling (as far as maxima is concerned). The difference between 1995 and 1972 is 23.
That is one node, as William Arnold pointed out. He was just out by 5 years but he did not have my data to work with so his beginning and ending could be a bit wrong, for the present. The next node (quarter part of the a-c wave) could be between 22 and 29 years. I am trying to narrow this down from his notes on the planetary movements. Unfortunately I never studied astronomy. I have no clue as to what his dials there mean, but I suppose you don’t know either.
If it is 22, we could arrive there in 1995+22= 2017. That would be the beginning of the major drought times for the higher latitudes because there will be less moisture and the speed of cooling is constant for a period of time around the bottom of the a-c wave – no acceleration. Already, there should be a noticeable decrease in precipitation on the Great Plains as we are curving down, no doubt blamed on “man made climate change”.
(Hoover dam water is lower than normal?).
So, truly there is and there will be climate change with a major impact on the food production in USA and Canada. It is just not man made…..