Method uses the Ap geomagnetic index, which has been in a slump since October 2005:
The Hockey Schtick tips us to a paper published today in Advances in Space Research predicts that if the current lull in solar activity “endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling.”
The graph they produced with the paper:
The author uses a new “empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index” of solar geomagnetic activity to predict sunspot activity several years in advance.
The author notes solar activity has been at a higher level in the 20th century saying”
“the Sun has emerged from a Grand Maximum, which includes solar cycle 19, the most active solar cycle in the last 400 years. Earth was cooler in Grand Minima. The trend line indicates we have entered a period of low solar activity.”
Note the red horizontal line on the graph show 50-year mean solar activity was at the highest levels of the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.
The author also has a slide show that has some interesting elements. For example, here is their TCQP of the Ap Index:
They summarize:
The paper:
An empirical approach to predicting the key parameters for a sunspot number cycle
H.S. Ahluwalia University of New Mexico, Department of Physics & Astronomy
Abstract
The common methodologies used to predict the smooth sunspot number (SSN) at peak (Rmax) and the rise time (Tr) for a cycle are noted. The estimates based on geomagnetic precursors give the best prediction of Rmax for five SSN cycles (20-24). In particular, an empirical technique invoking three-cycle quasi-periodicity (TCQP) in Ap index has made accurate predictions of Rmax and Tr for two consecutive SSN cycles (23 and 24). The dynamo theories are unable to account for TCQP. If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling. The current status of the ascending phase of cycle 24 is described and the delayed reversal of the solar polar field reversal in the southern hemisphere in September 2013 is noted.
Open access here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007473
Annual Mean Sunspot Numbers
Grand maximum in the 20th century?
w.
At least it won’t be like the Maunder Minimum… or, is everyone still just guessing right now?
Somebody please help the liberal arts major who’s got no statistics training. What’s different about their method, and is it legit?
Willis Eschenbach says:
December 2, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Grand maximum in the 20th century?
w.
>>>>>>>
Wait to check his celestial “math experts”. Then it will be okay….
If correct, it would be funny to see the AGW believers try to explain the Global Cooling.
Also, weren’t there other studies suggesting we’d be entering a cycle similar to the Dalton-like minimum?
Jim, if we look at the progression of Grand Minima after the Mediaeval Maximum, the Wolf and Spörer minima that preceded the Maunder were progressively deeper.
If (big ‘if’, that) the sequence repeats itself, we’ll not see another Maunder for some centuries, but will suffer lesser Grand Minima leading up to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
No amount of lipstick will make the curve fitted pig look attractive IMHO. I’m not saying there may be some merit in the method but it’s hardly hard empirical science is it? Lets face it, no-one has a frickin clue! Hedge fund anyone?
Inb4 “it’s the sun, stupid”.
Leif 3… 2…. 1…..
Russ in TX says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Somebody please help the liberal arts major who’s got no statistics training. What’s different about their method, and is it legit?
>>>>>
Russ, statistics mean you can spin the facts to your advantage. Avoid the “statistics” and go with the facts.
No charge.
(BTW, I sometimes live in TX also.)
Jeef says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Inb4 “it’s the sun, stupid”.
>>>>>
I love it….
I still find it difficult to believe this will have a major impact. Assuming the sun has these low points every couple of centuries, how does one explain the MWP, the RWP, the Holocene Optimum? Clearly, there’s more to the climate then solar sunspot cycles.
Year 2050
A little of this, a little of that, throw in something else and wham we’re in another LIA. Everyone will be looking for the “Missing Heat” just to stay warm.. All the while CO2 kept rising (so much for that amplification and sensitivity numbers).
Paging Dr. Svalgaard… Dr. Svalgaard please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone….
Since no one else has said it:
“…but the source of the energy would have to be massive, on the order of our own sun!”
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Paging Dr. Svalgaard… Dr. Svalgaard please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone….
>>>>>
The groupies come out after dark.
“If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum.”
I suppose if it endures longer than a Dalton-like grand minimum, the Sun shall enter a Maunder-like grand minimum.
Perhaps the full paper has more beef.
I’ve found Dr Leif Svalgaard’s arguments against a Grand Maximum in the 20th century convincing. If he’s right, then I wonder what the impact will be on the conclusions of this paper, because it’ll mean they’ve been using incorrect data as input to their empirical approach.
James Allison says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Leif 3… 2…. 1…..
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Paging Dr. Svalgaard… Dr. Svalgaard please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone….
=========================
I’m with you guys. I’ll have to look in the morning to see if he’s weighed in.
Graeme W says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm
I’ve found Dr Leif Svalgaard’s arguments against a Grand Maximum in the 20th century convincing. If he’s right, then I wonder what the impact will be on the conclusions of this paper, because it’ll mean they’ve been using incorrect data as input to their empirical approach.
>>>>>>>>
Sycophants are so amusing.
Graeme, if it gets colder then you are an ice cube. If it get warmer, you will fry.
Hint: Think for yourself.
Given the sun was the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century, and that “coincided” with the rapid warming that seems to have abated, how does the theory work (I heard Gavin Schmidt voice it) that the warming of the latter half of the 20th century could NOT be due to the sun?
I am curious how that was ruled out given the studies that show the sun activity was very active.
I saw a graph somewhere of global temperatures plotted against AP and it looked a better correlation than ssn, but I can’t find it now
geran, if Graeme says “I’ve found Dr Leif Svalgaard’s arguments against a Grand Maximum in the 20th century convincing…” that means that he is thinking for himself. Specifically evaluating an argument rather than taking it on faith. I also find Dr. Svalgaard’s arguments convincing, not because I am a “groupie”, and not because I fail to “think for myself,” but because he has done the hard work of evaluating the methodology and validity of sunspot numbers as recorded, and found a problem that has yet to receive a refutation that I find convincing. If you have a refutation of Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusion against a 20th century “grand maximum” I am quite sure he would like to know it.
According to Penn & Livingston’s paper, if the Umbral Magnetic Field falls below 1,500 gauss (currently at around 2,000 gauss and falling at around 35 gauss/year), there will be insufficient magnetic force to hold any sunspots together by around 2025.
Although there are many people I respect that don’t believe there is a clear causation/correlation between sunspots and global temperature trends, there are many respected scientists that believe such a causation/correlation exists.
As luck would have it, it’s likely the debate will be settled one way or another in around 10 years. If temperature trends continue to fall during low sunspot activity, while CO2 emissions continue to accelerate, it’ll be impossible for CAGW to survive.
It’s now been 17 years and 1 month with a -0.000C/decade global tropospheric temperature trend, with falling HADCRUT4 temperature trends since 2001, despite 1/3rd of ALL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 made over the last 17 years…. Oh, my….
I can’t believe CAGW is still taken seriously. It’s become such an awful joke.
And so it goes….until liberty and reason are restored…..
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:26 pm
“…If you have a refutation of Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusion against a 20th century “grand maximum” I am quite sure he would like to know it.”
>>>>>>
OK, this is the 21st century.
(Like I said, sycophants are so much fun.)
Nice to see the Academics finally getting around to forecasting cooling via quasi periodic patterns.
The projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.
How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required. It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi- independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.
A simple rational approach to climate forecasting based on common sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns has been developed on several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
There has been no net warming for 16 years indeed the earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003 which will continue until about 2035 and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that. For estimates of the timing and amount of the coming cooling based on the empirical 60 and 1000 year quasi periodicities and the neutron count data see the link above.
Obama’s and Britain’s Climate and Energy policy is based on the IPCC’s delusional fantasies of future warming.
Leif is still stuck on the last ison thread waiting for me to reply,
When Leif says this paper is wrong \ baseless speculation. I’d agree
meemoe_uk says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Leif is still stuck on the last ison thread waiting for me to reply,
>>>>>
I call him Dr. S., out of respect.
(The “S” stands for what I want it to stand for….)
It can’t be so, we have after all ‘settled science’ of the IPCC.
/sarc off
Can’t I go out to eat?
We can reconstruct the Ap-index back to at least 1844. Here is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png.
Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously.
Right or wrong in paper. Future will tell. But what’s been known for at least 70 years is that there will be a minimum within 2043-2343. There is a statistic discrepence which if one uses more traditional methods including placing a Chebysjev -thesis +/- on gives a different conclusion: 2043-2343. The big question isn’t the effects. Back in history of Earth Ice Ages always follows within a few year.
The big question isn’t a Domeday-question, but a more practical one – do we understand the impacts which it will have on our energy-depending society of today. What I mean is can we who live today prepare for colder period, short or long, so people will have heat and food enough for periods where today’s energy-system might fail to be effective… We humans could place a man on the moon, but can we live for longer periods than a month with ineffective or non existing electric energy due to break downs? Our ancestors could. Can we?
Already this thread is being taken over by the two assholes, geran and meemo_UK. It is getting disgusting to have to even see your names on the comment list. Since they do nothing to contribute to the subject discussion but rather engage in the tiresome bashing of Dr S, I suggest they be ignored. .
sunspot number was very high just a week or two ago
If the climate starts cooling, don’t be so sure that we will be rid of the climate activists who want to seize control of the world’s energy industries. I remember reading that during the 1970’s cooling scare the climate activists wanted to take drastic steps to reduce use of fossil fuels so that they would still be around to keep us warm during the upcoming ice age. As the saying goes, when you have a hammer …
Tom in Florida says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Already this thread is being taken over by the two assholes, geran and meemo_UK. It is getting disgusting to have to even see your names on the comment list. Since they do nothing to contribute to the subject discussion but rather engage in the tiresome bashing of Dr S, I suggest they be ignored. .
>>>>>>>>>>>
This “Tom” disrespects science, and has nothing to contribute other than her tireless sycophancy. Rather than ignoring her, I suggest we honor and appreciate her display of arrogance and tyranny as an example that none of us would want to live by.
Too bad I won’t be around in 2050, unless they develop a cure for aging. And, knowing the way I am, they’d probably withhold it from me anyway.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm
This “Tom” disrespects science, and has nothing to contribute other than her tireless sycophancy.
To my recollection you have never contributed anything worthwhile, so perhaps it is not appropriate for you to judge other’s contributions. You can stop doing that right now.
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:44 pm
…”To my recollection you have never contributed anything worthwhile, so perhaps it is not appropriate for you to judge other’s contributions. You can stop doing that right now.”
>>>>>>
Don’t fret Dr. S, I can help your recollection. Maybe 7-8 weeks ago when I pointed out the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not support CAGW. You tried to deny, but stuck your foot in your mouth. (Not an uncommon occurrence, heh?)
Hey Dr S (I know you’re out there) check Oct 19th WUWT open thread. Be there or be square.
Let me know if you need any more help.
The 2050 target is way too late, it’ll be recovering by solar cycle 26.
Wow, the sun matters?
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Maybe 7-8 weeks ago when I pointed out the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not support CAGW.
I don’t think that is worthwhile, and certainly on this and recent threads there have not been any substantive comment. All we get from you are silly attempts to put others in bad light. Perhaps it is time to stop doing that.
UnfrozenCavemanMD has already answered for me, but I’ll expand on his response. I have been thinking for myself. I’ve looked at the information and considered the arguments presented. As I said, I found them convincing. I also said “If he’s right” to allow for the possibility that there is a different explanation, because it’s always possible to make a mistake.
My question was if he’s right then would that invalidate the paper? That’s more thinking for myself.
What I’d like to know is why your thought I wasn’t thinking for myself? Was it because I agreed with something that you disagree with? Or is the person whose idea I’m agreeing with that you don’t agree with? In either case, that’s not a scientific approach. I’m happy to read an explanation of why Dr. Svalgaard’s opinion on the non-existence of a “20th Century Grand Maximum” is wrong, but you’ll need to show me where I can find the counter arguments.
If that’s your response to the question, then I will now think for myself and consider your argument… Okay, finished thinking. I found your argument unconvincing. Indeed, I find it to be complete nonsense.
I don’t think that is worthwhile, and certainly on this and recent threads there have not been any substantive comment. All we get from you are silly attempts to put others in bad light. Perhaps it is time to stop doing that.
>>>>>>
So, in your world, you get to define what is worthwhile, or not? That would be a cool world to live in, but sorry, we live in a REAL world.
You must take responsibility for what you say. If you are wrong, and you ‘fess up to it, you get to go again. If you are wrong, but you try to “spin” out of it, then you are a LIAR. Sorry, but I don’t make the rules.
You were busted Oct 19.
Show where I have ever lied.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:45 pm
You were busted Oct 19.
Show where I have ever lied.
Incompetent people often have an inflated opinion of themselves, you included.
So we are still doomed.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
“…If you have a refutation of Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusion against a 20th century “grand maximum” I am quite sure he would like to know it.” >>>>>>
geran says:
OK, this is the 21st century.
(Like I said, sycophants are so much fun.)
Mr. gergan
Perhaps the hand is typing faster than the brain is thinking? The statement refers to the debate on the existence of the Grand Maximum in the late 20th century.
Graeme W says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:34 pm
>>>>>>
Thank you for the long rambling redundant rambling long…….
Sorry, I fell asleep. But, I agree with your last sentence:
“Indeed, I find it to be complete nonsense.”
Are we able to do good predictions of SC24-25 minimum yet?
meemoe_uk says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:57 pm
Are we able to do good predictions of SC24-25 minimum yet?
I don’t think so. Wait 3-4 years, then we can make a good one.
Mr. gergan
Perhaps the hand is typing faster than the brain is thinking? The statement refers to the debate on the existence of the Grand Maximum in the late 20th century.
>>>>>>>>>>
gergan? geran, LMAO.
(It’s like Warmists are never allowed proper keyboards. Or, maybe they are never allowed proper brains….)
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:48 pm
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 8:45 pm
You were busted Oct 19.
Show where I have ever lied.
Incompetent people often have an inflated opinion of themselves, you included.
>>>>>>>>
Translation: You cannot produce any evidence that I have ever lied, so you must result to insults.
(Not to make fun of you Doc, but we are not really impressed with insults. We expect more from the “elites”. If you want to be a street person, get your nose pierced. If you want to impress us, bring out the facts about the Sun, Moon, comets, etc. If you have nothing, then keep up with the insults. We also like comedy.)
I don’t trust the prediction of a solar minimum in 2050 any more than I trust the IPCC’s so-called “global average temperature” predictions for the same year. But if there is a Dalton-type solar minimum around 2050, what would be the effect on the energy balance of the globe? (If possible, please quantify in terms of Hiroshima bombs) 🙂
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:12 pm
“Incompetent people often have an inflated opinion of themselves, you included.”
Translation: You cannot produce any evidence that I have ever lied, so you must result to insults.
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
If you want to impress us, bring out the facts about the Sun, Moon, comets, etc.
I do not want to impress you, but to teach you. Be receptive and learn.
Poor ol’ geran, acting like a chimpanzee again.
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
>>>>>>>>
Oh Dr S, the tangled web you weave for yourself.
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Your choice.
Your are a liar, or you are confused. Your choice.
Bob Diaz: “Also, weren’t there other studies suggesting we’d be entering a cycle similar to the Dalton-like minimum?”
Another analysis leading to much the same conclusion:
Abdussamatov, Habibullo. Grand Minimum Of The Total Solar Irradiance Leads To The Little Ice Age. Science and Public Policy Institute, November 25, 2013. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf
dalyplanet says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Poor ol’ geran, acting like a chimpanzee again.
>>>>>
Yeah, I remember that too. I have to live up to it…..
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:35 pm
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Of course, I always stand up for what I say, but you are not the judge of that. People can go to that comment and see for themselves: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/weekend-open-thread-8/
lsvalgaard;
I don’t think you can call him a liar as this would require competence combined with a deliberate intention to mislead. Having encountered him before, I have seen no evidence of the former. I also have not seen evidence of ability to learn. Your patience with people like him is remarkable.
davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:41 pm
I don’t think you can call him a liar as this would require competence combined with a deliberate intention to mislead.
I didn’t. He invited me to show him where he lied. No need for me to do that, as you note.
geran, your presentation on Oct 19 was clearly flawed and open to ambiguous interpretation as you never specified a flat non rotating disk as representative rather than an an alternative ideal black body earth with a stated albedo of 0,3.
The problem with chaotic systems is CHAOS. lol
About all you can do with any statistical reliability is to enumerate known past ranges of behavior and determine approximately how noisy the system is. Prediction is a waste of effort, generally but always fun. I especially find it amusing like fleas on a brontosaur estimating where the herd is headed.
A man has to know his limitations….there is nothing wrong with admitting we don’t know something.
The request was made:
Russ in TX says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Somebody please help the liberal arts major who’s got no statistics training. What’s different about their method, and is it legit?
This answer is from a physicist who does not specialize in the subject:
They are using a “new” mathematical method connected with the geomagnetic index. to find trends in the sunspot number data . The Dalton minimum was characterized by few sunspots.
1) I have not seen on the web a similar analysis
2) the statistical analysis that has been done is interesting, (but could just be numerology)
3) They are showing using their method a difference in the trends that would point to a Dalton minimum
As with all scientific publications there will be a criticism by people in the field, of the method, its validity, the data used etc, which will also be published, so it is too soon for the non specialists to decide about the legitimacy. It has been peer reviewed I suppose so that means that some of the experts find no error. On the other hand dr L.Svalgaard says that the plot/data used for the AP index does not agree with the data he knows, so already there is a criticism by a peer to the author.
In conclusion, as for all scientific statements, the legitimacy is something that time will tell, people repeating the analysis and agreeing or dismissing the method for some scientific or mathematical reason.
David comes to moderate, and I should accept that? I have never witnessed David lying. He is sometimes confused, but aren’t we all. But, let’s get started.
Dr. S is a master of spin. He says whatever he wants, the sycophants agree, and no one is allowed to challenge.
Is this the world you hope for David?
If I say 2+2 =4 and Dr S says I’m am wrong, do you agree me or Dr S?
Poor Richard’s Almanack comes to mind. Ben Franklin making a full years worth of weather predictions..July to be very hot and we might get surprised with a early frost…
dalyplanet says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:48 pm
geran, your presentation on Oct 19 was clearly flawed and open to ambiguous interpretation as you never specified a flat non rotating disk as representative rather than an an alternative ideal black body earth with a stated albedo of 0,3.
>>>>>>>
What a jokester! Yeah, I never specified 4000 playboy bunnies either.
Try to understand I was making it simple, but obviously not simple enough….
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
no one is allowed to challenge.
A challenge must be reasoned, to the point, and relevant. Yours was not.
Geran says at 8:45 pm . . .
. . i read your Oct 19 post, about an ‘ideal absorber’. That has nothing to do with the surface area of a disc vs. surface area of a sphere with the same diameter as the disc.
If you project 1367 watts/m^2 on a disc, vs. a sphere of same diameter, the ‘average’ watts / m^2 on the surface area of the sphere is different than the disc (as pointed out by Lief). Thus, the temp using the Stefan-Boltzman equation will be different for the disc than the sphere. You didn’t BUST Lief at all , you used the wrong watts/m^2, so you got the wrong value. That is what I see Lief was trying to point out.
As far as this thread, and the idea of a ‘minimum’, I think it is interesting. I see LIef’s plot of Ap index, (ref link to 7:15 post) and FWIW, it seems to me ( . .just ‘eyeballing’ it . ), that we may be entering a ‘low period’. Just an observation, not a prediction. BUT if it were continue . . . OK, I’ll leave it at that. Let’s see what the next 5-10 years bring . . .
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
David comes to moderate, and I should accept that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, well, I wasn’t moderating. It was a subtle but clear insult, which you clearly missed. Which serves to substantiate my assertion.
Martin C;
If you project 1367 watts/m^2 on a disc, vs. a sphere of same diameter, the ‘average’ watts / m^2 on the surface area of the sphere is different than the disc (as pointed out by Lief). Thus, the temp using the Stefan-Boltzman equation will be different for the disc than the sphere. You didn’t BUST Lief at all , you used the wrong watts/m^2, so you got the wrong value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I had the same argument with him in another thread. Tried to explain it using grade 10 geometry. I failed in my efforts to educate him. This is troubling for me. Either my ability to educate others in the basics of physics is sorely lacking, or … well, ’nuff said.
Bedtime here ladies.
Dr. S, Martin C, and David catch you later. Much to discuss
@geran actually, no, you won’t be catching those people later. I’ve put you in the troll bin – you’ve overstepped decent manners here and you have become a disrupting influence. – Anthony
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:59 pm
I was making it simple, but obviously not simple enough….
Rather too simplistic. The standard ideal absorber is an enclosure with [not necessarily perfectly] absorbing interior walls and with a small hole to the outside world. Any radiation shined into the hole from the outside will bounce around inside the chamber and never get back out of the hole, which them can be said to completely absorb all radiation falling on it, thus being an ‘ideal absorber’.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:35 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:16 pm
As MikeB on that Oct.19 thread said to you: “stop digging an even deeper hole for yourself”.
If you want your lie exposed, that thread is a good example.
>>>>>>>>
Oh Dr S, the tangled web you weave for yourself.
I’m calling you out. Do you want to put all of your credibility on your comment?
Your choice.
Your are a liar, or you are confused. Your choice.
####################
Mods, seriously. that is way out of line
Dear David Hoffer,
Re: “I failed in my efforts to educate him. This is troubling for me.”
FWIW, you have often succeeded in educating this non-scientist (as has Dr. Svalgaard).
Now, go look in the mirror and repeat 3 times (with a smile and with gusto):
I am a GREAT teacher!
That’s right!
#(:))
Your grateful student,
Janice
****************************************
Janice: Hey, Geran, how’s it going? You seem a little upset. Are we still WUWT pals? Ah, ah,… now, don’t — do — it… DON’T — EVEN! — you put that rotten banana down this instant….. . Geran?! GERAN! {snaps fingers before his (gotta be) eyes…}
Geran: {blinks mildly, looking a bit disoriented, lets rotten banana fall from his hand} Where am I? What are YOU doing here, Janice? Grrr. Don’t you have some Barbie dolls to go play with or something? I dreamed I was in Flatland and a sphere tried to convince us all that it was round but we would not believe it because all we could see was a point… . IT WAS HORRIBLE!!!! {shudder} and I got so mad I was jumping up and down and….. somebody called….. me….. a …………..
wait — a — minute…. that was you! Oooo, I am so mad at you!
J: But, Geran, dear, that was weeks ago. And I asked you to forgive me (twice) and I thought you told me you did forgive me for saying you were “acting like a screaming chimpanzee?” Remember?
G: {looks at watch — grins} Well, would you look at the time. Gotta go.
J: Sigh.
Geran got a bottle and fresh nappies. Why waste time with that big baby? Leif, I don’t always agree with you, but so what? For example, I suspect there is a variable galactic cosmic ray flux we don’t understand well at all. At least there is more to the big picture than just our solar system. On the other hand, we start with what we know best and can test. Thanks for sharing your expertise. It is greatly appreciated.
I have enough trouble attempting to predict the weather in my own back yard.
I have even more trouble trying to predict the chaotic system called, “My own life.”
These people who take it upon themselves to predict a chaotic system as gigantic as our sun utterly amaze me.
I’d hate to sound like a Sun-worshiping New-Ager, but to these brothers have any idea of the enormity of the sun they are trying to predict?
The sun. Just a little, three-letter-word. Just a thing in the sky, about the size of a dime. Easy to predict such a little thing, right? Just line up your numbers and you know exactly what it will do, right?
Sorry to tell you guys this, but our entire planet is like a mote of dust, compared to our star. Our planet is like a gnat whizzing about it’s head. And on the back of that gnat is a micro-flea, called an “expert,” who thinks he is an “authority.”
Likely there are fleas on the backs of polar bears who think they know about bears, but cannot predict exactly when that bear will chose to scratch them off.
In like manner, we cannot predict when our sun will scratch, or hiccup, or yawn, or do whatever a chaotic system chooses to do.
Dear Anthony,
You were right to toss Geran into the bin.
I’m writing to ask if he could have a second chance after 2 weeks (or whatever time you think best). Then, if he flies off the handle again, that will be it. I think Geran is a very lonely man who never succeeded at being what he hoped to be and sees WUWT as a safe place to express his frustrations at those who have excelled in their field, such as Dr. Svalgaard.
Geran is wrong. If, however, he is not warped beyond reform, perhaps, given a “second chance,” he can become a healthy part of the WUWT “gang” and seek attention in positive ways, instead of by insults and outrageous behavior.
Well, no need to respond to me. I hope you’ll let old Geran back in before Christmas, however, it is your site. I respect your judgment.
Thanks for reading this.
Your devoted fan,
Janice
Nice to see, anna v.
I also see the PDO and the temperature record in Leif’s reconstruction from 1910 on. See 1940, 1970, and 2000.
=============
I for one find 97% of the comments here just bickering and not that interesting or helpful.
Whatever are the merits or the faults of Dr. Svalgaards non-admirers, judging from almost every thread in which Dr. Svalgaard participates, he is the first and the foremost troll that deserves to be in the bin.
But of course, if I don’t like something here, I am welcome to leave. Only those who always like everything, however wrong, are welcome to stay.
I for one found geran’s comments not only tedious and repetitive, but largely incomprehensible.
I suspect this is a sad, lonely individual, who is desperately seeking some kind of attention.
Anyhow, that said, this article highlights something which many have long suspected – it is not carbon dioxide gas which is ‘evil’, but it could be the sun. Someone needs to tell the good folks in the EPA, so they can ban it, or restrict its shining, or do something else equally as daft.
Fluctuations in energy emissions from our variable (all stars are variable) star the Sun? Perish the thought, that’s climate heresy. That’s a fine of 10,000 carbon credits and a 300 feet high wind turbine in your back garden.
/Sarc off
Doc S.
Your graph of AP magnetic index actually scares me, it looks like it could fall lower than it has ever been, by the next cycle
A Dalton or even a Maunder minima would reduce the energy the Earth recieves by a small amount. The energy change from the rising CO2 is arounf five times greater.
If posters here think the small change in solar output will alter the climate then the logical deduction is that the rising CO2 will have an effect 500% larger.
No Izen, you are not making sense. The one does not flow from the other. Virtually all energy the planet has/retains comes from the sun. Period. Fluctuations in solar output does have a pronounced impact on the temperature of the planet. But the energy reaching the planet has nothing to do with the amount of energy retained.
Yeah, Stuart, sunspots haven’t disappeared since 1844, either.
==========
Dalton type minimum is likely, but it may occur earlier than predicted by this article.
In a way, their prediction may be partially right but for a wrong reason.
Ap averaging from number of geomagnetic stations may or may not be an accurate geomagnetic response to the solar activity. The energy contained in the solar wind is miniscule and it is unlikely to result in any significant climate change.
However, there are number of ‘terra-genic’ parameters that are synchronised with solar activity, but of number of orders of magnitude greater than the solar wind impact could account for. Here as an example is a comparison between the Ap index (since 1935) and the volcanic activity (N. hemisphere’s higher latitudes)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
This shows that science is far from settled for two reasons:
– possible link between solar and volcanic activity
– climate change and the NH’s volcanic activity have direct (positive) rather than generally assumed inversed (negative) correlation.
In many cases a hypothesis is advanced and then data is researched for confirmation.
In the above example I’ve researched data presenting results without positing a hypothesis; it is noted that this may not be good enough for some of the comentators.
Likely one of the first of a lot of similar studies. Obviously, we simply just don’t know yet. How quiet? How long? Interesting times!
Bob Diaz says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm
“If correct, it would be funny to see the AGW believers try to explain the Global Cooling.
Also, weren’t there other studies suggesting we’d be entering a cycle similar to the Dalton-like minimum?”
The AGW alarmists started their first alarmist claims 26 years ago when they predicted a pending disaster caused by the rise of sea level due to human CO2 emissions.
They already have a lot to explain for as it is.
lsvalgaard post on Ap 1844 onwards
There really is no point calculating a correlation against time for data like this. Least of all, then declaring no trend on the basis of no linear fit (perfectly obvious). Presumably, the issue is whether there is any (linear) trend in the residuals obtained after first fitting cycle(s) to the time series.
Now man’s carbon dioxide emissions are effecting the sun!
Well, they obviously haven’t been keeping up to date with their IPCCool Aid, otherwise they would know that the temperatures will continue to rise in response to CO2, whatever the sun does. (Do I need to add off?)
SAMURAI says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Samurai,
I didn’t know about the 1/3 of all manmade CO2 made in the last 17 years fact.
CAGW will survive, don’t you worry one bit. It’s what a lot of people want to believe. I ran into a engineer years ago who thought slavery was a good idea. His family prospered in the antebellum period somewhere down South. His lack of talent wouldn’t have had the negative consequences on his family’s fortunes as the current economic setup is today. I’m sure there are lots of people feeding at the CAGW trough who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves otherwise. There is a good chance lots of government funding will still go on, no matter what. Collectively, isn’t the world spending something like $1 billion per day on this nonsense? People sharing in that money will be hard to convince it is being wasted.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
All these dire predictions. Let’s enjoy the wonderful mild, balmy ice and snow free NH winter conditions that were promised by our world class climate scientists 27 years ago.
Thank you, Anthony. I was shocked at the level of rudeness on display. Argue ’til the end of the wee small hours by all means, but maintain respect & courtesy at all times!
Janice Moore says:
December 2, 2013 at 11:46 pm
Janice, I’m with you. Thanks Anthony. Thank you lsvalgaard for sharing your knowledge with me.
izen says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:41 am
izen,
Would you be so kind as to point to the evidence supporting your claims?
@- Jack Simmons
” I’m sure there are lots of people feeding at the CAGW trough who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves otherwise. ”
The same goes for the fossil fuel trough, the biggest money making business in the world.
@- “Collectively, isn’t the world spending something like $1 billion per day on this nonsense? ”
No, but that is rather closer to the daily profits of the fossil fuel industry. Defending that cash-cow from accusations it may change the climate seems to be well funded, Congress alone gets around a million dollars a day just from the fossil fuel lobby.
@- “People sharing in that money will be hard to convince it is wasted”
Quite.
Satellite and ground measurements confirm that the change in solar energy is a fifth of the measured change in raised CO2 generated downwelling energy. Simple physics determines that the rising CO2 must have 5x the effect of solar changes.
@- Jack Simmons
“Would you be so kind as to point to the evidence supporting your claims?”
Of course, no problem. As so often the ‘science of doom’ site has the full details, but the shorter version, the rise in CO2 causes a change of around 4 W/m2 at the tropopause. The maximum difference between the solar cycle minima and peak is less than 1W/m2 at the same location.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/09/02/radiative-forcing-and-the-surface-energy-balance/
Jack Simmons–
Perhaps what’s even more incredible is that 25% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 have been made over just the last 10 years, attributable to the exponential economic growth of China and India, which both have populations exceeding 1 billion souls.
I do think CAGW’s days are numbered given the total lack of warming over the last 17 years and the fortunate combination of: the lowest solar cycles in 100 years, the fastest falling solar activity over the last 20 years in about 10,000 years, the PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle in 2008, the AMO will enter its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020 and perhaps the start of a Grand Solar Minimum from 2020.
In the not too distant future, CAGW won’t be able pass the giggle test with 20+ years of no warming and falling tempertures since 2001. There will eventually be a point of singularity where the empirical evidence disconfirming CAGW will be so overwhelming, ever increasing numbers of real scientists will be compelled to speak out against it or lose both their integrity and, more importantly, their funding….
It is quite surprising to read this heated discussion before, a couple of days before, the SSN SC-24 progression data is due out. I expect this heat about a week after.
@- SAMURAI
“In the not too distant future, CAGW won’t be able pass the giggle test with 20+ years of no warming and falling tempertures since 2001.”
2001 was the tenth hottest year on record
Every year in the decade since 2001 has been hotter except 2008.
2010 was the hottest year on record.
The last decade, 2003-2013 has been warmer than the preceding, 1993-2003 decade.
Difficult to reconcile the facts with your claim of falling temperatures.
https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=53
What is definitive and worrisome is the highly significant increase in Antarctic ice extent probably due to the solar effect kicking in?.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
It is my belief/guess that this is beginning to affect the weather here currently.
http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/satellite/misc/s.america-ir-sat.html
The difference in colder air versus normal warm air is creating some pretty massive storms: when the conditions are right (humidity etc) Emphasis: its the cooler air from the south, NOT the warmer air from the north aka due to AGW drivel etc……
Glad to see this place got cleaned up!
A friendly reminder.
Izen made a comment regarding the small effect on warming from changes in the suns activity vs co2. Does that statement hold true if doubling co2 is not amplified and has to stand on its own? What if there are negative cloud feedbacks as an example.
***
Richard M says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I still find it difficult to believe this will have a major impact.
***
It won’t.
Internal climatic dynamics can & prb’ly will, tho, just like it always has.
“Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously.”
What did it look like during the Dalton or Maunder minimum? I would think that is what we need to compare to. By 1844, we’re beginning the “Grand Maximum”.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 2, 2013 at 6:44 pm
It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi- independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.
================
Agreed. Throughout history successful prediction has always preceded understanding. Successful prediction confirms we are on the right track, and from this we develop understanding of the process.
Climate models are trying to reverse this process and failing in the attempt. This is because they fail to grasp that the unknown is at work, both in their models and in the word around us. And it is the action of the unknown that makes a mockery of their approach.
lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Can’t I go out to eat?
We can reconstruct the Ap-index back to at least 1844. Here is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png.
Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously
—————————————————————————————————————————-
There is allways other reconstructions of past activities. Dont blindfold yourself to believe that only you know, what is good science. If you see mistake or misiterpretion say it, but if it is only against your pet theory, it does not make it bad science. Competition in field of science is hell of a race, but only goal is find new knowledge.
Without the slightest understanding of what created the seasons, early humans learned to predict them. Without the slightest understanding of what creates gravity, later date humans learned to predicts the results of gravity. Without the slightest understanding of what causes time dilation, modern humans learned to predict its effect and correct for it in their navigation systems.
All of this makes a mockery of the notion that you must understand the mechanism to make successful prediction. Prediction follows from observation. From successful prediction we develop understanding.
ferdberple Thanks for the support – for cooling forecasts based on the principles you reiterate – a reminder -y’all check
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
@- william
“Izen made a comment regarding the small effect on warming from changes in the suns activity vs co2. Does that statement hold true if doubling co2 is not amplified and has to stand on its own? What if there are negative cloud feedbacks as an example.”
The feedbacks, including negative cloud feedbacks would also affect the solar changes, energy is energy at the tropopause.
Olavi says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:06 am
There is always other reconstructions of past activities.
Actually, there aren’t any other reconstructions of the Ap-index.
“A Dalton or even a Maunder minima would reduce the energy the Earth recieves by a small amount. The energy change from the rising CO2 is arounf five times greater.”
If a change in a trace gas concentration can trigger a cascade of positive feedbacks, what’s to say a drop in input energy does not have negative ones?
How much energy is released by a PDO shift in comparison to the effects of CO2?
Plotting trend lines through any set of data is not just a question of the stats used (and there are a LOT of different ways to do this) – there has to be some reason for their being a long-term trend as well as an equivalent level of accuracy in the the data over the range of the graph. Sun spot numbers have been (rightly) criticized because of the changes in methods for counting them (and reasonable people can argue over the methods used to correct for this).
Proxies (isn’t an isotope of Be used for this?) suffer because we have to make assumptions based on other factors that we may or may not have adequately allowed for (an argument against almost all of the paleo work, I must say)
The Ap-index is quoted from 1844 – looks better than SSN, but are we confident that the methodology for measuring this is consistent?
What I am saying, really, is that we are all busy arguing about trends over data which is really not suitable for this over the time period we are using. The last 50 or so years are probably good consistent data, but this is not the length of time people want to see, given the major climate changes took place over longer periods.
I am very happy to consider trends in solar factors as being valid – let’s face it, there are some pretty regular cycles going on in there and internal solar mechanisms are likely to have some longer term changes – but if you are going to do wiggle-matching then you have got to know whether the data you are using can support it. The statistical methodology is irrelevant if you don’t have the data.
On a related topic, here are two published papers you might want to consider:
Wilson, I.R.G.: The Venus–Earth–Jupiter spin–orbit coupling
model, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 147-158
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/147/2013/prp-1-147-2013.html
and
Salvador, R.J.: A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.html
Rob Potter says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:14 am
The Ap-index is quoted from 1844 – looks better than SSN, but are we confident that the methodology for measuring this is consistent?
Yes, it is based on direct measurements of variations of the geomagnetic field which we have been able to make accurately since Gauss showed us back in the 1830s.
Superb comment BioBob. I’d give it +1000000 if I could.
The universe is a chaotic place, and we have next to no knowledge about most of it. But that is what makes science great – there will always be so much more to discover.
However, CAGW isn’t about scientific discovery, it’s just about dogma and Mikey Mann making a fool of himself (whoops, he’ll probably want to sue me now).
PS Izen, wild-ass claims don’t hold much water here at WUWT
Sorry mods, my email was wrong and might come back as fake. The real one is attached to this comment
Ian Wilson says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:18 am
Salvador, R.J.: A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr
Unfortunately, the model is a fit to sunspot numbers which very likely are not correct: http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf
Anthony,
Thanks for that.
Since 2007 when he first “held court” at climate audit I have admired the patience and wit of Dr. S. Commenters here have the all too rare opportunity to interact with a working scientist, one who shares his work in progress and answers questions.
Dr. S, and those in his task force, are re examining one the critical pieces of data used to understand our climate. From my perspective he and Anthony share that in common.
Dr. S, has gone back to the “raw” data. The observations of many different men over hundreds of years and is untangling the various adjustments made and deriving a record that is defensible on several grounds.
The challenge for his opponents is simple: go back to the same documents. Go back to the same records and drawings and show, actually show, where Dr. S gets it wrong.
Dr. S is goring some people’s oxen, on all sides. And so you’ll see them attack him personally.
Of course he gets to respond in kind. But one thing I have never seen. I have never seen a critic
of his actually do the tough work of going back to the actual data, actual records, and show or demonstrate where he is wrong.
Here is how science works, in this case observational science. A man takes records. he makes sense of those records to show a picture of the past. He checks that picture against other independent bits of data. If that picture holds up that is our best estimate of the historical record.
period. If you want to challenge that, your job is to create a better record. because its history we cannot “test” this reconstruction via experiment. We cant go back in time to recount spots.
we cant wait to see how the experiment comes out because there is no experiment. Skepticism
therefore is limited. Its not enough to merely raise issues, you actually need to go out and do a better job if you want to be taken seriously.
izen says:
December 3, 2013 at 5:01 am
Every year in the decade since 2001 has been hotter except 2008.
2010 was the hottest year on record.
That may be true for HadCRUT4, but not for RSS. See:
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/01/rss-amsu-2012-was-11th-warmest-year.html#more
IZEN-san:
The CAGW argument that the last decade was the warmest since “fill in the blank” is like a 37 year old boasting that for the last 10 years, he’s at his tallest height of his life, with the implication that he’s still growing…. Not so much….
The fact is that he stopped growing when he hit 20 and has stopped growing for the past 17 years, just as the RSS warming trend has stopped since October 1996 (-0.001C/decade) and the trend for HADCRUT4 has been FALLING since January 2001 at -0.02C/decade.
The reality is that the global warming trend has stopped for 17 years. Not “paused”, but stopped and it’s driving the IPCC insane and is in complete disagreement with CAGW projections. As of now, 73 out of 73 CMIP5 model projections for the lower tropical troposphere are ALL (every single of them) above observed temperatures and it only gets worse from here.
Warmunists may catch a “break” if there is an El Niño event next year, which they’ll erroneously blame on rising CO2 levels, when in reality the brief spike in temperatures will merely be the effect of a natural El Niño event. The subsequent La Niña will be simply extend the overall flat/falling trend since October 1996.
CAGW is a complete bust. It’s just a matter of time when 17 years of no warming trend becomes 20+ years, at which time it mercifully be put out of is misery and thrown on the trash heap of failed hypotheses.
Izen The paper you quote to support your claim that chages due to CO2 are 5 times that due to solar change concludes
“I haven’t demonstrated that the surface will warm by 3°C for a doubling of CO2. But I hope I have demonstrated the complexity of the processes involved and why a simplistic calculation of how the surface responds immediately to the surface forcing is not the complete answer. It is nowhere near the complete answer.
The surface temperature change as a result of doubling of CO2 is, of course, a massively important question to answer. GCM’s are necessarily involved despite their limitations.
Re-iterating what Ramanathan said in his 1998 paper in case anyone thinks I am making a case for a 3°C surface temperature increase:
As a caveat, the system we considered up to this point to elucidate the principles of warming is a highly simplified linear system. Its use is primarily educational and cannot be used to predict actual changes.”
Note the last sentence.
The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
“The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
In summary the projections of the IPCC – Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error and therefore worse than useless.
izen says:
December 3, 2013 at 3:56 am
@- Jack Simmons
” I’m sure there are lots of people feeding at the CAGW trough who wouldn’t be able to feed themselves otherwise. ”
The same goes for the fossil fuel trough, the biggest money making business in the world.
————————————————————————
Without the fossil fuel industry humanity as we know it wouldn’t exist. Can’t say the same for 97% of Climate Scientists with their snouts firmly in the tax trough.
Opps, Mods
Missed the ejection of a poster and his name in my post which may have hit the spam??
Samurai said in part: “It’s now been 17 years and 1 month with a -0.000C/decade global tropospheric temperature trend …”
That is RSS. The other major lower troposphere index, UAH, has a trend of about +.009 C/decade over that same period. I would say the hiatus started in 2001.
The Dalton Minimum reduction in temp in North America came after the pre-Dalton Minimum reduction in temperature in North America: all buffs of the American War of Independence know that the very late 18th century was exceptionally cold. So the impact of the Dalton was made, really, by causing a bad thing to get worse.
Coming out of the 20th Century “warm” spell, a Dalton would drop our temperatures to that of the 1960s or 1920s. Not so bad.
Of course, that depends on the assumption that the background warmth of the 20th century was not just related to what makes sunspots. If what we are seeing is a temperature drop with or without sunspots, i.e. either CO2 OR cloud cover changes OR general coupled Sun-Earth dynamics, then we can be back to the 1820s.
All these caveats only point out that we really don’t know what controls temperature changes or specific temperatures …. which is the skeptical point, I think.
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans which smooths out short term noise the SST data is the best climate metric. See Fig 7 at the last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
to see the slight cooling trend since 2003
.Another data set showing a similar trend is seen in the NOAA data at
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
For the occasional comment on these matters check @norpag
Steven Mosher says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:31 am
Dr. S, has gone back to the “raw” data. The observations of many different men over hundreds of years
And remarkable women, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Scott_Dill_Maunder and http://sc.chat-shuffle.net/paper/uid:110004312185
Izen said in part: “2001 was the tenth hottest year on record
Every year in the decade since 2001 has been hotter except 2008.
2010 was the hottest year on record.”
The major indices of global temperature don’t all say this. GISS has 2010 being the warmest. HadCRUT4 has 1998, 2005 and 2010 very nearly tied with each other. UAH and RSS both have 1998 being #1, despite UAH showing the general warming trend continuing for years afterwards. I have more faith in HadCRUT3 than in HadCRUT4 due to better resemblance to both UAH and RSS than the other surface indices, and it has 1998 being the warmest.
1998 had a century-class El Nino spike. Accordingly, I like looking at what trends look like starting after that item settled down. Overall, it looks to me that global temperature had a rising trend until the globe warmed from the 1999-2000 La Nina, whether or not the 1997-1998 spike is fully included or discounted. And that global temperature largely stagnated once it warmed after the 1999-2000 La Nina.
The problem for Izen and his co-believers is that science requires theories, and models derived from them to be tested against the real world using accurate measurements.
So far, we all can accept that atmospheric CO2 has been rising, perhaps due to man’s activities, but maybe only partly. CO2 may be rising at least partly as a consequence of rising temperature (eg outgassing from warming oceans, rising biologic activity in a warming world causing more respiration causing carbon in soil to be released as CO2).
But if rising CO2 is causing a net warming of the Earth, but measured temps for the last 17 years are roughly flat, then there must be an equal and opposite cooling process going on. It is a stretch to say, ad hoc, that the heat must be going into the oceans. That at this point is only a speculative theory, with no demonstrated mechanism for it to occur, and no measurement of the heat content of the ocean to confirm it.
Only in the world of religious belief could one say that we know what is going on and should therefore alter the course of humanity at massive cost.
Mosher likes people to do data analysis. Svalgaard is trying to rewrite the history books on sunspots, which then gives no 20th century Grand Maximum. But whereas sunspots numbers are open to disputes on how they are counted, sunspot cycle lengths, from minimum to minimum, are much less prone to error. So here are some data. The second column gives the mean length of 3 consecutive cycles, and the first column gives the approximate year of maximum sunspots in the 2nd of those 3 cycles.
1770 9.83
1779 10.60
1788 11.70
1802 12.87
1814 11.87
1827 10.97
1838 10.90
1849 11.10
1860 11.80
1870 11.20
1883 11.50
1894 11.57
1907 11.33
1917 10.70
1928 10.20
1937 10.20
1947 10.37
1957 10.77
1968 10.87
1979 10.53
1989 10.83
What we see is that from 1788 to 1907 all the values are at least 10.9, whereas from 1917 to 1989 all the values are less than 10.9. That is quite an amazing dichotomy. This “debt” against the mean cycle length of 11.07 years is known as the Gleissberg Cycle, and it is almost certainly now in the process of correcting itself, starting with Cycle 23’s 12.5 years (which is part of the 10.83 centred on 1989).
Since short cycles tend to correlate with higher overall sunspot numbers, in this sense if no other the 20th century was certainly a maximum, whether Grand or not.
Rich.
See – owe to Rich says:
December 3, 2013 at 10:09 am
sunspot cycle lengths, from minimum to minimum, are much less prone to error. So here are some data. The second column gives the mean length of 3 consecutive cycles
You can torture the data until it confesses. Your averaging covers up the fact that one of the largest cycles also had the longest period of all cycles: http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php The relation between cycle length and cycle size is not absolute.
We are not ‘trying to rewrite the history on sunspots’, but simply to correct known errors and mal-adjustments.
Kwinterkorn said in part: “So far, we all can accept that atmospheric CO2 has been rising, perhaps due to man’s activities, but maybe only partly. CO2 may be rising at least partly as a consequence of rising temperature (eg outgassing from warming oceans, rising biologic activity in a warming world causing more respiration causing carbon in soil to be released as CO2).”
Over the past several decades, nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 increased by an amount smaller than contributions from human activities. Most manmade CO2 that does not accumulate in the atmosphere goes into the oceans. Despite warming, the oceans are not outgassing because solubility of a gas in a liquid varies directly with the pressure or partial pressure (concentration in this case) of gas above the liquid’s surface.
For carbon budget data: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
Simply analysis indeed shows negative but negligible SCL-Rmax correlation with R^2=0.12
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSCsl.htm
Thanks for saying so, Jack Simmons!
Thanks for the fun video, OssQss (5:42am 12/3). True, true, “… the only winning move is {indeed} not to play.”
Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard (9:45am today re: Annie Scott Dill Maunder) for that inspiring link. I normally just ignore the fact and do not like to make an issue of it, for it is NOT the norm, but even this site has a few sexists (few though their numbers be), thus, your citing her work was so encouraging to me. Your granddaughters are blessed.
I once ran a Fourier Transform of the raw sunspot data and came up with an 11.5 year period and a 100 year period, both statistically significant.
The latter is noticeable in the variations of heights of the solar cycle peaks, with diminshed peak heights around 1710, 1810, and 1910 (all +/- about 15 years). The result was a short-range extrapolation to another pair of very weak solar cycles (C24 and C25), to finish about 2040.
The lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm
We can reconstruct the Ap-index back to at least 1844. Here is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png.
Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously.
To be fair, I can see the same TCQP-pattern from the 1930’s in your graph of the AP reconstruction, the second graph down is of Annual Mean Sunspot Numbers and not AP, but I don’t see an overall trend in your AP reconstruction from 1844 to the present, what is the reason for there being no overall trend in the AP reconstruction?
Thanks davidmhoffer
We are used to seeing the unarmed come to a duel of wits. It is not as common to see another legless, armless Knight Who Says “Nnih!”
I credit the authors for attempting to demonstrate a novel approach to forecasting. Ninety-eight percent of novel things pass without effect. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying new things ‘because the odds are bad’. During our wait of the next 4 or 5 years there is time to refine and strengthen the method. I am sure they will try.
The lsvalgaard says:
December 2, 2013 at 7:15 pm
We can reconstruct the Ap-index back to at least 1844. Here is what it looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png.
Frankly, I don’t see the TCQP-pattern, so cannot take the paper seriously.
……………
If you believe in it you can see it
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AP-3.gif
but in science one needs to be a total agnostic.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 11:56 am
what is the reason for there being no overall trend in the AP reconstruction?
Mainly that there is no overall significant trend in the sun’s magnetic field carried to the Earth by the solar wind.
In a recent reconstruction of solar maximums and minimums from the 1100’s to the present I’ve been working on, I noticed that there was an extra solar maximum somewhere during the period between 1825-1900 when I divided the sunspot number record into equal time periods, and there is and extra minimum during the maunder minimum.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm
there was an extra solar maximum somewhere during the period between 1825-1900
It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…
Oh the arrogance of humanity. Each generation thinks it is living in a unique special time. The earth was the centre of the solar system. That humans were created specially and not the result of the process of evolution. Now it is ” never known weather like it” , Doomed from global warming or an oncoming ice age ( delete as applicable). Meanwhile nature reverts to the mean.There is a high probablility that nothing major will happen in our lifetimes, but hey speculation is fun. The fun stops when the majority are made poorer to fund a rich cabal and people really die from cold and hunger from an uncaring mindset. Their day will pass.
Dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Mainly that there is no overall significant trend in the sun’s magnetic field carried to the Earth by the solar wind.
But there is a trend with individual Solar Cycles and with the Solar Cycles immediately before and after. Correct?
So, three-cycle quasi-periodicity would have a trend.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm
“It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…”
Ha ha funny… The time period was over many cycles, I’ll have it finished in a couple of days.
Dr. S, still fighting the good fight I see. Your comments and those of others in this thread are greatly appreciated.
@Mosh, I don’t entirely disagree. The point you are making is salient and taken. But, that a reconstruction has been done and no better one exists, does not in itself lend support for the reconstruction. Laymen, like myself, tend to be quick to jump on whatever the latest paper is and proclaim it gospel. While the more professional bunch around here politely follow behind us pointing out our folly (thank you all for this, Mosh included). When reading your comment I felt as though you were almost defending our folly while trying to correct another! All my best, JM
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:41 pm
But there is a trend with individual Solar Cycles
I wouldn’t call it a ‘trend’. There is a statistical tendency for a few low cycles clustering together and a few high cycles also to cluster together. As for cycles growing, I once invented the Grow-n-Crash solar cycle model and prediction scheme: http://www.leif.org/research/Grow-N-Crash%20Prediction%20Model.pdf
This was during the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel meetings and served to show how a high correlation may not mean much.
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:48 pm
“It must have completely escaped the attention of the several observers who diligently looked at the Sun every day…”
Ha ha funny… The time period was over many cycles
They observed every day for a time period over many cycles….
To william:
Re; “CO2 standing on its own”–the direct influence of a doubling of
CO2 should be a warming of approx. 1.1 degrees C. Most of
this warming has already occurred. This is due to the logarithmic
dependence of average temperature on concentrations of GHGs.
Most of the IPCC’s frequently quoted “3 degrees C. warming” is from an
assumed positive feedback from water vapor, the strongest of the
greenhouse gases. A weaker feedback from water vapor, or a
negative feedback that’s unaccounted for (such as the clouds you
speak of) gives less than the 3 degree figure. That figure itself
is arrived at as an average from all the different computer models.
Direct measurement of the actual value of water vapor feedback
from satellites was not even attempted, to my knowledge, prior
to 2004! Radiosonde data analyzed by Paltridge seems to show
that average water vapor content is not staying stable, but dropping,
which would imply a weaker feedback.
Most of the posters here accept some role for CO2 in the recent
increase in averaged global temperatures. A few do not, based
on assorted arguments. Many posters here defend the thesis that
some form of negative feedback, perhaps based on water vapor,
clouds, etc., must exist, or the Earth would long since have
shown much hotter temperatures.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm
” I wouldn’t call it a ‘trend’. There is a statistical tendency for a few low cycles clustering together and a few high cycles also to cluster together…”
So that’s when a trend is not a trend.
lsvalgaard says:
December 3, 2013 at 12:52 pm
They observed every day for a time period over many cycles….
And they did a great job of it too, but, did they work out that there was an extra solar maximum over that time period?
Sparks says:
December 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm
And they did a great job of it too, but, did they work out that there was an extra solar maximum over that time period?
No, they observed that there were no ‘extra’ maximum. They recorded all the maxima there were.
In response to DL Klipstein,
Perhaps all of the observed rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.
But all of anthropogenic CO2 production is only about 4% of all CO2 production; the rest of the 96% is mostly non-human biologic. A small variation in the 96% could swamp an increase in the 4% due to us humans. Even a tiny variation in the 96% non-human CO2 production could be significant. Biologic activity is highly seasonal (as are CO2 measurements) and temperature sensitive. I know that some isotope studies indicate probable dominance of anthropogenic sources, but healthy skepticism of these somewhat crude and indirect measurements is reasonable.
No doubt solubility of gasses in liquids is driven by partial pressures. Temperature is also relevant to some extent. Hence my phrasing above using word “partly”.
Face it. CO2-driven global warming with catastrophic results due to water-vapor related positive feedbacks is not happening. That fact is threatening the academic careers and grant-seeking, not to mention the pride, of many who have betrayed science and gone whole hog into apocalyptic warmism. Too bad the real world is not being convenient to their agenda, personal and political.
Trying to salvage the many broken climate models with one ad hoc excuse after another is becoming humorous, if not pathetic, to those of us observing from the outside. Temperatures flat, well the ocean is hiding the heat. Antarctic sea ice at record highs, well things are different down under, don’t you know, just keep your attention on the Arctic and ignore the southern hemisphere. Recovering ice in the Arctic recently, well that’s just weather. Glaciers no longer disappearing, well just wait, soon they’ll be gone and we’ll all be sorry. Polar Bear populations up over last century, yea but…… No Atlantic Hurricanes, wait till next year. ACE down again and again, well who knows why.
lsvalgaard,
Unfortunately, even your own colleagues are abandoning you now Leif.
Inconsistency of the Wolf sunspot number series around 1848
Raisa Leussu, Ilya G. Usoskin, Rainer Arlt, and Kalevi Mursula
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8443.pdf
This requires the corresponding reduction of the
WSN values by 20% for the period 1826–1848 when Schwabe
was the primary observer for WSN. Moreover, since the “calibration”
of the WSN series is consecutive in time using overlaps
between observers, this leads to the 20% reduction of the entire
WSN series before 1848
Epicycles…
“Radiosonde data analyzed by Paltridge seems to show that average water vapor content is not staying stable, but dropping, which would imply a weaker feedback.”
Chris – From the paper you quote:
“It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data.
And from here: http://milo-scientific.com/prof/Nov10fig.php
“The very large dry bias exhibited by the RS80-A radiosondes, the most widely used operational radiosonde in the world at the time, is clearly not consistent with the presence of a cloud, and is far from accurate enough for cloud physics, climate, or water vapor remote sensing research, unlike the much more accurate frostpoint hygrometer. However, analysis of a dataset of hygrometer and RS80-A dual soundings showed that the bias is calibration-related and is a function of temperature and RH, therefore an empirical correction could be developed.”
In other words, any detailed study of humidity measured via radiosonde is fraught with difficulty. And furthermore a considered view of the hydrological cycle makes anything other than a steady state RH whilst AH increases with temp unlikely.
But..
There are many studies that point the opposite way. Eg: http://www.eol.ucar.edu/homes/junhong/paper/WV-TWP-2001.pdf
“The increasing trend of RH (3%-5%/decade) in the upper troposphere is stronger than that in the lower troposphere (1%-2% / decade). Such vertical structure would amplify positive water vapor feedback in comparison to the common assumption of constant RH changes vertically.”
Ian WilsonThe TSI paper you linked would fit nicely I think with the TSI reconstruction at
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
Shows the MM and modern max very nicely. It also agrees with my prejudices so it is obviously right.
geran says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:54 pm
depends on what base youre using….
BTW: you post way too much considering the paucity of insight you bring to the discussion. why not try reading and learning?
Ian Wilson says:
December 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Unfortunately, even your own colleagues are abandoning you now Leif.
You are being a [willing] victim of their propaganda. They are only dealing with the period 1835-1848 which has no influence on the rest of the series. What they really suggest is that the points in the red square on http://www.leif.org/research/Schwabe-Correction.png be moved to the blue square. Since the main discrepancy was around 1885 [the oval] their suggestion does not change the overall result.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm
It also agrees with my prejudices so it is obviously right.
and here is why it may not be so right:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
To TB:
Paltridge sounds like an honest scientist to me, admitting where there
are uncertainties in the data. Admittedly, radiosonde data are less
than perfect. However, Paltridge also argues in his conclusion that
since balloon data are the only alternative source of long-term measurements,
they should not just be “written off”.
The NCAR paper you provide a cite for is limited to the tropical
Pacific, not worldwide. It’s at least conceivable that the tropical Pacific
might show different behaviors than the entire globe. Also, that paper
states that the VIZ-derived data have a moist bias below 20%
RH. In other words, their data and conclusions, may also be suspect.
Bob Diaz says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:21 pm
If correct, it would be funny to see the AGW believers try to explain the Global Cooling.
. . .
“the carbon taxes are working. send more money.”
Leif the LASP data were constructed as follows.
This historical TSI reconstruction is based on Wang, Lean, and Sheeley ( “Modeling the Sun’s Magnetic Field and Irradiance Since 1713”, ApJ 625:522-538, 2005 May 20), which was used for solar forcings in the 2007 IPCC estimates.
These data are updated through 2007 by Judith Lean (NRL) and then modified by:
1.offsetting to the SORCE/TIM TSI absolute values using years 2003-2007 of overlap;
2.replacing years 2003-2007 and extending to more recent times using annual averages of SORCE/TIM data.
Any comments? Regards Norman Page
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Leif the LASP data were constructed as follows.
I know perfectly well how the data was constructed. I work closely with the LASP group.
You did not take the trouble to read why I think the reconstruction is no good. I giveyou a second chance: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
see also slide 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
old construction worker says:
December 2, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Year 2050
A little of this, a little of that, throw in something else and wham we’re in another LIA. Everyone will be looking for the “Missing Heat” just to stay warm.. All the while CO2 kept rising (so much for that amplification and sensitivity numbers).
Then again we may get hit with a large meteorite by 2050
Jack Simmons says:
“I didn’t know about the 1/3 of all manmade CO2 made in the last 17 years fact.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/06/a-problem-nearly-one-third-of-co2-emissions-occured-since-1998-and-it-hasnt-warmed/
Study predicts the sun is headed for a Dalton-like solar minimum around 2050
By 2050? What are we calling the current solar cycle, a trial run?
Thanks Anthony..
Leif Thanks for the Links they really lay it all out I note you say
Sun is perhaps entering a new very low activity Regime
•Fewer sunspots for given F10.7 flux
•Fewer sunspots for given Magnetic Plage Index
•Fewer spots per group
•Fewer small spots
•Less magnetic field per spot
•These changes have been progressive and accelerating since ~1990
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 6:55 pm
•If continuing => possible Maunder Minimum
The operative word is *if*. We don’t really know, but one can always speculate which is what I did. This means that should we get a Maunder minimum, I [or other people who say so] cannot really take credit for a ‘successful’ prediction. You see: if we don’t know why, extrapolating cycles is no good. The argument that we can predict that day follows night and summer follows winter is specious, as what we have are billions of examples where the prediction worked. If we have data from billions of solar cycles and they follow strict cycles, then we can extrapolate, but from only a few cycles we cannot. We can ‘guess’ and it might be a reasoned guess with good odds, but it is still not a valid prediction.
[snip – taunting with off-topic material is not cool -mod]
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Combined, the 7000 layers are so strong that electrons passing thru reach 99% the speed of light….Weren’t you just saying to me that double layers don’t exist in space because any charge imbalance is immediately shorted by the conductivity of space?
Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations. As you quote ‘electrons are accelerated to 99% of light speed’ so they pass through the DL real quick to neutralize whatever positive charge might be on the other side.
The point is that you have to generate separations of charges before you can get a double layer. Nature’s way of doing that is by using a stationary magnetic field. You can see the process in Figures 1 and 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
mainstream astronomy ignored and shunned them out of the astronomy community
is simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma) “The first indication for the existence of electric field aligned along the magnetic field (or double layers) in the magnetosphere was by a rocket experiment by McIlwain (1960). Later, in 1977, Forrest Mozer reported that satellites had detected the signature of double layers (which he called electrostatic shocks) in the magnetosphere.[50]. The most definite proof of these structures was obtained by the Viking satellite,[51] which measures the differential potential structures in the magnetosphere with probes mounted on 40m long booms”. DLs have been part of mainstream space physics for more than 50 years.
Leif I think a reasoned guess with good odds is about as good as we can do right now and for some decades yet to come.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Leif I think a reasoned guess with good odds is about as good as we can do right now and for some decades yet to come.
That is fine, as long as you recognize the difference between a guess and knowledge. Now, in the case of my own prediction of solar cycle 24, I do not consider that to be a ‘guess’, because I think I know how the Sun works, at least well enough to predict solar cycles from observations of what makes a cycle [the polar field].
is simply not true.
You’d sound more convincing if a certain solar analyst had some papers on the sun’s electric double layer to go with his 50+ papers specifically ( and explicitly ) on is magnetic field and magnetic dynamics. You don’t have a single one.
Leif’s research page word search
50+ for ‘magnet’
0 for electric
0 for double
0 for layer
same for pretty much all mainstream astronomers + astrophysicists
When electric fields are found in space, seems you write to acknowledge them, but never to do any science on them.
Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.
That’s the exact opposite of what I was taught in my module on semiconductors. During current flow, DLs build up at region boundaries resulting in prevention of further electric current. All plasma \ electrical \ electronic engineering students are taught this in their 1st or 2nd year modules.
In engineering we set the regions of different plasma with different semiconductors. Whereas looks like space plasma creates onion layers of gradually incrementally different plasmas.
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
If you don’t mind I’m going to quote that line on my plasma\electric engineering community forum. It’s a blinder. Don’t worry its anonymous.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm
You’d sound more convincing if a certain solar analyst had some papers on the sun’s electric double layer to go with his 50+ papers specifically ( and explicitly ) on is magnetic field and magnetic dynamics. You don’t have a single one.
Because they are not important in my work. They are important for people who study acceleration of particles. For example: field aligned current carry energetic electrons into the ionosphere. The electrons are accelerated by potential drops [double layers] further out in the magnetosphere, but in my work I don’t need to care about that, only in the fact that field-aligned current exists.
same for pretty much all mainstream astronomers + astrophysicists
Double layers are accepted, but are not that important as you make them, so you rarely find references to them, but check out publications by my friend Forest Mozer.
When electric fields are found in space, seems you write to acknowledge them, but never to do any science on them.
You do not take the trouble to actually read what I write. Check out the Appendix of http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf and tell me what you see.
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
That’s the exact opposite of what I was taught in my module on semiconductors.
There are two kinds of double layers: 1) current-carrying DLs as occur in space, e.g. in Birkeland currents, and 2) current-free DLs as occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma ensuring that further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
Perhaps this mainstream paper on DLs can be a help: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1994ApJ-Double-Layers.pdf or just the observations that electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a double layer helping the discharge along.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“Double layers are nature’s way of discharging charge separations.”
In 1967, Alfven and Carlquist suggested that a double layer might be formed in a solar flare loop. They invoked an analogy with a low-pressure discharge tube. The flare energy is released by interruption of the current. Voltage drops up to 10^10 Volt could be generated in large flares which will accelerate the charges across the DLs. Some discussion of this can be found here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1978Ap-Alfven-Theory-Flares.pdf
Because they are not important in my work.
I thought your work was to understand and predict the behaviour of the sun.
but in my work I don’t need to care about that
If you have spent your whole working life not caring about electric fields in space why go on a mission to denounce any electrical engineers who are interested in astronomy and see all the reports of magnetic fields and who rightfully predict and want to study the corresponding electric fields? ( magnetic fields nearly always correspond to an electric field )
Double layers are accepted, but are not that important as you make them,
Important wrt what?
200+ years of studying the magnetic behaviour of the Sun while largely ignoring its electric behaviour hasn’t given u much predictive power. Solar analysts can’t well predict half a cycle ahead.
Plasma lab scientists put massive effort into to modelling the electric and magnetic dynamics of plasma. They seem to think both are important. The sun is a ball of plasma after all.
They are important for people who study acceleration of particles.
And since magnetic fields are intrinsic to charged particles and are additionally caused by motion of charge particles, and don’t exist without charged particles, they should be important to anyone who studies magnetic fields.
or just the observations that electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a double layer helping the discharge along.
Discharge. How is it everything in your model is always discharging but never charging? You know monopole magnetics don’t exist right? Well its pretty much the same thing, for every discharge there has to be a charge. Where are the charges in your model? CCDLs can charge as well as discharge regions.
There are two kinds of double layers: 1) current-carrying DLs as occur in space, e.g. in Birkeland currents, and 2) current-free DLs as occur at the boundary between plasma regions with different plasma ensuring that further charge build up in the two plasmas is prevented.
CCDL devices can be manufactured too.
oh man.
How many times have I read articles like this from a certain group of shunned , ridiculed unmentionable people, and now its on the front of the APS
“One of the most intriguing problems of astrophysics is the existence in a variety of environments of anomalously high-energy particles, for example, extragalactic cosmic rays up to 10E20 electron volts (eV)….
….Mozer et al. also present more direct evidence that double layers provide the seed electrons for acceleration by whistler modes [1]. Large-amplitude whistler waves were observed on October 8 and 9, 2012, but only on the latter day did the 2.5-MeV relativistic electron fluxes increase by nearly three orders of magnitude….
…a detailed understanding of the acceleration mechanisms in the Earth’s magnetosphere can be exported to other astrophysical systems, like the solar corona
-Published December 2, 2013 American Physics Society
These snippets are from a pretty 1st good go at exploring the explanatory power of DLs in space.
He stops short of saying 2 things…
a) If the Earth can produce 2.5Mev electron with this 7000 stable DL array, then the DL array of a star will produce electrons of with gamma ray magnitude energies
b) DLs can collapse suddenly releasing a lot of power, charges in the vicinity of a collapsing DL array can be accelerated much faster than the with the stable array.
Another point with the same quote
One of the most intriguing problems of astrophysics is the existence in a variety of environments of anomalously high-energy particles, for example, extragalactic cosmic rays up to 1020 electron volts (eV). … In spite of a wealth of observations and many proposed models, clarifying the various acceleration mechanisms represents a long-standing challenge.
He doesn’t explicitly say what many proposed models have been to explain cosmic rays. So I’ll say here : Supernova and and super dense objects dynamics e.g. blackholes and neutron stars.
He also doesn’t say such objects were evidenced entirely on the postulate that since gravity is the only significant force at the astro-scale, no other object could create cosmic rays, therefore blackholes + neutron stars must exist.
For decades and today, if an X-ray source was found in space, it was labelled a super dense object of some sort.
That postulate is now on shaky grounds.
I
btw
The new papers say the electron in the Earth van Allen belt have been measure at 2.5MeV
2.5MeV? Is that a lot? How powerful is that? Does that figure mean anything to anybody at WUWT?
Let me tell you.
It’s extraordinary super duper ultra high power.
Converting electron volts to thermal temperature units
1eV = 11,000 Kelvin
so
2.5Mev = 27,500,000,000K
thats only about 1800 times hotter than the sun’s assumed core temperature.
Maybe Leif could speculate some particle collision interactions at that energy and then the particle interactions in the much denser solar corona with its far more powerful DL array.
lol, another beautiful result from the Van allen probes
” Recently, using the Van Allen probes launched in August 2012, researchers showed that electrons with energies over 2.5 MeV had been accelerated within the radiation belts [4],[b] rather than being transported from elsewhere. [/b]….. These results join other observations and models of near-Earth phenomena that have broader astrophysical relevance.[b] For example, terrestrial gamma rays in the upper atmosphere may give insight into the origin of gamma-ray bursts from the most distant objects in the Universe,[/b] – December 2, 2013 American Physics Society
In other words, if we have direct evidence that planet vanAllen belts produce gamma & X-rays energies ( 2.5MeV is gamma ray energy ) with electromagnetism, why should we invoke hypothetical and extreme gravity mechanisms? The most distant objects in the universe might simply be other planets with Van Allen belts. Or more likely stars, since they are more powerful.
meemoe_uk says:
December 3, 2013 at 10:43 pm
“Because they are not important in my work. ”
I thought your work was to understand and predict the behaviour of the sun.
It is, but DLs are not important for this.
If you have spent your whole working life not caring about electric fields in space why go on a mission to denounce any electrical engineers
No such mission. The engineers just need some education so that they don’t overextend. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I have said many times, electric currents are where the action is. The issue is how those currents are produced. In the real world, they are generated by conductors [neutral plasma] moving across magnetic field lines.
200+ years of studying the magnetic behaviour of the Sun while largely ignoring its electric behaviour hasn’t given u much predictive power. Solar analysts can’t well predict half a cycle ahead.
Apart from the fact that we can predict half a cycle ahead [but no more], neither can EU.
If the Earth can produce 2.5Mev electron with this 7000 stable DL array…
DLs are not stable, they are destroyed in milliseconds, then reformed in a different place, destroyed again, reformed, etc, generally moving along the magnetic field lines.
philjourdan says: December 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Given the sun was the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century, and that “coincided” with the rapid warming that seems to have abated, how does the theory work (I heard Gavin Schmidt voice it) that the warming of the latter half of the 20th century could NOT be due to the sun?
I am curious how that was ruled out given the studies that show the sun activity was very active.
________
It’s like this – the warming on Earth actually causes increased activity of the Sun!
Same principle as “CO2 drives temperature” – when we know that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
Do I need to say sarc off?
(Not directed at you Phil – rather my observation on the obviously false and foolish global warming “crisis”, the ECS debate, etc.)
P.S. I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.
@Allan MacRae – Well, I was actually looking for a serious answer, but then I did not really expect one. Your satire was still well worth the read. Thanks.
Hi Leif,
I hope and trust you are well, my friend.
I wish you and yours a wonderful Holiday season.
Merry Christmas to all, Allan
philjourdan says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:55 am
@Allan MacRae – Well, I was actually looking for a serious answer, but then I did not really expect one. Your satire was still well worth the read. Thanks.
Well, it is not a GIVEN that the sun has been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century. It is very likely not true, so there is really no ‘coincidence’ to speak of.
@Isvalgaard – nor has it been proven that it is NOT the most active. However, it has been posed that it has been. So you missed my question.
How can the sun be completely ruled out as a prime factor for the climate over the last 20 years of the 20th century?
Leif the conclusion to your latest paper reads
“There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
164 activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten millennia”
I assume that includes TSI. Since there is no consensus wouldn’t the simplest and most useful working hypothesis be that it is more likely than not that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.
In other words why not accept the warming itself as prima facie evidence of increased solar activity.?
The quote above should read
“There is no consensus or agreement about the level and variation of several measures of solar
activity over the past 400 years, severely hampering the interpretation of the previous ten millennia”
Leif
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
The solar cycle modulation appears to be equally strong at all times, except (and this is the crucial point) for the cycles near 1700, 1810, 1885 where large cosmic ray fluxes were record.
What? How much larger must the trend be in Fig.10 for it not to be “equally strong”? I mean, since when is the ~110 of the mid 1400 equal to the ~90 of the mid 1900?
Dr Norman Page says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:34 am
t is more likely than not that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century. In other words why not accept the warming itself as prima facie evidence of increased solar activity.?
Because the evidence is strongly against the Grand Modern Maximum. The latter assumption is to put the cart before the horse.
lgl says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:38 am
What? How much larger must the trend be in Fig.10 for it not to be “equally strong”? I mean, since when is the ~110 of the mid 1400 equal to the ~90 of the mid 1900?
The point is that we don’t know how much of that difference is solar.
@Isvalgaard:
Which is a solid answer, regardless of whether you think it is a maxima or not. But at least one Alarmist (Gavin Schmidt) has unequivocally stated that it is NOT the sun. I was merely asking how he could make such a declarative and definitive statement.
It is, but DLs are not important for this.
DLs immediately explain many things about the nature of the sun that magnetic fields cannot. e.g. the sudden acceleration of the solar wind near the sun. e.g. why does the sun suddenly violently explode off energy? Why do sunspots create regions of x-ray emission in the corona? No need for elaborate speculative magnetohydrodynamics models to explain these phenomena anymore, they are immediate and simple consequences of DLs. With some investigation many more phenomena will find simpler answers with DLs than with exclusive magnetic theory.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You mean like making a point of only considering 1 half of electro-magnetism and dismissing the other half as inconsequential? Yeah totally agree there.
Apart from the fact that we can predict half a cycle ahead [but no more], neither can EU.
Gravity+magnetic models got 70 years of mainstream funding and are no better than the said group.
DLs are not stable, they are destroyed in milliseconds, then reformed in a different place, destroyed again, reformed, etc, generally moving along the magnetic field lines.
The probe satellite unexpectedly went thru the DL region on its way somewhere else then was reprogrammed to return 8 months later. When it got there The DL array was still there. The DL array variability is the electrical equivalent of the variability of the the magnetic field and isn’t a indicator that DLs are inconsequential\unimportant as you want it to be.
Your point was a decoy.
Now go back and reconsider the implications of 2.5MeV energies in plasma. There’s been an massive ongoing effort by science and engineering for over 50 years to create such energies to plasma to achieve a special certain result, can you tell me what it is?
Leif
No, the point is you are writing things not supported by the data presented. When you write “equally strong at all times” you have to show a graph backing your claim and not one showing something totally different.
Leif Doesn’t Fig 10 also show that the sun has indeed been the most active in the past 600 years during the latter half of the 20th century ?
Why do you think the data is not reflecting solar activity?
Also it would correlate extremely well with the temperature data – see
Fig 3 at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available.Thanks.
I said ” The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available. Thanks.” On further thought why don’t you recast the conclusions of your paper to make just that point.( modest suggestion since the paper is in the submission stage)
are we going to freeze or burn up?
Dr Norman Page says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:52 am
” The more I look at it the more I like it. It is one of the best sun – climate connection possible proofs available. Thanks.”
As Yogi Berra said: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”
meemoe_uk says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
they are immediate and simple consequences of DLs.
People have looked at this [see e.g. one of the papers I linked too] and the DLs are not important and explain nothing.
only considering 1 half of electro-magnetism and dismissing the other half as inconsequential?
You are barking up the wrong tree. As I said so often, all interesting things are due to electric currents. The issue is how those currents are generated, namely by neutral plasma moving across magnetic field lines.
The probe satellite unexpectedly went thru the DL region on its way somewhere else then was reprogrammed to return 8 months later. When it got there The DL array was still there.
No, what it found was that DLs are still generated there. Each DL lives only milliseconds, then another one is formed nearby.
There’s been an massive ongoing effort by science and engineering for over 50 years to create such energies to plasma to achieve a special certain result, can you tell me what it is?
If you don’t know, use Google to get a clue.
lgl says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:17 am
you have to show a graph backing your claim and not one showing something totally different.
The solar cycle modulation is given by the width of the wiggly band and that is roughly constany over time as the graph shows.
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
After dealing with so many people who seem unable (hopefully not unwilling!) to comprehend what you are saying… a bit of Christmas cheer!
(from the Josh 2014 Calendar thread this morning)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/the-josh-wuwt-2014-climate-skeptics-calendar-is-now-available/#more-98380
Your grateful student,
Janice
I beg your pardon, I messed up the copying above of the link to my 10:16am today post on the Josh 2014 Calendar thread. Please scroll down to the bottom (or nearly so) of that thread.
Glaedelig Jul!
Leif As I remember Mrs Berra said ” If you don’t believe it you won’t see it”
Is the beryllium 10Be ice core proxy reliable?
Sparks says:
December 4, 2013 at 11:16 am
Is the beryllium 10Be ice core proxy reliable?
…………..
If you consider solar activity + local precipitation as a single variable yes, for each component individually no.
Leif
But that’s not the interesting part of the modulation. The interesting part is the long term trend, which may have climatic effect. (11 or 22 yrs is not climate)
vukcevic says:
December 4, 2013 at 11:40 am
If you consider solar activity + local precipitation as a single variable yes, for each component individually no.
Last night I decided to plot the 10Be record against two other data sets, 1. Leif’s sunspot numbers and 2. my own orbital data, and there’s an interesting period of 50-65 year lag between the sunspot numbers and orbital data, this also matches the AMO/PDO cycle, but the 10Be matches when it is offset by period of 50-65 years.
I understand that it is believed that weak solar cycles allow more Be10 to be produced from cosmic rays and deposited in ice, but what I am looking at suggests, that Be 10 is formed in space during high solar activity and is then deposited 50-65 years later during weaker solar activity.
I used this ngrip data, NOTE: there are some dates missing from the timeline. no data??
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/ngrip/ngrip-10be.txt
@vukcevic
My reply to you seems to be held in moderation, I hope someone notices 😉
I’m a bit Confused about the moderation lol
Moderation is my fault, some 3 weeks ago (Friday Funny November 15, 2013 at 5:24 am) I re-posted this cartoon with wording which didn’t contain ‘sarc’ and got myself into a bit of a trouble; as a self-punishment I took 2 weeks voluntary exile, but still anything containing my name goes into mod’s bin.
@ Sparks
CET is more often then not affected by shifts in the polar jet stream, as I assume is the Greenland precipitation. For a test I suggest plotting 11 year moving averages of 10Be (inverted and delayed by 5-6 years) and the CET from1660.
Vuk Looks like the delay may be 10 – 12 years
see Fig 3 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U
Dr Norman Page says:
December 4, 2013 at 10:46 am
Leif As I remember Mrs Berra said ” If you don’t believe it you won’t see it”
Either way, for some it comes down to mere belief, rather than solid science. I understand where you are coming from as far as beliefs are concerned. My bar is set a bit higher than yours.
Sparks says:
December 4, 2013 at 11:16 am
Is the beryllium 10Be ice core proxy reliable?
Yes, but is it a mixture of several effects, most of which are not solar.
lgl says:
December 4, 2013 at 11:40 am
The interesting part is the long term trend, which may have climatic effect. (11 or 22 yrs is not climate)
Some cosmic ray experts think that part of the variation is CAUSED by climate changes, so you may have cause and effect reversed:
“The reconstruction of Steinhilber et al. [2010] still differs somewhat with the geomagnetic based reconstructions, especially for the ∼1880–1900 interval (Figure 14) and, just like the previous discrepancy, this will need to be resolved. We suggest that if the sharp dip around ~895 is not borne out by further investigation, the magnitude of earlier excursions to very low values may also be in doubt. Figure 15 shows IDV for all stations for the interval 1880–1920 and does not support the marked decrease around ~1895. It is unlikely that data from further stations will change that conclusion. In line with this conclusion, W. R. Webber et al. (A comparison of new calculations of the yearly 10Be production in the Earth’s polar atmosphere by cosmic rays with yearly 10Be measurements in multiple Greenland ice cores between 1939 and 1994: — A troubling lack of concordance, manuscript in preparation, 2010) suggest that “more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases.” [Climate, weather].
meemoe_uk says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:04 am
the sudden acceleration of the solar wind near the sun.
By the way, it is gravity that accelerates the solar wind to supersonic speeds.
Dear Dr. Svalgaard,
I think I copied the link correctly this time!
Glaedelig Jul!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/30/the-josh-wuwt-2014-climate-skeptics-calendar-is-now-available/#comment-1491494
Gratefully,
Janice
Janice Moore says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Glaedelig Jul!
Thank you. Mange tak.
@ Dr. Svalgaard — Du er meget velkommen!
My pleasure.
Janice Moore says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:42 pm
Du er meget velkommen!
Just don’t overdue the Hero-stuff. Some people might choke on that. Just keep on learning combined with some thinking.
@ Dr. Svalgaard — Anyone who would choke on that would be better off remaining silent until they can swallow the truth. The reason they choke is: A. pride and or B. stupidity. B is a hopeless case; fugeddaboudit. Only those who self-correct A will have brains unchoked enough to understand you. “A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his or her own opinions.” Proverbs 18:2.
You are doing all YOU can to help them, that is for sure.
YOU ARE THE BEST! #(:))
Yeah, I’m a crazy American, not a dignified Dane, lol. At least, on WUWT, I am an anomaly. Okay, okay, an “outlier.” You won’t encounter another zany like I for a long time, no doubt. And I’ll try not to embarrass you anymore ……… today (heh, heh).
Current sheets like the heliocurrent sheet (sheath), contains Double Layers or is made up of? That must be fluctuating over solar cycle?
So we got gravity, magnetic fields and double layers all playing with and sometimes against each other within the solar system? Doesn’t seem more simple to me. Another facet in the processes oh boy..
This article describes Saturns magnetodisc, as a current sheet.
Modelling the Forces in Saturn’s Warped Magnetodisc
Achilleos, N.; Arridge, C. S.; Guio, P.
EGU General Assembly 2012, held 22-27 April, 2012 in Vienna, Austria., p.8582
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.8582A
Observations from the Cassini spacecraft have established that Saturn’s outer magnetospheric current sheet does not generally lie in the planet’s rotational equatorial plane. Previous analyses have revealed that the current sheet adopted a ‘bowl-like’ shape, swept northwards of the equator, during the Cassini prime mission (southern summer solstice). In order to quantify the relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure, planetary dipole tilt, and the shape of the near-noon current sheet, we examine a simple model of magnetopause currents within systems where the planetary dipole / rotation axis is oriented at ~65 degrees (solstice) and 90 degrees (equinox) to the upstream flow direction of the solar wind. We use this simple model to compute the ‘shielding field’ for the UCL Magnetodisc Model. We show model predictions of the north-south asymmetry in the current sheet for varying dipole orientations and magnetopause sizes. We comment on the potential application of using observed magnetic signatures of current sheet displacement (relative to the equator) as an independent probe of solar wind pressure.
Carla says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Current sheets like the heliocurrent sheet (sheath), contains Double Layers or is made up of? That must be fluctuating over solar cycle?
No, such current sheets a ‘drift currents’. Charges gyrate [circles with arrows] around magnetic field lines, and where the is a change of the direction of the field lines, charges will move in the same direction and a current [big arrow] results:
[ http://www.leif.org/research/Current-Sheet-Cartoon.png ]
Near the heliopause many currents sheets are bunched up against each other:
http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Current%20Sheet%20Cartoon.pdf
No double layers involved.
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/Current-Sheet-Cartoon.png
[Did you need this link (to the sketch of loops with an arrow in the center) to replace the link in the comment above? Both appear to be the same. Mod]
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/Current-Sheet-Cartoon.png
[Did you need this link (to the sketch of loops with an arrow in the center) to replace the link in the comment above? Both appear to be the same. Mod]
There is no pdf, it should be a png.
The solar Northern hemisphere is roughly 14 months ahead of the solar Southern hemisphere. The solar Northern hemisphere is now spotless. The solar Southern hemisphere is repeating the pattern of change that occurred in the solar Northern hemisphere. As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes that are created at the tachocline declines the turbulent forces in the convection zone start to tear them apart.
As the decline in magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes progresses the large sunspots are replaced with groups of small sunspots. The second stage is a couple of small sunspots and a region of the solar surface with magnetic flux. The third stage is no sunspots and regions of the solar surface with magnetic flux. It will be interesting to see if there is a fourth stage.
It appears, if the solar Southern hemisphere follows the solar Northern hemisphere that the sun will be in a very, very, deep special Maunder minimum by roughly September of 2014.
This is a current visual picture of the sun.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
This is what is called a Magnetogram which shows the regions of the solar surface that have magnetic flux.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIB.jpg
William Astley says:
December 5, 2013 at 7:58 am
The solar Northern hemisphere is roughly 14 months ahead of the solar Southern hemisphere.
This is very normal. The situation now is not special. Almost all cycles show such asymmetry.
As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic flux tubes that are created at the tachocline declines the turbulent forces in the convection zone start to tear them apart.
All flux tubes are always torn apart all the time, then re-assemble on the surface. The situation now is not special.
It appears, if the solar Southern hemisphere follows the solar Northern hemisphere that the sun will be in a very, very, deep special Maunder minimum by roughly September of 2014.
As today is not in any way special, there is no reason to believe what you assert.
The concentration and depth of the beryllium 10Be ice core proxy looks fine, how are they assigning the date to the ice-core depth, is it based on a model and do you know if the model uses the sunspot record?
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 8:57 am
The concentration and depth of the beryllium 10Be ice core proxy looks fine, how are they assigning the date to the ice-core depth, is it based on a model and do you know if the model uses the sunspot record?
If there are annual layers they count those, otherwise they use an average yearly accumulation to count years. Sunspots are not used.
Leif
so you may have cause and effect reversed
Very strange then that HMF increased after 1990 and temp also increased.
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 9:48 am
Very strange then that HMF increased after 1990 and temp also increased.
1: HMF has decreased since 1990
2: temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades
3: coincidences on short time scales are not strange
Cosmic rays seem to be interacting enough to produce beryllium that it gets deposited in layers of ice. So, can cosmic ray interaction overpower solar wind during weak solar cycles?
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm
“more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases.” [Climate, weather].
Or a possible 50-65 year lag which I mentioned above.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:22 am
Cosmic rays seem to be interacting enough to produce beryllium that it gets deposited in layers of ice. So, can cosmic ray interaction overpower solar wind during weak solar cycles?
The cosmic rays reaching the Earth are controlled by the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field [stronger field = less cosmic rays]. weak cycles = weaker field.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
Or a possible 50-65 year lag which I mentioned above.
No, there is no lag for the 10Be production except the 1-year lag it takes to fill the heliosphere with solar wind.
Leif
Sorry, I was looking at your fig.10.
“temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades”
Don’t be silly, http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1990/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1990/mean:12/normalise/plot/wti/from:1990/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1990/normalise/trend
“coincidences on short time scales are not strange”
Ok, puzzling then, like the 1880-1900 period.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:30 am
The cosmic rays reaching the Earth are controlled by the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field [stronger field = less cosmic rays]. weak cycles = weaker field.
I understand this, tho, it suggests that 10Be production weakens or stops altogether during high solar activity, which I know cant be, there is still cosmic rays interacting with the suns magnetic field even at times when it’s stronger, therefor there is still 10Be production taken place, most likely further out in the solar system, I would even suggest that 10Be production increases when the suns magnetic field is stronger and that the 10Be gets deposited during times when the suns magnetic field is weaker, and this causes the increase in 10Be concentration.
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:49 am
“temp has ‘paused’ the past two decades”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/wti/from:1998/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/mean:12/normalise/plot/wti/from:1998/normalise/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1998/normalise/trend
“coincidences on short timescales are not strange”
Ok, puzzling then, like the 1880-1900 period.
Why puzzling? HMF decreasing, temps flat. Why is that strange? on such short timescales it is not climate to begin with. Perhaps mother Nature is just telling you that your ideas are wrong.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 10:58 am
I would even suggest that 10Be production increases when the suns magnetic field is stronger and that the 10Be gets deposited during times when the suns magnetic field is weaker
Unfortunately, Ma Nature does not listen to your suggestions. It is the other way around.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:05 am
“Unfortunately, Ma Nature…”
Is that your way of giving an answer without saying that 10Be production weakens or stops altogether during high solar activity??. I think 10Be production continues during high solar activity and is deposited in greater consideration during weaker solar activity. Which has a lag of around 50-65 years, I don’t believe it is due to “[Climate, weather]”.
*consideration = concentration, Freudian slip 😉
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:22 am
“Unfortunately, Ma Nature…”
Is that your way of giving an answer
That is my way of telling you that 10Be production is weaker at high solar activity and that the deposition is a direct consequence of production [if we ignore the slow change of the Earth’s magnetic field and any climate effect]: produce twice as much and twice as much is deposited. And that there is abound a 1 year lag, no more.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
“10Be production is weaker at high solar activity and that the deposition is a direct consequence of production.”
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the production of 10Be takes place further out in the solar system and as solar activity decreases the deposition of 10Be increases.
Your suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production, the magnetic field is still there and the cosmic rays are still there, it makes logical sense that 10Be production is still there.
Leif
“Some cosmic ray experts think that part of the variation is CAUSED by climate changes”
Isn’t that supposed to mean, lower temperature -> higher pseudo-neutron monitor count, in your fig.10? After 1990 it has been the opposite, higher temp -> higher pseudo-neutron monitor count.
So which is it?
lgl says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:50 am
So which is it?
I don’t think there is any evidence that the cosmic ray flux and the temperature are related in any way.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:49 am
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the production of 10Be takes place further out in the solar system and as solar activity decreases the deposition of 10Be increases.
10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the stronger solar wind keeps some cosmic rays away from entering the inner solar system. As solar activity decreases, more cosmic rays enter the inner solar system [after a lag of 1 year] and more 10Be is produced. The 10Be produced is directly deposited [after a further delay of 1-2 years], so that the deposition simply follows the production. The climate can interfere with this because most of the 10Be is produced elsewhere and must be transported [by atmospheric circulation] to the polar regions to be deposited on the ice. This climate effect can be as large or larger than the solar modulation.
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 11:59 am
“10Be production is weaker at high solar activity because the stronger solar wind keeps some cosmic rays away from entering the inner solar system.”
You’re still suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production,
Leif Sparks seems to have no inkling of how 10Be is produced in the atmosphere by spallation.
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
You’re still suggesting that the sun has a magic switch that turns on and off 10Be production
I’m telling you that at high solar activity the solar magnetic field keeps some [a few percent] of the cosmic rays away. This lowers the 10Be production. No magic ‘switch’, but well a magic small modulation of what comes in, so instead of [say] 6000 cosmic ray counts per hour we get only 5500 counts.
Sparks When solar activity is high the stronger solar magnetic field prevents the Cosmic rays from outside the solar system from entering the earths atmosphere where 10 Be is created by breaking down oxygen and nitrogen.
This is the on off switch or rather high low switch.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm
This is the on off switch or rather high low switch.
Except that the solar modulation is only a few percent of the cosmic ray flux, so a ‘switch’ is perhaps a stretch.
Participants in the above discussion may benefit from reading this paper
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Field_etal_2.pdf
extract: Beryllium-10 (and 7Be) are produced mainly in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere; after production, 10Be and 7Be are rapidly scavenged by aerosols (primarily sulfates). The average residence time in the lower stratosphere is 1 to 2 Eventually the aerosols descend into the lower troposphere where they are deposited at the surface by both dry (turbulent) and wet (precipitation related) processes.
Dr Norman Page says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Leif Sparks seems to have no inkling of how 10Be is produced in the atmosphere by spallation.
Calm down there Norman, Earth isn’t the only magnetic field in the solar-system 😉
Obviously, there is a misunderstanding about what I’m trying to get across, I’ll leave it for now as its bed time here, and I have a feeling that I’m about to be lynched… 🙂
Sparks says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Obviously, there is a misunderstanding about what I’m trying to get across, I’ll leave it for now as its bed time here, and I have a feeling that I’m about to be lynched… 🙂
On my part there is no misunderstanding. I think you are trying to push your theory and don’t like what you are hearing. Unfortunately, that is how Nature works, like it or not.
lsvalgaard says:
December 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Carla says:
December 4, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Current sheets like the heliocurrent sheet (sheath), contains Double Layers or is made up of? That must be fluctuating over solar cycle?
No, such current sheets a ‘drift currents’. Charges gyrate [circles with arrows] around magnetic field lines, and where the is a change of the direction of the field lines, charges will move in the same direction and a current [big arrow] results:
[ http://www.leif.org/research/Current-Sheet-Cartoon.png ]
Near the heliopause many currents sheets are bunched up against each other:
http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Current%20Sheet%20Cartoon.pdf
No double layers involved
————-
Thank you Dr. S..
More interactions than you can shake a stick at..
What about multiple current sheets..interacting with each other.
As in the helios current sheet interacting with the Saturns current sheet. Or if we confirm them (it is suggested) that the heliosphere is located inside of a rotating interstellar current sheet near a boundary of another rotating current sheet of interstellar size proportion. Now that’s some layers.. specially since the solar sheet rises and falls, creating special boundarys during its course..orbit..
Another solar related thread started about some “Giant Convection Cells Found on the Sun,” here at WUWT today.. on my way..
Carla says:
December 5, 2013 at 5:50 pm
What about multiple current sheets..interacting with each other.
They don’t. If a current sheet runs into a stronger magnetic field the current sheet is basically locally destroyed.
Thanks Dr. S.
And I am not trying to be you over the head with this, but did just happen upon this..now back to that other solar topic..
1982: Disruption of a neutral current sheet[18]
18^ Stenzel, R. L., “Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment” (1982) Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 9, June 1982, pp. 680–683.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Carla says:
December 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm
18^ Stenzel, R. L., “Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment”
Yeah, double layers are Nature’s way of discharging currents and disrupting magnetic structures.
So Leif you are saying everything is fine . We are not headed for a grand minimum and Sun is behaving as expected?
crystal says:
December 7, 2013 at 2:47 am
We are not headed for a grand minimum and Sun is behaving as expected?
The Sun is behaving as expected [at least by some of us], and that includes the possibility of a Grand Minimum.
Allan said:
It’s like this – the warming on Earth actually causes increased activity of the Sun!
Same principle as “CO2 drives temperature” – when we know that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
Do I need to say sarc off?
(Not directed at you Phil – rather my observation on the obviously false and foolish global warming “crisis”, the ECS debate, etc.)
P.S. I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.
philjourdan says:
December 4, 2013 at 6:55 am
@Allan MacRae – Well, I was actually looking for a serious answer, but then I did not really expect one. Your satire was still well worth the read. Thanks.
lsvalgaard says on December 4, 2013 at 7:04 am
Well, it is not a GIVEN that the sun has been the most active in the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century. It is very likely not true, so there is really no ‘coincidence’ to speak of.
Allan again:
Jeez Leif – what a relief!
I mean, if Earth gets any warmer, then the Sun might, like, explode or something! :-}
Regards to all, Allan
P.S. Global cooling has started in Calgary.
Record cold for the year to date today: -28.7 °C on 2013-12-07… and its not even January or February…
lsvalgaard says:
December 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm
“I think you are trying to push your theory and don’t like what you are hearing.”
I have no issue with how 10Be is deposited or the method used to assign ice-core depth to date, it seems very straight forward, and I am not “pushing a theory”, You appear to be making up suggestions for the benefit of WUWT readers that I am.
There was an assertion you made that a 50% increase in 10Be concentration is a result of “weather, climate“, which my immediate response is to question and discuss.
I have three specific points of inquiry,
1. Can 10Be be produced in our solar system other than Earth?
2. Can 10Be exist in space, or anywhere else other than Earth in our solar system?
3. Can 10Be be produced extra-terrestrially and be deposited on Earth?
But also,
Regarding the 50% increase in 10Be concentration it is thought this is a result of precipitation and glacial melt depositing accumulated layers of 10Be down to lower layers.
If a period of higher solar activity lasting between 50-65 years produces a warmer climate on Earth and the conditions favorable for glacial melt, this will show up as a lag between the SSN and the 10Be proxy correct?
Sparks says:
December 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm
1. Can 10Be be produced in our solar system other than Earth?
Yes in any planetary atmosphere that contains O, N, C. But you can’t get that into to the ice on Earth.
2. Can 10Be exist in space, or anywhere else other than Earth in our solar system?
Absolutely, but again you can’t get that into to the ice on Earth.
3. Can 10Be be produced extra-terrestrially and be deposited on Earth?
In principle, yes. E.g. in meteorites, but in practice that would not be dispersed into atoms in the ice caps.
Regarding the 50% increase in 10Be concentration it is thought this is a result of precipitation and glacial melt depositing accumulated layers of 10Be down to lower layers.
No, more likely a result of changed patterns of circulation of air in the atmosphere, but this has not been quantified or modeled in detail.
If a period of higher solar activity lasting between 50-65 years produces a warmer climate on Earth and the conditions favorable for glacial melt, this will show up as a lag between the SSN and the 10Be proxy correct?
Ah, there is the real rub. I think the answer is no. The lag between the SSN of 10Be is of the order of 1-2 years.
Just for interest, here are two graphs, the first one is of 10Be (orange) and 10Be with a 70 year offset (blue), the second is 10Be 1600-1994 vs SSN 1600-2012.
1. http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/10be-70-year-offset.gif
2. http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/10be-001-v-ssn.gif
Sparks What is the source of the !0 Be data you are showing?
Sparks how about plotting a say 21 year centered moving average though the 10 Be data- might illustrate your point better – though I think I can eyeball what you’re getting at.
Norman,
I used the NGRIP Ice Core 600 Year Annual 10Be Data, It can be found here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/ngrip/ngrip-10be.txt