Weakest solar wind of the space age and the current “mini” solar maximum

From the new paper by McComas et al.

The last solar minimum, which extended into 2009, was especially deep and prolonged. Since then, sunspot activity has gone through a very small peak while the heliospheric current sheet achieved large tilt angles similar to prior solar maxima.

The solar wind fluid properties and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) have declined through the prolonged solar minimum and continued to be low through the current mini solar maximum.

Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%).

These results have important implications for the solar wind’s interaction with planetary magnetospheres and the heliosphere’s interaction with the local interstellar medium, with the proton dynamic pressure remaining near the lowest values observed in the space age: ~1.4 nPa, compared to ~2.4 nPa typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. The combination of lower magnetic flux emergence from the Sun (carried out in the solar wind as the IMF) and associated low power in the solar wind points to the causal relationship between them.

Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.

Source of paper abstract:

About these ads

181 thoughts on “Weakest solar wind of the space age and the current “mini” solar maximum

  1. OK … .Leif …. this is what I was talking about in the last thread … TSI .. vs “other” solar parameters that may interact with the earth’s atmosphere. While TSI varies very little, this paper seems to suggest that the solar wind is varying by a much greater margin.

    … or … is this author just another person who doesn’t know what they are talking about??

  2. Dr. Deanster, really now. As a teacher I am obligated to say that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but this one gives me pause to reconsider. Before I do, I will hopefully assume you are not using the term “atmosphere” to include the temperature of the air I walk out in every morning to greet the sunrise. The magnetosphere is quite removed from that experience. And the solar wind will have a dickens of a time changing any part of my morning routine.

  3. Do any of these Solar parameters that are much lower have anything to do with the reduced Accumulated Cyclone Energy, ACE, that we are seeing in hurricanes and tornados? Do any of them change the amount of electrical charge present in the lower atmosphere?

  4. pocketsponsor says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Most of the subject matter experts here at WUWT (I am not one to be sure), point to the well established relationship between galactic cosmic rays (GCRs, those coming from supernovae and other very energetic events w/i or in the fringes of the Milky Way) and the solar cycle. Galactic cosmic rays are mostly protons but also heavier nuclei particles travel with sub-giga volt energies (about 0.3 GeV, i.e. relativistic speeds none the less). Since these are positively charged particles, our solar system’s heliosheath and the earth magnetic sheath deflect many of the particles from hitting the earth’s outer atmosphere during times of high solar activity. The rub comes when the sun’s solar wind dwindles during solar minima and the magnetic effects of the helio sheath are minimal, thus more of GCR’s strike the upper atmosphere where lots of very complex, poorly understood things may happen.

    GCR’s entering the upper thin layers of the atmosphere induce a shower of charged decay particles as they keep decaying and colliding with gas atoms and move down into the lower atmosphere, thus creating charged condensation nuclei for water droplet to condense and form clouds.

    Clouds can be either negative forcing for Earth’s radiation budget or positive forcing, depending on who you ask. From that point o, it’s quite controversial as to their effect of Earth’s climate system.

  5. Water is a polar molecule, I.e. attracted / repelled by electric charges. There is a heck of a lot of water in our atmosphere, and the solar wind could well affect the electric charges up there as well. Think of how much effect ionisation changes in the upper atmosphere affect global radio signal propagation (I was a radio amateur / ham waaay back). Not much research about how water is affected by electric charges, or how the solar wind affects electric charges in the atmosphere?

  6. Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013 [...]

    The IMF value is semi-relevant but at an extra step away from direct relevance, compared to the following metric:

    Compared to the 1975-1995 average, the period from 2009 to 3/20/2013 had a 8.4% difference in average neutron count measured at a low altitude detector (indicating the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth, predominately solar-modulated on this timescale).

    However, the same figure for this year (2014) differs by only 2.5% from the same 1975-1995 average comparison period (oulu.fi), for, while the current solar maximum is weak, it is still a solar maximum.

    The really interesting times come later, if, later this decade / soon beyond, there is a return to Grand Minimum levels of solar activity, when cosmic ray flux was tens of percent different.

    (Even the mere 10-15% variation in cosmic ray flux over an ordinary solar cycle, corresponds to about 5% variation in tropospheric ionization, 2% in low cloud cover, and a corresponding magnitude of forcing in W/m^2 terms from the corresponding albedo change, as in the references in the subsequent link).

    Matters are most easily illustrated by graphs, e.g., enlarging on further click, my usual link to http://www.webcitation.org/6PsOoxWKN

  7. “Our results indicate that the low solar wind output is driven by an internal trend in the Sun that is longer than the ~11 yr solar cycle, and they suggest that this current weak solar maximum is driven by the same trend.”

  8. Boyfromtottenham says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:57 pm
    Your last point about: “how water is affected by electric charges, or how the solar wind affects electric charges in the atmosphere?,” is a very good question, one that many hard core atmospheric physcisits love to tackle beyond computer models with expensive experimental packages on high flying airplane and balloons. Big expensive balloons have been used for decades to ask this question. The more we learn, the more questions arise and the more we realize we just don’t know. The computer modelers on the other hand, needing to make many simplifying assumptions, hand wave it off and fall in love with their models and their “output data.” “model output data,” if you don’t know, is a ROFLMAO pejorative in skeptic circles.

    So to give you a lame answer, Yes the solar wind affects our upper-most atmosphere, but so does our Earth’s weakening, ever changing deep dynamo-driven magnetic field and a lot of other factors such as ozone creation/destruction kinetics, and many things we probably don’t know that we don’t know about.

  9. rent “mini” solar maximum
    Dr. Deanster says:
    August 21, 2014 at 7:41 pm
    OK … .Leif …. this is what I was talking about in the last thread … TSI .. vs “other” solar parameters that may interact with the earth’s atmosphere. While TSI varies very little, this paper seems to suggest that the solar wind is varying by a much greater margin.
    Of course the solar wind varies a lot more [just like the sunspot number does]. It is like the amount of loose change in your pocket varies a lot more than your total wealth [one might hope].

    … or … is this author just another person who doesn’t know what they are talking about??
    In addition, there is also that. For example, they are puzzled why [Figure 4] the relation between the sunspot number and the ’tilt’ of the heliomagnetic current sheet has ‘broken down’. This is complete and utter nonsense. Because the polar fields reverse at every solar maximum and thus goes through zero magnitude as they change sign, the current sheet ’tilt’ by definition goes to 90 degrees in every cycle, regardless of the sunspot number.

    Also, the magnetic field strength the past 250 years has varied in a very predictable way, even calculated from the very theory [by Schwadron et al.] that is referred to in the paper:

    The current cycle is no different from cycle 14, everything varies just in step with the usual solar activity. There seems to be a cottage industry to declare that things are unusual, strange, never-seen-before. They are not [but it is good for continued funding to claim that they are].

  10. M Simon,
    That is too harsh. I’ve met many scientists like Leif, he knows what he knows, and has well- grounded understandings, that unless you are an equal expert in the field, you should not challenge him in his field, unless you want a deserved beat down with data laden science. Further, he has been honest with what he does with solar physics, which is a lot more than can be said for many earth climate atmospheric scientists remain quiet, while the sophistry from Mann, et al spews forth.

  11. Leif: I think you are missing the point here by discussing how those magnetic field parameters can be calculated already. The main point is the effect of those changes to climate. Do you still deny that those solar wind variations could have an impact to earth climate?

  12. Mark and two Cats says:
    August 21, 2014 at 10:18 pm
    “Hey – we can make solar windmills – two wacky green power “solutions” in one!”

    I had one when I was a kid. It’s called a Radiometer.
    get yours here:

    But don’t expect much in the way of torque to drive a EMF generator. The math doesn’t work, unless you want planet-sized Radiometers in near-Mercury orbits.

  13. Iv been keeping a record of the Solar wind speed every day at almost the same time each day for the last 20 months.
    Solar wind speed is down from 419 km/sec same time last year.( the avg for 32 weeks up to this date) This year for the first 32 weeks the reading is 389 km/sec.

    Solar wind speed on avg is going down now that the peck is past.

  14. Boyfromtottenham says:
    August 21, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    “Water is a polar molecule, I.e. attracted / repelled by electric charges. There is a heck of a lot of water in our atmosphere, and the solar wind could well affect the electric charges up there as well.”

    Yes. Read
    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
    Brian A. Tinsley, Fangqun Yu (2004)

    http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v141/141GM22/141GM22.pdf

    Also, the present article is talking about solar cosmic rays SCR, which are lower energy but higher particle count than Galactic Cosmic Rays GCR. Unlike GCR’s which are shielded by solar activity, SCR’s follow solar activity and it is these that energize the D layer and produce effects such as aurorae and influence transmission of certain radio frequency bands and also potentially cause the electroscavenging process that Tinsley and Yu discuss. Its still too early to say what part solar wind plays in the climate story as there are many other actors to consider as well.

  15. MAK says:
    August 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    The main point is the effect of those changes to climate.
    Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.

  16. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    MAK says:
    August 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    The main point is the effect of those changes to climate.
    Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.

    When you include feed backs as produced by my model is of a billion nukes going off…. every second.

  17. leif says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1714712

    @leif
    interesting graphs! Thx. There is some good thinking there.
    Note that the second graph shows some funny behavior in and around 1927, which I also expect to happen in and around 2016.[SSNc]
    Have you any idea why it is going up and down like a jo-jo there? [SSNc]
    Again I am warning people about the droughts that will come to the great plains of America from 2021 as happened before, in 1932-1939

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

  18. Leif: You pretty well know that no-one is able to do such a calculation. The effects are extremely complex, but clear at the same time. For example: Boberg et al 2002 finds:

    “Figure 2 present time series of twelve month moving averages of the NAO index, the electric field strength E of the solar wind, the planetary magnetospheric Kp index, and the dynamic pressure P of the solar wind for the period 1973 to 2000. General features of both E and Kp are significantly reflected in the evolution of the NAO index. An obvious exception to this similarity is the positive NAO phase during the second half of 1986. The linear correlation between E and NAO is 0.62. Assuming a normal distribution, this correlation is significant at the 99% level. The linear correlation between Kp and NAO is 0.57 at a 98% significance level.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014903/full

    From the other studies we know that NAO on the other hand has an effect on Gulf Stream. During negative NAO Gulf Stream (or AMOC) slows down and arctic sea cools.

    Thus, the long solar minimum (which I suppose is coming) will return arctic sea ice to it’s previous glory.

  19. Leif Svalgaard
    Are these the slight changes?
    “Compared to values typically observed from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, the following proton parameters are lower on average from 2009 through day 79 of 2013: solar wind speed and beta (~11%), temperature (~40%), thermal pressure (~55%), mass flux (~34%), momentum flux or dynamic pressure (~41%), energy flux (~48%), IMF magnitude (~31%), and radial component of the IMF (~38%).”
    You are cited:

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/why-the-global-temperature-ris/32560214

  20. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 21, 2014 at 10:03 pm

    There seems to be a cottage industry to declare that things are unusual, strange, never-seen-before. They are not [but it is good for continued funding to claim that they are].

    —————————————————————-

    O boy, do I wish it was only a “cottage industry”. Far to much resource being used on model generated unprecedented maybes.

  21. Change in the length of the Earth’s day, known as the LOD, (in this case as inferred from the geomagnetic data) follows changes in the polar magnetic field orientation.
    Solar magnetic field cannot penetrate to the depths of the Earth’s core, and yet the solar magnetic field (22 year cycle) and a much larger magnetic ripple superimposed on the Earth’s field (orders of magnitude greater than the heliospheric field at the Earth’s orbit) have same frequency and are in phase.
    The Earth’s rotation acceleration is coincidental with decay of the even and continues during rise of the odd cycles. The rotation de-acceleration is coincidental with decay of the odd and continues during rise of the even cycles, in other words change in the rate of rotation is synchronized with solar magnetic (Hale) cycle.
    This is very unlikely to be caused by the solar output directly, it is more likely the direct cause is the atmospheric circulation and possibly monsoons and enso.
    Why any of these terrestrial events should be synchronised with solar magnetic field oscillations is question yet to be answered.
    As far as climate is concerned I would think that the energy, more or less in the equal measure across the centuries, comes from ‘the above’, but its distribution is more likely regulated from ‘the below’.

  22. I don’t think we know much about the interactions between our atmosphere and the solar wind, or with GCRs when the solar wind is low.

    It would be surprising if hydrogen and helium nuclei, electrons and high energy photons fail to achieve anything as they pass through. At the very least, I would expect some effect on cloud formation as Svensmark proposes. As well as chemical reactions I would expect electrostatic induced flocculation of particles (e.g. dust) or more dispersion of particles depending on the nature of the particles and the ions involved. The alternating magnetic field may add another dimension to all of this. It suggests that the electrical properties of our atmosphere are complex and ever changing.

    I have an open mind about whether these things can change our climate, but they deserve investigation. Even a small change in average global cloud cover would be important.

  23. MAK says:
    August 21, 2014 at 11:31 pm
    Leif: You pretty well know that no-one is able to do such a calculation. The effects are extremely complex, but clear at the same time.
    There are hundreds of such claims, none of them compelling. Every solar thread coaxes claimants out of the woodwork peddling their own pet theories. I am not impressed. Seems you are.

  24. Both the solar wind and changes in the magnetic field on Earth such as the Ap-index based on my Artificial Neural Network research have big impact as ENSO drivers. However I can not find any connection between GCR to variations in global temperature or to ENSO. None.

    My thinking now based on my finding is that ENSO in part is driven by electromagnetic changes of the Sun which in part is responsible of the circa 60 year sinus like change in the global temperature anomaly.

  25. I never found the grand maximum warming argument compelling even when it appeared to be a real series of higher maximums.

    As Anthony has repeatedly showed the warming is mostly heat-islands structures and bad thermometer placements, punctuated with ENSO cycles and concerted biased temp record corruption.

    So is a minimum proposition any more compelling or necessary to explain cooling than the alleged maximum was for explaining warming? At least the minimums are real measured features, even if not in any way ‘grand’.

    At least there is something there to question.

  26. Leif: “There are hundreds of such claims, none of them compelling. Every solar thread coaxes claimants out of the woodwork peddling their own pet theories. I am not impressed. Seems you are.”

    My point here is that the solar-climate connection requires a lot of more studies and those studies needs financing. Money spend on those is money spend much wiser than on 20 new multiproxy studies utilizing Mann’s methods.

    But at the same time there is so much evidence on solar influence (even without Svensmark’s pet theories) that it is hardly compelling to argue that there is no significant influence. Ignoring those influences is also a pet theory for some.

  27. vukcevic,

    Changes in LOD can be used to predict changes in temperature, 7 years in advance, with cooling and warming trends correlating with the dominance of zonal and meridional patterns:

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm

    That is why I am wondering if you can substantiate this rather interesting claim in your post at 12.34am:
    “Change in the length of the Earth’s day, known as the LOD, (in this case as inferred from the geomagnetic data) follows changes in the polar magnetic field orientation.”

  28. vukcevic says:
    August 22, 2014 at 12:34 am
    Why any of these terrestrial events should be synchronised with solar magnetic field oscillations is question yet to be answered.

    95.8% of earth interior energy release goes into deforming its interior rock crystals in geodynamic processes (the mantle and crust are crystalline with very minor liquids and gas).

    When you bend crystals out pop electrons.

    This is known as the Piezoelectric effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

    So earth is continually emitting and reabsorbing electrons.

    A neat feature of electrons is that if you put polarize them and flow electrons through a conductor it heats the conductors, just as an electric stove becomes element conductor becomes incandescent.

    The Earth is insulated by rock, which is a poor thermal conductor, but it does conduct electrons, some minerals much more than others. Which means elections flowing in earth can heat it over time and melt it, as the earth is insulated by the crust. And do so sans any radio decay, all it has to do is bend the crystals.

    More to the point, almost all radio decay occurs in the crust, and almost not at all within the ~2,900 km thick mantle due to the geochemical differentiation of radionuclides in the crust, i.e. the mantle is not radioactive, but the continental crust very much is. But oceanic crust also has no radionuclides … gee … well then, why does mid ocean ridge crust and mantle keep on melting, as in Iceland right now?

    /crickets

    So why does the upper mantle melt, and not the crust if the mantle has no heating source?

    May it be that electrons are doing it, and not radionuclides?

    And electrons respond to remote external fields, particularly if they are polarized.

    If they are not polarized they don’t do much and but can become partially induced to polarize.

    If they are polarized they will become extremely responsive to global electromagnetic field variation.

    Heck, it could even lead to resistive flows in rock, and partially melt them.

    And the Sun’s behavior would of course matter as well in that case, as Earth’s crystalline interior would then have similar responses, as do in the outer atmosphere layers in polar regions.

    The mechanism is quite logical.

    Now work out what crystalline physical petrological structures polarise, store, conduct and transmit the electrons within earth and the correlation mystery is sorted.

    Pretty straight forward, people have only to abandon the old rusted-on rubbish theories about radio decay heating and look at what earth is obviously doing to itself and the influence the sun would have on that sort of mechanism.

    Earth bats last, stop ignoring it, because eventually it will make you pay attention.

  29. Actually, I’ve become rather fond ot Svalgaard’s use of the term “nonsense”. It’s usual usage is a longer, perhaps a politie academic, word substitute for “gibberish”.

    It’s also possible he’s using the Ludwig Wittgenstein term where even tautologies are nonsense. Others have argued that nonsense should be reserved for statements that have absolutely no meaning.

    Or his usage could be from using the null hypothesis.

    I’d bet on “gibberish”.
    Because
    1. Most scientists don’t delve into philosophy (logic) until they’ve mostly retired (ala Whitehead, Russell, Hawking).
    2. The null hypothesis is simply nonsense in that it doesn’t work with solar nor climate (CERN’s CLOUD notwithstanding). Not to mention consensus the “climate”, even the temperature records, range from inaccurate to manipulation.

    That leaves only gibberish. A fitting choice since it describes the IPCC and all of “climate science” doesn’t it?

  30. Coolista alarmists must be rubbing their tiny hands with glee. Less solar wind = more GCR’s hitting the atmosphere = more clouds = cooling, cooling and more cooling (I thought we’d been having a lot of cloudy weather lately). We all know cooling means doooom (more people die of cold..blah..crop failure little ice age..blah..Dutch paintings..blah..blah)

    Problem: The climate won’t dance to the music. And Svensmark has been so quiet recently

  31. MAK says
    But at the same time there is so much evidence on solar influence (even without Svensmark’s pet theories) that it is hardly compelling to argue that there is no significant influence. Ignoring those influences is also a pet theory for some.
    henry says
    good point. Note the tables 2 and 3 here:

    http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

    which is exactly what Leif and their ilk want us to ignore.

    Does anyone have an idea about that up and down movement of the SSNc around 1927?
    (2nd graph) quoted by Dr.No

  32. Nature is giving us a nice empirical test. Will be very interesting to see what, if any, effects are observed due to having several very low solar cycles in a row. I hope there are not any large volcanic eruptions the next ten years as that will be a confounding factor that will make any conclusions less certain.

  33. Pamela Gray says:
    August 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    I suppose your response to Dr. Deanster has to do with teachers teaching what we know, and conversely, scientists challenging what we think we know. The latter can be very unsettling for a teacher and explains the use of ritalin – to suppress excessive inquisitiveness particularly in young boys.

  34. Thanks Leif …

    Just wanted to hear what you had to say about it all! I totally agree that everyone is out to claim “unprecedented” these days. Of course, we has conscious beings always want to know “what does this have to do with us”! [what does it mean] If discovering that the solar wind means zilch, then as a very fiscal conservative kinda person, that would impact my position with regards to future funding of research on the topic. …. kinda like studying a two inch square of the hind quarter of a platypus.

    ;-)

  35. Unmentionable says: August 22, 2014 at 3:27 am
    ………………
    Hi, Thanks you for your comment.
    Some of the suppositions you presented, theoretically make sense, but not everything that make sense is incontestable.
    Those who insist on verification might readily refer such matters as nonsense.
    A good example could be relationship between solar activity and tectonics along northern leg of the middle Atlantic ridge as shown HERE
    As an author of number of similar pseudo-discoveries (including the aforementioned LOD behaviour} I am no stranger to such epithets.

  36. ***
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.
    ***

    Yup. All the suppositions on varying “UV”, on and on endlessly, never have any hard numbers. Ever. Until numbers are shown, none of the suppositions can be taken seriously because there’s nothing to discuss.

  37. Most scientists don’t delve into philosophy
    ===========
    as soon as you ask “why”, you have gone over to the dark side. you are delving into philosophy.

    why is the sky blue?
    1. it reflects blue light
    2. god made it blue
    3. it had to be some color; it happened to be blue.

  38. vukcevic says:
    August 22, 2014 at 5:15 am

    You’re welcome. Just to clarify, I just say there’s a viable mechanism, and it’s not even hard to identify, its simple, logical and a viable mechanism that can be tested to the nth degree. It’s also not out of whack with observations, whereas the standard version mantle heating and melting mechanism is in fact very, very out of whack with observation. So I’m fairly clearly not the one out of step with the geophysical and geochemical observations, the ‘consensus’ very much is though. ;-)

    But in frankness to your link, the fit is not that compelling in several areas. One or both of the curves is not representative of the phenomena they depict, or else they’re not too closely correlated. In fact the match would be closer with no grand-maximum.

    cheers

  39. everyone is out to claim “unprecedented” these days
    =======
    unprecedented – never seen before. young people find a lot of things are unprecedented. old folks call these events history.

    if you are old, you lump global warming in with global cooling, and call it no big deal. if you are young, you call global warming unprecedented, and call global cooling a myth; a bedtime story from long ago.

  40. Beng…oh yeh. There seems to be unending interest in the tiniest of solar parameters being the trigger to temperature trends here on Earth. Meanwhile all the giant players are happily ignored. IE the room is filled with manure and there are a herd of elephants wandering about, yet some people insist that with all this manure here, there must be a mouse.

    If I were to build a climate scientist, he/she would have a solid bedrock in old fashioned meteorology, a masters in planetary fluid/gas mechanics, and then would go on to weld that knowledge with a PhD in a field titled oceanic/atmospheric climate dynamics. These scientists study the elephants producing all that manure in the room.

  41. MAK says:
    August 21, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    “”Thus, the long solar minimum (which I suppose is coming) will return arctic sea ice to it’s previous glory.””

    Please don’t be surprised if the opposite happens. Maybe Arctic ice loss is feedback. Global cooling can do that.

    But then, I have been persuaded by evidence that solar wind has a direct influence on our weather, so what do I know?

  42. A curious scientific investigator might:
    1) Speculate about the [solar] wind and envision a few ways it may interact with the world.
    2) Express his thoughts to other curious scientific people, while enduring heckling from unimaginative people
    3) Through discussion and the sharing of ideas, think of something “new.”
    5) Consider the “NEW” idea and develop a hypothetical model.
    6) Design an experiment and test the model.
    7) Reconsider the model in light of the data.

    A Procrustean pseudo scientist might:
    1) Declare that the science is settled.
    2) Erect a seemingly insurmountable “Catch 22″ obstacle to advancing discussion amongst the curious, while promoting his own social status
    3) Mock and brow beat the curious people for sport
    4) publish a paper based on science he did in his 20s, take a dog for a walk,

    There are 4 obstacles to advancing the truth according to Roger Bacon, the first scientist ~1267 AD:
    1) the example of weak and unworthy authority,
    2)longstanding custom,
    3)the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and
    4) the hiding of our own ignorance while making an ostentatious display of apparent knowledge.

    I suggest:
    Let the curious people amongst us first dream, speculate, talk, think, model, test and revisit their ideas.

  43. beng says
    Yup. All the suppositions on varying “UV”, on and on endlessly, never have any hard numbers. Ever. Until numbers are shown, none of the suppositions can be taken seriously because there’s nothing to discuss.
    henry says
    it is because you are all too lazy to work it our for yourself.
    We know from my tables

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    that it warmed at an average of 0.012K/annum for the last 40 years.
    (Means table)
    I am sure this 0.012K/annum is about the same value that Dr. Roy also gets (0.12K/decade).
    So, from 1972 until now is 42 x 0.012 = +0.5K
    However, most major data sets show that it is cooling since 2002

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    According to my own data set (which is more properly balanced NH/SH) we are now cooling at a rate of -0.015K/annum since 2000
    So basically that means from 1972-2000: up 0.7K
    From 2000 we are already down -0.2K
    (the balance is the +0.5K average up now from 1972)
    However, we can assume mirrored cooling from 2000-2040: 40 x -0.012= -0.5K

    If you note Leif’s graphs you can see that funny things are happening on the sun around 1927, 1972 and now (2016).
    So basically where we are now in relation to what is happening on the sun is 1925. We have at least another two half and decades of cooling ahead of us. It will be a mirror of the warming that was past. By around 2040 we will be back to where we were in 2000, exactly, more less….

    beng, I hope that helps you.

  44. I can’t help but think that TSI by spectral component is affecting atmosphere. TSI overall is a very small change. Radiant power in the UV wavelengths that drive Ozone vary by 10%. It also seems that weak solar cycles have more drawn out flips. I’m not sure that radiance would be driven by sunspots but I suspect extended periods of reduced magnetic field would affect specific components. How much has the spectral change during extended weak magnetic fields affected the isotope ratios of carbon or ozone generation or any of the other complex chemistries. I’m reminded of a certain experiment by a well-known physicist that demonstrated the photoelectric effect and how spectrum, and not just energy were needed. Nobel prize for that. And we know that not all wavelengths are treated equally through the solar cycle.

  45. Indeed Leif: “There seems to be a cottage industry to declare that things are unusual, strange, never-seen-before. They are not [but it is good for continued funding to claim that they are].”
    That’s the bread and butter of the CAGW publishing and fear mongering industry.

  46. Have there been any attempts to determine the amount of atmospheric voltage stress and plot changes over time, map distribution, and look for periodic behavior or matchups to solar wind or solar magnetic values? If atmospheric voltage stress varies, the threshold enegry a given storm needs to contribute with charge distribution for lightning may vary too – perhaps lightning frequency trends could be checked or serve as a proxy. Any data out there?

  47. What is of crucial relevance to weather, and thus “climate” in the longer term, is the geomagnetic response to solar activity, because this is what tells us how much the Earth really receives from the sun in terms of solar wind. It is not the sunspots that matter, although they are, if somewhat inaccurately, the indicators of solar activity generally. The drop in solar wind parameters by 55% (thermal pressure), 40% (temperature), 34% (mass flux) is huge, suggesting perhaps not so much the doldrums of the current inactivity, but the immense peak that preceded it. Little wonder we had a warm period in the last two decades of the 20th century. And little wonder the world stopped warming in the 21st.

  48. The problem with mainstream solar physics is that the wrong model of the Sun is being used. The belief is that the Sun is almost entirely hydrogen and helium. Oliver Manuel provides solid evidence that the Sun has an iron core (and possibly a neutron core), but not a light helium core. This results in miscalculations when investigating the effect of solar barycenter movement relative to the Sun’s core.

    The excessively long transit of the solar barycenter over the surface of the Sun during the past 12 years has significantly reduced the flow of magnetic fluids within the Sun. This, in turn, has significantly reduced the magnetohydrodynamics of the Sun resulting in the extreme quiet phase we are witnessing, today.

    Analyzing the barycenter transits, we can see there will continue to be a very quiet period of solar activity through the next cycle. It will be even more quiet than the present cycle, if not totally quiet.

    Considering that the recent past wobble of the Sun’s core was maintained by harmonic forces developed over decades, we can expect it will be several more decades before solar activity can resume to 1990s levels.

    The resulting weaker magnetic field strength of the Sun due to declining solar wind will allow more cosmic radiation to reach Earth, which will increase cloud cover and further reduce already weakened solar irradiance. The physics are there, the question is where are the physicists?

  49. ***
    moreCarbonOK[&theWeatherisalwaysGood]HenryP says:
    August 22, 2014 at 6:56 am

    beng, I hope that helps you.
    ***

    Yes, it helped demonstrate my point. All I see from what you linked are temp curves, curve-fitting exercises & implied suppositions.

    Here is one very simple question one would ask about the solar-cycle/UV suppositions, knowing that overall TSI (which includes UV) varies by ~1.5 w/m2 during solar cycles (any supposition that it previously varied more than that is just that — there are no direct measurements before satellites, only vague & climate-influenced proxies):

    How many w/m2 of UV cyclic variance actually reach the surface (isn’t absorbed by the atmosphere/ozone) where it can affect surface temps? My off-the-cuff guess would be a mere fraction of a w/m2.

    When I see a firm number like that, then discussion can begin. And then the next question would be (if the answer to the above question showed any significance): where is the evidence of any long-term trends of UV (or TSI for that matter) beyond the usual ~11yr solar-cycle (rhetorical perhaps because Dr S has already shown the best estimates on the topic)?

  50. Regardless if whether you “believe” the sun significantly influences these relatively insignificant changes in Earth’s climate [the small variances of temperature inferred during the Holocene] or not it’s apparent to me that the proper scientific response should be “I don’t know” or “there’s not enough data yet.” On one side you have the coincidence of the solar proxy record and temperature proxy record generally correlating with each other. On the other side you have no quantitative proof. It will be exciting to see this natural experiment unfold over the next few decades. Or, perhaps it won’t, if it turns out that the agreement between the proxy data is no coincidence at all.

  51. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-high-correlation.html

    This link shows a high correlation between the global temperature rise last century with solar high solar activity.

    In addition this article is spot on in demonstrating solar variability is indeed taking place over the last 200 years. There have been very quiet periods such as the Dalton, the 1890-1910 period and the post 2005-present period interspersed with very active periods.

    Which is the point. the fact that if you take a long stretch of years limits solar variability is absurd. Anything will tend toward averaging out if taken over a long enough period of time. It is what happens within that time that matters..

    In addition this prolonged solar minimum has just got started and the impacts it is GOING to have on the climate will become more and more evident as we proceed through this decade.

    Already the atmosphere has responded by becoming more meridional and the global temperature rise has come to a halt.

    My comment for the day.

  52. “GCR’s entering the upper thin layers of the atmosphere induce a shower of charged decay particles as they keep decaying and colliding with gas atoms and move down into the lower atmosphere, thus creating charged condensation nuclei for water droplet to condense and form clouds.”

    err, no.
    if you look at the most precise data we have on clouds at every pressure level you will find
    no relationship between GCR and cloud formation.

    let’s put it this way. the puzzle of clouds remains. GCR adds nothing to unravelling the mystery.

  53. “Further, he has been honest with what he does with solar physics, which is a lot more than can be said for many earth climate atmospheric scientists remain quiet, while the sophistry from Mann, et al spews forth.”

    M Simon is a fan of david Evans. you know the guy who doesnt share his code.
    Hmm a while back one reader found an error in Evans work..
    no update on that from Evans yet.. hmm I need to re check that blog.. maybe he has posted
    an update

  54. beng says
    All I see from what you linked are temp curves, curve-fitting exercises & implied suppositions
    henry says
    there is no “curve fitting”
    The implied backward and forward projection is only for illustration.
    What I did is take a sample [following a specified sampling technique] and applied some statistics.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    The high correlation for the relationships found is significant on any statistical test…
    (note the the third graph on the bottom of all the tables)
    Why don’t you repeat my test, preferably taking a different sample [of 50 odd weather stations]?

  55. Serious question. Is anyone quantifying the conductive transfer of heat from the sun to upper earth atmosphere via solar wind? Low solar wind = less conductive heat with no real change in radiative emissions.

  56. Pamela Gray says:
    August 22, 2014 at 6:27 am
    “If I were to build a climate scientist, he/she would have a solid bedrock in old fashioned meteorology, a masters in planetary fluid/gas mechanics, and then would go on to weld that knowledge with a PhD in a field titled oceanic/atmospheric climate dynamics. These scientists study the elephants producing all that manure in the room.”

    I agree,
    I find little synoptic weather analysis in WUWT, I am showing some from:
    NOAA-NWS OPC – Unified Surface Analysis, at http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/
    At http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/UA/entire_UA.gif
    they have a simplified meteorological chart with the current position of the ITCZ and the Monsoon Trough. Updated every 6 hours.

  57. Unmentionable says: August 22, 2014 at 6:09 am
    ……….
    I do agree, even strong correlation may not be result of a direct causation.
    Regardless of what is the type of events considered, climate change, or highly speculative as the LOD or tectonics in the far reaches of the N. Atlantic, even if solar activity is a factor, it may not the strongest, but just one of many.
    N. Atlantic tectonics correlation, in the first instance, may be as good as data employed, in this case collected and processed by myself, without weighting, period since 1880 looks more interesting.
    Thus, a partial (weak) correlation (which may be as good as data available, which in may be an indication of its effect, or alternatively just as likely to be a coincidence.
    Spinoza may have bin just too much of a rationalist : “Nothing in nature is by coincidence……..something appears to be coincidence only because of our lack of knowledge.”

    Khwarizmi says: August 22, 2014 at 3:13 am
    ………….
    Hi, as I was scrawling down the thread and was about to post the above, I noticed your comment, will look into your link and will be back later on.

  58. David Thomson says
    The resulting weaker magnetic field strength of the Sun due to declining solar wind will allow more cosmic radiation to reach Earth, which will increase cloud cover and further reduce already weakened solar irradiance. The physics are there, the question is where are the physicists?

    Henry says
    There is definitely a correlation between global cooling and declining solar magnetic field strengths. I am not sure why.
    what I do know is that we are cooling from the top latitudes down

    and

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/antarctic-sea-ice-has-been-above-average-for-1000-straight-days/

    As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

    Hence my prediction of the return of the drought times 1930’s and 1950’s on the great plains of America.
    What must we do?
    You tell me.

  59. Do ozone is very attentive to change of the radiation? Let’s think.
    “Ozone (O3) forms a layer in the stratosphere, 15-40 km above earth surface. If the ozone in the atmosphere from ground level to a height of 60 km could be assembled at the earth’s surface, it would comprise a layer of gas only about 3 mm thick.”

  60. David Thomson,

    “Oliver Manuel provides solid evidence that the Sun has an iron core (and possibly a neutron core), but not a light helium core.”

    Wouldn’t the presence of iron show up as spectral emission bands? Also, not sure what a neutron core is supposed to be.

    • Vince, “Wouldn’t the presence of iron show up as spectral emission bands?”

      If light from the Sun was radiating from the core, yes, we would expect to see a strong iron spectral emission bands. However, Manuel shows how the Sun is layered and the spectrum analysis strongly supports his theories:

      http://amateurspectroscopy.com/color-spectra-of-chemical-elements.htm

      “Also, not sure what a neutron core is supposed to be.”

      That would be a structural mass of neutrons, which can only be maintained under the pressures and temperatures of star cores. When the star blows its outer layers off, the neutron core remains as a so-called neutron star.

  61. The Republic of Panama has a land area: 74,340 sq km and the World land 148,940,000 sq km.

    http://world.bymap.org/LandArea.html

    That’s 0.05 percent.

    Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km = That’s 0.015 percent

    Yet the theory is when half the country raised up from 200 meters below sea level to at sea level, the glacial cycles went from every +40,000 years to +100,000 years.

    Be carefull of the argument “It’s too small of a change.”

    Good thing to remember when seeing some study of ancient ocean flow models. “Did they get all the Panama’s right in the model.”

    • Henry are you trying for the longest name on the blog? You could start a new trend and the names will take up more bandwidth than the posts :)

  62. David Thomson says:
    August 22, 2014 at 8:00 am
    “Oliver Manuel provides ……………”

    Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a very long time.

  63. Village Idiot (August 22, 2014 at 4:20 am) “Coolista alarmists must be rubbing their tiny hands with glee…….Problem: The climate won’t dance to the music.”

    It must be very frustrating to see the predicted warming going down in smoke, or whatever the latest theory for lack of warming is. But don’t despair, warming will be back with a vengeance in this new super duper El Nino, or from positive feedback from the massive Arctic ice loss, or millions of fiery methane belches or humongous forest fires or some unprecedented bad, hot or changey phenomenon that is unimaginably worse than those really soon any day now. Don’t worry VI, you’ll be sweating bullets before you know it, don’t forget to come back and taunt us.

  64. Leif puts out water tanks everywhere. Obvious water tanks. With cold hard data. Horses come walking in thirsty as all get out. Horses refuse to drink.

    Mouse hunters walk into a room. Are shown elephants. Not the puny Asian elephant. The big hunkin ass African elephants. Mouse hunters are convinced that said manure in the room is caused by a mouse scurrying around in the room even though big ass elephants are standing there pooping.

    A tragic comedy of the likes of Shakespeare.

  65. Hoser, you have not been in my classroom. I don’t mind inquisitive active boys. But I sure as hell expect thinking reasonable questions.

  66. Back in 2005, the ionosphere shrank far more deeply than they were expecting. Still hasn’t recovered. Climate effects: we don’t know.

    BTW, reduced solar UV only accounts for 30% of the drop, so there is definately something going on that we do not understand.

  67. Mosher says

    ” M Simon is a fan of david Evans. you know the guy who doesnt share his code.
    Hmm a while back one reader found an error in Evans work..
    no update on that from Evans yet.. hmm I need to re check that blog.. maybe he has posted
    an update ”

    in a holier than thou manner and yet has no compulsions on throwing accusations about a 16 year old teenage girl without substantiating it with any citations or links in another blog.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/19/institutionalizing-dissent/#comment-619597

    Pot, kettle, black.

  68. Larry says
    so there is definitely something going on that we do not understand.
    Henry says
    as I said I do have a theory
    I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.

    I had now already found three exact confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,

    more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).

    Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output.

    The next switch I expect to happen in 2016. I hope it does come, as otherwise I am not sure where we will end up?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    Note the results in the last table.

  69. Yet another example of why the whole debate is crying out for the application of Okham’s Razer: The Sun is by far the most important “energy” source for Earth. What it does is going to have impacts, on climate and other dynamic systems. The nature of those impacts and the mechanisms by which they are “felt” may not be understood, and to delve into these in order to understand them better is clearly “good science”, but to elevate any (to borrow from Prof Svalgard) “pet theory” to the level of a proven hypothesis is simple “nonsense”. It’s the Sun stupid!

  70. Kevin, you have just done what you rail against by saying “It’s the Sun stupid!” That is also a pet theory.

  71. Pamela Gray says:
    August 22, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    And you decide, of course, what is reasonable. Everybody knows the Sun is in a crystal sphere rotating around the Earth.

  72. Hoser says
    Everybody knows the Sun is in a crystal sphere rotating around the Earth.
    Henry says
    I am sure Pam knows it is the other way around?

    Anyway, FYI, all here, there is a relationship between the hyperbolic decline /parabolic incline of the solar polar field strengths

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1715663

    and the parabolic decline for the deceleration of warming

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    It is as solid as a rock.

    Point is that when more that 3 co-incidences together occur together it forms a pattern…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  73. HenryP you know that your data series has not been peer reviewed or duplicated. Therefore I consider your research to be at high risk of being both invalid and unreliable. Post the station names. How many times does one have to make this request before you do it? If you want your work to be considered, you must post indentifiable data such that your research methods and results can be tested, using the data sources you used. Don’t bother telling me to randomly pick my own data set. That is not duplication.

  74. My point is dumb questions and mistakes can lead to breakthroughs. I hope we never stop asking dumb questions.

  75. Yet there are so many here who have not picked up a good, vetted, research based book on the Sun. So don’t give me an appeal to the notion that dumb questions are good. Do your homework first so questions are thoughtful.

    Maybe it is time once again for Leif to post a resource list on good books describing solar processes. He did that for me years ago. There have been a couple new ones published since then.

  76. Pamela Gray says:
    August 23, 2014 at 10:38 am
    Maybe it is time once again for Leif to post a resource list on good books describing solar processes. He did that for me years ago.
    The best of the new ones are http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/heliophysics
    They are, unfortunately, expensive, but you may be able to find used ones [or paperback versions]
    “Heliophysics is a fast-developing discipline that integrates studies of the Sun’s variability, the surrounding heliosphere, and the environment and climate of planets. Over the past few centuries, our understanding of how the Sun drives space weather and climate on the Earth and other planets has advanced dramatically. This set brings together three books edited by Carolus Schrijver and George Siscoe, which together provide a complete guide to heliophysics – covering the full range of sub-disciplines that constitute this field. Supplemented by online teaching materials, the volumes can be used as textbooks for graduate courses or as a foundational reference resource for researchers in fields from astrophysics and plasma physics to planetary and atmospheric science. The set price is currently not available longer available, but the three individual volumes may be purchased separately: Heliophysics: Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (Volume I) Heliophysics: Space Storms and Radiation: Causes and Effects (Volume II) Heliophysics: Evolving Solar Activity and the Climates of Space and Earth (Volume III)”
    also http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/science-resources-textbooks.shtml

  77. Pamela Gray

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1715810

    @Pam
    Again I have to challenge you on that. I just took a sample of 54 weather stations and, after applying certain statistics, I achieved the reported result. In statistics you can only duplicate things if you were to take a different sample [than mine]. You are not supposed to take the same sample as I did.

    Nevertheless, your claim that I did not post the station’s name / position is not true. I reported the exact latitude of each station in the tables.

    For example, here are my original results [before linear regression] for NY JFK

    http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm

    Note that it reports the exact latitude of 40.65

    Going back to my tables

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    I am sure you will find the latitude that I reported in my tables for NY JFK was indeed 40.65

    Therefore, you should be able to identify each station that I used, if you really wanted to duplicate my own random sample.

    Again, I say that that in itself would be a silly exercise unless you [just] wanted to prove that I am a dishonest person.

    If you want to duplicate my results [by taking a different sample] you must remember to employ the same sampling technique that I used.

  78. Dr. Svalgaard
    Any comments on this paper (unfortunately it is behind pay wall)

    The 1.3-year variation in solar wind speed and geomagnetic activity
    K. Mursula, B. Zieger 2000
    We show that the 1.3-year variation is a quasi-periodicity which occurs during even solar cycles. On the other hand, during odd cycles, we find a somewhat longer periodicity with a period varying from 1.5-1.7 years. Both of these periodicities are expected to be due to the evolution of coronal holes. Therefore, the observed difference in period implies a difference in the evolution of coronal holes during even and odd cycles.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117799006080

  79. Discussions of a currently weaker solar wind in a weaker cycle following a long duration step change increase in solar sunspot activity from 1936 to 2003, called the Modern Maximum, indicate a slow but logical progression is underway in our understanding of the sun-climate connection.

    What is good about it is we’re all focused now on Earth’s temperature state wrt the Sun’s output.

    We get our heat and light from the Sun’s radiant output. The Sun warms us more when solar activity in sunspots is higher, as radiant and magnetic flux both track sunspot numbers well.

    Using http://www.leif.org/research/Revised-Group-Numbers.xls, we study 1749-2014, and find:

    There WAS a Modern Maximum. After a very long 187 year period with an average annual GSN of 50.8 between 1749 and 1935, the next 68 years exhibited a 44.7% higher annual average of 73.5, 1936-2003.

    The Modern Maximum was a long, outstanding step change in solar activity!

    As for the Dalton minimum:

    After 1791, for 36 years, the annual GSN averaged 27.9, right through the Dalton minimum. If we compare those high-low periods to the post-Modern Maximum era, we see that during the 11 years after the culmination of the Modern Maximum in 2003, the annual GSN has averaged 40.6, still 45.5% higher than the 36-year Dalton minimum period annual average.

    We have a ways to go to reach the depths of the Dalton minimum, but as SC24 winds down and if SC25 is also weak, or even weaker, we could reach Dalton-minimum average solar conditions, and from that, we will probably also experience a significant temperature dropoff.

    In less than a decade, there was a -1.9C change during the Dalton minimum, 1802 to 1810 (using http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_complete.txt). SSN=0 for 1810.

    The 68-years from 1936 to 2003 defined the Modern Maximum, when the average annual sunspot number (GSN) was 73.5, 22.7 higher, or 44.7% higher, than the prior 187-year average of 50.8.

    The 1936-2003 Modern Maximum annual average GSN was 30.8% higher than the 266-year GSN annual average of 56.2. “Grand” or not, it was an extended period of significantly higher solar activity.

    The most recent four-year annual average for the GSN is 73.9, just above the 68-year Modern Maximum average, which indicates why the cooling we are experiencing is not so severe YET (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/cold-summer-us-daily-record-minimum-outnumbering-record-maximums-3-to-1-in-the-last-30-days/ ).

    Wait a few more years as SSN drops and stays low into the minimum and into SC25, and even the most ardent solar de*iers will see the light. By then I predict the argument will turn into “you first” – “no, you first” – “no, ladies first” – “no, age before beauty”… as Pamela and Leif decide who will be the last one on the solar bandwagon….

  80. beng says:
    August 22, 2014 at 5:52 am
    ***
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm
    Calculate for me how large you think that effect is and we can discuss the matter.
    ***
    Yup. All the suppositions on varying “UV”, on and on endlessly, never have any hard numbers. Ever. Until numbers are shown, none of the suppositions can be taken seriously because there’s nothing to discuss.
    ———————————————————————————
    Well Leif should be able to give a WM/2 TOA and surface insolation value for lets say the four lowest cycles in the 20th century, and the four highest soar cycles. This should give us how many total Hiroshima bombs of extra energy hit the TOA and surface during the four highest cycles vs the four lowest. (I think we can come up with a better metric) He should be able to break this down by solar WL, particularly at the surface. He should then be able to give the residence time of the excess energy entering the oceans during the four largest solar cycles, and thus calculate the total excess energy which entered the oceans during this period, vs the four lowest cycles. We should then be able to calculate cloud cover, both volume and latitude four these eight solar cycle periods, which may or may not greatly magnify the insolation into the oceans. A recent paper says it does.

    When Leif does that then I will listen to his naysaying, until the it is fairly open season on correlation, as climate is very complex.

  81. David A, I would imagine any one of us could calculate the same thing. There are formulas out there for several pieces of your request. Do you have a calculator? The only thing you and all others will have a hard time doing is calculating for cloud effects. Meaning you may over-calculate the amount of insolation that hits the ocean surface during the periods you are interested in. However, if you use clear sky and cloud formulas you should be able to bracket high and low values.

  82. HenryP you truly do not understand duplicating YOUR research (if I come up with a different station set I am obviously not duplicating YOUR research). To duplicate your research I need YOUR pseudo-random method and names of stations (not just latitude) you chose. I need YOUR archived raw data from YOUR stations, and YOUR algorithms used to obtain YOUR results. If you again fail to publish this, I have to disregard your presentations and recommend that others do the same. You give us no choice.

  83. Thank you MAVukcevic for your graph work. It can be deceiving to look at it, as the variations look “similar” and not all that dramatic, until you run the numbers as I did. Your smoothed line is of an already averaged quantity. The GSN curve (from the data file) are the annual averages plotted in time end-to-end, computed on daily data (that we haven’t seen yet!), which hides the often real up and down nature of solar variability over every solar rotation. With that in mind, once you have the daily data, you could run it through your low pass filter.

    The USAF http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/usaf-45-day-ap-and-f107cm-flux-forecast is indicating the range for F10.7 radio flux for the next 45 days to be between 100-145, lower than the 90-155 forecast range for parts of July. There was a dramatic energetic contrast on the solar disk for a while earlier this summer as it had a really active side followed by a virtually blank side, which has changed now to a more evenly balanced sun, north and south hemispheres, and both sides.

    In July, when the SIDC SSN was 256, the solar flux was 201, and then the SSN dropped down to zero for a day during the solar “all-quiet” period that lasted for over a week, when F10.7 was 89.

    As I have closely monitored US temps all year, I can testify that there was a direct solar influence as evidenced in temperature map data. When the SSN was high, it was hot, the Sun was hot here on the 45th parallel in Michigan. When the SSN was zero and low for quite over a week, it was cool and dreary. It wasn’t just in Michigan either. The Gulf States and West Coast missed the cooling effects for the most part due to the warm humid tropical winds coming in off of the Ocean.

    Looking at US temps for this year, they are down, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/75-of-the-us-below-normal-temperature-over-the-past-11-months/

    Michigan too, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/michigan-has-had-both-their-coldest-winter-and-summer-on-record-this-year/ and reports of cold weather from around the world keep coming in.

    Time to sharpen the chainsaw.

  84. vukcevic says:
    August 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    <i.Any comments on this paper (unfortunately it is behind pay wall)
    first, it is old hat. Second, there are no such persistent periodicities, hnece no difference between even-odd cycles.

    Bob Weber says:
    August 23, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    There WAS a Modern Maximum.
    There was a maximum in every one of the three last centuries.

    David A says:
    August 23, 2014 at 1:45 pm
    We should then be able to calculate cloud cover
    No, we cannot, because 1) the loss-term is not known, 2) we cannot compute cloudiness.

  85. Leif there was a maximum in each of the last centuries. However, the long run big picture from your 266-year data indicate that the magnitude and duration of the last century maximum was higher than the usual variation. Is that so hard to accept?

    What is the best information telling us about the long run annual average SSN in solar activity? You criticized Usoskin’s work where he claimed the solar output peaked at a 3,000 year high. How does your long run annual average SSN compare to his? I didn’t catch this earlier if you said, but when do you think the daily data will be released? Also, do you plan to take the GSN series back to before the Maunder Minimum (a somewhat rhetorical question.)

    Off the top of your head, what is the long MM non-existent SSN count period going to do to that long-term annual average I spoke of – will it go from 56.2 as it is now for the 266-year period, to below 50? If it’s near 50, the GSN 1936-2003 annual average will still be about 45% higher than pre-1936.

  86. Pamela Gray says:
    August 23, 2014 at 6:37 pm
    David A, I would imagine any one of us could calculate the same thing. There are formulas out there for several pieces of your request. Do you have a calculator? The only thing you and all others will have a hard time doing is calculating for cloud effects. Meaning you may over-calculate the amount of insolation that hits the ocean surface during the periods you are interested in. However, if you use clear sky and cloud formulas you should be able to bracket high and low values.
    ————————————————
    Pamela, from your first link….”To date, it is still not well established how much solar
    energy is absorbed within the Earth’s atmosphere. This
    has been mainly due to insufficient information on solar
    energy reaching the ground, whereas the net fluxes at the
    TOA are well determined from satellite observations…..”
    ———–
    I saw nothing to change this. I saw no indication of the WL reaching the oceans, let alone a residence time estimate of said energy. The entire body of charts for TOA and surface was from seven sites in Germany, extrapolated I suppose to global climate grids, with little info on the types of clouds studied during the periods of study. I have no idea where one would find the recorded WL for each solar cycle. Pamela, I am curious about this comment of yours, “Meaning you may over-calculate the amount of insolation that hits the ocean surface during the periods you are interested in.”
    Well yes if I assumed clear sky. However I do not assume that for the four most active solar cycles, or the four least active. What I am looking for is the difference between these cycles, and to know the difference in particular between the surface insolation entering the oceans.

    What some have indicated is there may be an observable correlation of greater cloud cover in the tropics and semi tropics during low solar years due to jet stream movements. (Mechanism matters not if it is observed, as the reduced insolation result would be an amplified, beyond the straight solar insolation variation.) The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume. Why? Due to the fact that sunlight penetrates up to 800′ in the tropics, and the residence time of disparate WL of solar spectrum is difficult to find. However, the longer the residence time, the more said energy can accumulate, up to every day for thousands of days for some ocean received insolation.

    So three potential amplifications to the direct solar variation. One; cloud location, and two; total clouds, and three, the residence time of the insolation received. I think we do not have the information for at least two of these, and likely we do not have the solar WL variation for 90 years worth of solar cycles to even get a TOA energy difference well calculated.

    Yet I will certainly check your second link, and thanks Pamela for all your contributions.

  87. August 23, 2014 at 9:34 pm
    Leif there was a maximum in each of the last centuries. However, the long run big picture from your 266-year data indicate that the magnitude and duration of the last century maximum was higher than the usual variation. Is that so hard to accept?
    Yes, because it is not true if we extend the record to 1700: http://www.leif.org/research/Unofficial-New-GSN-Caution.png

    What is the best information telling us about the long run annual average SSN in solar activity?
    What I just showed you.

    You criticized Usoskin’s work where he claimed the solar output peaked at a 3,000 year high. How does your long run annual average SSN compare to his?
    He actually claims a 10,000 year high. But it is hard to see because of the poor time-resolution of his graph, but here is one try:

    I didn’t catch this earlier if you said, but when do you think the daily data will be released?
    Spring 2015. But the daily data [or hourly data, or 5-minute data, or ...] are not important for climate [being 30-year means] and won’t change anything.

    Also, do you plan to take the GSN series back to before the Maunder Minimum (a somewhat rhetorical question.)
    We cannot, but we can recalibrate the cosmic ray record [this is in the works] to match better the sunspot record we actually have.

    Off the top of your head, what is the long MM non-existent SSN count period going to do to that long-term annual average I spoke of – will it go from 56.2 as it is now for the 266-year period, to below 50? If it’s near 50, the GSN 1936-2003 annual average will still be about 45% higher than pre-1936.
    You persist in your silly numerology. The fact is that there have been periods [I already showed you one] with sunspot number averages comparable to your cherry picked interval 1936-2003. Bottom line: solar activity is not the main driver of climate on time scales of centuries.

  88. Pamela, the Brown cloud link was interesting. The direct affect of regular clouds was likewise interesting, showing a heavy cloud reduction of up to 85%, potentially reducing 1000 W/M2 to 150.

    But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost. The 150 watts per sq. m reaching the ocean in such conditions is likely LWIR, with most of the SW absorbed in the clouds. This penetrates very little, and has a short residence time within the oceans, meaning the reduction in energy received is far more then the 85% indicated. The longer the condition lasts, the greater the ration of the reduction becomes.

  89. David A says:
    August 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm
    But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost.
    Your comment is typical of the hand waving that goes on. If you are such an expert with such an understanding of the issue, why don’t you show us the total energy budget according to your ‘understanding’?

  90. Leif, there is no doubt there were also other high solar periods other the most recent one, and each of those can be evaluated in kind.

    The dates I use, 1936-2003, were selected logically. The highest running average going back from the present lands us in 1936. The end date is the year before the average fell off, after the peak of SC23, in 2003. That’s logical, not cherry-picked, especially if we want to see IF there was a modern maximum, since you claimed there wasn’t. Being a skeptic, I had to see for myself.

    I believe in independent verification. Trust but verify. – It’s OK, I handled it – FAIRLY too.

    You say “Bottom line: solar activity is not the main driver of climate on time scales of centuries.”

    You say that without any backing evidence or qualifications. I’m not being critical for the sake of being critical here, but you give no reason why I should believe that assertion.

    What I have done is ANALYSIS, not numerology. You apparently will not accept anyone else’s views on anything that flies in the face of your stated beliefs, despite the strong evidence to the contrary that your own data provides. What do you expect people to do, reduce the solar sunspot record down to a single number, 56.2, the annual 266-year average, and call it the solar constant?

    We analyze the solar output the same way we do any other set of averages, like in baseball, to parse out the hitting streaks versus the strikeout slumps (high SSN periods vs low SSN periods). There is nothing wrong with the technique. There is nothing wrong with the interpretation.

    Temperature and precipitation data are given similar analyses to find the heat waves/cold spells, droughts/floods – magnitudes and durations. What makes the new GSN immune from such scrutiny? What is silly is how you’re reacting to the news that there was a solar Modern Maximum.

  91. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 23, 2014 at 10:23 pm
    David A says:
    August 23, 2014 at 10:17 pm
    But again I wish to highlight the fact that the reduction cannot be compared on simply a watts per sq. M basis, as the residence time of the solar spectrum affected is critical to understanding how much energy is actually lost.
    ==============
    Your comment is typical of the hand waving that goes on. If you are such an expert with such an understanding of the issue, why don’t you show us the total energy budget according to your ‘understanding’?
    —————————————————–
    Wow Leif, if you reread my two or three posts almost in succession you will see I am simply making the point that we do not know, but the amplification may be greater the assumed.
    It is simple logic.
    If an area under heavy cloud cover persists for three days, that is 36 hours of lets say (just illustrating a point so the real numbers of course vary) 150 watts per m, verses clear sky of 1000 watts per m. However for those three days most of the LWIR 150 watts per sq m insolation mainly accelerated evaporation at the surface, and then went into the atmosphere to radiate away. During those same 36 hours under clear sky conditions 1000 watts per sq M entered the oceans, but much of that energy stayed in the oceans, some of it penetrating to 800′. Much of that energy accumulated for all three days, meaning the ratio of about 6 watts clear sky to one watt cloud cover, is even further magnified, and that ratio continues to increase the longer the condition persists.
    I never claimed to be an expert You do, but I maintain until you answer the questions I asked, then observed correlations are legitimate to speculate on as there are three clear avenues of greatly leveraging the direct insolation. 1. Residence time of disparate solar spectrum penetrating the oceans. 2., Amount of cloud cover. 3., Cloud cover location; the more tropical, the greater the impact.

    It is ok to say we do not know. but your assertion of no solar affect simply by minimizing the direct TOA insolation variation on a simple Watts per M sq. basis is, I.M.V. premature.

    I am hand waving nothing. I think the data does not exist to know. The more about ERB I have read, the more convinced I am that we do not know. Climate is a land of dozens of teeter totters, all moving up and down at disparate, and even changing rhythms. Sometimes a few line up, on rare occasions many may reach the top or bottom at the same time. Isolating the impact of any one forcing or feedback is very difficult.

  92. if we want to see IF there was a modern maximum, since you claimed there wasn’t.
    Of course there is a modern maximum, and I am at a loss why you say that I claim there wasn’t; so get this: there WAS a modern maximum, as there were other maxima in other centuries that were comparable to the modern maximum in size and length. What you are trying to say is that there were no other maxima. What Usoskin is claiming is that the Modern Maximum was a Grand maximum greatly exceeding all other maxima in the past 10,000 years. Both he and you are wrong. Since there were other maxima which did not coincide with ‘global warmings’, such warming is not driven by the maxima. As simple as that.

  93. David A says:
    August 23, 2014 at 11:23 pm
    Wow Leif, if you reread my two or three posts almost in succession you will see I am simply making the point that we do not know, but the amplification may be greater the assumed.
    Here is the difference between us: I make no claims about what we do not know. You, on the other hand, make such claims about things we do not know, things that ‘may be’, speculating about shaky correlations that in my mind are less than compelling, or even interesting. I guess I am just a bit less gullible than you. A bit less willing to accept as worthwhile science that which we don’t know.

  94. Leif, I simply pointed out what we do not know, and more importantly some specific areas that may improve our knowledge. (We both agree that currently we do not have those answers)
    I also illustrated some logical ways that solar insolation may be magnified by other factors. I referenced 0 specific correlations, but simply asserted the difficulty in separating any one influence on climate. Gullible could not be applied as I neither accepted or rejected anybody’s assertions (including yours) with regard to the immature science of understanding climate.

  95. Bob Weber says:
    August 23, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    What I have done is ANALYSIS, not numerology.
    What you have done is analysis like this: logic [not cherry picking] dictates that the period 1726-1791 was a significant solar maximum driving climate back then because the average GSN was 68.6 for that prolonged maximum versus only 50.7 for all the other years since 1700, an excess of 35%. And the period 1828-1872 was a significant solar maximum driving climate back then because the average GSN was 66.3 for that prolonged maximum versus only 52.3 for all the other years since 1700, an excess of 27%.

  96. David A says:
    August 24, 2014 at 12:47 am
    Leif, what claim did I make?
    among others:
    “amplification may be greater than assumed”
    “The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume”

    The Null-hypothesis must be that there is no effect. People who claim otherwise must provide evidence and show that an effect is energetically possible or at least plausible. I don’t need to do the inverse.

  97. “amplification may be greater than assumed”
    “The solar insolation received alone may be far more then you assume”
    ———————————–
    Context my man. The second comment was in response to Pamela saying it may be far less, with no correlation or reason to show that, and there is some correlation to loopy jet streams in low solar cycles.
    The first was a “maybe”, followed by a request for numbers, of which there is no data, and there is no null hypothesis with regard to solar affects on climate. The scientific position is we don’t know, lets explore the possibilities.

    So tell me, take the highest cycles and the lowest, say low from about1879 to 1935, and high from 1935 to about 1986, and tell me how much additional SW energy entered the oceans during those peak years, which were followed by three more stronger then average cycles. Furthermore tell me the average residence time of that energy vs the residence time of the weak cycles. Furthermore tell me the total cloud cover for those periods, and the average cloud latitude change, if any. Now combine all that and tell me how much extra energy was received into the earth’s atmospheric, land, and ocean system.

    Like I said, your assertion of no affect is not a null hypothesis. Natural variation is a null hypothesis. The causes of that variation are a field for study.

  98. David A says:
    August 24, 2014 at 2:01 am
    So tell me, take the highest cycles and the lowest, say low from about1879 to 1935, and high from 1935 to about 1986, and tell me how much additional SW energy entered the oceans during those peak years, which were followed by three more stronger then average cycles.
    We know how much more energy the sun produced [not much, less than 1/2000 of the average], all the rest is guesswork which I don’t do.

    Like I said, your assertion of no affect is not a null hypothesis. Natural variation is a null hypothesis. The causes of that variation are a field for study.
    You make the automatic assumption that the Sun is the cause.

  99. I am disappointed to find [once again] that none of the bright [solar] sparks here were/are able to work that on a timescale of sorts [i.e. what is happening on the sun now] we are exactly where we were back in 1925 or 1926 and what consequences this will have for the future of the weather, especially for the great plains of America, which is currently the breadbasket of the world.

  100. I made no assumption whatsoever. You stated, “The Null-hypothesis must be that there is no effect.
    You may be right, and I never said different, except I find your assumption premature.

    You are saying there was about 1/2 watt per sq.M difference for those periods?

  101. I am disappointed to find [once again] that none of the bright [solar] sparks here were/are able to work out that on a timescale of sorts [i.e. what is happening now on the sun] we are exactly where we were back in 1925 or 1926 and what consequences this will have for the future of the weather, i.e. the change in climate, especially for the great plains of America, which is currently the [main] breadbasket for the world.

  102. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 23, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    “What you are trying to say is that there were no other maxima. What Usoskin is claiming is that the Modern Maximum was a Grand maximum greatly exceeding all other maxima in the past 10,000 years. Both he and you are wrong. ”

    First of all Leif, find a quote from me where I said there were no other maxima. If you can’t, which you won’t, because I never said that, then you are kinda putting words in my mouth. As for Usoskin, I wish he’d show up and defend his work once in a while.

    “Since there were other maxima which did not coincide with ‘global warmings’, such warming is not driven by the maxima. As simple as that”

    Without the daily solar data you used to generate your annual series, we cannot conclude what influence solar variation had on temperatures over shorter time periods. I think it is inappropriate for the daily data to be withheld until spring 2015. You should release that data now. If you need to make revisions to the dailies later, call them a “revision” in an updated data series. As it stands now, with all the easily provable government manipulations of temperature series, your continued withholding of the daily data could be considered “suspicious”.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 24, 2014 at 12:47 am

    I see you’re getting the hang of it. Which is higher, 27%, 35%, or 45%? Which had the longest period? Multiply the excess amount by the duration and compare the results of those three calculations, and you will find the recent maximum to be the outstanding period, “grand” or not.

    When you look at the solar influence on an accumulation basis, the short-term variations matter, the minimums matter, and the duration and magnitude of maximums and minimums matter to the temperature response in at least SST. You have not seen my accumulation model, so you could not know that.

    What legitimate reason can there be to continue to withhold that daily data?

  103. David A says:
    August 24, 2014 at 7:08 am
    You are saying there was about 1/2 watt per sq.M difference for those periods?
    Yes, good for a temperature difference of 0.03 C.

    Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 7:31 am
    then you are kinda putting words in my mouth.
    Not really, as you claim ‘your’ maximum stands out [is the only one that matters], which it doesn’t:

    Without the daily solar data you used to generate your annual series, we cannot conclude what influence solar variation had on temperatures over shorter time periods.
    Climate is defined as the long-time average, so daily data are meaningless. Weather is not climate.

    I think it is inappropriate for the daily data to be withheld until spring 2015.
    How about hourly data? When will you ask for that? Even the Daily data of the sunspot number [and other solar indices] by definition is activity integrated over the visible disk, so is already a running 14-day average.

    What legitimate reason can there be to continue to withhold that daily data?
    The group data is determined from the yearly data, because the sparse early data does not make it possible to compare one observer with another [to determine the calibration factor between them] on a daily basis [because they most often did not observe on the same days]. Then the daily data will be determined from sparse, scattered daily observations from many observers using the calibration factors calculated from the yearly data. This process is simply not done yet [doing things right takes time]. So, we don’t have the final daily data yet, only the yearly data. There is no ‘withholding’ of anything. The raw data is publically available, so anybody can replicate our work.

  104. HenryP, we may be, as you say, in a similar period to 1925-6, or we may be in a period like post 1791, only time will tell. It is a bit early to be comparing our current situation with past extended solar drop-off periods, with any real high degree of confidence. While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now, we do have some time to go yet to see “how low” it could get, objectively, and for how long.

    The sun could surprise us and deliver a higher cycle after this weak cycle. It happened before, twice, between 1880 and the early 1930s, when three lower activity cycles alternated with two higher cycles.

    From whenever this SC24 starts it’s downhill slide to the minimum, until the next time the annual average sunspot number climbs nearly as high or higher than it is right now for a number of years, will determine the length of cooling. The depth of the cooling depends on initial conditions, and as of now, we’re just barely cooling after a decades long warm-up, where we’re now riding just off the peak of a long-term heat wave euphemistically called “global warming”.

    Definitely interesting times we live in!

  105. I suggest there is a virtually 100% consensus related to the climate research situation of the past ~2 decades or longer; a consensus which is comprised of both IPCC centric supporters of the CAGW hypothesis and skeptical scientists critical of the CAGW hypothesis.

    I suggest the consensus is that there has been an immense level of research funding that was focused on the CAGW hypothesis when compared to the amount of research funding focused the effects on the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) caused by both the Sun (and the space between the Sun and EAS).

    If commenters here are saying something like show me the research finding that the Sun (and the space between the Sun and EAS) is the cause of multi-century scale EAS variations in surface temps then I think one should consider significant re-distribution of funding for future climate focused research toward increased knowledge of the Sun (and Space between) to Earth interaction.

    John

  106. Leif, I’m glad the raw data is publically available. Where is it?

    “Climate is defined as the long-time average, so daily data are meaningless. Weather is not climate.” Correct. However, all climate stats are ultimately derived from observations and measurements of the DAILY conditions. The long-term averages in climate and solar activity are derived from daily data. That makes daily data vitally important, not meaningless.

    Comparing the 65 years from 1726-1791, at an average of 68.6, to the 44 years from 1828-1872, at an average of 66.3, to the recent 68 years from 1936-2003 at an average of 73.5, we get the following results:

    The first period had 89% of the last period’s activity, and the middle period had 58% of the last period’s activity. While the first period is close in magnitude and duration to the last period, the modern maximum, I want to point out a very important thing:

    Right after the first period ended, after 1791, the SSN dropped to zero by 1810, and the temperatures dropped by -1.9 degrees by 1810, wiping out much of the accumulated solar energy gains during that previous 65-year high SSN period. When the SSN went up again so did the temperatures. From that alone, I’d say the Earth’s weather and climate are highly super-sensitive to solar variation.

    The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum will be wiped out by an extended solar downturn, IMO, should that downturn be deep enough and long enough. Once you finally see my accumulation model, you’ll see how that works.

  107. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 8:44 am
    While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now
    It is invalid simply to extrapolate the curve. Unless there is a physical reason why the next cycle should be lower, we don’t know.

    The sun could surprise us and deliver a higher cycle after this weak cycle. It happened before, twice, between 1880 and the early 1930s, when three lower activity cycles alternated with two higher cycles.
    You are forgetting the most famous such case, namely the low cycle 20 followed by the high cycle 21 and itself following the high cycle 19, completely breaking up your ‘Modern Maximum’ into smaller pieces.

  108. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 9:13 am
    Leif, I’m glad the raw data is publically available. Where is it?

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/group/

    Right after the first period ended, after 1791, the SSN dropped to zero by 1810, and the temperatures dropped by -1.9 degrees by 1810, wiping out much of the accumulated solar energy gains during that previous 65-year high SSN period.
    The low temperatures 1810-1820 were mostly due to volcanoes.

    The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum
    You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.

  109. Comparing the change in TOA W/m2 with the change in insolation driven by volcanic activity as a cause for cooling during the 1810-20 decade, I would immediately disregard solar variability calculated change in TOA W/m2. Not enough decrease in TSI to invoke such a temperature plunge. However, stratospheric and tropospheric veiling definitely has the cojones to cool temperatures. Directly and measurably. In fact it is so well studied that calculation based aerosol models can quickly and accurately model that observed temperature change.

    For those interested, here are the components of pmip3, a general circulation model used to make scenario runs for various climate simulations (usually by changing CO2 input). These can also be run without changing CO2 values (which is really just a set of increasing fudged greenhouse values that results in a huge output difference) for those who do not think the tiny fraction of CO2 increase contributed by human activity makes a difference.

    Enjoy.

    https://wiki.lsce.ipsl.fr/pmip3/doku.php/pmip3:design:lm:final

  110. Leif, you will find the pmip3 model of interest. None of the TSI reconstructions that figure into its design are accurate. In addition, these reconstructions are then used for the ozone reconstructions, so the error propagates through the model. And from the list of TSI reconstruction investigators, they would also now agree their work is no longer accurate.

  111. If TSI errors have been propagated through other components of these models, thus compounding the output, I wonder what the modeling communities are saying to each other around the water cooler. To be a fly on the wall.

  112. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 24, 2014 at 9:13 am

    I said, “While we have reason to think SC25 will be a low cycle, as the polar field data suggest now”

    You said, “It is invalid simply to extrapolate the curve. Unless there is a physical reason why the next cycle should be lower, we don’t know.”

    The physical reason being the plasma source at the solar poles is MIA for the next cycle, as you should be aware. See http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/4_hill_shearBelowSurface.png

    From http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/ “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.”

    You say “You are forgetting the most famous such case, namely the low cycle 20 followed by the high cycle 21 and itself following the high cycle 19, completely breaking up your ‘Modern Maximum’ into smaller pieces.”

    It is included in the modern maximum total. To see it’s effect on SST, look here: http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

    Until I can find and use your new GSN daily data going back to 1749, the best and most accurate accumulation model I can make is based on HadSST3 and F10.7cm radio flux, as daily data is required for a sufficiently “fine” resolution. So if you’re the least bit interested in seeing how your GSN data demonstrates the solar accumulation effect over a longer time span than the F10.7 history, please pony up with the new GSN daily data link!

  113. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 10:22 am
    From http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/ “Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.”
    Their conclusion was based on setting a color threshold incorrectly, and is invalid. The streams are there and have been duly observed. Amazing how some people will lock on to random claims as long as they support their pet ‘theory’ without investigating further. There is no way to predict the next cycle until the new polar fields are established 2 to 3 years from now, and certainly not from mere extrapolation of the old polar fields.

    data demonstrates the solar accumulation effect over a longer time span than the F10.7 history,
    seems to me to be nonsense to require daily data to investigate what happens on longer time spans.

  114. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 24, 2014 at 9:31 am

    I said, “The global warming we experienced during the Modern Maximum…”

    You say “You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.”

    Let’s not kid ourselves, the last three cycles after #20 were high cycles. You will understand what I mean once you see the accumulation model. Remember there is thermal inertia in the Earth systems. Even though SSNs dropped off after 1791, the temps remained high until 1802 before plummenting -1.9 degree until 1810, indicating a nine-year thermal lag in the 1791-1802 period.

    Now that I have your daily data, I can go further back in time with my model, provided I can trust the temperature series data further back from the satellite era.

    But since my woodshed still needs filling, it’ll probably be a few weeks before that model work is done and written up for presentation and evaluation.

  115. @Bob
    an 88 year Gleissberg cycle has been identified by various sources and resources.
    I am not going to quote again.
    According to my results

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    1995 was the middle of that cycle, from whence global cooling started, theoretically at least.
    You can easily calculate that from the first formula [on maxima] that I gave there.

    Note that you can draw bi-nomials up and down

    seemingly coming to its lowest point around 2016.
    From then onward, after the switch to increasing field strengths again, I predict a mirror image of that graph. So, we it will be cooling from 1995 and cooling until 2038, not counting any lags as observed from earth’s temperatures (ca. 5-7 years)

    However small the change, it is amplified by less cloud formation at the higher latitudes and more clouds and more rain at the lower latitudes. That is just pure physics….. As reported earlier around 0.5-0.7 K up and down, during the cycle, is apparent from my results.
    The net result is indeed around 0K counting over the whole of the cycle of ca. 88 years.

    Even so, we must realize that the drought time similar to 1932-1939 will be upon us, from around 2021-2022 until 2029.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

  116. “Their conclusion was based on setting a color threshold incorrectly, and is invalid. The streams are there and have been duly observed. Amazing how some people will lock on to random claims as long as they support their pet ‘theory’ without investigating further. There is no way to predict the next cycle until the new polar fields are established 2 to 3 years from now, and certainly not from mere extrapolation of the old polar fields.”

    Don’t blame me for this, I go with the best data I can find. If you have better photospheric data, by all means, point the way.

  117. Pamela Gray says:
    August 24, 2014 at 10:38 am
    From: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/5/185/2012/gmd-5-185-2012.html
    “It is clear from Fig. 4 that the inclusion of the Shapiro et al. (2011) results makes …

    There is really no support for the Shapiro et al. [SEA] contention. As your link notes:
    “there is magnetic field evidence that supports only a modest increase of solar activity over the 20th century (Svalgaard and Cliver, 2010; Lockwood and Owens, 2011).”

  118. “seems to me to be nonsense to require daily data to investigate what happens on longer time spans.”

    I am interested in accuracy with observed measured numbers as much as possible, and if the averaged values turn out similar results, so be it.

    I also investigate what happens on very short time spans for heat waves and cold spells, which is not nonsense. As you know, any complete solar accumulation theory and model must account for all if not as many observations as possible. I’m still waiting for the CO2 crowd to show me anything credible that supports their theory and models, let alone a single observation of any kind related to higher CO2, other than increased plant foilage.

  119. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 10:40 am
    Let’s not kid ourselves
    Or, in your case, fool yourself..

    Now that I have your daily data, I can go further back in time with my model, provided I can trust the temperature series data further back from the satellite era.
    This is the raw data, not ‘my’ daily data. You can convert in a rough way to the new calibration by multiplying every value before 1885 by 1.50. This is very rough, but since it does not make much sense to use daily data, what does it matter that they are only very approximate.

  120. HenryP I hope you’re wrong about the severity of droughts in 2021-22 to 2029, as we have enough problems in this world, but at this point I cannot discount the possibility of you being right on that.

  121. Pamela Gray says:
    August 24, 2014 at 10:51 am
    Leif, so I wonder why they even placed Shapiro’s reconstruction in the list of choices?
    Perhaps to show how ridiculous it is. Also, a certain amount of honesty dictates that you at least mention contraindications.

  122. “This is the raw data, not ‘my’ daily data. You can convert in a rough way to the new calibration by multiplying every value before 1885 by 1.50. This is very rough, but since it does not make much sense to use daily data, what does it matter that they are only very approximate.”

    It bothers me to use a multiplier in such a rough way. I probably won’t do that. This has gone on long enough for me today, as I’ve got other work to do. Enjoy the warmth while it lasts, winter’s coming!

  123. My bad. Shaprio’s is not in the current choices (could be why it is not in this version of the model). However a quick look at the other reconstruction choices still show the now outdated century rise.

  124. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 11:02 am
    It bothers me to use a multiplier in such a rough way. I probably won’t do that.
    Using a single multiplier for each observer was the way Hoyt & Schatten constructed the GSN in the first place. If you don’t do as I suggest you are simply using their old obsolete reconstruction [which you probably would like anyway as it makes the Sun vary a lot more than it actually does, so instead of measly 44% you might get 100% or even more. That will go a long to support your ideas of a modern grand maximum and its effect].

  125. But they do have Shindell’s reconstruction of TSI driven ozone changes. And it’s the only choice. He proposes that increasing irradiance (from reconstructions), must drive changes in ozone that must have measurable effects on climate. So I guess the oops is in his court.

    From the abstract:

    “Holocene climate proxies suggest substantial correlations between tropical meteorology and solar variations, but these have thus far not been explained. Using a coupled ocean-atmosphere-composition model forced by sustained multi-decadal irradiance increases, we show that greater tropical temperatures alter the hydrologic cycle, enhancing the climatological precipitation maxima in the tropics while drying the subtropical subsidence regions.”

    From methods:

    “We impose a full solar cycle perturbation (0.19 W/m2 instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause, equivalent to 1.1 W/m2 change in solar output) as a mid-range estimate. This is in good agreement with recent model-based estimates [Wang et al., 2005b]. Given the uncertainty in this forcing, we concentrate our comparison with observations on the spatial pattern of the response rather than its precise magnitude. The imposed irradiance changes included spectral variations based on modern observations, which show greatly enhanced variability at shorter wavelengths relative to the visible over a solar cycle.”

    Cue the solar enthusiasts. Doubt they will catch the “But”.

  126. Pam says
    But they do have Shindell’s reconstruction of TSI driven ozone changes.
    Henry says
    Nothing new there for me, but you knew that.
    It is not only [more] ozone being formed TOA, by the sun’s [very slight] increase of the most harmful radiation (UV-C) since 1995. It is also peroxides and nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA. This causes an increase in back radiation, eventually resulting in [somewhat] less energy into the oceans.
    Climate change 101.
    [eventually]

  127. Pamela Gray says:
    August 24, 2014 at 11:35 am
    I am curious Leif. Which aa index did Lean lean too in this TSI reconstruction paper referenced in the pmip3 model? Yours or Lockwoods?
    I pointed out to Lockwood that aa was too low before 1957. He at first would not accept that as it made his claim of ‘a doubling of the sun’s field’ invalid, see http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
    Eventually, Lockwood caved in [he always does in the end] and accepted that aa should be corrected. Even to the point where he now tries to take credit for the correction [some people have no shame]. So his and my aa should not be too different [there is a small difference because he didn't do the correction quite correctly, but that is but a minor issue].
    But, I don’t think Lean used aa at all, so perhaps the details about aa’s calibration are not so important. The issue with Lean is whether there is a ‘background’ and if so [I think not], how to calculate it.

  128. too = demasiado in Spanish
    to = hacia in Spanish

    Is it demasiado much hacia ask that we have different English spellings for different meanings?????? Huh?????

    Where is that head banging on computer keyboard till it’s all bloodied clip? I could sure use it. And all I’ve had is regular coffee. Don’t have any liquid Irish to put in it this morning.

  129. Pam says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/weakest-solar-wind-of-the-space-age-and-the-current-mini-solar-maximum/#comment-1716561

    Henry@Pam
    A random sample of mine of 10 weather stations in Alaska showed an average decline of 0.55K/decade since 1998. That is almost 1K from 1998-2014.

    Antarctica is already freezing up.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/antarctic-sea-ice-has-been-above-average-for-1000-straight-days/

    Seems to me we are cooling from the top [latitudes] down. Makes you think, does it not. Must be something to do with what is happening TOA, perhaps?
    Otherwise, what is your explanation for all of that?

  130. Pamela Gray says:
    August 24, 2014 at 12:03 pm
    Where is that head banging on computer keyboard till it’s all bloodied clip? I could sure use it. And all I’ve had is regular coffee. Don’t have any liquid Irish to put in it this morning.

  131. Yup. Tick on a dog. I was a puppy back then. And now I have boxed red mixed in with my real red. Cuz grey and red looks like salt and paprika. Again, thanks for your presence hear Leif. Such an interesting time to be hear on Earth and Leif certainly livens it up as well as raises the level of education.

    (LOL!)

  132. Ohhh! You meant that in the aa index previous to 1957 aa was too low in Lockwood’s work. Not that you said it in 1957. Now that is funny!! Speaks to why I don’t get most jokes either. At least until the next day.

  133. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 24, 2014 at 11:10 am

    Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 11:02 am
    It bothers me to use a multiplier in such a rough way. I probably won’t do that.

    “Using a single multiplier for each observer was the way Hoyt & Schatten constructed the GSN in the first place. If you don’t do as I suggest you are simply using their old obsolete reconstruction [which you probably would like anyway as it makes the Sun vary a lot more than it actually does, so instead of measly 44% you might get 100% or even more. That will go a long to support your ideas of a modern grand maximum and its effect].”

    I wasn’t planning on using H&S; your new GSN is what I had in mind, partly to avoid unnecessary abuse from you. The rest of your comment at 11:10am [in brackets] is therefore irrelevant. I am certainly not trying to overstate my case by knowly using outdated data. Your previous comment about the photospheric field data I found being invalid has not yet been backed up with a better updated version by you, so is there an updated one that I missed or other data that supports your claim?

  134. Bob Weber says:
    August 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm
    I wasn’t planning on using H&S; your new GSN is what I had in mind
    Multiply the old versin by 1.5 before 1885 and you should be reasonable shape. The error committed by doing this is probably not much bigger than the uncertainty in the daily data, anyway.

    Your previous comment about the photospheric field data I found being invalid has not yet been backed up with a better updated version by you, so is there an updated one that I missed or other data that supports your claim?
    You can usually accept at face value what I say about things like this, but if you must:
    Howe, R., J. Christensen-Dalsgaar, F. Hill, R. Komm, T.P. Larson, M. Rempel, J. Schou, and M.J. Thompson, 2013: The high-latitude branch of the solar torsional oscillation in the rising phase of cycle 24. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 767, DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L20
    “Although the high-latitude part of the pattern appears to be absent in the new cycle when the flows are derived by subtracting a mean across a full solar cycle, it can be seen if we subtract the mean over a shorter period in the rising phase of each cycle, and these two mean rotation profiles differ significantly at high latitudes”.

  135. Changes in Alaska temperatures are an easy one. That polar vortex and the Jetstream have Alaska often in its crosshairs. Depending on part of the loop it’s in, it can turn hot or cold. And since these systems have oscillations (sometimes consistently and sometimes not), a trend can send solar enthusiasts down the path of panic only to get dumped on their ass as the oscillation heads the other way.

    • well some here, but perhaps not you Pam , might be interested to know the results of a more detailed analysis of the data from the Anchorage Airforce Base, data from here

      http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Anchorage_Elmendorf_Air_Force_Base/702720.htm

      especially the data for maximum temperatures (2nd column)
      It has good data going back to 1942. Only data from 1971 and 1972 was missing which I estimated to be the average of 1970 and 1973. For 2002 and 2005 you can get most of the individual monthly data, if you click on it, and work out a total year average,

      Just looking at the plot of max. temps against time, you can see that it has curves. A polynomial of the 4th order showed the bending points of around 1970 and 2000. However, things became really interesting when I looked at the rate of change in K/annum after the regressions, 1940-1972 and 1972-2014, 1980-2014 and 1990-2014 and 1998-2014. The results showed respectively cooling, -0.0384K/annum from 1942-1972, warming from 1972-2014 at 0.0554K/annum and 0.0520 from 1980-2014, warming of 0.0117 from 1990-2014 and cooling of -0.0796K/annum from 1998-2014.
      You can set the speed of warming /cooling out against time, and again note with me that there seems to be some parabolic curve for the deceleration of warming, with Rsquare=0.96. If I substitute the last value of -0.0796K/annum with the average of -0.0550K/annum that I reported earlier for all 10 stations in Alaska that I looked at, you get Rsquare= 0.98 for the parabolic curve.
      Now isn’t that interesting? Every place on earth seems to be on its own curve, depending on its own composition TOA.
      My thinking [and hoping] is that there must be a way back up to warming again. We are all going to watch in anticipation and wonder what will happen on the sun 2015-2016. I do expect to hear some special report on it. God is great. He made this structure TOA so that we would not die if the sun gives off too much [high level ] energy. He even gave us the knowledge to work things out and to act upon our findings.

      Let us not be ignorant about it:

      A natural consequence of global cooling is a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. Whilst maximum temperatures will still be dropping, average temperature around the equator remains more or less unchanged, largely due to more condensation energy coming free.
      Europe is in a somewhat fortunate position, but at the higher latitudes >[40], in the Americas, it will become progressively drier, from now onward, ultimately culminating in a big drought period similar to the dust bowl drought 1932-1939. My various calculations all bring me to believe that this main drought period on the Great Plains will be from 2021-2028. It looks like we have only 7 “fat” years left…..

  136. David A says:
    August 24, 2014 at 7:08 am
    You are saying there was about 1/2 watt per sq.M difference for those periods?
    ————————————————
    Yes, good for a temperature difference of 0.03 C.
    ——————————————————————-
    With out the potential amplification data for the other three, (and likely four) factors I alluded to, which you know does not exist, we do not know this.

    Many PHD scientist have published correlation data with solar cycles. As I said before, the potential amplification factors in the very large heat sink of the worlds oceans, where energy cannot be destroyed, are very large.

    Climate is complex and the many disparate factors that make up climate do not always cycle positive and negative together, so exact correlations should not be expected.

    Since the data to determine multiple decadal heat flow into the oceans is not known, and neither the residence time of said energy, or the total amount received is known, and the heat flow exiting the oceans is likewise not known, then I prefer not to make such conclusions as you made here stating, “The null hypothesis is there is no effect.” I think you do not have the data to reach such a conclusion.

    We simply do not know how these decadal solar patterns affect the multi decadal ocean cycles. We lack the data for energy in and the energy out. We do know that in a very large heat sink, todays small heat increase can accumulate for decades, as long as the small increase continues up to the residence time of each disparate W/L received. The 1/2 watt per sq. M .increase, above the preceding five low cycles, continued for three more cycles beyond the five high cycles.

    It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.

  137. David A August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.
    It is premature to believe that any of those are actually effective and have any effect at all.

  138. I don’t mind that you bring creative design into the discussion. But it adds to your weak argument. Try again, this time with causes, not statistical wrangling. What you have “discovered” is weather pattern variations and trends. Now find the cause. Hint: It’s weather.

  139. David A August 24, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    It is premature to reject the many PHD researched solar papers pointing to possible amplifications of the small solar variance.
    ====================
    It is premature to believe that any of those are actually effective and have any effect at all.
    ========================================
    It is also premature to assume they do not.
    Time and better observations will tell.

    Energy is immortal. LWIR is here today, gone from the earth tomorrow. Todays solar increase is energy in the bank (ocean). Todays deposit added to yesterdays, daily for undetermined years depending on WL and ocean penetration and geographical location of said insolation. We still have much to learn about TOA solar variation impacts on weather as well.

  140. @Pamela Grey:

    Kevin, you have just done what you rail against by saying “It’s the Sun stupid!” That is also a pet theory…

    PG, I think you’ve just missed the point of Ockham’s Razer entirely. Let’s try an analogy:

    Assume you have a vacuum in which there is a lightbulb one can “turn” up and down so that lightbulb is emitting more or less “energy”. In the vacuum assume there is also ball. Assume it is noted the surface of said ball is warmer when or after the light is burning at its maximum intensity than when it is burning softly…

    Now I fully appreciate that this is not a completely apt analogy because it is not the case that hot Sun and cool Sun equate to warmer and cooler Earth, but you surely see where I am going?

    Whatever the incredible complexities of the Sun’s and the Earth’s “systems” (most not understood, and this is where the work of such admirable scientists as Prof Svalgaard is so important), until a viable theory proves the actual mechanisms by which the fluctuations in output of the light do (or which must be as likely in the case of Earth and Sun, do not) cause the surface temperature of the ball rise and fall, then all other things being equal the best explanation for fluctuation in those surface temperatures is the one requiring the fewest assumptions….

    QED.

  141. Pamela Gray says
    What you have “discovered” is weather pattern variations and trends. Now find the cause. Hint: It’s weather.
    Henry says
    Yeah right, this must be coming from someone who does not [even] know the difference between the rate of warming and the deceleration of warming [in the correct SI units].
    Seeing that the latter is on a time scale of sorts, it has to do with climate, not weather.
    Hint: It’s Gleissberg.
    Maybe you have been banging your head too much on Leif’s computer???

  142. Leif Svalgaard

    “You mean the rising temperatures the last 30 years were due to the falling solar activity during that period.”

    Perhaps they were due to some of the data being “corrected” as described in some of the other WUWT current posts.

  143. @JimG
    Around the beginning of the seventies we went from thermometers (mercury) to thermo-couples and we went from human observations (usually 4 x per day, averaged for the day) to automatic recording once a second, averaged for the day. Hence my tables shows data from 1973/1974.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf

    It would be best if people were only to go for [real] data from around the beginning of the 70’s,
    and come to the same conclusions as I did
    [from these data]

  144. Solar wind = magnetic field. Earth iron core rotating in magnetic field = generator. Hot plate at the bottom of the ocean, anyone?

Comments are closed.