New Solar Cycle Not Packing Much Punch

I found a reference to this article while looking at Leif Svalgaard’s website, and since I missed it the first time around, and because the message is still valid, I thought I’d reprint it here. Also, the artwork they provided a hi-res link to makes a great desktop wallpaper. – Anthony

New Solar Cycle Not Packing Much Punch

Story from REDORBIT NEWS:

Published: 2008/05/19 06:00:00 CDT

Many solar scientists expected the new sunspot cycle to be a whopper, a prolonged solar tantrum that could fry satellites and raise hell with earthly communications, the power grid and modern electronics.

But there’s scant proof Sunspot Cycle 24 is even here, let alone the debut of big trouble.

So far there have been just a couple minor zits on the face of the sun to suggest the old cycle is over and the new one is coming.

The roughly 11-year cycle of sunspot activity should have bottomed out last year, the end of Cycle 23 and the beginning of Cycle 24. That would have put the peak in new sunspot activity around 2012.

But a dud sunspot cycle would not necessarily make it a boring period, especially for two solar scientists with the Tucson-based National Solar Observatory.

Two years ago, William Livingston and Matt Penn wrote a paper for the journal Science predicting that this could not only be a dud sunspot cycle, but the start of another extended down period in solar activity. It was based on their analysis of weakening sunspot intensity and said sunspots might vanish by 2015.

And here’s the punch line: That last long-term down period, 1645-1715, coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold winters.

That kind of talk could ruffle some feathers in this time of climate change and global warming, starring man-made carbon dioxide as the devil.

The paper, rejected in peer review, was never published by Science. Livingston said he’s OK with the rejection.

“I accept what the reviewers said,” Livingston said. “‘If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.’ ”

Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.

He is aware that some opponents of the prevailing position that climate change and global warming are the result of manmade activity — greenhouse gas, specifically carbon dioxide, buildup — are very much interested in the idea that changes might be related to solar activity.

“But it has not been proven yet,” cautioned Livingston, an astronomer emeritus who still works out of an office at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory headquarters building on the University of Arizona campus.

“We may have to wait. We may be wrong. (But) the sun is going to entertain us one way or another,” he said.

It’s not just a scientific curiosity. There’s a lot at stake in predicting whether sunspot cycles are going to be tame or wild, said Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory.

The powerful blasts of radiation that come from solar activity can fry electronic equipment on Earth; particularly vulnerable are satellites.

The high-energy radiation produced by solar flares travels at near the speed of light, getting to Earth in just minutes.

But the magnetic effects of a solar flare can take between two and three days to reach Earth, said Penn, a solar scientist.

In the 1800s, magnetic blasts from intense solar activity induced currents in telegraph lines in the U.S. and Italy, starting fires and damaging equipment. Later, it was learned that solar activity affected radio transmission.

It can also affect the electrical-power grid. A solar tantrum in 1989 blew transformers and caused a blackout in Canada. And a number of satellites are thought to have failed from exposure to high-energy blasts from solar activity.

Satellite operators can turn them away or shut down vulnerable equipment aboard, and astronauts can use shielding to avoid those blasts.

If Cycle 24 is the big cycle predicted, Penn said, “it’s likely we’ll have geomagnetic storms with a lot of sunspots, a lot of flares on the sun.”

Penn said even so-called “quiet sun” periods are far from boring because the sun’s “surface consists of Texas-sized hot gas bubbles, which rise upward at a speed of about a mile per second. The gas cools and falls downward in narrower channels at about the same speed. That’s what we call the ‘quiet sun.'”

“As we get more into the space environment with satellites, GPS and communication satellites, it means money. People who are about to launch new communication satellites really want to know how much shielding to put on their satellites.

“But shielding amounts to weight, which is money. If they want them to last through (an intense cycle), they’re going to want to protect them more, and that will cost them more.”

Penn is the telescope scientist on the McMath-Pierce solar telescope, the strange angular white thing amid all the white and silver-domed things atop Kitt Peak. Specifically, Penn works with an instrument that “sees” in the infrared range to provide information about magnetic activity.

Sometimes, sunspot activity is more than theory or data to him.

Several years ago, he was making an early-morning run from Tucson up to Kitt Peak to do some solar observing. He noticed his gas gauge was dangerously low and decided to stop for gas at the convenience store in Three Points.

It was about 5 a.m., and no one was there to take cash, so he tried to use his credit card to gas up. But the pay-at-the-pump system was down.

Crossing his fingers and driving up the mountain, Penn said he hoped he’d have enough gas after work to make it back to the station on the way home.

When he got to work, he learned that “a communications satellite had been damaged by (a solar flare). Lots of communications were dropped that morning, and my credit-card pay-at-the-pump attempt was one of them.”

Though Aimee Norton appreciates the practical benefits of being able to predict the sun’s activity, solving some of the star’s mysteries that relate to the big picture are more compelling. Norton is a program scientist on the solar observatory’s SOLIS (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun) facility at Kitt Peak.

“Part of what we’re trying to understand is how the magnetic field regulates or moderates the energy that is transported in the atmosphere,” Norton said. “Because one of the mysteries of the sun is, it’s hotter in the upper atmosphere than (at the surface). So there is energy being transported. Some people think the magnetic field is somehow magically getting that energy out there.”

Norton said she’s hoping for a powerful cycle, noting, “It would give us more things to do research with — either that or no cycle at all, which would be similar to the Maunder Minimum.”

She said she figures there’s little chance of a completely dead cycle but added, “Wouldn’t that be fascinating if the solar system managed to offset our contribution?”

Because you can’t go

–Visit Solar Cycle 24: www.solarcycle24.com/  

–Mr. Sunspot’s Answer Book: http://eo.nso.edu/MrSunspot/answerbook/polarity.html  

–NASA’s Solar Physics: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/whysolar.shtml  

–Solar storms: www.solarstorms.org  

–National Solar Observatory’s Solis solar telescope (Synoptic Optical Long-term Investigations of the Sun): http://solis.nso.edu  

–For more information on sunspots: http://spaceweather.com or http://science.nasa.gov  

–For a list of sometimes spectacular sunspot-induced problems: http://sw.astron.kharkov.ua/swimpacts.html

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tarpon

The alarmist plan has now gone bad, it was clearly devised based on what scientist had to say about the predicted SSC24, and the ignorance of the public, Now the quite sun has caused the ‘calamity of the alarmist’, when the expected whopper sunspot cycle is a no show — In fact worse, the sun went quite. Curses, plan foiled.
Regardless what Al Gore and the alarmists do, the sun will do what the sun does, and the Earth and the solar system will follow, It is so ordered …
And how could this have ever worked, look no farther than government schools.
And now we are faced with a real dilemma, the very real possibility of global cooling, which our factory farming techniques may not be able to cope with. Challenging times ahead. All we can do is sit and wait, since we are all in a hysteria about the imaginary.

terry46

Off topic but on the weather channel the color for snow on there maps is very dim . It’s almost a light green.

Michael Clark

I have been a reader for a few months now and I am very pleased at the ability for me and others to research this whole issue of AGW or NOT. Thanks to all of you especially those like Lief and others who are professionals devoted to good science. It is my opinion that the cooling side of the arguement is drowned out by the majority in media and government and the likes of Al Gore and Hansen.
What I believe we should consider is providing a public forum in the form of a “Conference”. I am from Louisiana and our current Governor Bobby Jindal has been a highlight recently in politics. I have e-mailed Governor Jindal with the proposition that a conference be scheduled in our State with the intent to provide a national platform to the media and the rest of the world about the issues we know are not being disseminated to the public and government.
His word on sponsoring such a conference has not been answered as yet. I know just as you do and that I believe Governor Jindal will also, that the issue of AGW vs cooling is and will have a profound effect on not just our country but other industrialized countries as well. Many many isues relative to food supply, tax policy, freedom itself can be influenced by a dissenting voice.
One way to influence this effort is to email your support for such an event. This response will be used to send to Governor Jindal for the purpose of demonstrating broad support for the Conference.
This Conference can be scheduled to last at least a week long. Those who represent significant scientific influence within their respective fields will form the basis for discussion and will keynote their ideas and data. Break out sessions will be used to provide additional detail and/or discuss to formulate future policy. In the end the Conference (no name yet) will serve to counter much of what we know to be misleading and false information and propoganda by the AGW’s.
My e-mail address is safesounds@yahoo.com If you believe this conference is a good idea please e-mail me. You don’t have to elaborate if you care not. I just want a good head count. Additionally e-mail your friends for thier input and have them e-mail as well. If its demonstrated there is enough support we’ll take the next step.
I’ll try to post here later to let everyone know how its going. I am open to suggestions and help from anyone so if you have some things to say please do so. Hope to hear from you soon.
Michael Clark

Jeff Alberts

Livingston said their projections were based on observations of a trend in decreasingly powerful sunspots but reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument.

But isn’t that what the “hockey stick” is? A statistical argument? And a poorly made one at that. More evidence that some journals and reviewers have an agenda.

Jeff Alberts

Michael, I think your premise of AGW vs Cooling is invalid. It should be AGW versus NGW (Natural Global Warming), since we all know that global climate will warm and cool at a whim.

Pamela Gray

tarpon, now wait a minute. How in the heck could this be caused by government schools? Are you on a curriculum committee? Have you reviewed the contents of the approved science curriculum over the last decades when temps were going up? And do you know how often the new approved science texts are purchased? Have you personally sat in on a science lesson taught in a “government” school? Where are you getting your theory from? What research have you done on this issue?
The only thing I am aware of (and I have taught science at the middle school level), if anything, it that it has been the religious right sitting on school boards who have managed to get in some very shaky “science” into those government buildings marked with school bells.
To be factual, lots of things warm our surrounding temperatures. Concrete, soot, agriculture practices, forestry practices, poor shade tree planning, and even CO2. These things have an affect on local temperatures, local weather, and local mini-climates, which are then translated to local thermometers. I am less sure about translating into large regional climates.
But you seem absolutely sure about the government school issue. Is the science more sure about that than it is about climate variability?
Please enlighten me with a learned response.

There appears to be a new cycle 23-24 sunspot prediction out (October 2008)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
The predicted rise is going to come soon and be very steep indeed.

Michael Clark

jeff,
Thanks for the reply. Let me clarify what I wanted to say. I believe there is a group of people lay and professional alike who believe Global temp and climate are influenced more by natural causes or forces and less by what we do as humans.
When I said cooling I’m merely reflecting what I believe are natural forces (a lot from the sun’s influence) which are helping to lower temps as they are registered globally.
I’m trying convey a lot with few words and I don’t always do that so well.
Thanks Mike Clark

Regulus Bartleby

Government schools are horrendous, Pamela. For so many young people to blindly accept catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as fact, they would have to be indoctrinated to the gills. Sorry. Government indoctrination in schools will be the death of a free society.

Aviator

Livingston said. “‘If you are going to make such statement, you had better have strong evidence.’ “
Interesting that this applies to solar theories but not to CO2; the so-called scientific journals are clearly playing favourites.

Ed Scott

Pamela Gray (12:46:27) :
You are correct in indentifying climate as local. The Western Garden Book identifies 24 climate zones from Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico west. There are micro-climates within some of those zones. The publishers of the book have an economic interest in propagating valid information about the successful growing of living plants and have derived the information from local and state farm agencies instead of Federal agencies.
The features of a climate zone are given as: latitude, elevation, ocean influence, continental air influence, mountains and hills and local terrain.
Global climate change? That is “consensus” science at its finest.

[…] here to read the rest: New Solar Cycle Not Packing Much Punch Tags: Climate Change, conference, global-warming, government, governor-jindal, michael-clark, […]

For the people that have not followed my ongoing reports about the Livingston & Penn paper, Bill Livingston keeps me up-to-date and so far the spots since the Figure in the paper have followed the projected line nicely.

Leon Brozyna

Fascinating article.
If the ideas of Livingston & Penn are proven corrrect by the activity (or rather, the lack of activity) on the sun, this will be good news for satellite operators. Not such good news for mankind, having to confront some mighty colder winters. Yet, with any luck, the colder winters will send Gore, et al, packing as their house of cards crumbles in the blustery winds.

Ed Scott

Jeff Alberts (12:44:55)
According to an AGW scientist, the cessation of global warming, in 1998, is due the masking of AGW by NGC (Natural Global Cooling). The inverse must also be true, that up until 1998, AGW was masking NGC.

matt v.

NASA last month reported that the “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990’s”.
For some time now I have been saying that major solar wind ram pressures spikes may be affecting the climate of our planet[ possibly through joule heating or some other yet to be discovered mechanism] Attached is a table showing the number of major solar wind ram pressure spikes from 1989 to September 2008. As you will note from the graph, the number of major solar wind ram pressure spikes [10 nPa and greater [using 1 hour intervals] has also been declining [ linear plot]
YEAR NUMBER
OF SOLAR
WIND RAM
PRESSURE
SPIKES
10nPa & >
1989 32 SOL.MAX
1990 19
1991 26
1992 23
1993 14
1994 13
1995 18
1996 5 SOL.MIN
1997 18
1998 22
1999 17
2000 32 SOL.MAX
2001 28
2002 17
2003 14
2004 13
2005 33
2006 8
2007 10
2008 todate 5 SOL.MIN
Based on Leif Svalgaard’s previous comments I have started to look at major pressure spikes [5 nPa and up using 1 hour average] between 2005 and September 2008, a total of 95 spikes on a day by day basis.He suggested going back 20 years but I have only had time to date look at the last four years. Daily and 27 day averages were too large a time frame and masked the large spikes which last mostly hours and not days or months. I discovered that there was a temperature change correlation [a small temperature spike, a continued temperature increase, or a lull or flat slope on a cooling curve] for 61 or 64% % of the spikes] on the same day or a day after. During 2008 the percentage was 77%. About 68% of these 61 temperature changes had a clear detectable small temperature spikes on the global temperature curve .It is difficult to clearly identify these small atmospheric temperature changes in the midst of larger atmospheric temperature changes due to upper level turbulence , higher level lows and hurricanes and storms that modify the upper climate. I also found that the solar wind spike pattern each year affected the temperatures at different locations differently when compared to the global figures of the Amsu A data set. For example the 2008 figures had an 89 % fit for the Toronto International Airport compared to the 77% global fit. As can be expected each major solar wind ram pressure spike is different in magnitude, duration, and direction . Hence a minimum correlation is difficult to quantify.
It would appear to me that high temperature anomaly years like 2005 have higher solar wind ram pressure spikes and low temperature anomaly years like 1996, 2006-2008 have less. The temperature anomalies of years like 1989 and 2000 which also had a higher number of major solar wind ram pressure spikes like 2005; seem to have been cooled down by the extended La Nina effect of the previous year and the year in question.
El Nino, La Nina effects and major volcanic eruptions [Pinatubo 1991-1994] seem to alter or modify the above.
We are all well aware that the atmospheric temperatures at the higher altitudes [lower Stratosphere] have been declining for some time. [Since at least the 1960’s]. Now the lower Troposphere temperatures are also declining [SEE. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images.html.%5D
I t would appear to me that as long as the solar wind continues to be quiet or decline, so will our global temperatures stay cool or decline The sun continues to be the prime mover of global climate for heating and cooling in my opinion.
SOURCES FOR DATA
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html [I am using the 1km elevation data]
http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/form/dx1.html [I am using 1 hour interval plots]
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff I use this to confirm the magnitude of geomagnetic impact of the larger solar wind ram pressure spikes]

Mike Bryant

Carston,
“There appears to be a new cycle 23-24 sunspot prediction out (October 2008)”
Good ole Dave Hathaway just never gives up.

Ed Scott

Regulus Bartleby (13:09:38) :
In defense of Pamela, schools are local and not global, and not all schools are centers of indoctrination, fortunately. The MSPs (Main Stream Propagandists) spread the news about school failures in Urban areas and say nothing about the success of home schooling and charter schools where parents take the responsibility for their children’s well-being, which includes their education.
Indoctrination will, perhaps, lead to the demise of Federal Government Controlled schools, which are not authorized as a legitimate Federal concern by the provisions of Articles I, II or III of the Constitution, but are the legitimate province of the states per the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Stephen Wilde

This is a good time at which to draw attention to my update about TSI and other solar changes since the points I make are relevant to this thread.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1767

Stephen Wilde (14:18:32) :
This is a good time at which to draw attention to my update about TSI and other solar changes since the points I make are relevant to this thread.
The graph of TSI you show is the old obsolete Lean reconstruction which she has long since abandoned. Judith Lean has not been ‘pressured’ to revise her graph. Most researchers [including Judith and me BTW – whom nobody can pressure] now agree that the total variation has not been anywhere near the 4 W/m2 you mention, but only of the order of 1 W/m2. So, any inferences drawn from the old Lean graph are simply not valid. If you want to combat AGW, doing it with invalid data just strengthens the AGW case. I believe we have been down that road before…


Mike Bryant (13:54:20) :
Carston,
“There appears to be a new cycle 23-24 sunspot prediction out (October 2008)”
Good ole Dave Hathaway just never gives up.

Observe that the figure predicts only to 2015 🙂

Pamela Gray (12:46:27)
I don’t know how pervasive the indocrination may be but my grandson in the 6th grade sat through a 2 to 3 hour discussion of AGW by a representative from the state EPA. I assume someone from the school probably provided the invitation.

John-X

Mike Bryant (13:54:20) :
Carston,
“There appears to be a new cycle 23-24 sunspot prediction out (October 2008)”
” Good ole Dave Hathaway just never gives up.”
In recent interviews, Hathaway has been quite realistic about what’s been going on with the sun.
If he were going to make significant changes in his forecast, I would expect him to also make (and publish) significant changes in his forecast reasoning, and there just isn’t the information available to do that.
If we don’t have a major pick up in activity within about the next 8 or 9 months, his graph is going to go vertical and his forecast will have to be revised or withdrawn (or punted, as the IPS forecast has been).

Jeff L

My favorite quote from the original article is that the Livingston & Penn article was rejected by Nature because “reviewers felt it was merely a statistical argument”.
Isn’t that all AGW is ??? After all, it’s just a hypothesis based on a statistical correlation over the last 100 years. I haven’t seen any publication that has definitive physics to prove the hypothesis – all rely on various feedbacks which cant be validated any more than Livingston & Penn’s hypothesis.
The hypocrisy of this rejection makes me sick. This is a corruption of science that any scientist should be furious about. Why? Wait until your science gets cross threaded with what ever the political correct position of the day is. How will you feel when a career of scientific research goes out the window because it conflicts with some non-scientists political agenda ?? Don’t think it could happen? I bet there are a lot of climate scientists who would have said the same thing 15 years ago. The mixing of politics & science is one of the most revolting developments of our modern era. It probably speaks to a deeper problem that society in general doesn’t have the schooling or ability to think scientifically.
The good thing about Livingston & Penn’s hypothesis is we may be able to see it tested, and either validated or refuted on the basis of data over the next few years. The data will speak for itself, regardless if Nature chooses to publish it or not.

Pet Rock

Factoid: Barry Saltzman is not in Wikipedia!
Who is he, you ask?
http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n18/story18.html
He was Michael Mann’s supervisor for his 1998 Yale Ph.D.
He deserves much more credit for being a founding father of AGW theory.
The reason I bring this up is that I like the way he starts the prologue to his book
Dynamical Paleoclimatology
We dance round in a ring and suppose,
but the secret sits in the middle and knows”

Robert Frost 1945
rings…cycles
(This is in Google Books)

Pamela Gray

In the past 12 years, I have been involved, sometimes as a parent, more often as an educator, in 12 school districts located throughout Oregon. I hold credentials in Oregon that stipulate I am highly qualified to teach all subjects at grade level through the 9th grade in self-contained classrooms for students on IEP’s. Most of my time has been spent teaching middle school kids with behavior issues in self-contained classrooms. These kids were (and are) by and large bright and able to digest scientific subjects. I use a standard science curriculum designed for easily frustrated students that follows the mandated science scope and sequence. Not once was global warming mentioned in the text. I have also used standard science textbooks at the middle school level and again, not once was global warming mentioned.
I also am familiar with research that shows that when compared with matched subjects across programs for typical learners, private schools and home schooling is no better or worse than public schools. Except in one area. Public school students on IEP’s score higher on standard state benchmark tests than students on IEP’s who are schooled in these other environments.
So again, show me your data. Don’t just say what your philosophy is. I want hard data that says that man-made global warming mentality is the fault of public schools. Otherwise I might be lead to believe that people who say such things are easy targets for other poorly thought out statements, such as what we see and hear in the media these days.

Pamela Gray

Three of those years were spent developing a self-contained program that received middle school students (and two 5th graders) from 5 surrounding districts (from as far away as the coast and all the way to a suburb of Portland) that were unable to provide the specialized programming for these difficult to teach and reach students. Just a clarification as to why I have been involved in so many districts in 12 years.

Paul Benkovitz

matt v. (13:49:34) :
NASA last month reported that the “The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990’s”.
For some time now I have been saying that major solar wind ram pressures spikes may be affecting the climate of our planet[ possibly through joule heating or some other yet to be discovered mechanism]

Henrik Svensmark has a theory that cloud formation is caused by comic rays, and during periods of low solar wind clouds will cause the earth to cool. During times of high solar wind, lack of clouds will cause the earth to heat up.
<a href=”http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark”Discover Magazine

Robert Bateman

And what if the AGW came on top of Solar Forcing? It would mean that this minima (and I do believe it’s the real deal) is the biggest break handed to mankind since the retreat of the Ice Age.
Why it would have to be total AGW or zero AGW with so little data is beyond reason. We do not know this for a fact either way, but one day we surely shall.
Right now the noise of the background is stronger than dirt and we count sunzits in a pool of clearasil.

Robert Bateman

I can also hazard a reasonable guess as to why AGW is being taught: It’s profitable to program the children towards alteranate energy and its less than cheap energy throughput in light of finite and dwindling oil, and to do that ahead of time.
Human society can adapt to slow changes, but they fail miserably when cut off cold turkey.

Robert Wood

Talking about disappointing … What about the (lack of) hurricanes?
I hear no one discussing how few the number of hurricanes, and of lower force, there were this year, dispite global warming,

hyonmin

To no one in particular
lean2000_irradiance.txt
The title gives us a clue Lean and 2000 relating to irradiance. The graph itself does not particularly identify authorship, date time, version, nor linkage to source or updates. It seems so easy to cite a source and then a whole elaborate thought process built on that particular ‘fact’ is built. The fact changes yet without the linkage to the source it makes it very difficult without ‘knowing’ that the facts have changed. Further even why the facts have changed. To me a minor outside viewer I cannot imagine how rational scientific progress is made. Temperature, sunspots, TSI, solar wind, ocean temperatures, ice extent or area all seem to be incredibly dynamic. The opinions of same are beyond dynamic. I understand how to button down data on a local scale, I have no idea how to gain control of data beyond that. I do not see even the local scale being handled with the Kindergarten requirements of name and date. Or the journalistic approach Who, What, Where, Why and When.
I typically throw in a version number on to of those simple requirements. It seems to be a free for all.

Robert Wood

A warm planet is a happy planet 🙂
Come on. Someone organise the bumper stickers, please. I can’t do all the work :^)

Interesting that Livingston an astronomer gets it right 2 years before the event.
Plus… small growth in TSI is one thing, but how do cycle lengths compound or takeaway temp effects, compare lots of short active cycles compared with not so active longer cycles that dwell longer in the cool zone?

Paul Benkovitz (17:51:59) :
Henrik Svensmark has a theory that cloud formation is caused by comic rays, and during periods of low solar wind clouds will cause the earth to cool. During times of high solar wind, lack of clouds will cause the earth to heat up.
Irrespective of the solar wind, the cosmic ray flux now is not higher than it always is at every [second] solar minimum [there is a reason it is a bit higher in 2008, 1986, and 1965, than in 1996, 1976, and 1954]. Here is a plot of the GCR flux for two stations [Moscow and Oulu] http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRaysNow.pdf
Note that at any rate the GCR variations are only a few per cent.

Bobby Lane

OT here, but good posting by the Climate Skeptic as to why Kyoto Protocol drafters (1997) chose 1990 as a baseline. It was not by accident, nor for any scientific reason. It was done on purpose. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/10/why-kyoto-used.html and another posting has this fantastic graph http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/25/hansen_forecast_1988.jpg

hyonmin (18:17:50) :
lean2000_irradiance.txt
The title gives us a clue Lean and 2000 relating to irradiance. The graph itself does not particularly identify authorship, date time, version, nor linkage to source or updates.

Lean, J. 2000.
Evolution of the Sun’s Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
Aug. 15, 2000.
The reconstruction has two components:
1) a part proportional to the Group Sunspot Number GSN
2) a long-term background which is assumed to follow the 15-year running mean of GSN.
The 1st part suffers from the very real possibility that the GSN was assessed too low in the past. This, of course, also feeds into the 2nd part, but. more importantly, the 2nd part was calibrated according to the range of variations of ‘sun-like’ stars. Later research has shown that these stars were not sun-like. but represent starts more evolved than the Sun. Recent research suggests that there is no or but little variation of the background.

James Brownworth

As a fully qualified science teacher with a masters degree in biophysics, I can attest to the widespread global warming indoctrination in government funded schools. Al Gore’s film is shown in most science classes at least once a year in the region that I monitor. Other special materials are used liberally to propagate the unscientific and unsubstantiated climate models made famous by Mr. Gore and his hydraulic lift.
It is possible that what miss greys claims above is true of her experience, as she understands it, but it is not representative of the larger scheme of things in government schooling.

hyonmin

Leif
Thank you for the explanation. I was aware of your efforts to ‘standardize’ the sunspot numbers but it is easy to fall into the trap when looking at a nice pretty graph. I would have not guessed at the calibration issue. As always it takes much effort to make any progress.

hyonmin (20:33:26) :
but it is easy to fall into the trap when looking at a nice pretty graph.
I have a nice, pretty, and seductive graph too [even has Lean’s on it]:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf

Andy Beasley

Pamela Gray
I don’t know how it is in Oregon; but; here in Idaho it appears that AGW is being taught as fact in the schools. My son, who is a junior this year, came home after his ISAT (Idaho standardized tests) and said that he probably did not do well on the science portion because he refused to give the desired answers about AGW because it is only a poorly supported theory with many obvious flaws. It appears my wife and I at least taught him to be a critical thinker. I didn’t actually see the test; so, I’ll have to take his word for it.

Robert Bateman

‘but how do cycle lengths compound or takeaway temp effects, compare lots of short active cycles compared with not so active longer cycles that dwell longer in the cool zone?’
Just have a look at the data we do have: The longer cycles have a marked tendency (note I say tendency) to put a huge wallop on the intensity of the next cycle. And once that happens, by no rhyme or reason I can see in the data, this can go on for a long as it darned well pleases and then we are back to the familar bunches of shortened cycles.

Robert Bateman

I found an online course for the AGW, and I spruced it up for my own purposes, just to get a feel for what was going on.
Of course, now that the Sun has begun acting up the last 2 years, now I can observe the effects firsthand in my own neck of the woods, and prise experiences and observations out of people without their knowing what I am fishing for. People have noticed strange things, especially those who grow crops or raise animals.
The AGW is just as prone to misprediction as is the graphs we see being re-worked everytime the data goes haywire and refuses to agree with predictions.
Oh well, who said Nature was designed to agree with us?

Mike Kelley

As long as the liberal media push the AGW propaganda on the public, many people will go along with it. Every time a chunk of ice breaks loose somewhere in the world, it is shown as absolute proof that the Arctic or Antarctic is melting. Most people don’t have any contrary sources for news, so they tend to believe the morons on CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/etc. If you want to have a laugh, look up the science requirement for a journalism degree. There is none, generally. All it takes to be a reporter nowadays is an agenda.

Stephen Wilde

Leif Svalgaard (14:34:29) :
Stephen Wilde (14:18:32) :
This is a good time at which to draw attention to my update about TSI and other solar changes since the points I make are relevant to this thread.
The graph of TSI you show is the old obsolete Lean reconstruction which she has long since abandoned. Judith Lean has not been ‘pressured’ to revise her graph. Most researchers [including Judith and me BTW – whom nobody can pressure] now agree that the total variation has not been anywhere near the 4 W/m2 you mention, but only of the order of 1 W/m2. So, any inferences drawn from the old Lean graph are simply not valid. If you want to combat AGW, doing it with invalid data just strengthens the AGW case. I believe we have been down that road before…
So we have, but whether the TSI variation is 4 W/m2 or 1 W/m2 the shape of the graph remains the same as per the selection of overlayed graphs you have also supplied.
Thus it is merely a matter of sensitivity as my article points out.
There are a lot of square metres comprising the surface of the Earth and a great deal more comprising the outer boundary of the atmosphere which is where the TSI measurement is taken. That translates into a substantial potential variation in total heat budget especially as now when the TSI level has dropped in a few years from 1367.5 W/m2 to 1365 W/m2 as at present. In the face of a change of that amount in a few years I have doubts about a suggestion that it has been stable to within 1 Wm2 for 400 years.
Solar cycle length is also relevant because more time at 1365 and less time at 1367.5 has an effect on total energy delivered in the cycle.
There are also aspects of solar influence other than raw TSI which might have climate effects out of proportion to variations in TSI and I have already put forward oceanic cycles as substantial influences suplementing or offsetting solar variations over time.
Note also that recent cooling is approximately coincident with a less active sun and earlier warming was approximately coincident with a more active sun.
I do not accept that solar variation can be ignored as a climate driver in the way it has been.

Leif,
I have a question on TSI adjustments. As I understand it, TSI measurments are calibrated to 1AU due to the elliptical orbit of earth. But since the Sun wobbles around, it will affect the true distance to the earth also, and this effect appears to be of the same order of magnitude as the variation due to the elliptical earth orbit. Is this effect handled in the TSI calibrations to 1AU ? I have been unable to figure that out from the SORCE reference you provided some time ago.

Stephen Wilde

Solar cycle length is also relevant because more time at 1365 and less time at 1367.5 has an effect on total energy delivered in the cycle.
Whoops, that didn’t come out right.
I meant that cycle length would have an effect on total energy delivered during a cycle if the time spent at a low level of TSI outweighs the time spent at a higher level after taking into account the additional time over which the cycle’s energy was delivered

kim

Leif just wants the mechanism specified. We may be getting close with the solar wind, the clouds, and the cosmic rays.
=============================================

Robert Wood

What is the variation in albedo? Is anyone studying this?

Pamela Gray — I can only attest to these facts, that the recent high school graduates I have met are versed in the ways of ‘paper or plastic’, not real science and know very little physics, chemistry and mathematics.
Well, OK, maybe I would say reading omprehension may also be a little light, since few understand or have a working knowledge of even basic history.But texting, not spelling, seems fine, if you can understand the gibberish. Time wasting at the compute seems to take up a huge percentage of learning these days.
I only examine the end product, and I find it severely lacking.