Sunspot Lapse Exceeds 95% of Normal

A guest post by Jeff Id

Well John Christy gave me a lot to think about in satellite temp trends as far as an improved correction over my last post.  Steve McIntyre pitched in some comments as well.  It is going to take a bit to work out the details of that for me but I think I can produce an improved accuracy slope over my last posts.  In the meantime, I downloaded sunspot numbers from the NASA.

Cycles are interesting things.  There are endless cycles in nature, orbits, ocean temp shifts, solar cycles, magnetic cycles the examples are everywhere.  What makes a cycle unusual is also an interesting topic.  Some solar scientists have claimed that our current solar cycle is not unusual by the record.  They are certainly the experts but recently the experts have been forced to update their predictions for the next solar cycle.

Well, I’m no expert on the sun but I do find the data regarding sunspots interesting, particularly in the fact that we are again in at least a short term cooling at the same time sunspots and solar magnetic level have plunged.

Here’s an article from our all understanding US government.

What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)

And a few beginning lines.

July 11, 2008: Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.

So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”

Cool picture …….

sunspots

See where the tiny little 2009 tick is.  We should be increasing now and well on our way by 2010.  By the way, this is an updated graph from the original predition.

Hathaway said, well within historic norms.   Forecasting is the most dangerous sport, but I am as curious about this claim as any —he is the expert after all.  Here’s a plot of the sunspot data from NASA NOAA numbers.

raw-plot-of-sunspots

I did a sliding slope fit to the data to find when the slopes shifted from negative to positive in each cycle.  I placed a red line above each point identified.  These points are not intended to mean the beginning of a cycle( that is for the experts) but rather to be a consistent software identified point between each cycle.

plot-of-sunspots-with-minima1

The red lines represent solar minima.  The only line which may not be a minima is the most recent in Jan 09 which we need to reference how unusual solar activity is.

Below is a list of the years the red lines are centered on.

1755.667, 1766.250. 1775.583, 1784.500, 1798.167, 1810.583, 1823.167, 1833.833, 1843.833, 1856.167, 1867.167, 1878.750

1889.500, 1901.750,  1913.167, 1923.417, 1933.750, 1944.167, 1954.250, 1964.833, 1976.250, 1986.250, 1996.417, 2009.041

The years between each minima are currently

10.583, 9.333, 8.916, 13.666, 12.416, 12.583, 10.666, 10.000, 12.333, 11.000, 11.583, 10.750, 12.250, 11.416, 10.250, 10.333,

10.416, 10.083, 10.583, 11.416, 10.000, 10.166, 12.625

So far there has been only one solar cycle which has exceeded the length of the current one.  The cycle extended extra long (13.66 years) from 1784 – 1798 and was the last cycle leading into the Dalton Minimum.

A histogram of the distribution of the time between solar cycles looks like this.

histogram-of-sunspots

The standard deviation of the total record is 1.18 years the mean is 11.01.  Well there’s the eleven year solar cycle we hear about.

Two sigma (two standard deviation) difference from the mean corresponds to a 95% certainty of something unusual in our current situation.  The numbers this year at mid Jan correspond to about 1.37 sigma of all time records, which is getting close.   But that’s not the end of the story,  after all I just included the dalton minimum cycles in the data right after we identified the solar cycle prior to the dalton minimum as the one with the longest time span on record.  That means, I treated it as though it were a normal event. —– Well I do believe (on faith in nature) this length is normal, the sun isn’t doing anything different from before but there is only one of these long events on record and were we to look for a similar event it would be stupid to include it in the standard deviation dataset.  We should only look at data which is not related to another potential dalton minimum from Figure 2 this would be after the dalton minimum and before present day (from 1833 – 1996).

The standard deviation of the cycle start after the dalton minimum 1833 and before 2009 was only 0.79 years. The average Jeff Id solar cycle in the same period is  10.83 years.  This puts the two sigma limits of the solar cycle at 9.26 years on the short side and 12.42 years on the long side.

Of course this puts my reasonable analysis of solar cycle outside of the last 176 year normal to a two sigma 95% interval 12.6 years has crossed the limit. With little sign of the next cycle beginning yet, this might get worse.  I tell you what, I prefer the taxes from global warming to the cost of glaciers in my yard, it seems like a balance of evils to me.  I hope this solar cycle changes soon but we can no more effect the sun with a dance than we can effect global warming with a tax so what choice do we have.

In Dr. David Hathaway’s defense, he made his statement above in July which put the current minimum at 2008.583 which comes to 12.166 years and just inside the 95% two sigma certainty of 12.42.

Now that we’re at 12.6, I wonder if they’ll extend the predictions for the beginning of the next cycle again.

Advertisements

351 thoughts on “Sunspot Lapse Exceeds 95% of Normal

  1. I have read repeatedly that solar cycles tend to be short (10-11) years or long (13-14) years. Your distribution seems to support this by showing two maximum values in the appropriate locations.
    Any idea how the standard deviation would change if your analysis treated the current cycle as a member of only the longer data points ?. Perhaps there is not enough data to make the comparison useful ?.

  2. I like to think that something like a long-term solar inactivity will, at least, take global warming hysteria out of people’s heads for a while, so they can go back to do good research. But then again, it sounds like such a steep price to pay for a readjustment in people’s perception of nature…

  3. Is there some reason not to include the period from 1600 to 1750? Are the data too sparse to make an estimate of cycle length? Are there no suitable proxies to show the minima dates?
    Nice work, BTW. Still trying to decide if the Dalton ought to be in or out of the baseline for a 2 sigma…

  4. Whenever you invoke the sun as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlations such as Maunder minimum and little ice age, but solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature. Little other than solar induced cosmic ray variations are left to be the driver, which brings up Svensmark’s idea of influencing the cloud formation through cosmic ray produced cloud droplet nucleation. Is there not a new paper based on satellite data, which reports no variation of cloud coverage through solar cycle 23 up to present?

  5. Maybe NASA watches Bugs Bunny cartoons…
    “Bugs Bunny Rides Again (1948) — Yosemite Sam dares anyone to stop his reign of terror…and guess who takes up the dare? Featuring Bug’s famous “I dare you to cross this line” which would show up in other Bugs vs. Sam toons.”
    Just keep drawing a new line in the sand, then another, then another….

  6. Jeff, good thoughts as usual. Interesting to see how the numbers actually shake out.
    One very pedantic comment: In the third to last paragraph, I think you meant “affect” rather then “effect” in both places. Unless, of course, you were thinking we might be able to tax our way into a warmer world . . . 🙂

  7. I have also been very puzzled by Hathaway’s recent remarks. He has somewhat contradicted himself in the July 2008 NASA post “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
    Either he is under some political pressure to down play certain observations or less likely, he is embarrassed by being wrong in some of his predictions.
    In May 2006 in the NASA post “Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.” Hathawy refers to recent observations of the dramatic slowing down of the solar conveyor belt:
    “Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, “the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity.”
    “If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, “off the bottom of the charts.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
    Although he believed the sunspot cycle 25 could be weakest in centuries and that the sun was slowing down, he still believed that this cycle #24 would be large and intense and happen sooner than later.
    That prediction relied on his belief about the nature of the solar Conveyor Belt. In the March 2006 NASA post “Solar Storm Warning” he argued
    “When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011”
    He also thought “next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011”
    He believed that the Conveyor belt had a 40 year cycle during which old sunspots were amplified and reborn. (The idea of the re-birth of old sunspots seems quite odd to me.) So his interpretation o the duration of the belt’s cycle would explain why he didn’t think dramatically low sunspots would occur in cycle 24 but not until cycle 25.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm
    So in the July 2008 NASA post “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)”, why would he limit his comments to “There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”
    Why not also mention the observation that by “historic norms” the conveyor belt has slowed down to speeds below all historic records? Why not mention science is still learning about the sun?

  8. If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”

  9. I think the sun just needs a bailout. We should pass legislation immediately that requires the sun to begin producing spots. And we need to immediately invest billions of dollars in alternative sun technology. We need to unleash the American entrepreneurial spirit in order to get the sun back on the proper track.
    We all know the real cause of global warming and recent events seem to have confirmed this cause.
    A new hypothesis of the cause of solar magnetic changes is that it seems to be proportional to the use of refrigerator magnets. The booming economy in China has resulted in a proliferation of refrigerators. Each one of these devices have the potential to attract one or more magnets that we use for such innocent purposes as holding photos of loved ones, shopping lists, or other items. We need to institute a global refrigerator magnet tax with the proceeds going toward those researching alternative solar technology.
    Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  10. Now that we’re at 12.6, I wonder if they’ll extend the predictions for the beginning of the next cycle again.
    Minimum is tricky to define. One definition [which may be better than the official one that relies of smoothed values over 13 month] could be the point from which on new cycle spots dominate over old cycle spots. As http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png shows, one might make an argument for minimum in July or August 2008 so we might just stay within the 2 sigma. The plot shows days per month with SC23 regions [dark blue], with SC24 regions [pink]. The cyan curve is just the sunspot number divided by 0.3 and shows to what degree that number matches the sum of the two cycles. The point for Jan. 2009 is made on the assumption that the count in the 2nd half of the month will like it was in the 1st half.

  11. There seem two relevant hypotheses to test:
    a) The current cycle is consistent with a normal following cycle. The appropriate data exclude the dalton minima and its precedent cycle.
    b) The current cycle is consistent with an abnormal following cycle. The appropriate data is that excluded for a).

  12. There is an almost spot in the top right corner of the sun right now (2:25 AM EST). I kind of hope for a prolonged minimum to show those warrmies, but my jetski wont work very well on icy lakes up here in Canada.

  13. E.M.Smith (22:05:18) : The least life in the universe is infinitely greater than all of the inanimate galaxies together. They are aware of nothing!

  14. So, now that it’s obvious that we’re outside solar norms, will Dr. Hathaway publish a “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun, And Say, Have You Noticed How Cold It Is Lately?” article?

  15. Perhaps it’s time to re-visit the ideas of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt who suggested a number of years back that the strength of SC23 indicated a future “deep Gleissberg minimum” that will be potentially similar to the Maunder.
    Many of his predictions seem to be on the money and with the ongoing delay of SC24 and the current cooling that seems to be occuring, maybe Lanscheidt was on the right track. If so that’s another 20-30 years of significant cooling.
    http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

  16. mmh.. i was under the impression cycle 23 ended around september/ocktober 2008.
    isnt there a large transitionphase ?

  17. I fear the published data about cycle length realy finishes the Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen graph.

  18. David Corcoran (23:45:32) :
    will Dr. Hathaway publish a “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun, And Say, Have You Noticed How Cold It Is Lately?” article?
    Maybe if we apply some political pressure on him. Let’s lobby.

  19. Short-term cooling? But the global temperature shows a non stop warming since january 08? 0.35 C/year !

  20. My problem with a title like “Something is Most Definitely Wrong With the Sun” is that there is actually nothing “wrong” with the Sun; it’s our understanding of the Sun that has mistakes.
    Just my A$.02…

  21. Re: Werner Weber (22:39:30):

    Whenever you invoke the sun as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlations such as Maunder minimum and little ice age, but solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature.

    Lets rephrase that.
    Whenever you invoke the atmosphere as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlation but atmosphere variations alone are far to small to account for the measured changes in global temperature.
    Just as the atmosphere is composed of multiple different parts such as oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide etc so is the output of the sun. There are X-rays, magnetic fields, UV, infra red, visible light to name but a few. Whilst many of these do have very little variation, some of them can vary by quite a bit over time. There is little to no research on the contribution of solar forcings on the climate and in fact it looks to be actively discouraged

  22. While in SE Zambia kast year I was told of lake level records running back into the 19th century, kept by European missionaries. These apparently show a clear link with sunspot numbers. I have just googled “malawi lake levels sunpots” and found that there have been many studies confirming this.

  23. As Leif says solar minimum can only be determined after the event on the 13 month boxcar average and all we know for certain is that the minimum is June2008 or later since June is the lowest number so far. Cycle 23 appear to be all but over since we haven’t had a cycle 23 sunspot for months, all the recent ones have been cycle 24. My guess for the minimum on the boxcar basis is October 2008 but that is just a guess really.
    The unusual aspect is that cycle 24 is either a late starter or just possibly a very small cycle. Hathaway is now saying late and a low average peak. Jan Jaansens web site has all sorts of stats on this point which he updates every 4 months or so.. we are due for an update soon.

  24. Werner Weber (22:39:30) : Is there not a new paper based on satellite data, which reports no variation of cloud coverage through solar cycle 23 up to present?
    http://start.org/journals/pip/jd/2008JD010734-pip.pdf
    …all sets have been either re-analyzed (earthshine) or re-calibrated (CERES), and present consistent results. Albedo data are also available from the recently released ISCCP FD product. Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth’s reflectance from the outset of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid- 2000. After that and to date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal scale changes in Earth’s reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable, and caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry.
    My emphasis.
    The graph (Fig.2) in the paper suggests that the increase in albedo started a bit later than 1998, maybe 1999/2000, and went to 2001/2 (from memory; pls check the paper). Very significantly, the paper also shows that albedo decreased from the mid-1980s until the end of the 1990s (hence the warming??!!).
    The albedo increase from around 2000 onwards tallies quite nicely with the following paper that shows significant slowing of ocean warming over the last 5 or 6 yrs (nb. dates from memory; pls check the paper), including actual ocean cooling from around 2006 :
    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf

  25. JDS wrote:
    If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”
    If we start referring to it as such, it might stick. The precedent Gore Effect is already there.

  26. Jeff,
    Very worthwhile analysis. The method of determining cycle length doesn’t rely on human senses. The elimination of outliers in determining standard deviation seems defensible for this particular case — simply because it highlights the interesting behavior.
    Considering your thoughts and eyeballing (yes, not too objective) the entire sunspot series, there seems to be a larger visual correspondence between the cycles preceding the Dalton Minimum and the most recent cycles.
    Maybe a prolonged minimum really is in our immediate future. And, despite the lack of accepted explanations, temperature does seem to correlate to sunspots by my feeble calculations.
    We’re having an extremely cold winter here — possibly just the first of many. Hope not — much rather have catastrophic global warming (i.e. some low lying beach fronts move a couple miles inland and Canada becomes habitable).

  27. Barycentric Tide Theory
    Hung vs Hathaway, both NASA scientists. I agree with Hung.
    Hung, Ching-Cheh (2007) Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets (NASA/TM—2007-214817) Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio July 2007
    We are already in the Landscheidt Minimum … enjoy.

  28. Interesting article, I am not sure we can scream Dalton minimum just yet though…
    There appears to be confusion around when the minimum of cycle 23 ocurred,,, some sources say August 08 but then look at December 08, that was a very quiet month as well… is it possible to have double minima??
    After all we did have a double maximum in 2000 and 2002!

  29. Oh, I guess I should mention. The sticking point for NASA is Solar Activity vs the Earth’s Surface Temperature. Then you get those who buy into the Milankovitch Cycle but discount shorter cycles because solar luminance in constant … go figure. Then there’s the discussion about other transport mechanisms and indirect effects of solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. Fact is the Maunder Minimum. I wrote a little bit of prose for those of us who just want the short version of what’s going on.
    http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html
    I’m trying to keep 6 Coal Fired Units running so I did this when we has a cold day … and I’m still making a few corrections … and my little chart was just for fun … OK 😉

  30. Found this at Accuweather:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
    “Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.”
    “Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”
    This led me to:
    http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html
    “This evaluation, which takes into consideration the amplitudes, asymmetry coefficient and correlation coefficient obtained from the total solar irradiance reconstructions of Dr. Judith Lean (6) and Dr. Leif Svalgaard (7), is evidence for the theories on the increase of solar irradiance through the last three centuries immediately after the ending of the Maunder Minimum.”
    So it’s either El Nino or Ice Cube in a couple years.

  31. Dishman (04:03:29) :
    JDS wrote:
    If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”
    If we start referring to it as such, it might stick. The precedent Gore Effect is already there.

    As has been said here before, there are three things that each get their own name. 1) The sunspots. 2) The cold period. 3. The bad effects from the cold period (called a Pessimum).
    The preferred candidates were:
    1. Landscheidt Minimum (since he predicted them).
    2. The Gore Cold Period
    3. The Hansen Pessimum
    So just remember when talking to anyone about how cold it is to call it the Al Gore Cold Period, and when talking about high food prices and a snowed out vacation, it’s because it’s crummy living the the Hansen Pessimum. 😉

  32. It would be interesting to repeat the analysis over the 22 year Hale cycle as well – or over 2 solar cycles – where the magnetic polarity completes one full reversal.
    There is some strange repeating cycle in temperatures (and even sunspots) at 25 years lag. If you take the temperature of today and subtract the temperature of 25 years ago, the plot has a definitive up and down cycle which is not expected. I’ve done this with sunspots as well and the plot almost looks like the solar cycle itself.
    This is hard to explain unless there is more regularity in the 22 year Hale cycle than in the 11 year Schwabe cycle. Can you try it out.

  33. I’m certainly no expert on climate studies but i have always been interested in the unpredictability of stochastic systems and chaos theory.
    What i dont understand about all these supposed predictions from the Met office and other so-called climate experts is how they can claim with any degree of credibility that such unpredictable systems can be modelled accurately or predictions can be made that are anything other than a lucky shot or guess.
    Now Ive read Simplicity by Gribbin as well as Gleicks book on chaos, and it seems clear to me that the key finding is that stochastic and chaotic systems like the weather just cannot be predicted with accuracy. Its no good saying “if we knew all initial conditions” we could make predictions. We cannot know all initial conditions, nature seems to be telling us this loud and clear. Whether at the quanum level of the HUP, or in macroscopic systems like the N body problem.
    All roads lead to unpredictability. So I’m rather confused by all these claims from climate scientists that they make accurate predictions.
    Maybe im being stupid or something but it appears to me that climate scientists who make these claims are going totally againstr the mainstream of accepted science re Chaos, stochatics etc…
    By the way great site.
    Am i mis-informed?

  34. Plan on things getting colder, and staying that way for the next 60-90 years:
    Some interesting observations regarding the recent solar cycles (reductions in average sunspot number, sunspot area, and facular area) and Cycle 24 predictions associated with the HAO/Dikpati flux dynamo model are at:
    http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/research/siv.html
    (see “Solar Irradiance Variability During Cycle 23” and “Predicting the Onset of the Upcoming Cycle 24”)
    And for an interesting 20 year old prediction of why the sun is going quiescent see:
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987SoPh..110..191F/0000191.000.html
    While this paper has been quoted a few times here & there, this is the only place I’m aware of where one can readily access it in its entirety. There are other much more recent papers on this specific analysis approach, and within the modeling error they reach the same conclusion for the same underlying reasons.

  35. Is anyone continuing with the work on sunspots by Livingston and Penn? If so, do the trends they described continue and suggest that sunspots will be scarce after 2015? If there is such data, can it be found via the Internet?

  36. «If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”»
    Well, 2008 was already a cool year. We have entere the Gore Minimum.

  37. M Morris (05:21:06)
    Read up on Tsonis and Koutsoyiannis, many references available through Climate Audit. Perhaps I presume too much.
    ==============================

  38. E.M. Smith (04:42:18)
    Though the irony of tagging Gore with his big mistake, and though the Landscheit option is a popular one, I prefer the Eddy Minimum. Jack Eddy liked words and enjoyed the alliteration of Maunder Minimum, which he named, and chose that name over others perhaps more apt. He’s the pioneer of understanding who should be honored with the choice of name.
    =================================

  39. 0.92 Watts per square meter reduction is the 2003 SORCE start TSI more over the last readings, raw, measured by satellites. By the time ground has been hit 0.15-0.2 watts square meter is left on global average. Wow. Now how much did CO2/Other GHG’s increase add to the atmosphere, purely from a physical standpoint? Lucia L has a chart up this moment indicating quite a bit more. Sunspot counting is like navel staring. Look all you want but it barely makes a difference.

  40. I wonder if any of you guys is a friend of NASA’s David Hathaway and could invite Mr. Hathaway to give his comments on this topic here?

  41. After 42 years of working as a NASA contractor (most of it in science operations) on the Nimbus, Landsat, UARS, HST and other programs, I can confidently state that the definition of “expert” is as follows:
    “ex” = a has-been
    “spurt” = a drip under pressure
    Not quite “science”, but certainly experience.

  42. Then again, you could lop off the whole right side of the histogram and then recalculate…that would show them. I don’t believe that eliminating or manipulating inconvenient data is any more fruitful in sunspot analysis than it is in temperature records.

  43. Werner Weber (22:39:30): “… solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature.”
    The oceans make up the bulk of the difference. Those who say that the 20th century warmed by 0.65 or 0.7 C are measuring from a cooling period to the near peak of a warm spell. The bulk of the measured changes in global temperature are from the oceans. The 0.15 C of warming caused by the increase in solar irradiance is almost half of the warming when you filter out the ocean cycles’ noise.
    Jeff, I wonder if you exclude data from the long end, then should you not exclude outliers from the short end too?
    JOhn M Reynolds

  44. I wasn’t aware that the sun had a “Conveyor Belt.” What is this, how did they find it and how do they know it’s slowed down?

  45. Leif (23:59:26)
    So his method, slope change, gives a whole year longer than your method. Why should ‘dominance of spots’ be so different than slope change?
    I like the method of minimum definition which you mentioned months ago, something like ‘when the curve just lies dead flattest’, which would make this latest, August of ’08, by my estimation.
    ============================

  46. Bill Illis (04:44:40) :

    There is some strange repeating cycle in temperatures (and even sunspots) at 25 years lag.

    Bill, what data are you seeing this in? In the HadCRUT3 global series, there’s a ~20-21 year cycle, and there is a fair amount of previous literature on this. I’ve seen occasional references to 25 years, but don’t have any references handy. If your data set is accessible, I can do an MTM spectrum analysis on it to see what we find.
    BTW, anyone interested in weather cycles really should read
    http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Cycles-William-James-Burroughs/dp/0521528224
    He has a good discussion of the evidence for solar influence on weather.

  47. Referencing JDS and crosspatch: perhaps the Gore Minimum is being caused by a proliferration of refrigerator magnets reminding people everywhere to check and make sure their tires are properly inflated.
    I think there is a correlation here.

  48. If we are entering a new solar minimum, shall we call it the Hansen Minimum or the Gore Minimum? Or perhaps the Hansen/Gore Minimum.

  49. 2-sigma = 95%.
    1-0.95 = .05
    1/.05 = 20
    We should expect about 1 in 20 cycles to exceed the 2-sigma number.
    How many cycles has it been since the last 2-sigma event?
    19
    Cycles 3-4 to cycles 4-5 minimum difference = 13.666 years, from Anthony’s analysis above.
    Eyeballing the histogram, it is close to a Normal distribution, but it appears to have more weight on the high side, perhaps the cycles are modal. No cycles since 1750 have a 2-sigma event on the low side (8.65 years).
    My conclusion: Nothing unexpected is happening.

  50. The “analysis” by Jeff appears to contain at least one fundamental flaw. Here are a couple of issues to address:
    1. Here’s a zoom in on the sunspot data – http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture17ks7.png
    Jeff says the minimum for the 90s happened at 1996.417 – does that look right? It may be “righter” than it appears, but that would require Jeff to tell us what kind of smoothing function or fit was used to extract the local minima for his red lines. The position of the minimum can move around by half a standard deviation depending on whether you use a linear smoothing function (over some n points), or an FFT-smooth, or a fit to quadratic or cubic spline, or if you just pick the actual minimum from the raw data. I’ve never heard the term “sliding slope fit” before, so maybe Jeff will tell us what it means.
    2. The local minimum for the current decade may have already passed us by last summer, for all we know. Here’s the monthly data for the last 12 months:
    2008 01 3.3
    2008 02 2.1
    2008 03 9.3
    2008 04 2.9
    2008 05 3.2
    2008 06 3.4
    2008 07 0.5
    2008 08 0.5
    2008 09 1.1
    2008 10 2.9
    2008 11 4.1
    2008 12 0.8
    The local minimum was in Jul-Aug of 2008, yet Jeff assumes that the current minimum happens no sooner than Jan 2009.
    The actual time interval between the raw minima (not a very useful number, but hardly worse than anything else that can be had for at least a few more months) is about 11.8 years. That’s well inside the 2-sigma interval for even the post-Dalton-Minimum period.

  51. Well, I forgot to close the em bracket in my previous post. Mod, stick a close em bracket after “lag.”
    Meanwhile,
    Jeff, you may be teaching an old dog a new trick. What do you mean by “sliding slope fit?” Can you give me more information about that?
    Pretty much any kind of spectrum analysis shows the bimodal nature of sunspot cycle length. Even if Leif is correct about these matters (but see my question to him to follow), I still think it is notable (I’d normally say “significant” but you have to be careful saying that in a context where we’re talking statistics) that this transition makes it look like we’re moving from a regime of short, strong cycles — 16-23 — back to a regime like that of 10-15, possibly longer, weaker cycles. I know Leif doesn’t approve, but I like the way this diagram shows it:
    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotlessevolution.png
    (In fairness, Leif’s view of the data is this is in the last three graphs of this document:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf )

  52. Werner Weber (22:39:30) :
    “Whenever you invoke the sun as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlations such as Maunder minimum and little ice age, but solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature. ”
    If climate is a chaotic system it could be that the slight changes in the sun are just enough to push earth’s climate toward different attractor states.
    However, this still does require a cause and effect. Chaos is still a deterministic process and there must be REAL physical processes involved. Cosmic rays could be the answer, or a combination of factors, who knows.
    M Morris (05:21:06) :
    “I’m certainly no expert on climate studies but i have always been interested in the unpredictability of stochastic systems and chaos theory.
    What i dont understand about all these supposed predictions from the Met office and other so-called climate experts is how they can claim with any degree of credibility that such unpredictable systems can be modelled accurately or predictions can be made that are anything other than a lucky shot or guess.”
    My impression is scientists are assuming the earth’s climate has *enough* primary drivers so that the chaos can be understood. In other words, unlike weather, it’s really not all that chaotic over the short term (which may be many decades in climate).

  53. Thanks to everyone for the comments.
    As far as lopping off data or similar comments- If you want to look for an unusually long event which may lead to a minimum (only one example in this record) it doesn’t make sense to include it in the SD analysis. I included the whole dataset in the analysis as well so there’s nothing hidden.
    Lief’s criticism is valid. However I believe by my analysis that because I looked for minimum slope, the most recent line in 2009 won’t shift back in time much even if the next cycle really starts going vertical making spots next month. It also visually looks longer at this point.
    Perhaps tonight I’ll put the predicted data in the set as presented by Hathaway and see how it compares with history. The predictions have been forced out enough that he may have been predicting a 95% event already.

  54. “Perhaps it’s time to re-visit the ideas of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt”
    Probably not. For example. While the 11 year cycle is somewhat analogous to the orbit of Jupiter, I don’t believe a solar scientist would say that the orbit of Jupiter is responsible for the cycles. And while Landscheidt might have noticed something happening at particular intervals, what he proposes as the cause is probably not it. His plotting of these intervals and how they correspond with events is, however, uncanny.

  55. Re: M Morris (05:21:06)

    What i dont understand about all these supposed predictions from the Met office and other so-called climate experts is how they can claim with any degree of credibility that such unpredictable systems can be modelled accurately or predictions can be made that are anything other than a lucky shot or guess.

    Hold a piece of paper up in the air in a light breeze. When you let go you can predict in what direction it will go (climate) but not how it gets there (weather). You can predict roughly where it will land but not with any degree of certainty or accuracy. The models basically claim the direction is up but cant predict the path we take to it.
    Now in order to predict where the paper will land with any degree of accuracy you would need to know the following:
    1. Height above the ground.
    2. Surface area of the paper.
    3. Dimensions of the paper.
    4. Weight of the paper.
    5. How flexible the paper is.
    6. Friction coefficient of the paper.
    7. Atmospheric pressure
    8. Humidity.
    9. Wind speed
    9. Wind direction.
    10. Air temperature.
    etc etc.
    The effect of changing some of these values has on the final resting position will depend upon how far the paper has to drop. Drop it from 6 inches and you only really need to know windspeed and direction. From 6 feet and a lot more parameters have a measurable effect. From 60 feet and it is a near impossibility to predict. Now consider the difference in complexity between the climate and dropping a piece of paper, which why I think all climate models, no matter how accurate with past climate, are useless when it comes to predicting anything.
    Oh, and one other thing, the climate models have assumed that there is only one source of the wind and its direction is up.

  56. Trevor (00:09:46)
    I read the Landscheidt paper and it certainly struck a chord with me. Over the last several weeks I have read extensively around the subject matter of links with solar geomagnetic activity and earth climate and this has taken me down the path of learning more about the Gleissberg cycle and its relevance.
    I would assign a high probability that the thesis in the Landscheidt paper you linked to contains evidence that will be highly relevant as our understanding develops.
    I would encourage others to read the paper and form their own judgement.

  57. I’ll just suggest it gently again. Common sense tells me that a lot of sun energy gets through to our atmosphere when there are solar flares and CMEs. That energy will find a way to heat the lower atmosphere. Forget TSI. I admit that flare energy would be hard to measure as an event, but it doesn’t make it any less real.
    Let’s see what happens to our temperatures over the next years without this extra energy.

  58. coaldust,
    I don’t know if anyone here believes the sun is behaving unusually. That is actually the point made here so often, the last time nothing unexpected happened was cycle preceding the Dalton minimum (also a normal event I believe). You combine that with the reduced magnetic activity since 2005 and it leaves me wondering how much effect we’ll see on our climate in the near future.

  59. Leif Svalgaard (23:59:26) :
    Leif Svalgaard (23:03:19) :
    one might make an argument for minimum in July or August 2008
    And by the same criterion [ see http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf ] the previous minimum was 1997.0, so the cycle length should be 2008.6 – 1997.0 = 11.6 which is less than one sigma from the mean [using the figures given: 10.86+/-0.79].

    Leif, looking at the charts on Page 4 of the solar cycle transitions, how did you calculate your “yearly smoothed” values?

  60. “we haven’t had a cycle 23 sunspot for months, all the recent ones have been cycle 24. My guess for the minimum on the boxcar basis is October 2008 ”
    And that minimum is moving forward due to the marked asymmetry between 23 and 24. The panel uses a number of criteria discussing their ‘definitive’ minimum including coronal holes and IMF tilt.
    Re-reading Janssens I see one remaining resort to hope for Hathway in his latest estimate for Rmax.
    “About 200 years ago, a most curious series of solar cycles occurred. The 2 shortest cycles – both of them did not last 9 years- were followed by cycle 4, which would itself last for over 14 years and became so the longest lasting of the entire official series. This trio also belongs to the active solar cycles, with maximum Wolfnumbers between 125 and 165. It was thereforeall the more remarkable that they were followed by 2 cycles with a maximum Rz that hardly reached 50. This period is called the Dalton minimum, and it lasted approximately from 1795 till 1825. The somewhat more active cycle 7 ended these interesting series, with the peculiarity that the time of rise was 50% longer than the time of fall (respectively 6 and 4 years).”
    Note that cycle 5 (24 twin?) is also backward in rise to run. If 24 follows this form Rmax might be delayed to mid-2014 even if we are on its ‘rise’ at present.

  61. The sun is slowing down in many ways, and it seems a little silly to argue that “nothing unusual is happening” unless unusual has to mean that the sun explodes or blinks out.
    I do want to point out that the sunspot data is averaged (we only count spots facing the Earth – so some averaging is certainly required.) Typically, this data is averaged over a 1 year period centered over the current month. Thus, you will not know the average for today until 6 months from now.
    Jan09 is probably not the averaged minimum. I suspect that Aug08 will be the future averaged minimum – but we will not know this for at least another 6 to 9 months.
    To do this analysis now – all you can claim is a 12.15 year long cycle for 23 (setting the minimum in July08, which is technically possible if late Jan09 and Feb09 etc. suddenly have many large spots). 12.6 is probably incorrect.

  62. Anthony,
    Not sure if you can change that graphic of the sun cycles (first pic) but that arrow that says “You are Here” is off…by about 6 months it looks like. Each tick is a year, and if we are saying January 2009 then it needs to be moved right. In that case, also, we should be juuuust beginning the upswing back to the land of lots of spots. I assume that graphic has not been updated since the summer because the actual sunspot graphing versus predicted trend-line stops about mid 2008.
    As there have been updates to forecasts, might we not add in an updated graphic? Unless July 2008 was the lastest prediction from Dr. Hathaway.
    REPLY: That is Dr. Hathaway’s graphics from that date, I will not modify it. – Anthony

  63. I’d have to agree with coaldust. I did an analysis kind of like Jeff id (choosing end/beginning points of cycles based on change from – to + slope) using data up to the end of 2008. However, to better visualize the difference between solar cycles, I overlaid all of the cycles on top of each other using the min between each cycle as the starting point. Here is the pic:
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=30ndy1c&s=5
    Based on the graph I linked to, the length of SC23 is very similar to cycles 8, 10, 12, and 13, which occurred during the middle to late 1800s.

  64. Any mention of the barycenter concept should mention the late Rhodes W. Fairbridge along with Theodor Landscheidt.
    See, for example:
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
    Fairbridge represents the mainstream, established defender of the barycenter theory. He was one of the most respected Australian geologists. Landscheidt was something of an outsider, and originally an astrologer. But such work looks like it could easily be checked today.

  65. Pasi (06:44:01) :
    I wonder if any of you guys is a friend of NASA’s David Hathaway and could invite Mr. Hathaway to give his comments on this topic here?

    Pasi: Leif’s worked with Dr. Hathaway, and has said that Dr. H is usually pretty busy.

  66. Leif: I understand that the minimum has probably already occurred, but the truly slow start of cycle 24 seems unlike other cycles observed in the last century. Am I wrong on that?

  67. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (22:34:47) :
    When it comes to predicting the strength of solar cycles and grand minima I dont think there are too many experts around…not going on past performance. This is one area of science in its infancy.

    I agree. If one method doesn’t work maybe we should consider something new.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif

  68. To call this possible/potential “minimum” the Gore Minimum gives too much respect to someone who has falsified science and tried pay-to-play re his well lobbied (on a global basis) fairy tale. I prefer what seems to me to be the label of significant workmanship: the Landsheidt Minimum.

  69. Any chance you could update this post to point at the updated sunspot prediction and at least recognize that NASA has continued to update their predictions… in this case downward.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/08/the-new-nasa-solar-goalpost-cycle-24-maybe-not-so-big/
    Obviously the post author chose a specific prediction to work from and I don’t think the updated prediction impacts what he’s analysed but the post could still reference the most recent prediction.

  70. David Jay Wrote :I thought an expert was someone who was more than 50 miles from home…

    No… an ex-spurt is a former drip under pressure.
    G

  71. “My conclusion: Nothing unexpected is happening.”
    We have been watching the sun for such a short period of time that we have no idea what is “normal” and what is not. We can say something is odd but have to qualify that due to the extremely small sample of observations (over only a few centuries) compared to what we might see over millions or hundreds of millions of years. It could very possibly be that the sun could go into century long periods of low activity. We just don’t know.
    To “predict” that we are entering a Dalton-like minimum is probably overreaching though I found Dr. Hathaway’s prediction for cycle 25 very interesting (and wrote to him about a year or so ago to ask if there was any update since that article appeared concerning the “conveyor belt” appeared but didn’t get a reply).
    The sun sort if “is what it is” at this point and I believe we should be more occupied with observing what is going on that trying to predict what will go on in the near future. And I worry about what the reaction of our political leadership (globally, not in just my country) would be if we do head into such a minimum. Will they attempt to use it as a “crisis” they can use to political advantage? Will they attempt to be seen as “doing something” about which there is nothing that can really be done? Will they say “we just don’t know what is going to happen, we will have to watch and see” or will they trot out “experts” to validate certain courses of action with presentations with graphs and arrows and projections into the future? I am more worried about the reaction of politicians and governments than I am a minimum itself.
    Say you have a natural cycle such as the PDO and say that the sun also goes into deep lulls in activity in a cyclical way. You also have Earth’s precession in its solar orbit and it’s tilt on its axis. We are current experiencing a period where insolation of the far Northern Hemisphere is declining. If you have different cycles of different (and even uneven) length, it is only a matter of time before they “line up” when watched over a period of thousands of years. And you also have fairly random events such as volcanism. Maybe all it takes is a deep solar minimum at the same time as a cold PDO with a volcanic event at just the right time to “trigger” the system to flip to the opposite state. And I believe it is going to be the Northern Hemisphere that decides things because the Antarctica is relatively static in that it has been constantly glaciated for 12 to 14 million years. Expansion of ice in the Southern Hemisphere occurs mostly over ocean and can be broken up each year. Expansion of ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere would be mostly over land where it is anchored and this build up would act more to reduce sea levels which would cause even more ice to be anchored to land as the level of the Arctic Ocean drops.
    So lets say you have a deep solar minimum, a cold PDO, declining NH insolation due to precession, and suddenly you have a major volcanic event during the NH fall or winter that prevents the melting of all the ice on land in the far Northern Hemisphere the following summer. And the winter after that even more snow piles up so that during the following summer, even though temperatures have warmed a bit not all the snow from the previous two years can be melted. Now we have a situation with a lot of snow cover during summer and the increase in albedo really matters. This would be particularly true at higher elevations at lower latitudes.
    What causes climactic extremes might just be chance alignment of unconnected cycles with a random event (or lack of one) thrown in to act as a trigger. Same for coming out of an ice age. Precession increases insolation of the NH, maybe you get a chance alignment of a very active sun with a warm ocean cycle that leads to a change in weather patterns that melts a considerable amount of ice/snow due to heavy rain. High elevation glaciers begin to recede, snow pack melts more in summer, albedo decreases and the system flips “warm” if there has been a long period of no major volcanic activity (but volcanic activity can prevent that “flip”)
    And it seems like the system is more stable in the “cold” state than it is in the “warm” state. We seem to sometimes “miss” coming out of ice ages when periods would be favorable (according to my reading) and have to wait for the next favorable period to come around again. We never seem to miss a favorable period for going back into an ice age during the past couple of million years.
    I believe solar activity could be cyclical on a longer scale that the time frames over which we have observed. They could have random variation in magnitude and duration. They can align in time with other events that happen in a cyclical way and whose cycles can also vary in magnitude and duration and all of that salted with random events (asteroid impact, volcano at just the right place at just the right time or the lack of one) that when all line up just right, cause a climactic state change.
    So basically, attempts to predict exactly when something is going to happen is probably useless effort. You can probably predict when things are LIKELY to happen. It is a pretty safe bet, in my opinion, to say that this interglacial will end at some time between now and the next few thousand years.
    What bothers me is what people are going to attempt to “do about it” when there really is nothing that they can “do about it” other than adapt.

  72. I just love graphs of about 25 solar cycles smashed down into 4 inches.
    They are so informative, can’t tell a fat SC from a skinny SC unless you have an implanted bionic microscope in one eye.
    Just makes me want to jump out of bed every morning and say “Whoopee!”

  73. Robert Rust:
    “we only count spots facing the Earth”
    Only recently do we have the ability to count spots on the other side of the Sun…which means if we counted spots away from Earth, we’d have no comparison to past records where it was only possible to count on this side of the Sun.

  74. Jeff-
    I also expect cooling to continue because of previous correlation between reduced solar activity and cooling.
    Leif has convinced me that the sun is not the driver. Nevertheless, I believe the sun is a useful indicator.
    Lyman Horne

  75. One thing that needs to constantly be in our mind when we discuss these things is the sun spot size. Every day earth experiences about 2 dozen earthquates, but no one is alarmed by this because most of them are “tiny tims” In the same way the tiny tim sunspots don’t amount to a hill of beans. The sun is quiet and it is going to get colder. Too bad they don’t rate sun spots like we rate earthquakes, maybe that would help us.

  76. Basil (08:21:46) :
    looking at the charts on Page 4 of the solar cycle transitions, how did you calculate your “yearly smoothed” values?
    Running mean over the year. At the end [last six months] I use my prediction of the next cycle. This can, of course, be debated, but I prefer this way rather than the various fancy ways of doing this such as Savitzky-Golay Smoothing that is just extrapolation.
    Others:
    In these graphs:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Crossover%20and%20Smoothed%20Minima.pdf
    I’ll try to explain the problems I see with calculating the length of the cycles. I construct artificial transitions between two cycles [old cycle dark blue; new cycle pink] using linear decline and ascent for simplicity. The open circles show the sum of the two ‘sunspot numbers’. The black smooth curve is a 5-point smooth. The abscissa is not years but more like half-years counted from the maximum of the old cycle. The time goes from max to max. The two cycles have different sizes and a parameter P quantifies this: P = size new/size old and is plotted at the high end of the pink curve. The first graph is for a very small new cycle [only a quarter of the old], while the last transition graph is for a very high new cycle [2.5 times the old]. The time TS of the smoothed minimum is also marked on the graphs [16.4 for the 1st].
    And here is my point: On the 1st graph TS is past the last spot of the old cycle and on the last graph TS is before the first spot of the new cycle. The TS is thus unphysical. I would prefer the time of the crossover TC as a better definition. One could smooth the old cycle and the new cycle separately in order to pinpoint the crossover [as I did in what Basil referred to]. The very last graph shows TS and TC as functions of the P-parameter. It is clear that if the next cycle is small, the length of the current cycle as measured using TS [the official method] will be too big. As I have mentioned, using TC, solar cycle 23 is within one sigma of the mean and therefore not unusual, even if longer than the mean.
    Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles. A lot of the numerology that uses such ‘lengths’ is contaminated by this effect and is over-interpreted and has little to do with science.
    David Corcoran (08:57:54) :
    the truly slow start of cycle 24 seems unlike other cycles observed in the last century. Am I wrong on that?
    No, as I have predicted several years ago [ http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf ] cycle 24 will be the smallest in a 100 years and thus probably a slow starter. There is an interesting aside to this paper. In the abstract we say that maximum would be ~2011 [the ‘~’ signifies ‘approximately’]. In our submitted paper we had the max in 2013, but a reviewer objected to that number saying that we had little basis for that, and in effect forced us to just use the average solar cycle length [you use the average if you don’t know better]. Peer review can sometimes be detrimental, although most often the paper improves.

  77. The sun has been shining away for something on the order of 5 x 10^9 years.
    Observation of the plasma ‘conveyor belt’ has covered 10^2 years– not even an eye-blink, as one would say in German. So how can we state with any confidence that observed behavior is ‘normal’ or not?

  78. “The “analysis” by Jeff appears to contain at least one fundamental flaw. ”
    Not sure what that might be. May 1996 is the official 23 minimum although September 1996 was supported by some. The major criterion of minimum is a smoothed 13-month SS count.
    If that fact remains, 6-9 months from now the ‘official’ minimum will certainly follow July/August.

  79. “Based on the graph I linked to, the length of SC23 is very similar to cycles 8, 10, 12, and 13, which occurred during the middle to late 1800s”
    Actually, size, length, shape, odd number and context are all part of the pattern-matching Jeff is entertaining.
    Cycle 9, which you did not include, is more interesting, possibly 11.

  80. It is good that others mention that the system of the
    sun, and sun spot minima distribution might not be
    random, but rather chaotic. We really do not know.
    So, I can hit this issue with the same stick used on
    the recent digits thread.
    Assuming a Gaussian distribution, and then performing
    Z-score analysis only provides useful information if the
    underlying process is _known_ to be random. It is easy
    to fool most of the people, including one’s self, with a
    sure sounding, but completely worthless, analysis.
    Stepping slightly off topic, we all see this problem writ
    large today. The mathematical model for packaging
    securitized mortgages assumed a smooth Guaussian
    distribution of risk. It was fundamentally wrong: some
    people are deadbeats. Their ability or desire to repay
    loans is not and cannot be related to my repayment
    history via Gaussian analysis. The distribution is
    discontinuous and non-differentiable. The model
    collapsed, and now we all have a $1,000,000,000,000
    error to deal with. The basis for the mortgage mess is
    incorrect application of mathematics. Let us not make the
    same error in the climate discussion. We cannot afford
    another $1,000,000,000,000 error at this time.
    Let us all hope for snow in Washington DC on Tuesday. Lots
    of snow.

  81. I am always intrigued to read comments like “the sun is not the driver”.
    As far as I can tell we understand very, very little about the sun (except that it is the input of our energy).
    We have some of the brightest people looking at trying to work it out and I have every faith in people like Leif Svalgaard and others one day working it all out. I believe we have begun to understand a great deal more about the sun and its influence, but, I humbly suggest that our knowledge is still very, very little.
    One of the very few things we do understand is the daily solar cycle. Now unless I am mistaken I think we know how that works and if anyone wants to convince me that daily temperatures are not driven by the sun then go right ahead.
    After that it gets a whole lot more complex.

  82. “” Werner Weber (22:39:30) :
    Whenever you invoke the sun as driver of climate variations, you may find a lot of correlations such as Maunder minimum and little ice age, but solar irradiance variations alone are far too small to account for the measured changes in global temperature. Little other than solar induced cosmic ray variations are left to be the driver, which brings up Svensmark’s idea of influencing the cloud formation through cosmic ray produced cloud droplet nucleation. Is there not a new paper based on satellite data, which reports no variation of cloud coverage through solar cycle 23 up to present? “”
    Werner,
    I keep seeing these statements that (a) the solar constant variation (0.1%) doesn’t explain global warming (I agree) and furthermore, the earth albedo and cloud cover haven’t changed; so nuts to Svensmark’s thesis.
    Well on the basis of the papers I have been seeing and what i have been hearing of thse various measurments, I disagree with the second statement.
    I also believe that if the solar constant variation over a sunspot cycle was absolutely zero, that the Svensmark scenario is mor ethan capable of explaining all the warming we have had.
    What I see as the key paper to this mystery is the July 2007 paper in SCIENCE by Wentz, et al; “How Much more Rain Will Global Warming Bring.”
    Essentially Wentz (RSS, Santa Rosa Ca) reported that their satellite measurments showed for a 1 deg C increase in global surface mean temperature, there was a 7% increase in Global evaporation; total atmospheric Water content; and total global precipitation.
    They also stated that the GCMs agree with the 7% increase in evaporation and total atmospheric water content (for a 1 deg C rise) but disagree totally in total global precipitation. The GCMs predict from 1 to 3 percent increase in total global precipitation.
    Now if total global evaporation, and total global precipitation do not match after a transient adjustment, in the direction the GCMs predict, then the total global atmospheric water content would continually increase, rather than match the 7% increase both observed by Wentz et al, and predicted by the GCMs.
    So the GCMs exhibit the obligatory 3:1 fudge factor, in their predictions, and also are at variance with both experimental observation and also common sense, by a factor of from 2 1/3 to 7 times lower than observed precipitation.
    So the GCMs are not even self consistent in their prediction, and also contrary to common sense. The total precipitation and total evaporation have to match (at constant temperature), after a transient adjustment of the total water content of the atmosphere because of the 1 deg rise.
    The GCMs would predict that the oceans would end up in the sky.
    Now what Wentz et al did not say in their paper, but which any 8th grade high school science student could predict, is that a 7% increase in total global precipitation; must inherently imply that the total global precipitable cloud cover should also increase by something of the order of 7%.
    Now that cloud cover increase could manifast itself, as an increase in cloud area, or an increase in cloud density (both water and optical), or an increase in cloud persistence time; or some combination of all three of those factors. Not all of those factors would be manifest in a measurement of the earth albedo; particularly the cloud water and optical density.
    But that effect would certainly reduce ground level solar insolation by more than just the albedo change.
    So perosnally, I believe that the paper of Wentz et al, is experimental verification of some of the implications of Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray thesis; and supports a model where the ocean/cloud sytem completely regulates the global surface temperature despite cosmic rays, CO2 and other GHGs, aerosols, and volcanic ash, etc.
    Anything that aids in cloud nucleation, particularly in the warmer tropics where there is plenty of atmospheric moisture, lowers the surface temperature (don’t need as much evaporation), and anything that inhibits cloud formation; such as particulate clean air, or diversion of cosmic rays and other charged particles towards the magnetic poles where there is much less water vapor, will lead to surface warming by requiring a higher humidity, more evaporation, to produce the required equilibrium level of global cloud cover. And I believe that model would work the same even if sunspot cycles produced no change whatsoever in the solar constant.
    George

  83. Lief,
    “Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles.”
    It leaves me with some questions.
    If the numbers are symmetrically smoothed, wouldn’t the shape of the down/uptrend have a very minimal effect on time?
    Maybe I’m not understanding, are you saying the smoothing method decenter’s the minima just by slope or is the smoothing done asymmetrically?
    —-
    Other comments point out the minima I calculated are not the official cycle start/end values. I just located a consistent point in the data plotted it and ran
    a very short analysis having no idea what it would find. The whole thing was the result of about two hours work after spending other time working on an improved correction to satellite temperature signal.
    —-
    GG sliding slope fit, I mean I fit a slope to a sliding window of the time series data. Sorry for the terminology.

  84. Andrew (07:38:59) :
    If we are entering a new solar minimum, shall we call it the Hansen Minimum or the Gore Minimum? Or perhaps the Hansen/Gore Minimum.

    Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.

  85. To Frank Perdicaro,
    The Obama’s are in DC now (kids in school and all) and today’s high so far is 18F. If it doesn’t hit 20F for the high in the Baltimore region (where I live), it will be the first time in 5 years. Forecast for Tuesday in this area is 32F, mostly cloudy with 10% chance of precipitation.
    The optimistic cynic in me hopes that “Climate Change” for liberals will be like abortion for conservatives. You drag it out repeatedly to garner passion in your base but when all is said and done, there is a whole lot more said than done.

  86. “” PaulHClark (10:57:17) :
    I am always intrigued to read comments like “the sun is not the driver”. “”
    And Paul, as far as I have been able to determine; that roughly 24 hour daily cycle is not even a part of the global climate models, or even the GCMs.
    As far as I am concerned, the sun beats down on planet earth with a blow torch that has about 0.5 degree angular divergence, and a mean irradiance at earth orbit of about 1368 W/m^2, and that blowtorch scoots across the earth’s surface at about 450 m/s at the point closest to the sun, (modified by the effect of the axis tilt).
    Then the earth’s atmosphere gets in the act of modifying the arradiance, while warming some from the energy it extract from the blow torch.
    Most points on the ground do not end up enjoying a constant 24 hour irradiance at 198 W/m^2 as depicted in the NOAA energy budget; so quite naturally, the thermal processes that most points undergo, do not conform to any model based on a constant irradiance, along with various desatbilizing “Forcings”.
    Couldn’t find “forcings” listed in any of my handbooks of Physics, or Chemistry, or Optics, or Infrared Technology etc. Nor could I determine the SI unit of “forcings”, nor where the standards are maintained.
    Well I also could not find any such data on “anomalies” either.
    But by Osmosis, I have sort of gathered that at least the GISStemp “anomalies” are a function of the AlGorerythm employed by NASA guru, Dr James Hansen, that he holds as a trade secret; and apparently; according to Anthony’s reports, he changes at will without explanation.
    George

  87. “Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.”
    But, Jeff, Gore discovered the minimum on the same day he invented the internet…

  88. Anthony,
    Do the following instead.
    1) FFT of data.
    2) Take absolute value of FFT results.
    3) Plot histogram (tricky part if using Excel because Excel does a lousy job of picking bin widths).
    If you do not see a distinct gaussian distribution, try taking 10*log10 of the absolute values. If you can make believe that the number of sunspots roughly correlates to the power of sunspot activity you can roughly make believe this is valid to do.
    Else show me how to get the data myself.

  89. The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide – The Innocent Source of Life
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
    “The first 20 ppm of CO2 essentially makes the atmosphere almost opaque at those previously shown wave lengths (4.3 microns, 15 microns), so that doubling the concentration to 40 ppm increases the heating effect by only 20 % more. Doubling it again to 80 ppm increases the heating effect by only 7 %. As you can see, increasing the concentration further diminishes the heating effect, so that by the time we get to the last century’s increase from 280 to 380 ppm, the effect is utterly trivial. It is as though you had blackened a glass window with one coat of paint so that it was 99 % opaque. Adding a second coat increases its opacity by only 1 % more, but it is now completely opaque. Adding a third coat, has no visible effect at all.”

  90. JDS (22:56:00) :
    If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.”

    While I think I understand the intent of your comment, personally I would prefer that it should be named after someone with a well deserved and respected name in science.

  91. @crosspatch (22:57:31) :
    You wrote in part:
    “A new hypothesis of the cause of solar magnetic changes is that it seems to be proportional to the use of refrigerator magnets. The booming economy in China has resulted in a proliferation of refrigerators. Each one of these devices have the potential to attract one or more magnets that we use for such innocent purposes as holding photos of loved ones, shopping lists, or other items. We need to institute a global refrigerator magnet tax with the proceeds going toward those researching alternative solar technology.”
    I hate to pick a fight with you but clearly that hypothesis is rubbish. Magnetic Vortex Theory provides the most plausible explanation. All of those magnetic tapes spinning around playing the BeeGees and disco music caused a magnetic vortex which built in strength until it affected the solar magnetic conveyor. The observed data strongly supports this theory.
    You need proof, you say? In the late 60’s and through the 70’s, when the earth was reaching it’s coolest point in the temperature cycle, spinning magnetic tapes were just beginning to take off with the invention of the 8-track tape player. As the use of spinning magnetic tapes in the form of cassette tape players began to grow exponentially during the 80’s, and then cassette player use was bolstered by home viewing of VHS tapes and computers using floppy discs during the 90’s, global temperatures climbed steadily.
    Then a curious thing happened around 1999-2000. People began switching en masse to CDs and then DVDs. Well of course with the cessation of the spinning of magnetic tapes, the solar magnetic conveyor began to slow down, sunspots declined, and subsequently temperatures have begun to fall to this day.
    It would be an easy matter to replicate these conditions and provide conclusive proof of Magnetic Vortex Theory. We all just need lobby our Senators and Congressional Representatives to ban the use of CDs or DVDs and mandate a return to cassette tapes, VCRs, and floppy drives.
    If we don’t do this WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE ON SNOWBALL EARTH!!!!!!! We only have TEN MORE YEARS before we reach the TIPPING POINT!!!
    We MUST do it for the children, kittens, baby ducks, and the survival of human race.

  92. PaulHClark (12:05:16) :
    George E. Smith (11:54:45)
    Hear, hear.
    Well said to both of you. Very clear common sense.

  93. “In our submitted paper we had the max in 2013, but a reviewer objected to that number saying that we had little basis for that”
    Sorry to hear of it.
    “Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles.”
    Since the ‘corrections’ are provisional we don’t take it as a detraction. Jeff did fine with the ‘data’ as it currently stands.

  94. George E. Smith (11:54:45) :
    AlGorerythm
    Classic! LOL…i’m going to have to shamelessly steal that one at some point or another!

  95. “Ross (12:49:56) :
    ‘JDS (22:56:00) :
    If this turns out to presage an extended period of below-average global temperatures, I hope it is called the “Gore Minimum.” ‘
    While I think I understand the intent of your comment, personally I would prefer that it should be named after someone with a well deserved and respected name in science.”
    You could go with a Gore maximum 😉

  96. Ed Scott,
    My money job is in optics. I am interested in getting the absorption spectra for gaseous CO2 for the full range of solar wavelengths, yet so far I can’t find it. It has to be out there.
    If anyone knows where I can find the data I have seen plotted so many times, it would be appreciated. I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.

  97. Andrew (07:38:59) :
    I was thinking about this same thing earlier. Should it be the Archibald, Watts. or D’Aleo Minimum? 🙂

  98. gary gulrud (12:57:12) :
    “Using the ‘official’ smoothed sunspot numbers to calculate cycle lengths skews the length depending on the relative sizes of the cycles.”
    Since the ‘corrections’ are provisional we don’t take it as a detraction. Jeff did fine with the ‘data’ as it currently stands.

    I think you missed the whole point. The ‘official’ numbers are ok for this. What is not OK is to calculate minimum they way he [and everybody else in general] did it and then to infer that cycle 23 is exceptional. The exceptionalness is an artifact of the method not a property of the Sun.

  99. Suppose Something IS Wrong with the Sun (something like entering a Grand/Great Minimum). Suppose such a change in solar activity might have profound implications on climate, ecosystems and our civilization. What would be the response of the government if it knows or suspects the situation?
    Obviously, it will try to prevent the spead of panic for as long as possible by ignoring, minimizing and discrediting the observed events (lack of sunspots, a plunge in solar and geomagnetic levels, weakening of solar wind , slowing of the solar conveyor, cold weather, etc.). So, Drs. D. Hathaway and L. Swalgaard are just doing their job in an awkward effort to shape public opinion.

  100. Hey Leif,
    Do you have a graphic somewhere that shows the relative positions of new and old cycle spots on the surface of the sun during the transition between the cycles? How high (or low) in latitude does a spot have to occur to be considered a spot from the previous cycle?

  101. Assigning probabilities to number of sigmas as in: 2-sigma = 95%.
    assume a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Do the data support that assumption? There are tests.

  102. After reading many of these comments it appears to me that at this time there are too many variables with some known and others unknown as well as perturbations caused by our solar and galactic environment to accurately predict how long the minimum solar period may last nor when the next maximum may occur or its magnitude. There is a chance that someone may come close by their studies but it would take more than one cycle to verify and hopefully they may live long enough to realize this accomplishment. While using previous solar cycle lengths and maximums and using suspect global surface temperatures and SSTs in analyses well as applying mathematical gymnastics may be interesting in trying to predict future climate the sun in the end may have the last evolutionary laugh or an errant asteroid!

  103. “Well of course with the cessation of the spinning of magnetic tapes, the solar magnetic conveyor began to slow down, sunspots declined, and subsequently temperatures have begun to fall to this day.”
    We reviewed that scenario and came to the conclusion that it “didn’t matter” because the decrease in spinning magnetic tape was greatly offset by the increase in spinning magnetic disks. We all agree that the science is settled. The cause is obviously an increase in the number of pirates globally.
    “Adding a third coat, has no visible effect at all.”
    Yeah, not a bad analogy. But it is even worse because water vapor already blocks the same spectrum (and more) that CO2 blocks. So it is sort of like having CO2 be a translucent bluish paint layer applied and then a thick black layer (water) is applied over that. When you apply another layer of that translucent blue, it really doesn’t have much impact in the amount of IR reaching the surface or leaving the surface for space. Water vapor is going to so swamp CO2 over most of the planet that CO2 just isn’t going to make that much difference. Now air is very dry at the poles so CO2 will make the most difference there but not so much in causing additional heating, as in preventing additional cooling. CO2 greenhouse warming should cause a great increase in winter low temperatures in the Arctic. To my knowledge we aren’t seeing any evidence of that. GISS can not be relied on because Arctic temperatures used for that are not observations, Hansen plugs in the temperatures for the Arctic that his model says it should be.

  104. Jeff Alberts (11:38:27) :

    Andrew (07:38:59) :
    If we are entering a new solar minimum, shall we call it the Hansen Minimum or the Gore Minimum? Or perhaps the Hansen/Gore Minimum.

    Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.
    ACK! WHO let AlGore out in the sun? Who? They have let the Gore Effect reach the sun!!! Now we are all doomed. DOOOMED!!!

  105. Jeff Id (11:30:28) :
    If the numbers are symmetrically smoothed, wouldn’t the shape of the down/uptrend have a very minimal effect on time?
    Maybe I’m not understanding, are you saying the smoothing method decenter’s the minima just by slope or is the smoothing done asymmetrically?

    The smoothing [symmetrical] moves the resulting minima away from the ‘real’ minima as I tried to show in
    http://www.leif.org/research/Crossover%20and%20Smoothed%20Minima.pdf
    Take the first and the penultimate of the graphs and note how the minima determined by the lowest point of the smoothed curve fall at ‘unphysical’ times. For the 1st one: after time 15 there are no more old spots and the new spot count is rising, so clearly the minimum cannot be to the right of 15, yet the smoothed curve has its minimum at 16.4. Similarly for the other graph.
    The issue hangs on what the minimum is. We can arbitrarily define that the minimum is the lowest value of a 13-month smoothed sunspot count, but the Sun doesn’t know about that. One could argue that there may be a point where ‘aggregate’ solar activity at that point is minimal. There may be more than one such point, but that can be overcome by suitable smoothing of each cycle separately. What is ‘wrong’ to do is to mix the two cycles in the smoothing. At the sunspot prediction panel meetings we gave a lot of thought to this [and exchanged more heat than light, I’m afraid]. In the end we couldn’t agree what a ‘proper’ physical definition of minimum should be, except that it is NOT just the minimum of the smoothed sunspot number.
    The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24. Imagine that there were no spots at all for the next three years. Cycle 23 is definitely dead. Its last spot could signal the end of the cycle. Hard to argue that the cycle drags on when there are no spots from that cycle. It would be like saying that the last cycle before the Maunder minimum really lasted 70 years. The slow start of cycle 24 may simply mean that it will be a small cycle in which case the up-slope is smaller than the down-slope for 23, skewing the minimum towards later times.
    If you take a look at http://www.leif.org/research/Region%20Days%20per%20Month%20for%2023-24.png
    You might agree with me that if no new cycle 23 spots appear, the minimum was in ~August 2008, no matter what cycle 24 does.
    Other comments point out the minima I calculated are not the official cycle start/end values.To my knowledge there are no ‘official’ start/end values. There is an official smoothed sunspot number that is often used by individuals to determine where the minimum ‘is’.

  106. H.R. (12:50:00) :
    I hate to pick a fight with you but clearly that hypothesis is rubbish. Magnetic Vortex Theory provides the most plausible explanation. […] The observed data strongly supports this theory.

    Do not let Leif see this! He will use it endlessly to prove that the correlation of planets to sunspots is not causality!
    Loved it … but…
    We MUST do it for the children, kittens, baby ducks, and the survival of human race.
    You forgot the fuzzy bunny rabbits!

  107. Looking at the distribution, it appears that you have two “populations”, so taking the standard deviation of the entire mess doesn’t have any real meaning. It is like plotting the height of NBA players along with midgets, finding an average of 5′-8″, with a standard deviation of 8″. It really doesn’t give you any useful information.
    The two peaks of the distribution suggests that we have two populations, as if the sun operates in two different “states”. When it is operating in state A, the periods tend to be shorter with an average around 10.5. When it is operating in state B, the periods tend to be longer with an average around 12.5.
    But until a mechanism is discovered to support this, it is pointless to guess whether the current cycle is a 2-sigma state A or a typical state B.

  108. Leif,
    Could you explain the mechanism for the Solar Conveyor belt and if it s still abnormally slow now, 2 years after Hathaway’s observation?
    Thanks.
    Also could some one direct me to a link with a summary of Leif’s argument that the sun is not the climate driver?
    And finally I apologize if this has been discussed before but there are lots of possibilities for the sun to add warming energy to our climate.
    Does anyone know of calculations measuring the currents induced by space weather. Like an electrical generator, increasing a magnetic field proportionally increases the current. And over the last 100 years the solar magnetic field has reportedly doubled. Energy generation increases by the square of the current. Induced electric fields just need to start electrons and ions moving a very short distance, then where ever there are random collisions,it will create heat like any heating coil. This is energy not accounted for when just looking at TSI.
    Increased sunspot activity is associated with increased UV which will affect the ionosphere and thus induced currents. This could amplify portions of the TSI spectrum’s impact on climate.
    There is an observed increase in short duration disturbances with increased susnpot activity. Short duration solar flares and CMEs have resulted in induced currents of 100 amps in pipelines. Other induced currents knocked out electric grids in Qubec and Sweden. In 1859-ish there was reports of telegraphs not only getting disrupted but telegraph papers catching fire during a solar flare.
    So we know there are powerful currents generated. In the late 1800’s people had patents for earth batteries. Big names like Lord Kelvin were looking at these currents. But except for protecting pipelines and grids I m not aware of much discussion on induced earth currents.
    The intensity of induced currents seems to increase toward the poles as well as an increased night time effect which is in keeping with warming data.
    My impression is that sun rejected as a driver only because recent satellite data observes too little change in TSI in the past 25 years. But that is the same time period that sunspot activity was plateau-ing. The doubling of the sun’s magnetic field over the pas 100 years suggests that the sun’s out put may well have increased as well. And absorption of heat by the oceans would cause lag effects. Also the height of solar flares and CME’s seem to lag a few years after sunspot max.
    Throw in Svensmark’s cosmic rays and cloud creation there is a lot of room for solar impact that has not yet been measured.

  109. kim (06:37:57) :
    Jack Eddy liked words and enjoyed the alliteration of Maunder Minimum, which he named, and chose that name over others perhaps more apt.

    Then perhaps we ought to call the diminishing magnetosphere, lower solar wind, and the greater GCR flux complex as The Eddy Current ? …
    PUT DOWN THOSE PITCHFORKS! It wasn’t that bad!! Back, back…

  110. Jeff
    Interesting analysis.
    Your histogram suggests that there may be some asymmetry in the distribution.
    May I recommend rank ordering the data and then fitting that ordered list to cumulative distribution functions that have have asymmetric distributions, or which have at least three parameters that can provide for asymmetric distributions.
    e.g. suggest looking at the Poisson distribution.
    Another option might be the Weibull distribution with asymmetry shown by the measure of kurtosis.
    When you have good fits to the cumulative distribution, then see where the current cycle fits along that cumulative distribution.

  111. George E. Smith (11:54:45) :
    as far as I have been able to determine; that roughly 24 hour daily cycle is not even a part of the global climate models, or even the GCMs.
    The models use a time step of ~15 minutes, so, yes the daily cycle is part of the models.

  112. George E. Smith
    “Couldn’t find “forcings” listed in any of my handbooks of Physics, or Chemistry, or Optics, or Infrared Technology etc. Nor could I determine the SI unit of “forcings”, nor where the standards are maintained.”

    Ditto.
    I suspect that “forcings” means predominant effects, or something like that. As opposed to negligible effects. E.g, Coriolis effect is negligible in short-range ballistics, but has a larger effect on long-range shots.
    However, I am only an egg, and do not yet grok the fullness.
    — (R.A. Heinlein, the standard against whom all others are measured, IMHO).

  113. crosspatch (08:00:29) :
    His plotting of these intervals and how they correspond with events is, however, uncanny.

    The observation that washing hands between patients reduced deaths came before the correct understanding of why. It was still a valuable contribution…

  114. Andrew (07:38:59) :
    If we are entering a new solar minimum, shall we call it the Hansen Minimum or the Gore Minimum? Or perhaps the Hansen/Gore Minimum.
    Neither. Naming something like that is intended to give credit for discovery, not cause.

    We must get this suggested 10 times a week….but I agree it needs to be named after someone truly famous for a big discovery in the Grand Minima area. Not Landscheiht or Eddy but Paul Jose who in 1965 discovered the recurring 179 yr pattern that is present in every grand minimum so far and will be present in the one we are most likely entering now.
    vukcevic (09:11:11) :
    I agree. If one method doesn’t work maybe we should consider something new.
    And the current method is not working is it vukcevic. But everyone keeps their head in the sand. You might enjoy this bit I wrote in another thread on this website that is near dead. Its related to Jose’s work.
    Edward Morgan asked Svalgaard
    I mean do you not agree that Jupiter and the planets when aligned move the sun at all and that the sun moves around the centre of the mass of the solar system? Ed
    This is another area not covered in Jagers so called paper, its something explained away by others as having no effect because we are free falling through space or use “flat eather” type ridicule as we see from Svalgaard on a constant basis. But its interesting that the Sun follows 2 distinct paths, 1 wide loop of around 2 solar radius formed by J+S together and 2 a much smaller loop that crosses back over itself formed by J+S opposed where the Sun is much closer to the centre of the solar system. When you look at the pattern the Sun is pulled all over the place. The Sun spends approx 10 yrs in each loop which could be a rhythm or resonance setting up the solar cycles and polarity changes. Outside of grand minima period this is exactly the type of solar cyclic motion and timing involved. But of course N+U come along approx every 179 yrs to spoil the party, creating max and min momentum that completely changes the ordered path the Sun was following. This also coincides EXACTLY with grand minima….everytime.
    Science cant deny these facts, but instead the majority hide behind ridicule and arguments that it “cant be real” because they dont have a scientific argument right now and the facts go against all the work they have done so far…its akin to the AGW crowd and the IPCC trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

  115. crosspatch (08:00:29) :
    “Perhaps it’s time to re-visit the ideas of Dr. Theodor Landscheidt”
    Probably not. For example. While the 11 year cycle is somewhat analogous to the orbit of Jupiter, I don’t believe a solar scientist would say that the orbit of Jupiter is responsible for the cycles. And while Landscheidt might have noticed something happening at particular intervals, what he proposes as the cause is probably not it. His plotting of these intervals and how they correspond with events is, however, uncanny.

    Not sure that Landscheidt was all that big on linking Jupiter to the 11 yr sunspot cycles, and solar scientists really are still in the dark even though they will profess otherwise. Landscheidt followed on from Jose, and its more than “uncanny”. There has been lots of new work done since Landscheidt, you should check it out and get upto speed.
    http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/

  116. OK from http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf
    we have
    In the following section of this report, instead of maximum tide potential, analysis of alignment and near-alignment of all planets was conducted. It is thought that such alignment would most likely have significant tidal effect because it ensures a single tide that, although not necessarily having the highest tide peak, is a broad global tide that, in one solar rotation, will have a significant variation in tide potential. In addition, the converging, and then diverging, of all tides caused by the individual planets being examined may provide the pressure differences needed to change the movement of plasma in the magnetic field in solar corona, resulting in moving, reshaping, merging, or dispersing the magnetic fields
    in the solar atmosphere, leading to increased solar activity. Furthermore, when the planets are perfectly aligned, the tide is high and narrow; the rotating solar atmosphere would experience large tide force for a relatively short time. When the planets are only nearly aligned, the tide was not as high but broad; the solar atmosphere would continuously experience moderate tidal force for a relatively long time. The tidal effects would be significant in both cases.

    Which seems to say that the planets, via tides, can have a significant effect on the sun. Well? (Hey, it’s from NASA, it has to right doesn’t it? 😉

  117. If not the Gore or Hansen Minimum, surely the cap and trade tax could be named after them, or perhaps a electrical brown out like they had in Calif a few years ago….
    The Gore Dark Era. The years we had to burn the furnature in the oven to stay warm.

  118. “Suppose Something IS Wrong with the Sun (something like entering a Grand/Great Minimum). Suppose such a change in solar activity might have profound implications on climate, ecosystems and our civilization. What would be the response of the government if it knows or suspects the situation?”
    Congress would pass the “Save the Sun Emergency Protection Act,” which would authorize the ramming of spaceships packed with hundred dollar bills into the sun in an effort to re-start its fusion reaction. After all, it’s for the children.

  119. “” Leif Svalgaard (14:51:01) :
    George E. Smith (11:54:45) :
    as far as I have been able to determine; that roughly 24 hour daily cycle is not even a part of the global climate models, or even the GCMs.
    The models use a time step of ~15 minutes, so, yes the daily cycle is part of the models. “”
    I stand corrected. That is good to know, that short time intervals like that are used in the models.
    Are any of these models available in a form where one could actually use them.
    I think about all the computer time and power that is being wasted listening to cosmic random noise and trying to find e-mail messages from ET in there.
    It would be much more useful, trying to run physical models of the earth system, than messing with whether there is anybody out ther in the universe who gives a hoot about us.
    I can just see it; sneding out a question into the void, asking for a cure for cancer; to a “civilisation” 50 light years away form us. A hundred years from now, somebody is going to get an answer from “out there”, and then ask; “what idiot sent this dumb question out; we’ve known how to cure cancer for over 80 years now!”
    Yeah really useful talking with ET.
    Well it’s too bad that Hansen doesn’t make data measurements on a scale similar to those used by the models; maybe the models and the measurements would agree if they were modelling what they are measuring, instead of two totally different things.
    I would expect that a climate model would be able to replicate Hansen’s GISStemp raw data form each of Anthony’s observation posts, since the models have more detail than the measurments.
    Of course If they are unable to replicate the past which is known; what chance is there for them to predict the future ?

  120. crosspatch (13:47:06) :
    Now air is very dry at the poles so CO2 will make the most difference there but not so much in causing additional heating, as in preventing additional cooling. CO2 greenhouse warming should cause a great increase in winter low temperatures in the Arctic.

    Um, when the sun goes quiet and the UV drops, the polar O3 drops a great deal (at least per the ozone anomaly charts I’ve seen). That opens a 9-10 micron IR window not plugged by CO2 … so maybe the poles don’t get ‘warmed’ by CO2 after all during solar minima, and that’s why we are not seeing it. And why we are having very cold arctic blasts freezing us (alternating with residual tropical warm air when the jet stream wobbles…)
    GISS can not be relied on because Arctic temperatures used for that are not observations, Hansen plugs in the temperatures for the Arctic that his model says it should be.
    Please say this isn’t so… please… How can you use a data series where the data are simply made up, imaginings… Does he then use these made up numbers to ‘adjust’ the trends and averages and via them the past? GAK!
    Anthony? Does this sound like an article just waiting to be written? An audit of the surface station that doesn’t exist…
    Well, at least now we know why “The north pole is experiencing unprecedented warming” while Alaska is freezing its tush off…

  121. Given our political class’s disinclination to allow any potential crisis to pass without their being seen to have done something, no matter how counterproductive, to solve it, I believe we have only a short time to act before they turn their destructive intentions on our “malfunctioning” sun. I propose a crash program to build a brand new, double wide, double long version of the space shuttle. The old Lockheed “Skunkworks” used to be pretty good at turning out exotic craft on short order, so they might be good candidates for the job. As soon as the shuttle is ready, we load the full membership of the House and the Senate aboard and launch them on a detailed fact finding mission to the Sun. But, you say, the Sun is to hostile an environment for such a mission, but it’s ok, we’ll send them at night.
    With apologies to polish jokesters everywhere.

  122. @crosspatch (13:47:06) :
    ““Well of course with the cessation of the spinning of magnetic tapes, the solar magnetic conveyor began to slow down, sunspots declined, and subsequently temperatures have begun to fall to this day.”
    We reviewed that scenario and came to the conclusion that it “didn’t matter” because the decrease in spinning magnetic tape was greatly offset by the increase in spinning magnetic disks. We all agree that the science is settled. The cause is obviously an increase in the number of pirates globally.”
    Oh, I knew you’d say that. Everyone knows you’re on the payroll of “Big Pirates”. I suppose if we all send you a huge sum of money you can get the pirates to back off? Oh. And I categorically deny that I get $.07 royalty for every disco cassette tape sold.
    @E.M. Smith
    Actually, I was hoping to slip that one in under Leif’s radar. Offhand, my guess is he doesn’t wholeheartedly support that theory. I think it’s the disco music part of the theory that he has problems with… OK. Maybe some of the other parts of it, too… OK. Maybe all of it.
    Also, I think adding fuzzy bunny rabbits is an excellent suggestion and I thank you for it. It should help me get an increase in next year’s funding from “Big Disco.”

  123. Lief,
    Ok, that’s what I thought you meant about filtering causing a shift. The effect in the graphs you show where the minimum of the first falls at 16.4 the crossing point of the two lines falls at about 13.9 so the delta is 2.5 units. In the second graph with what looks like much different slope in terms of sunspots the minimum is 15 but the cross point is about 13.2 units for a delta of 1.8. The net change in the cross point is 2.5-1.8 or 0.7 which doesn’t seem like a huge effect for the type of analysis I did. Especially considering the second part of the analysis used the more recent data which has limited variation.
    “You might agree with me that if no new cycle 23 spots appear, the minimum was in ~August 2008, no matter what cycle 24 does.”
    It wouldn’t really be a good definition for this calculation since I can’t see the magnetic field of the historic sunspots and therefore can’t compare the whole trend (I don’t know if this data even exists for the same timeframe). By locating a consistent point in the trend for each cycle I only showed that we have extended to an unusually long time before the next upshift — comparing like to like.
    I do these things to learn though, not to prove a point. The entire analysis took only a couple of hours and so far from what I can tell, it seems reasonably valid in terms of pointing out a less typical effect in solar cycles. I realized before I made the post that the histogram may not be normal distribution but it is enough for me to see where we currently are. I fully expected a very boring result but found that we had drifted outside the typical range for the last 175 years.
    —-
    One question though if you don’t mind.
    Do you recommend using the timeseries with crossed slope matching to identify the minima? I could do the analysis that way as well.

  124. Leif,
    Sorry I was rushing a bit.
    Do you recommend using the timeseries with crossed slopes as in the graphs you gave as examples to identify the minima? I could do the analysis that way as well and use a best fit of Hathaway’s prediction (slide it into place) for an estimate of the next cycle.

  125. Ever notice that the current short term temperature trending (in geologic terms) has been touted as being unprecedented, even though in historical terms it is not unusual, but when you get a potentially unusual event that could affect the ‘consensus’ argument, they go back to the long term trending to ‘disprove’ any argument against their consensus?
    Kind of a double standard in their arguments…

  126. Leif Svalgaard (14:51:01) :
    The models use a time step of ~15 minutes, so, yes the daily cycle is part of the models.

    Maybe, maybe not. They could have a model with 15m steps but modeling a world that is twilight all the time everywhere. The time step issue is disjoint from the ‘do they have day and night’ issue. It does say they have the ability to have modeled daily changes, but does not evidence that they did so.

  127. One more thing about the data distribution. Of course it affects the 95% confidence number but remember that 95% is an entirely arbitrary number anyway and my analysis has us well past the 95% level. The histogram which has the bimodal nature is of the entire dataset. After the maunder minimum there are only 16 cycles of data from 175 years to work with.
    This leaves only15 delta t’s. From that small set, I don’t know what distribution the data on that few points really has, but it doesn’t look bimodal. What I do believe is that the current minimum to minimum trend is unusually long for that 175 years.
    I had some suggestions to use other distributions and things, I don’t know if this bit of data is interesting enough or lengthly enough for that kind of detail.

  128. Tom in Texas (16:42:41) :
    “The Gore Dark Era”
    I believe we can date it as beginning next Tuesday.
    Has everyone else seen all the crap in the detailed Stimulus Bill?

    I’d say it began in 1992.

  129. Solar Cycle 24 has most probably started simply because Solar Cycle 23 has run out. Solar cycles have their inception at the magnetic reversal at the peak of the previous cycle. On that basis, Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old, and only a couple of solar cycles have produced sunspots 19 years after the peak of the previous cycle.
    Solar cycles are discrete events, so the story from here is the weakness of Solar Cycle 24. Sunspots are second order derivative things, being the magnetic flux tubes that floated to the Sun’s surface, so the visible sunspot cycles are second order derivative. The big story is the solar coronal magnetic field strength, which modulates climate via GCR flux and UV flux, and most likely other mechanisms. The Earthly manifestation of solar coronal magnetic field strength is the ap (and aa) index.
    Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU. El Ninos and La Ninas are additive, and it looks like we are in for a 1970s-style run of La Ninas.

  130. David Archibald (17:57:51) :
    Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old, and only a couple of solar cycles have produced sunspots 19 years after the peak of the previous cycle.
    Interesting observation, and I bet if we had enough sunspot data we would probably see that type of incident recurring on a cyclic basis.

  131. The notion that changes in solar radiation don’t make a difference has always bothered me. This is because we keep hearing about how relatively tiny changes caused by things like power plant output can cause such a large change in temperatures but a change in the input from the sun apparently don’t.
    For example, it has been stated that one contributor of “global warming” would be the reduction of pollutants from coal power plants over the years causing an increase in the solar radiation reaching the ground while not changing the amount of IR radiated into space. It changes the balance and by changing that balance you might not have an impact that you notice at that moment, but if that change over a long period of time, where each day you put a little more energy into the oceans or a little less, but don’t change anything that changes the amount radiated into space, you either warm or cool the oceans (Earth’s heatsink) over time.
    So if the amount of sunlight is reduced a little, I believe it plausible that there could be a degree of temperature change over a period of, say, 36525 days.
    [Reply: my mistake. Sorry, ~dbstealey, mod.]

  132. Jeff Id (13:32:54) :
    “Ed Scott,
    My money job is in optics. I am interested in getting the absorption spectra for gaseous CO2 for the full range of solar wavelengths, yet so far I can’t find it. It has to be out there.
    If anyone knows where I can find the data I have seen plotted so many times, it would be appreciated. I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.”
    I don’t agree that “It has to be out there”. In fact I think that, broadly, it was one of the very first things that was disappeared when this scam was thought up.
    I have some questions.
    All-
    Why are we constantly told that the science is settled on this matter? Along with all the “this was explained in 1896” stuff.
    Where is the location of all the(/any) new, revealing, authoritative evidence that CO2 “does” anything that the billions of dollars per year thrown at this settled science has purchased on behalf of the tax paying public?
    George- In the spirit of your post at (11:54:45) : (and in some hope that your copy of The Infrared Handbook is a book you keep to hand)
    What is the real IR fingerprint of CO2?
    Why are there still no numbers on the comparison of the fingerprint absorption of CO2 compared to the quantity of its black body absorption? I may have this completely arse-about-face but I am frustrated that we are told “someone knows” and maybe it’s you 😉
    I am thinking of making book on the eventual findings relating to the “doubling” problem, it’s just that I just cannot figure the odds based on current theory or lack thereof.
    So far I have, estimates dismissed; (for various reasons, from “guy is unknown/out of their field/mad” to “paper contains spelling mistakes”)
    22ppmv (a CO2 laser guy)
    100ppmv (a disenchanted chemist?)
    388ppmv (our current window)
    And, of course, the alarmists series that will cause our orbit to degrade and plunge us all into fiery hell;
    488ppmv (today, plus a purely arbitrary 100 to add some flavor – an, if they can do it so can I, type of thing)
    560ppmv (the supposedly deadly doubling from pre-industrial levels)
    776ppmv (the supposedly deadly doubling from current levels)
    above 776ppmv (a theoretical limit, possibly based on burning all the combustible material available to us, and where the problem becomes moot as we are all dead)
    Any takers? I am in the UK, so it’s off to bed for me, but, in the words of the current Governor of California…,
    I’ll be back.

  133. crosspatch: If I get a pinhole leak in my tire, eventually I find myself at the side of the road.
    If the sun’s output is less, and the “R” value of the ionosphere has shrunken, I’m sure that over time it’s going to get a lot colder than it is now.
    In my neck of the woods, during the solar minimums we get the record high-pressure in January and the record temps, while the rest of the country gets blasted with Arctic Air Mass. And right now, we had a week of breaking the previous records. Seems to be right on track.

  134. Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU. El Ninos and La Ninas are additive, and it looks like we are in for a 1970s-style run of La Ninas.
    I saw that, and it certainly caught my eye. It is certainly a bold prediction.

  135. Been browsing the daily sunspot records and although July/August 2008 seems a reasonable minimum it could also still be in the future. My prediction is July 2009. This would be a 13.2 year cycle which would be the 5th longest in the last 36 cycles so not to noteworthy. Note: prediction is not based on any science at all just trending and if trending worked I would be a very rich man today.

  136. A confessed newbie here.
    But, I was intrigued by the link posted earlier (but apparently not on this post, now I cannot locate it) on the monthly/annual temperatures for Central England dating back to 1659.
    I downloaded and did some simple analyses, and found some fascinating things (at least to me).
    First, for the 150 year period of 1750 to 1900, the annual temperature showed no perceptible trend at all, just wandered a bit up and down around 9 degrees C. (I used a 10-year moving average). This stable period of temperature occurred during the Industrial Revolution, when coal or wood was the predominant fuel world-wide. OIl and gas were not in widespread use until after 1900.
    Seems amazing to me, if CO2 and CH4 (methane) are such powerful greenhouse gases, that the amount of GHG emitted during the Industrial Revolution over 150 years did not appreciably increase the temperatures in Central England.
    I understand the temperature record for one country does not represent the entire globe. Still, over 150 years? No increase? I would have thought the urban heat island effect might have shown up, or time of day error, or errors due to switching over to a new thermometer every few years.
    Fascinating stuff, Anthony and all of you guest posters and commenters. I learn at least one new thing here every day.
    Roger E. Sowell
    Marina del Rey, California

  137. Anthony:
    If you are still in wonderment about winning the Blog Award, look back at this thread. Just about the time a reader feels like they are drowning in science/technology, along comes Fred to break the spell:
    “Congress would pass the “Save the Sun Emergency Protection Act,” which would authorize the ramming of spaceships packed with hundred dollar bills into the sun in an effort to re-start its fusion reaction. After all, it’s for the children.”
    When the postings in one thread can cover the gamut from PhD dissertation level discussions to statements which make it difficult to remain firmly seated, how could you lose?

  138. Interesting, my comment above says:

    So if the amount of sunlight is reduced a little, I believe it plausible that there could be a degree of temperature change over a period of, say, 365.25 days.

    But I am sure I meant to say 36525 days (100 years).

  139. George M,
    Nobody’s in ‘wonderment.’ You’re just cherry picking one post that uses hyperbole to make its point.
    This site has agenda driven sites like RealClimate beat hands down, as the “Best Science” vote demonstrates.

  140. i’d put some money on that bright plage area at 10 o’clock becoming a spot…
    I’d put money on it being the death of a spot from the back side of the sun

  141. Meanwhile it looks like January 2009 is MUCH warmer than Jan 2008
    From ASU UAH
    motd1=The temperature on 01/15/2009
    motd2=is 0.79 deg F warmer than
    motd3=this day last year.

  142. “If I get a pinhole leak in my tire, eventually I find myself at the side of the road.”
    That is sort of where I was headed. If you consider the air in the tire as the energy stored at Earth (mostly in the oceans) and adding air represents day (absorbs energy from the sun) and letting out air represents night (radiates energy into space) then if I slightly reduce the amount I add every day but let out the same amount every night, eventually the pressure in the tire will be measurably less. And while the amount varies over time due to clouds and the like, if there is less available to add, the overall amount added over time will have to decrease somewhat.
    Global warming should work by retarding the amount let out at night. Looking at the long term satellite temperature observations since 1979, I don’t see any trends that look anything like the IPCC projected trends.

  143. Henry Galt wrote:
    above 776ppmv (a theoretical limit, possibly based on burning all the combustible material available to us, and where the problem becomes moot as we are all dead)
    Why would we be dead at above 776ppm?
    First, CO2 is close to max absorption of thermal radiation. See: A Window on Water Vapor and Planetary Temperature – Part 2. Doubling CO2 will not double its effect, only close the gap to max absorption.
    If you’re worried about toxicity levels, you can take heart from Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide Gas Exposure, CO2 Poisoning Symptoms, Carbon Dioxide Exposure Limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures:

    Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
    1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
    At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
    The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
    Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
    If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
    Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
    Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]

    So: CO2 levels have to be 50,000ppm to be directly toxic. But according to the geologic record, atmospheric CO2 has never exceeded 8,000ppm: image
    Again, from Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide Gas Exposure, CO2 Poisoning Symptoms, Carbon Dioxide Exposure Limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures:

    What are the Allowable Limits of CO2 EXPOSURE – Carbon dioxide exposure limits PEL and TLV set by OSHA and NIOSH
    Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance.
    The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.
    ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.
    NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.
    OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.
    In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [we discuss and define “short term exposure limits” STEL below], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health.

    If tomorrow we suddenly woke in a Jurassic environment in terms of CO2 levels and temperatures, we would still be “safe.”

  144. “looks like NH ice is going back up quickly to 2004 levels”
    And for some reason NANSEN hasn’t updated since 1/11.

  145. Global warming caused the plane crash.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/nyregion/17birds.html?ref=nyregion
    Nevertheless, the danger of bird strikes “is an ongoing problem, and it will always be a problem,” said Steven D. Garber, a biologist who was a consultant to the Port Authority in the 1990s.
    And it may become more so — despite efforts at mitigation. “There is evidence both in North America and in Europe that birds are shifting their territories,” said Joel L. Cracraft, curator in charge of the department of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History. “And that has been correlated with global warming.”

  146. Fred (16:11:22) :
    “Suppose Something IS Wrong with the Sun (something like entering a Grand/Great Minimum). Suppose such a change in solar activity might have profound implications on climate, ecosystems and our civilization. What would be the response of the government if it knows or suspects the situation?”
    Congress would pass the “Save the Sun Emergency Protection Act,” which would authorize the ramming of spaceships packed with hundred dollar bills into the sun in an effort to re-start its fusion reaction. After all, it’s for the children.

    Great idea, but, with the usual government, inefficiency they’d probably hit the sun at night when it’s off.
    -smirk

  147. “What would it take to run the temperature history with only the sites from about 1990 to see what the temperature history would be?”
    You don’t really need to do that much work. Just because the temperature rose at the same time the number of stations dropped doesn’t necessarily mean the dropping of the stations caused the temperature change. Remember, correlation doesn’t prove causation. There is an easier way to tell that involves much less work than digging up years worth of records for thousands of stations.
    All you need to do is plot the GISS global anomaly against a satellite-based global anomaly. If the difference between those two jumps at the same time the stations were removed, then you are onto something and the additional work is justified. If the difference doesn’t change much at that time, then the difference didn’t really amount to much and the temperature just happened to rise at about the same time.

  148. “you missed the whole point…What is not OK is to calculate minimum they way he [and everybody else in general”
    Hardly. I briefly thought the same thing, until I saw the April 2007 panel report and realized ‘minimum’ is a compromise intended to comprise a number of loosely coincident features. Two that stood out were coronal holes and IMF.
    Coronal holes should be reduced in number and size and be ‘rigidly’ transequatorial, as they are approaching of late. Last summer they were sometimes 2 and 3 at a time, and often confined to either hemisphere.
    The IMF should at times resemble MM standing over the HVAC vent on the sidewalk, thrusting down her uplifted skirt. July/August only gave a hint of lift, usually looking more like a tutu.
    I’d say the chances we’ll all do it your way are those of a snowball on the photosphere. Ditto that for revising SS numbers to your specs.

  149. Please excuse my most recent [sun off at night] ; hadn’t read that by Dave Wendt (16:40:07) at the time.
    Old joke; like me.

  150. Katherine wrote:
    “OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.”
    Your calculation actually understates the amount of CO2 that must be added to a normal atmosphere to drive the Oxygen level down to the safe minimum of 19.5%. Remember that added CO2 would displace the Nitrogen that forms the bulk of air, as well as Oxygen. Since 19.5/20.9=.933, it follows that 6.7% CO2 would be required to drive the O2 level in the atmosphere down to 19.5%.
    FWIW, I worked for many years in Breweries where time-weighted CO2 exposures over the work shift were frequently close to the 0.5% PEL (Personal Exposure Limit). In the bad old days when workplace safeguards were less stringent, exposures around 1.5% for long periods were routine. Levels of over 5% (=50,000 ppm) are considered to be IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health).

  151. Jeff Alberts, his claim is pollution prevented freezing. The surface water quality in the Netherlands has not changed significantly since the last major freeze 12 years ago. The thaw has set in alright.
    The reference btw is the ElevenCityTour. If that can be held, than it’s a proper winter in the lowlands.

  152. Long_Winter (13:35:22) :
    ignoring, minimizing and discrediting the observed events (lack of sunspots, […] So, Drs. D. Hathaway and L. Svalgaard are just doing their job in an awkward effort to shape public opinion.
    You forget or ignore the fact that I four years ago predicted that the coming cycle would be the smallest in a 100 years…
    Pearland Aggie (13:36:51) :
    Hey Leif,
    Do you have a graphic somewhere that shows the relative positions of new and old cycle spots on the surface of the sun during the transition between the cycles? How high (or low) in latitude does a spot have to occur to be considered a spot from the previous cycle?
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
    How high (or low) in latitude does a spot have to occur to be considered a spot from the previous cycle?
    as you can see from the link [the =’butterfly’ diagram] it is pretty easy to tell which spots are old cycle and which are new. There may be a handful of doubtful cases, but considering that there are 3000 active regions in a cycle […]
    Robert Bateman (09:27:47) :
    Leif, any word on the Gauss strength of 11010?
    patience, patience. Bill did get some good data and is busy reducing the raw data to meaningful physical values…
    Jeff Id (16:49:26) :
    I only showed that we have extended to an unusually long time before the next upshift — comparing like to like.
    You only need to look at the last transition as the issue was about 23=>24. I think I showed that cycle 23 was 11.6 years long [from 1997.0 to 2008.6] and thus within one sigma of the mean.
    Do you recommend using the timeseries with crossed slopes as in the graphs you gave as examples to identify the minima? I could do the analysis that way as well and use a best fit of Hathaway’s prediction (slide it into place) for an estimate of the next cycle.
    If you can, yes. I have done this for 21=>23, 22=>23,and 23=>24 in http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf and have plans to back in time, but it is a lot of work.
    Jim Steele (14:19:35) :
    Could you explain the mechanism for the Solar Conveyor belt and if it s still abnormally slow now, 2 years after Hathaway’s observation?
    There is a meridional circulation [material at the surface moving from the equator to the pole at about 20 meter/second] that must have a return flow deeper down in order to avoid all of the Sun ending up at the poles. This flow is difficult to measure and recent data are conflicting so the honest answer is that we don’t know. There may not even be a conveyor belt: there may be multiple cells, or rolls, or local variations. The data is messy.
    Also could some one direct me to a link with a summary of Leif’s argument that the sun is not the climate driver?
    This is a big topic. The short answer is two-fold: 1) the solar variations are much smaller than we thought they were, and 2) multi-regression analysis over the past 130 years show that at most 10% can be explained by the Sun.
    Does anyone know of calculations measuring the currents induced by space weather. Like an electrical generator, increasing a magnetic field proportionally increases the current.
    Yes, this is well-understood and monitored. The total power input [includes flares and CMEs] is of the order of tens of GigaWatt, which is about a million times less than what TSI gives.
    And over the last 100 years the solar magnetic field has reportedly doubled.
    It has not, see http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
    E.M.Smith (17:01:48) :
    They could have a model with 15m steps but modeling a world that is twilight all the time everywhere.
    I asked them, they do have a rotating Earth in the models if I understood them correctly.

  153. ‘Your calculation actually understates the amount of CO2 that must be added to a normal atmosphere to drive the Oxygen level down to the safe minimum of 19.5%.”
    It isn’t the lack of oxygen that causes CO2 to be toxic. It is the buildup of CO2 in the blood causing a lowering of blood pH resulting in acidosis.

  154. David Archibald (17:57:51) :
    Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU. El Ninos and La Ninas are additive, and it looks like we are in for a 1970s-style run of La Ninas.
    I saw that entry and figured right off that it will create a stir.
    This is my thought. Please respond to any part that you disagree with.
    As long as a negative PDO state exists the dominant ENSO will be La Nina and cooler temps especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The negative PDO may last through Solar Cycle 24. If 24 is as weak as it appears it may be then the next positive PDO will be minimal. Weak El Nino dominance in the ENSO, limited warming.
    As Solar Cycle 25 is arriving the AMO would be going to a cooler negative than other negative cycles of recent past. Should Solar Cycle 25 also be weak (which I think it may well be), the next negative PDO would be cooler than the present one, stronger La Nina, and an overlap with a negative AMO. Thus, no significant warming in the near future but rather stasis to cooling and potential for extreme cooling in about 22 – 25 years. Cool climate to prevail for 30 plus years.
    I left out increasing phytoplankton population, increased albedo, stalled or decreased CO2 levels, etc. but I think that is outside of the scope of my intent at the moment.

  155. crosspatch (21:24:32) :
    “If I get a pinhole leak in my tire, eventually I find myself at the side of the road.”
    […]
    if there is less available to add, the overall amount added over time will have to decrease somewhat.

    And this is why I like “kitchen science”… Two very very direct observations that caused me to think (a slow and painful process, but one that I try to do anyway 😎
    Where is the leak? Where is the ‘less available’?
    OK, so the leak is where it’s cold? That would be the N.Pole right now. (Anyone know if the S. Pole is also extra cold? Is it a ‘poles’ thing or a ‘n.pole’ thing?) S.Pole ice is growing (though the peninsula is warm?) so I would guess that it’s a ‘both poles’ thing. How do we tell?
    Where is the less available? We had a large pool of warm water, but now we are having a new La Nina and the PDO has flipped. Can that be correlated with more clouds (who measures clouds?) or less TSI? If it is just wind driven, then what drives the wind? Or is it more complicated with stratospheric vs tropospheric temps being the clue?
    I think I have a handle on the ‘slow leak’ (at least one pole, O3 reduction) but I’m missing how to show where less new heat is being added… I get the whole ‘sun doing less’ thing, but how do we show where less is reaching the surface?
    Global warming should work by retarding the amount let out at night. Looking at the long term satellite temperature observations since 1979, I don’t see any trends that look anything like the IPCC projected trends.
    Well, that’s a good start at falsification of their claims…

  156. crosspatch (22:29:57) :
    All you need to do is plot the GISS global anomaly against a satellite-based global anomaly. If the difference between those two jumps at the same time the stations were removed, then you are onto something and the additional work is justified.

    Ooooohh! Nice idea!

  157. gary gulrud (22:30:35) :
    “you missed the whole point…What is not OK is to calculate minimum they way he [and everybody else in general”
    Hardly. I briefly thought the same thing, until I saw the April 2007 panel report and realized ‘minimum’ is a compromise intended to comprise a number of loosely coincident features. Two that stood out were coronal holes and IMF.

    I’m on that panel and ‘minimum’ is not a compromise. The discussion was about what the symptoms of minimum were.
    I was one of people that 35 years ago realized the structure of the IMF and the evolution of coronal holes, and helped [at the famous Skylab workshop] to explain these features to the solar and space community.
    Coronal holes should be reduced in number and size and be ‘rigidly’ transequatorial, as they are approaching of late. Last summer they were sometimes 2 and 3 at a time, and often confined to either hemisphere.
    The evolution of coronal holes is an interplay between the strength of the polar fields and the emergence and decay of old and new cycle regions which often is quite random. There is no special relation between coronal holes and solar minimum. There can be are transequatorial holes at any phase of the solar cycle. Here is an image of the famous rigidly rotating ‘Italy-shaped’ transequatorial hole in 1973, three years before solar minimum.
    You can learn more about the results of the Skylab workshop here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
    The picture we sketched back then is essentially unchanged today, even further corroborated by later data, e.g. from the Ulysses mission.
    The IMF should at times resemble MM standing over the HVAC vent on the sidewalk, thrusting down her uplifted skirt. July/August only gave a hint of lift, usually looking more like a tutu.
    The undulations of the skirt often disappears at minimum and the skirt can become completely flat [this happened in 1954, f. ex.], but is really determined by the balance between low-latitude magnetic fields [left over from the old cycle and also supplied by new cycle regions] and the polar fields. If the polar fields are weak, like now, the waves in the skirt are large. We can’t sit around forever and wait for the undulations to go away to indicate that we are at minimum, but it will not happen because the polar fields are not getting any stronger [which would flatten the skirt].
    All these things were discussed at length and the conclusion was that we couldn’t use the coronal holes and IMF as reliable indicators of ‘minimum’. Some of the oversimplifications [like a flat current sheet at minimum] tend to muddle the waters as we realized that we can not just use the appearance of the corona and of the current sheet as they were in 1996-1997 as something every minimum should have.
    I’d say the chances we’ll all do it your way are those of a snowball on the photosphere. Ditto that for revising SS numbers to your specs.
    As long as the Sun does [and it is well on its way], things are fine with me. I do not like appeal to authority, but I do know how these things work as I was co-discoverer of our modern understanding of the large scale corona and IMF.

  158. Leif Svalgaard (14:08:47) :
    The issue hangs on what the minimum is. We can arbitrarily define that the minimum is the lowest value of a 13-month smoothed sunspot count, but the Sun doesn’t know about that. One could argue that there may be a point where ‘aggregate’ solar activity at that point is minimal.

    I believe that the 13 month smoothing is in principle wrong, for a simple reason that as my analysis of solar cycle shows that there may be a 13 month sub cycle
    ( http://www.vukcevic.co.uk link solar sub-cycle )
    I did sub-cycle analysis on the unsmoothed data, it is definitely there, but if you apply same analysis on the smoothed wayform it is mostly suppressed. Some may dispute the existence of the sub-cycle, but if it is even a remote possibility of its existence, then the 13 month smoothing is an inappropriate technique for determining time of minima

  159. Katherine (21:29:12) :
    “Why would we be dead at above 776ppm?”
    Because the runaway, flaming atmosphere would have parched us waaaay before then 😉
    The post was mostly tongue in cheek but to follow on….
    I choose to believe a few things that run counter to much of the agenda. One would be that I believe that we find oil, gas and coal wherever we choose to look for it. If convenience suggests we should purposefully fail to look somewhere, for political, financial(political) or economic(engineering) reasons that does not mean they are not there. The guesstimate of 776 can be at least tripled as easily extracted reserves are underestimated for similar reasons. I am ex navy and have worked in the oil business so this is not news to me, although I am lay.
    We trust these people (until recently autonomously) with a large part of the nuclear arsenal. One would guess the research has been thorough.
    http://atlanticlegal.org/php/uploads/4108.pdf
    “A study of nine nuclear ballistic submarines reported average CO2 at 3,500 ppm with a high recording of 10,600 and for ten nuclear attack submarines, an average of 4,100 ppm with a peak of 11,300 ppm, yet during the usual months-long deployments of nuclear submarines, this continuous exposure had no adverse effects. See R. Hagar, “Submarine Atmospheric Control and Monitoring Brief for the COT Committee, Presentation at the First Meeting on Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants” (2003) While it is true that submarine crews are composed of young, healthy men, the research is clear that CO2 is not problematic until its concentration reaches about 28,000 ppm, and there one begins to see slight headaches, and “…the bulk of the data indicate a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for CO2 of about 25,000 ppm…” National Academies, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, EMERGENCY AND CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE GUIDANCE LEVELS FOR SELECTED SUBMARINE CONTAMINANTS 40 (2004). Average atmospheric CO2, even at 800 ppm, is of course much more than an order of magnitude less. (For the emission scenario IS92a, see supra, n. 22, the IPCC estimates that the atmosphere will contain slightly more than 700 ppm(v) carbon dioxide in the year 2100.)”

  160. Leif: “And by the same criterion the previous minimum was 1997.0, so the cycle length should be 2008.6 – 1997.0 = 11.6 which is less than one sigma from the mean.”
    Leif, keep on trying to play devil’s advocate. There will be a day, I hope, that you’ll have to concede that there is a) an anomalously long lul in sunspot numbers between cycle 23 and cycle 24, b) that cycle 24 is one with weak solar activity AND c) that there is a link between solar activity and climate, whatever mechanism may be responsible.
    Jeff’s approach is one that is not without merits and the point he made in his reply to you is sound:
    Jeff Id (16:49:26) : “It wouldn’t really be a good definition for this calculation since I can’t see the magnetic field of the historic sunspots and therefore can’t compare the whole trend”

  161. A query regarding the Maunder minimum for the experts out there.
    Is it believed that during the Maunder the 11 year solar cycle in fact continued but the solar max levels were so low that either the size or number of sunspots were not generally detectable with the equipment of the time OR was it that during the Maunder the 11 year cycle simple “fell to pieces”?

  162. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:16:10)
    vukcevic (09:11:11) :
    I agree. If one method doesn’t work maybe we should consider something new.
    And the current method is not working is it vukcevic. But everyone keeps their head in the sand. You might enjoy this bit I wrote in another thread on this website that is near dead. Its related to Jose’s work.

    Thanks for the note: I will look up P.Jose’s work.
    But everyone keeps their head in the sand…
    I say with a bit of coercion as well. When I submitted my article in 2003 (http://www.vukcevic.co.uk )
    response was that it would not be accepted since it refers to the Jupiter’s and Saturn’s orbits. In my second attempt, the J & S are not mentioned, although all numbers are clearly there, and it was passed ?!
    I am only an amateur and intruder in this field of science, but I am surprised that even most reputable scientists are not excluded (as just indicatedin posts above).
    I just hope that the global temperatures and CO2 effect data are not subject to the same treatment.

  163. As for that ‘leak’ that we really don’t know the full story on yet:
    I had my pickup stolen from in front of my house. Imagine what it’s like to get up, step out the door, and walk towards where your vehicle is supposed to be. In disbelief, I thought I had maybe parked it on the other side of the garage instead of the street (just out of view) but no, I found myself wandering around in a daze for about 5 minutes.
    It slowly sank in, and at the time, I knew my pickup had been stolen, but didn’t know how or exactly when.
    So it is with this onsetting cold and leak/lack of input.
    Disbelief is hard to get over.
    We don’t know the full story of how yet, but it’s sinking in.
    New IPS min. of April, 2009.
    IPS has changed predicted smoothed sunspot numbers for
    solar cycle 24. The modification was to reduce predicted
    smoothed values in 2009 to improve the merging of old
    cycle 23 and new cycle 24. If no further new sunspot groups
    appear soon, IPS may again move the forceast cycle away
    by another 6 months.

  164. Hathaway isn’t the only one having to move graphs and minimums forward.
    They are all getting undercut. SIDC is also eroded.
    Yes, it’s late, but disbelief is a tough thing to get over. It’s human nature, nobody is immune.
    It will stop messing with your mind when you accept that it’s out-of-control and out of bounds. SC24 is late.
    It’s mid-Jan 2009, and there’s nothing going on up there.

  165. Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU.
    I suppose “frothing at the mouth” could be confused with “sniggering uncontrollably”.
    I suspect the reaction of most warmers will be “roll on June”.

  166. Ross (22:34:32) :

    Please excuse my most recent [sun off at night] ; hadn’t read that by Dave Wendt (16:40:07) at the time.

    That’s okay – I missed Dave’s post.
    Note there’s a risk that they’ll mishandle the units in the thrust calculation s and crash into the Sun rather than land on it.

  167. @George M
    Hun, you nailed it.
    After my old brain’s attempt to slog through the serious science here – a brilliant crack like Fred’s and then Ross’ crack about the dollars arriving at night when the sun is off . . . . .
    Comic relief when we reeaally need it.

  168. RE: Precipitation
    We have good data on precipitation, arguably much better data than for temperature. Not least because we have objective precipitation measurements for quite large areas from dam and catchment flows. Something we don’t have for temperatures.
    While the models may incorporate increased water vapour and hence precipitation from the observed warming (as a feedback), that’s not the picture we get from the real world. For example, this comprehensive study from Japan shows a clear decline in precipitation over the 20th century.
    http://www.mlit.go.jp/tochimizushigen/mizsei/water_resources/contents/issues.html
    The precipitation data supports the theory that the observed warming results from decreased cloud cover, which means the precipitation data supports Svensmark’s GCM/cloud link.

  169. Jeff Id (13:32:54) :
    Ed Scott,
    My money job is in optics. I am interested in getting the absorption spectra for gaseous CO2 for the full range of solar wavelengths, yet so far I can’t find it. It has to be out there.
    If anyone knows where I can find the data I have seen plotted so many times, it would be appreciated. I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.
    Does this help?
    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
    DaveE.

  170. @crosspatch (21:24:32) :
    You wrote in part: “Global warming should work by retarding the amount let out at night. Looking at the long term satellite temperature observations since 1979, I don’t see any trends that look anything like the IPCC projected trends.”
    The whole pinhole leak analogy puts it all in the neatest little nutshell I’ve seen to date. To your summary statement I’d add that it’s always night somewhere on the planet, the surface of the planet is always different wherever it is night, the GHG cover (H2O, CO2, etc.) where it is night is always changing, and the inputs during the day are always changing as we proceed through the year as well as other planetary cycles. To top it all off, the ocean currents are always moving the heat to different points under the heat-escape retarding blanket and on geologic scales the land is moving to different locations during the night.
    No matter. The models can simply all of that with the assumptions of well-mixed gasses, ignoring contintental drift, assuming stable TSI, and other simplifications about ocean currents and whatnot. Or maybe it does matter. Aren’t the modelers in essence trying to model where the leaky pinholes are over time and how much is entering and leaving through the pinholes?
    There’s quite a bit more in your analogy that can be kicked around to get an understanding of the climate. I’ll be mulling it over. Good on you for posting that.

  171. Chris Schoneveld (02:41:02) :
    a) an anomalously long lul in sunspot numbers between cycle 23 and cycle 24,
    The longest period with no sunspots has been about a month. This is not unusual: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
    There has been times in the past where no spots were reported for more than a year [1810] or more than a decade ]Maunder Minimum]. Those were anomalous.
    b) that cycle 24 is one with weak solar activity
    I hope so, as I have predicted precisely that: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
    AND c) that there is a link between solar activity and climate, whatever mechanism may be responsible.
    And I wish this were true [would improve the relevance of my work]
    Jeff Id (16:49:26) : “It wouldn’t really be a good definition for this calculation since I can’t see the magnetic field of the historic sunspots and therefore can’t compare the whole trend”
    Magnetic field of spots is available back to 1917: ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1917/dr170104.jpg
    But is really not necessary to have that data. The separation in latitude between old cycle and new cycle spots is so clear that ~97% of the spots can be classified just based on that.
    Trevor (02:50:25) :
    Is it believed that during the Maunder the 11 year solar cycle in fact continued but the solar max levels were so low
    We know from cosmic ray radionuclide data that the solar cycle continued. The cycle length was slightly longer [12.5 years] than the 11 years.

  172. Sorry, but this is totally off topic, but I’m frustrated by my own lack of knowledge, and am asking a very basic question. First, belated congratulations on the Web award. I’ve only recently started reading WUWT on a regular basis, and enjoy it, although I must admit that much of the discussion is over my head. I am a skeptic for 3 reasons: 1) I’m almost 60, and I’ve seen some massive “scientific” blunders (any pregnant women readers want some thalidomide to calm you down a little bit?); 2) In fifth grade (that would be in about 1960) I was taught that the world would be out of oil in 30 – 40 years; 3) I’m a civil litigation lawyer and have seen people testify, under oath, to false facts, either knowingly (lying) or unknowingly (simply have things wrong in their memory, simply wrong in calculations or methodology, delusional or subconsiously “shading the facts” for a myriad of reasons). Plus, anytime a bunch of self-described “smart guys” tell me that they are, indeed, the smartest guys in the room and we need to do “X” right now or the world will come to an end, I get antsy (see, massive bailouts given to the “smart guys” who are, to one degree or another, the reason we need the bailouts).
    When it comes to AGW, and many of the discussions here, I am woefully ignorant, but I can comprehend some of the basic facts. Which brings me to my current frustrating question: What are the basic facts? To narrow it down a bit, is the AP article, partially quoted below, correct – and if so, when put in historical context, what the hell does it mean?
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRlyPqtO9N4jswg9LJYsBxcVmwzwD95OEUSG1
    Last year ranked in top 10 for heat
    18 hours ago
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year was the eighth warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The world’s temperature in 2008 tied that of 2001 according to the center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Preliminary calculations show the world’s average temperature for 2008 was 0.88 degree Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F.
    The ranking means that all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.
    Climate scientists around the world have raised concerns about global warming caused by the so-called greenhouse effect in which chemicals, largely generated by human activity, trap solar radiation.
    Researchers fear far-reaching effects ranging from changing storm patterns, damage to crops and wildlife, droughts to spread of disease.
    I thank anyone, and everyone, in advance for replies.

  173. Trevor (02:50:25) :
    A query regarding the Maunder minimum for the experts out there.
    Is it believed that during the Maunder the 11 year solar cycle in fact continued but the solar max levels were so low that either the size or number of sunspots were not generally detectable with the equipment of the time OR was it that during the Maunder the 11 year cycle simple “fell to pieces”?

    Great question…I am no expert, but do know there is only proxy evidence for this timescale, short term proxy information of this particular type in my opinion is sketchy and not able to be reasonably quantified. There are reports of reduced rotation, increased rotation, sunspots in one hemisphere only, both poles being the same polarity and 22 yr Swchabe cycles, but nothing concrete. I suspect in times of grand minima the solar poles are so close to zero strength and anything is possible. We have see some of that briefly at SC20 and the poles are not far from neutral right now. The test will happen probably in the next 12-24 months, modern equipment for the first time is ready to record the results.

  174. Katherine,
    Could the reason we would all be dead if we burned all the combustible material available to us be that we’d starve to death? I believe just about everything we eat can be burned. It would just be a slower death.

  175. Trevor (02:50:25) :
    A query regarding the Maunder minimum for the experts out there.
    Is it believed that during the Maunder the 11 year solar cycle in fact continued but the solar max levels were so low that either the size or number of sunspots were not generally detectable with the equipment of the time OR was it that during the Maunder the 11 year cycle simply “fell to pieces”?

    Hi Trevor
    This is from an amateur (for what is worth, some might say not much)!
    During Maunder sunspots did not totally disappear. According to C14 records magnetic activity associated with the sunspot cycle was apparently going as normal, see
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/1600-1700.gif
    there were even some sunspots, but very few. I do not think that it is possible to blame observations, since years 1630-1645 show good numbers recorded.
    M. Waldemeier. who was in charge of date assembly and compilation at Zurich centre in 1940s-50s?, even set dates for the minima during the Maunder (1645,1655,1666,1679,1689,1698 etc., on personal note, if I am allowed to be immodest my equation, as seen on the quoted website, gives calculated values for minima at 1645, 1656, 1667, 1679, 1689, 1699 which compares well with predictions we get from professionals even for the current minimum).
    I personally believe that Maunder type of minimum is very rare, while Dalton minimum is frequent and it is possible that one may be on cards around 2030 (I hope not, do not like much cold winters).
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    For believers in coincidences, it is interesting that in the middle of Maunder in 1666, there was the Great Fire of London, not to mention ravages of the Great Plague.

  176. Thank you for responding to my question, I have a follow up.
    Leif said “Yes, this is well-understood and monitored. The total power input [includes flares and CMEs] is of the order of tens of GigaWatt, which is about a million times less than what TSI gives.”
    Could you explain how that calculation is made? Is there a link to the monitoring process?

  177. Trevor (02:50:25) :
    A query regarding the Maunder minimum for the experts out there.
    nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (08:04:58) :
    Hang in there vukcevic, ……..

    Trevor, my note about possible forthcoming Dalton should be taken with caution, that one it is wiser to take from the experts. It is only there in the abstract form, as a by-product of my equations. By the way, the equations are not result of a heavy scientific endeavour; they are product of a straightforward intuition. Some years ago, my daughter as part of her science homework, told me of a ‘Sunspot cycle’ something new to me. As a half-ignorant electronic engineer, in its pattern I recognised beat of two close frequencies. After looking-up some astronomical numbers, 19.859 was there, I made up 2×11.862, the rest took a bit longer, and hay presto, the equation was there. However, I keep telling my daughter (I am proud to say, she now studies science at one of the world’s top universities), the success is a product of hard work not of a serendipity.

  178. “Please say this isn’t so… please… How can you use a data series where the data are simply made up, imaginings… Does he then use these made up numbers to ‘adjust’ the trends and averages and via them the past? GAK!”
    GISSTEMP does not include any readings from the polar region, at least not in the NH. As far as I know, it uses the temperatures that the model says “should” be present. As for being an article begging to be written, it is well known and been complained about for some time.
    As for O3 at the poles and solar minimum, the way I understand it working is something like this:
    In winter the pole is in darkness in perpetual shadow of the Earth. There is a fairly stable “circumpolar jet” that sequesters polar air from the rest of the atmosphere. O3 is generated by solar UV reacting with the atmosphere. If an area gets no sunlight, it makes no O3 and if it is prevented from mixing with the rest of the atmosphere, O3 from elsewhere can not flow in to refresh the depleted zone.
    O3 isn’t particularly stable. It really wants to react with just about anything it might touch. According to recent research by Leon Sanche and Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, cosmic rays might be a major factor in breaking down O3. At solar minimum, the solar wind is generally weaker. When the solar wind is weaker, it can allow more cosmic rays into the inner solar system. So according to their hypothesis, when you have periods of more cosmic radiation, you should have a larger polar “ozone hole”. In spring, the circumpolar jet destabilizes allowing the ozone depleted air to “spill out” from the polar region and mix with the rest of the atmosphere and the ozone content is eventually restored at the pole.

  179. Jim Steele (09:10:12) :
    “The total power input [includes flares and CMEs] is of the order of tens of GigaWatt, which is about a million times less than what TSI gives.”
    Could you explain how that calculation is made? Is there a link to the monitoring process?

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html
    has more info.
    Pages 17-18 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf
    shows the variation of solar wind power input since 1978. We know what this has been since the 1840s.

  180. Leif Svalgaard (08:19:26) :
    It is working fine, the Sun is behaving as predicted.
    Lots of predictions out there….who’s prediction are you talking about. My prediction is on track, if we get a grand minimum this cycle your prediction is looking sad?
    As a side note….did you have a prediction for SC20, i would be very surprised if you got that one right 10 yrs before the event?

  181. Leif,
    Now see, you’re no fun at all, at all. Here we want there to be something ‘wrong’ with the sun and you go consistently saying there isn’t and worse, you show that there isn’t.
    I enjoy your posts and have learned much from them. Thank you.

  182. “have seen people testify, under oath, to false facts, either knowingly (lying) or unknowingly (simply have things wrong in their memory, simply wrong in calculations or methodology, delusional or subconsiously “shading the facts” for a myriad of reasons).”
    This brings up a very bothersome (for me) issue. Once something appears enough times on various websites to show up often in search engines, it appears to become “truth”. One example was power generation by wind. I read an article not long ago that said Denmark was generating 25% of their electricity with wind. I didn’t believe it. I wrote to the author and asked where the number came from. She said “Google it”. I did and noticed that the only numbers that appeared real to me mentioned “capacity” not actual output. In other words, wind had the potential to generate 25% if all the turbines were operating at full capacity *and* the wind blew according to some projection but there was no evidence that Denmark had ever experienced a day when 25% of its energy demand was met by wind power.
    The Internet has made us much more susceptible to something being published that validates someone’s opinion, that being taken as fact and repeated, and it becomes the “conventional wisdom” simply by appearing in search engines.
    In the UK, it was recently determined that the numbers produced showing generation potential of various sites has been overstated by about double. In generating a “capacity” number, people look at the potential output of a turbine and the amount of time the wind blows with enough velocity to operate the turbine. It turns out the the wind numbers were greatly overstated causing generation capacity numbers to be greatly overstated.
    Back to your question. The numbers put out by NOAA are different than anyone elses. They take in the raw data and “adjust” the data values and the output is after this “adjustment”. GISS uses a different “adjustment”. GISS used to report that modern temperatures were higher than the temperatures in the 1930’s until Steve McIntyre found errors in how the “adjustments” were calculated causing modern temperatures to be readjusted downwards when the data values were corrected. Nobody knows what NOAA’s adjustment procedure is and they don’t seem to want anyone to find out, either. At least they don’t make public how they adjust them but I am not sure if anyone has specifically dug into that process yet (people are still trying to sort out GISS’ procedure and might want to take one thing at a time).
    An article was published just yesterday at Climate Audit on this very subject so it might be laying the groundwork for people to begin digging in to NOAA’s process and finding out exactly what they are doing.

  183. My prediction is also well on track: All I see of SC24 is lone skyscrapers on Long Island sticking out from the 500 foot water depth.
    It all depends on what one perceives to be happening, or not happening.

  184. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (10:03:11) :
    Lots of predictions out there….whose prediction are you talking about.
    Mine, of course.
    My prediction is on track, if we get a grand minimum this cycle your prediction is looking sad?
    If it is a grand minimum [SSN near zero] both our predictions didn’t pan out. But then perhaps Schatten’s did:
    Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
    Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
    Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817, 05/2003
    Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations.
    My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
    The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
    As a side note….did you have a prediction for SC20, i would be very surprised if you got that one right 10 yrs before the event?
    On page 4 and 13 you can see my ‘prediction’ for SC20
    http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf some 40 years after the event.

  185. ‘Warmers avert your eyes from Icecap today, because you will end up frothing at the mouth. I have made a prediction of -0.4 degrees for May UAH MSU. El Ninos and La Ninas are additive, and it looks like we are in for a 1970s-style run of La Ninas.’
    I’d much rather have an El Nino than a La Nina, and La Nina
    is all we have had around here for the last 3 years, and this one seems
    to be right on track for a 4th. I must live at ground zero.

  186. I looked again at the data from Prof. Don .J. Easterbrook and his article Global Cooling is Here. H e talks about repeating 27 year cycles going back 500 YEARS. He also mentions 30 year cycles and 25-30 year cycles and he seems to use these three time intervals interchangeably. What struck me is that the node points of these cycles, or the crossing over points from a cold phase to a warm phase correspond very closely [plus or minus 1-2 years] with solar minimum periods after every three solar cycles , namely the so called the AHLUWALIA CYCLE. The solar minimum period can be several years on either side of the ‘selected ‘minimum year.In other words we have repeating and alternating cycles lasting approx. 3 solar cycles of warm , cold, warm, etc. The last warm cycle was 1976 to 2008 and included cycles # 21,22, 23. The last cool cycle was 1944 to 1976 and included cycles # 18,19, 20. Long solar cycles and low sunspot numbers seem to be cooler periods and short solar cycles and higher sun spot counts seem to be warmer periods. I am not saying that the sun has three solar cycle period. The three cycle periods of warming or cooling result from the combined interaction of direct sun warming and the PDO, AMO and ENSO ocean effects. PDO.AMO and ENSO effects overide or modify the specific solar cycle to warmer or cooler. Volcanic ash years cool the period in which they occur and can lower the temperature for several years.

  187. matt v. (11:29:26) :
    The last cool cycle was 1944 to 1976 and included cycles # 18,19, 20. Long solar cycles and low sunspot numbers seem to be cooler periods and short solar cycles and higher sun spot counts seem to be warmer periods.
    The cool period 1944-1976 included two of the largest recorded solar cycles [18,19]…

  188. Walter Cronanty (07:23:36) :
    “Sorry, but this is totally off topic, but I’m frustrated by my own lack of knowledge, and am asking a very basic question”
    Walter, I don’t think anybody would bother explaining you these rather basic questions. I personally like Ole Humlum’s web site as a good starting point: http://www.climate4you.com/
    It is very comprehensive and also provides the latest temperature data from different sources.
    Humlum is Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo and Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS).

  189. Leif Svalgaard (11:04:45) :
    My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, ……
    The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected

    Dr. Svalgaard,
    I do understand that, as a one of the world’s most prominent solar scientists, you can’t take seriously amateur’s work. But do you really believe (if for the moment you disregard other aspects of my hypothesis) that the equations on:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    are just product of sheer coincidence, since they indicate precisely what you said above:
    a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle No.24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. /b>
    I understand if you choose not to reply.
    As far as SC20 is concerned
    nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (10:03:11)
    As a side note….did you have a prediction for SC20….

    Mr. Sharp I wonder what you would make of my comment on
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/graph1.gif
    relating to 1968 (SC20)?

  190. Hi Leif,
    I have a simple question with a complex answer. What is the effect of VLF on water vapor? This question is due to the interaction between the ionosphere and the troposphere. It is an electric circuit that is influenced by CME’s and Flares. My thought is that when a CME or flare hits the ionosphere that the resulting VLF can cause the water vapor to react and then reduce the ability to create cloud nuclei. I know that water vapor is effected by VLF because this is how they measure water vapor / clouds. This is an effect that help radio guys to transmit over long distances. ???

  191. Sekerob Warning: JAXA was 0.87 million short on SIE mean compared to NSIDC/NCDC for December 2008. Every month a similar shortfall, so know which source to consider when drawing conclusions.
    Thanks for your expert advice, but I’m happy looking at the JAXA graph that Anthony links to on this site. Again, why are you comparing JAXA to the Nansen graphs that haven’t been updated since 11 January? Perhaps they are still on holidays over there. Again, why do you assume Jaxa is wrong and the others right? You didn’t answer this question last time so I don’t expect you will this time. Perhaps Jaxa is funded by the oil lobby!

  192. Matt V. (11:29:26)
    And if we can find something in the solar cycles that alternates, like shape of peak cosmic rays from pointed to flatter, and if that difference leads to differential heating or cooling, then two solar cycles of Shape Pointed and one of Shape Flattened, alternating with one of Shape Pointed and two of Shape Flattened, and if the PDO shifts have temporal correlation with the solar cycles, then we might have a partial mechanism for solar control of the PDO.
    ====================

  193. Leif Svalgaard (11:04:45) :
    If it is a grand minimum [SSN near zero] both our predictions didn’t pan out
    I am not predicting zero…this will be the weakest grand minimum in 700 yrs. I am predicting if the cycle max is after 2011 it will be less than 50 SSN…likewise for SC25 if cycle max is after 2020.
    On page 4 and 13 you can see my ‘prediction’ for SC20
    There is nothing on page 4 & 13 in your 2006 paper….the solar pole strength in SC19 would have been high (if u could record it), giving you no indication of the impending doom of SC20.

  194. Leif Svalgaard (07:15:20) :

    Trevor (02:50:25) :
    Is it believed that during the Maunder the 11 year solar cycle in fact continued but the solar max levels were so low
    We know from cosmic ray radionuclide data that the solar cycle continued. The cycle length was slightly longer [12.5 years] than the 11 years.

    It may be that the low sunspot counts were due to what may happen around 2015 with the sunspot contrast getting so low that they fade from view. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ Pure speculation, sorry. It will be an interesting few years.
    New readers – please read that link, it’s the most intriguing item ever posted here.

  195. @Walter Cronanty (07:23:36) :
    You, sir, have very sound instincts. Welcome aboard!
    Sidebar: I’ve been wondering why there have been no class action lawsuits over the long term promotion of transfat laden margarine for ‘heart health’ when it’s now been shown that transfats are worse than any other and that saturated fats are ‘neutral’ to cholesterol… But the science was settled …
    I would summarise ‘the basics’ as:
    1) The raw data is defective. There are many pages here about various thermometer errors (placement, urban heat island, changed paint type leading to higher readings, etc.) that bias the data to the high side.
    2) The raw data is missing. There are several variations here, too. Stations come and go. Sometimes large numbers (when the USSR collapsed a very large percentage of total thermometers just went away, many in Siberia. At the same time the recorded temperature average went up…)
    3) The raw data is from too short a period. We are looking at a system with at least 1500 year cycles in it (Google “Bond Event wiki” for details). To do that and not be fooled by a cyclical slope needs about 3000 years data. For satellite data we have 30 years or so. For land based thermometers, a couple of hundred. That couple of hundred just happens to start at the bottom of a cold period known as the Little Ice Age and is rising due to a normal cycle. It was warmer in the past (several times in history, more times demonstrable by archaeology like the ice man from under a glacier…) and No Bad Thing happened.
    4) Sometimes the raw data is just made up. GISS, it seems, can fill in the arctic temperatures with guesses via computer. ANY US land station can have missing readings ‘estimated’ by the person filling in the form if they want. (Missed a day? Just make it up…).
    5) Once the data are collected, they are subject to strange and wondrous changes and manipulations. The exact methods are more or less secret. The changes are conducted by people who often have their entire self worth and career vested in ‘global warming’. The results often seem disjoint from observed reality. (I have a particular gripe with the GISS method that involves adjusting past temperatures down based on present temperatures. I’d rather that my history didn’t keep changing under my feet, but I’m old fashioned that way.) Where there are details on the adjustment available, they can often be shown to be bogus. (Removal of urban heat island effect by reference to ‘nearby’ ‘rural’ thermometers that are in fact hundreds of miles away in different microclimates and sometimes in large urban area.)
    6) Based on this flakey data, folks build castles in the sky. They do this with computer models. (I’m a ‘computer guy’ by trade and managed a Cray supercomputer site that did modeling for plastic flow so this one galls me.) The models are ‘not very good’ to put it charitably. The don’t match reality. Their predictions are regularly shown to be bogus. When you do get a little look at how they work, it is not convincing. They leave out major, perhaps even dominant, features of climate. (Cloud formation of all sorts, cosmic rays that lead to cloud formation, variation in the sun, many most or all of the various ocean oscillations and heat transfer anomalies ENSO, AMO, etc.) Oh, and we have a specific admission by at least one of the modelers that they deliberately made the model run fast for more dramatic effect. That 50 year doom? Even their model would say it’s 150 years away if not run on ‘juice’. We have public quotes from ‘scientists’ in the field saying they need to punch up the results to create stronger public responses…
    7. Many of the assumptions and science in the models are based on errors of assumption. I can only list a couple of examples here (too many…). It is assumed that CO2 causes warming. All the archeological data show CO2 follows heating by 800 years. How does cause follow effect? All sorts of positive feedbacks are assumed, but negative ones are ignored (cloud cooling anyone?)
    8. They simply can not model what they do not know. ANY computer model can only tell you things in the domain of your present understanding. If your understanding is broken, so is your model. They “know” that CO2 is causal (despite the data) and that is what they model, ergo what they find. The truth is that we really don’t know how weather and climate work completely, so any ‘model’ can at best be used to show places to do more research, not to make policy. They don’t predict, they inform of our ignorance.
    9) The thing they are trying to model, 30 year weather, is chaotic. (That does not mean random, it means that the state jumps all over from trivial input changes.) Chaotic models are, at the present state of the art, worse than guessing (and may always be, the math behind it leads me to think maybe so…) The input data are very flawed.
    10) Based on these models saying the world will end Real Soon Now, many other folks run off to show that they ought to get funding for their grant because it is related to this hot topic of global warming. When you look into the ‘thousands and thousands’ of papers endorsing the global warming thesis you find the vast majority are of the form “If we assume that the model run by [foo] is right, this is the bad thing that will happen in MY field.” There are in fact only a few centers doing the modeling (a half dozen?) and their ideas are very inbred. We are really basing world decisions on the work of about a half dozen.
    11) Dissent is to be crushed, ruthlessly. Frankly, this is what got me started down the “What the…” trail. I’ve worked in forensics and law enforcement from time to time. Sets off my Madoff Alarm. (Used to be Ponzi…) If you’re so sure you are right, demonstrate (share) your data, models, et. al. and we’ll have a nice debate. No? OK, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? One of the hallmarks of a shared delusion is the ruthless attack of anything that would threaten the delusion. It just smells of cult. And there are plenty of alternative theories, including the established one of ‘it is natural variation’. The science is not settled and the debate is not over, even if one side is paranoid about being challenged.
    12) The major drivers of the process are not scientists, but political bodies with agendas for control and a history of corruption and deception. UN? You want me to trust a UN Political Committee? The IPCC is NOT a bunch of scientists, it’s a bunch of politicians. They consult scientists. They have at times re-written scientists work (without notice). Many scientists have now begun speaking out against the IPCC. See #11 for how they are treated.
    13) Mr. Albert Gore. His ‘inconvenient truth’ is a nice propaganda piece. It is decidedly not science. Polar bears are aquatic, they swim hundreds of miles sometimes (one swam from Greenland to Iceland). He shows them drowning… Their numbers are rising, he shows them near extinction. The list goes on. When a politician starts blatantly propagandizing for central power and authority my ‘peace in our time’ buzzer goes off…
    14) The ‘cure’. The proposed cure will result in terrible death and poverty. It will misallocate trillions of dollars (that would be much better spent improving other things: education world wide, malaria, cooking stoves in the 3rd world, food supplies, etc.) Mr. Gore and others stand to profit greatly from it (he has a ‘carbon credit’ company from which he buys his own indulgences…) Further, since China and India get a free pass, the only real result is to move most industry there and kill the western democracies. (Hmmm socialist western-hating UN proposing ‘solutions’ that hobble western democracies…) The rate of ‘ramp up’ in coal consumption in China assures that no ‘control’ of CO2 is possible. Why are we ‘curing’ what is not broken with a solution that will not work?
    15) The whole ‘tipping point’ thesis is simply and demonstrably false. For most of the history of the planet, CO2 has been much much higher. 10 times or more. We are actually at historic low levels. (Plants respond to CO2 as they to to any nutrient that is lower than their ideal value, up to about a 1000 ppm value. This implies they evolved expecting that much, and that is what the geological record shows.) Why are we trying to reduce CO2 to levels that restrict plant growth? Why are we trying to make the planet colder when that reduces food production? The potential harm here is stupendous. Why have we never ‘tipped’ before?
    16) We may be doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time. Google “pessimum’. Periodically these cold periods come along in our history. They result in the destruction of social order, starvation, disease, mass migrations. We are about to push in that direction. Why? Google ‘climate optimum’ and you find the Medieval Optimum, the Roman Optimum, etc. We are now in the Modern Optimum. Warm is good, cold is bad. Yet there is more. I can only briefly state that there are reasons to believe that the present optimum may be peaking (or maybe even ending). From the planetary theories of solar output modulation, to the simple calendar correlations, to observed physical oscillations like the PDO flip to a colder direction in the short run; some theory points to cooler. While there is not enough to show causality, there is enough to urge caution in pushing that particular direction really really hard right now.
    I’m going to stop now, or this will not be ‘the basics’…
    There is more, but you get the idea. It starts to be a bit more technical (Like why does a global average of all those temperatures mean anything? – it doesn’t; and that the temperatures gathered don’t contain enough information for sampling theory and control theory to allow anyone to know what to do even if warming were true and if we could do anything: we have a ‘hot shower’ with 30 years between turning the knobs and changed water temp out. The knobs are not labeled and non-linear. There are several toilets being flushed and dishwashers running. Keep the temperature at exactly the right temperature; and your thermometer is broken.)
    I’m sure other folks will have their own ideas as to what are ‘the basics’ but I hope I’ve also shown that even 1/2 of ‘my basics’ are enough to say that we ought not be doing what we, as a country, are about to do…

  196. actuator (08:10:33) :
    Katherine,
    Could the reason we would all be dead if we burned all the combustible material available to us be that we’d starve to death? I believe just about everything we eat can be burned. It would just be a slower death.

    Try burning a steak… NO, Not on the BBQ!!

  197. “Ric Werme (13:02:42) :
    It may be that the low sunspot counts were due to what may happen around 2015 with the sunspot contrast getting so low that they fade from view. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ Pure speculation, sorry. It will be an interesting few years.
    New readers – please read that link, it’s the most intriguing item ever posted here.”
    I have read that link, and I have projected the sun and noted the ghostly trend in the spots that do make it.
    It’s plainly obvious to observe, no need for me to wait as I see it unfolding before my very eyes.
    Some may choose to pad the counts with spacecraft and ccd imagery, but it does not change the nature of the spots one bit.
    They are increasingly tough to observe/draw.

  198. leif
    AS I said in by post, think the impact of PDO,AMO AND ENSO CYCLES reduced the impact of the high solar cycles 18,19,20
    PERIOD 1944-1976 COOL
    SOLAR CYCLES
    # 18 MAX SUNSPOT # 151.8, CYCLE LENGTH 10.1 YEARS
    # 19 MAX SUNSPOT # 201.3, CYCLE LENGTH 10.6 YEARS
    # 20 MAX SUNSPOT # 110.6, CYCLE LENGTH 11.6 YEARS
    OCEANS
    PDO DROPPING AND CROSSING INTO NEGATIVE IN 1944 AND BOTTOM IN 1949, AMO HEADING DOWN, CROSS OVER IN1963, BOTTOM IN 1974
    LA NINA ACTIVITIES DOMINATE
    NET SLIGHT COOLING PERIOD DUE TO SOLAR CYCLES SHORT BUT EXTENDING IN #20, SOLAR ACTIVITY HIGH, OCEANS TEMP FLAT, PDO AND AMO IN NEAGTIVE AND BOTTOMING

  199. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (12:35:51) :
    There is nothing on page 4 & 13 in your 2006 paper….the solar pole strength in SC19 would have been high (if u could record it), giving you no indication of the impending doom of SC20.
    So, we’ll do this slowly. Is there some6thing on page 1? what does it say?

  200. Thanks to Anthony and everyone for your comments. There was a lot of interest in what’s happening with the sun.
    I also want to thank Dr. Leif Svalgaard whom shared so much of his time on the thread. I hope people paid close attention to his descriptions on how he recommends to make solar cycle calculations as they seem quite reasonable to me. I wonder why it isn’t the accepted method, what argument against it could there be other than it takes a bit of work.
    When he makes the comment
    “The long duration of cycle 23 really says very little about cycle 23, but a lot about cycle 24.”
    There are a lot of very smart people on this thread, IMO that’s what makes WUWT a great blog.
    My father likes to say -“Remember the old Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times.”

  201. Jim Arndt (12:00:36) :
    I have a simple question with a complex answer. What is the effect of VLF on water vapor?
    I don’t know the complex answer to that. Try hunt around a bit. I may be able to comment on what you find.
    matt v. (14:11:02) :
    AS I said in by post, think the impact of PDO,AMO AND ENSO CYCLES reduced the impact of the high solar cycles 18,19,20
    It is like a news report: “the stock market failed to react to the unemployment data, but rallied on oil futures going lower, in spite of the crisis in the Middle East”. Anything could be the cause.

  202. E.M.Smith (13:12:26) :
    …..And?
    Mwhaahahaahahaaa…..,
    Seriously dude, that was some treatise. I am going to steal it verbatim unless you complain here and now
    that you don’t want it going any further.
    That must be the most concise encapsulation of the salient factors at play I have seen with these weary
    eyes anywhere. Ever.
    It must have taken a while to assemble, but it lacks for nothing as a primer for exposing the group-think of the “members” of all our divvy-nations and once great institutions that allows the heaping of praise upon vandals.

  203. KIM
    I think the sun is behind PDO’S but the impact is out of phase or delayed.
    Here is the so called global warming period 1976 -2008. Perhaps you can see a pattern .
    PERIOD 1976 -2008 WARM [SO CALLED ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ PERIOD]
    SOLAR CYCLES
    #21 MAX SUNSPOT # 164.5, CYCLE LENGTH 10.3 YEARS
    #22 MAX SUNSPOT # 158.5, CYCLE LENGTH 9.7 YEARS
    #23 MAX SUNSPOT # 120.8, CYCLE LENGTH 12? YEARS
    OCEANS
    PDO RISING CROSS OVER TO POSITIVE 1975 AND PEAKING IN 1997. AMO RISING, CROSS OVER TO POSITIVE 1980, PEAKING IN 1998
    EL NINO ACTIVITIES DOMINATE
    VOLCANOS
    EL CHICHON 1982[COOLING 1982-1985?]
    MT PINATUBO 1991[COOLING 1991-1994]
    MT ST HELEN 1980[COOLING 1980-1981?]
    NET WARMING PERIOD DUE TO SOLAR CYCLES SHORT BUT EXTENDING AT THE END [#23], SOLAR ACTIVITY HIGH, OCEANS TEMP RISING, PDO AND AMO PEAKING,EL NINO ACTIVITIES DOMINATE

  204. vukcevic (11:52:50) :
    But do you really believe that the equations on:
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/combined.gif
    are just product of sheer coincidence.

    The point is if the two or three curves or wiggles match up or are correlated. To my eye they are not, only only very weakly. There are standard ways of deciding such questions. E.g. make a scatter plot. If you would email me the yearly [or monthly] values that went into the plot, then I can make the scatter plot and discuss the correlation.

  205. leif
    Yes, there are other causes for climate change other than PDO’S but your comment does in no way eliminate PDO as being one of the possible and principal factors.Durning your comment around, prove that it is not?

  206. E.M.Smith (13:12:26) :
    Good stuff.
    If you don’t mind, I’d like to make this a post on the air vent. It’s what it is for lettin’ the pressure out.

  207. matt v. (15:34:31) :
    your comment does in no way eliminate PDO as being one of the possible and principal factors.
    Of course not. My comment was only intended to show that you can’t draw your conclusion about low/high solar cycles and cool/warm climate from the meager examples you provided.

  208. Jeff Id (14:22:47) :
    I wonder why it isn’t the accepted method, what argument against it could there be other than it takes a bit of work.
    The main reason is that solar physicists do not attach any physical meaning to the length of the cycle. The length is just the result of near random and unrelated events. A solar cycle extends physically for about 16 years and adjacent cycles overlap. The precise minimum is the result of accidental happenings and means nothing special, so doesn’t really natter, so why get hung up on a ‘better’ way of determining something that doesn’t matter. For SC23=>24, what is of interest is that 24 is late and lame.

  209. If I could be permitted to go “off topic” here to ask Leif a question.
    What might happen because of the sun absorbing heavy matter from “impacts”?
    Logically, such impacts would be very different than for any other body in the solar system since the sun would vaporize anything falling into it and sweep what remained along with its outer atmosphere (at least until it settled); however, such could be (for example) one source for heavier matter.
    I’m not meaning to imply that a rock even a hundred miles across would mean anything to the sun (pebble, meet ocean), only that it must be subjected to some level of bombardment and that such may have a meaningful effect over time.
    Has anyone done work with spectrographs that suggested when or if the sun has ‘suffered’ one of these ‘collisions’?
    I’m thinking that the matter associated with a larger object absorbed would take time to fully dissipate, and therefore might show up as a localized phenomenon for a time.

  210. Robert Bateman (14:01:14) :

    “Ric Werme (13:02:42) :
    New readers – please read that link, ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/ ) it’s the most intriguing item ever posted here.”
    I have read that link, and I have projected the sun and noted the ghostly trend in the spots that do make it.
    It’s plainly obvious to observe, no need for me to wait as I see it unfolding before my very eyes.
    Some may choose to pad the counts with spacecraft and ccd imagery, but it does not change the nature of the spots one bit.
    They are increasingly tough to observe/draw.

    Hmm, I don’t think I’ve heard you or Carsten mention contrast degradation before. I was going to ask when you last saw a decent sunspot, but one of the groups last month or so almost made it to decent.
    Here’s a thought – a large part of astrophotography is contrast enhancement. I wonder if all the electronic imaging going on will gradually adapt to the loss of contrast and not notice the progress Cheshire Cat is making. OTOH, Bill Livingston is looking at and documenting the contrast, so there will be a good instrumental record.
    One telescope, two eyes, one pencil, one paper. Worked for centuries, consistency in observation is important. How do you document tough-to-draw?
    Jeff Id (14:22:47) :

    My father likes to say – “Remember the old Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times.”

    Only problem is that we’ve stepped up to fascinating times.

  211. When was the last time I saw a really good spot?
    late March, 2008.
    They just get harder to pick up initially with each suceeding spot afterwards.
    I know at what radius from the Sun’s center the spot should be, but it takes several minutes of sliding the paper back & forth and checking in a circle to pick it off.
    When I say they are ghostly, it’s because if you aren’t looking very close to them, you don’t see them.
    Tough to draw means that a lot of patience is required to pick off the tiny outliers when the contrast is that bad and the normal seeing turbulence is going to play hell with one’s efforts.
    If all you have is 1 ghostly spot that is fading away, one is likely to come away empty handed. And that is what happened the last 2 days of 11010 for me. Mt. Wilson whiffed the last day of 11010.
    I sincerely hope I have made clear what I mean by ghostly and tough to observe/draw.
    Regular observers of faint/extended galaxies will know what I mean by a tough observation.

  212. How do you document tough-to-draw?
    Communication. Try M33 in an 8″ scope with an apparent FOV of 1/2 degree.
    The darned thing will make you swear under your breath in a crowd.

  213. Leif,
    Thank you for taking a moment to respond to the off topic question. The question was actually poised to me by another and my response was similar. Hence it was more of a conformation.
    Despite our differences on some topics I do respect your knowledge and work as a solar physicist.
    Thanks again,
    Lee Kington

  214. Leif Svalgaard (17:45:25) :
    On the one hand Leif says: “The main reason is that solar physicists do not attach any physical meaning to the length of the cycle.” And on the other: “For SC23=>24, what is of interest is that 24 is late and lame.”
    This sounds contradictory, but I may misunderstand the point he made. If the length of a cycle has no physical importance why then is it of interest that cycle 24 is late? Is the lateness of a cycle not the direct consequence of the length of the previous cycle or the length of the overlap of two consecutive cycles?

  215. Alex (04:13:49) :
    Interesting article, I am not sure we can scream Dalton minimum just yet though…

    Not yet. Right now we’re still at the furtive whisper stage… 😉

  216. Henry Galt (14:42:14) :
    Seriously dude, that was some treatise. I am going to steal it verbatim unless you complain here and now

    Do what you want with it. I hereby copyleft it with the provision that I may someday use it in a short book on GW errors… (If I ever stop reading this blog and start doing all that work that’s been piling up… addicting thing. That and trying to learn what vukcevic has written.) If anyone makes any money off of it, drop some in the ‘tip jar’ for WUWT.
    My only reservations with it are:
    In #4 I assert all stations can have made up data, when I’m not really certain if that is true for the automated stations. It might only be ‘all manned stations can have made up data”.
    In #10 I assert “vast majority” of papers, yet since I haven’t read all of them I’m really just asserting from the small sample I have read. A bit hyperbolic.
    In the ‘more technical’ bits, I ought to have said “you have three faucets, they are not labeled and are non-linear” and “There is another person in the shower who wants the water warmer than you like. Sometimes.”
    That must be the most concise encapsulation of the salient factors at play I have seen with these weary eyes anywhere. Ever.
    Sometimes I’m prolix. Sometimes not. I appreciate the compliment!
    It must have taken a while to assemble, but it lacks for nothing as a primer for exposing the group-think of the “members” of all our divvy-nations and once great institutions that allows the heaping of praise upon vandals.
    Like the PeeCe Prize of AlGore?
    It’s a ‘from memory’ summary of a pamphlet I’ve been working on for about a year (on and off, mostly off) with the complicated parts omitted (he wanted ‘basics’). Fundamental structure is to start with the data and follow it through the macerator… and into dreamland…

  217. Jeff Id (15:50:08) :
    Good stuff.
    If you don’t mind, I’d like to make this a post on the air vent. It’s what it is for lettin’ the pressure out.

    Feel free. And thank you!

  218. Just plain late is no comparison to the excuse offered by being wounded while heroically fighting off a horde of barbarians at the edge of town.
    SC24 pulls up lame after beating off the savage horde of mutant SC23 spots.
    Needs a ticker-tape parade and a chest full of medals.
    We must never forget those who sacrificed themselves for the good of the Solar Cycle.

  219. actuator wrote:
    Katherine,
    Could the reason we would all be dead if we burned all the combustible material available to us be that we’d starve to death? I believe just about everything we eat can be burned. It would just be a slower death.

    IF we burned all the combustible material available to us, the CO2 released would simply be used by plants. If it gets to the point of mass hysteria and self-immolation, then you have what? Steak on the grill? 😉

  220. Katherine (04:36:07) :

    actuator wrote:
    Katherine,
    Could the reason we would all be dead if we burned all the combustible material available to us be that we’d starve to death? I believe just about everything we eat can be burned. It would just be a slower death.

    IF we burned all the combustible material available to us, the CO2 released would simply be used by plants….

    If we burned all the combustible material, there wouldn’t be any plants left to take up the CO2. This would be a Bad Thing. Algae to the rescue. The genetic engineering to turn algae into a forest is left as an exercise to the reader.

  221. Ric Werme (20:07:10) :
    Hmm, I don’t think I’ve heard you or Carsten mention contrast degradation before. I was going to ask when you last saw a decent sunspot, but one of the groups last month or so almost made it to decent.

    I am not a very regular solar observer, unfortunately. At 60N and tall trees to the south where I live it is not so easy during the winter period. Not to mention the fact that I am at work when (if) the sun is up.
    So until the spring I am mostly watching SOHO.

  222. Ric Werme (20:07:10) :
    Here’s a thought – a large part of astrophotography is contrast enhancement. I wonder if all the electronic imaging going on will gradually adapt to the loss of contrast and not notice the progress Cheshire Cat is making. OTOH, Bill Livingston is looking at and documenting the contrast, so there will be a good instrumental record.

    In my opinion any competent astrophotographer will notice a difference in contrast if it is real. Proper astronomical CCD cameras have a very linear behaviour and the only setting you can control is the exposure length. With webcams adapted to astronomical use it is slightly more complex, but having complete control over the camera settings is always important. So measuring changes in sunpot contrast over time is probably easier with a camera than just visually, if done right.
    I am also waiting to hear what comes out of Livingston’s measurements…

  223. LEIF
    I went back to 1850 in my analysis and the pattern of cooling and warming was similar to the two periods that I already posted , This is a total of 5 periods spanning 165 years of data This is not meagre amount of support data . It would be too much to post all here although I can post the other three periods from 1850 to 1944 if there is sufficent interest. There is limited data about PDO,AMO and ENSO beyond say 1850. Prof. Easterbrook went back 500 years found repeating temperature cyclesl but he excluded specific solar cycles in his analysis.

  224. Dave Wendt,
    “…we’ll send them at night”
    Now that’s the kind of “thinking outside the box” that Al Gore can appreciate!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  225. Chris Schoneveld (00:40:41) :
    If the length of a cycle has no physical importance why then is it of interest that cycle 24 is late? Is the lateness of a cycle not the direct consequence of the length of the previous cycle or the length of the overlap of two consecutive cycles?
    It is the difference between science and numerology. If we consider a solar cycle as a physical entity defined as consisting of all the spots that have the same Hale polarities, then one can talk about the birth of the cycle as the time of the first occurrence of one of these spots, and the death of the cycle as the last occurrence of one of these spots. The length of the cycle [15-17 years] is the duration between these two times. One can at least imagine [and it almost happened some 350 years ago], that there are no more spots of either polarity-pair for an extended period [say 50 years]. So the new cycle has not been born yet, but the old cycle is definitely dead. Then, finally the new cycle starts. In this situation, I would not say that the old cycle lasted 60 years, but rather that there was no cycle for a period of time. In 1810 there were no spots at all. Does that year belong to the previous cycle or to the following? It would seem arbitrary to say that it is half and half.
    All that said, one can still do numerology with the existing sunspot number series. An example is this paper http://www.leif.org/research/On%20solar%20cycle%20predictions%20and%20reconstructions.pdf of which I’m a co-author.

  226. matt v. (08:11:14) :
    Prof. Easterbrook went back 500 years found repeating temperature cyclesl but he excluded specific solar cycles in his analysis.
    There is no doubt that cool/warm periods come and go, i.e alternate. To call them ‘cycles’ is too much in my opinion and seemingly also in Easterbrook’s.

  227. matt v (15:16:04)
    Just as the recent cooling tends to reinforce the argument that CO2 only plays a minor role in climate and temperature regulation, so might careful observation of temperature, with or without lag, to sunspots over the next few years might be able to demonstrate the extent to which the sun’s input determines climate and temperature, and with real luck, may even suggest a mechanism.
    I can’t see, matt, what we both wished I could. There’s got to be a pony in there somewhere. It’s just very well wrapped. I think the solution to Leif’s agony about hypersensitivity will also be a big clue to mechanism.
    =====================================

  228. OK, my agony about Leif’s point about hypersensitivity of climate to solar input. I presumed too much about his feelings.
    ==========================================

  229. Leif (08:39:35)
    I’d happily add observation and analysis of ‘assymetry parameter of Method 1’ to the routes to the solution. I see that wonderful referenced paper hedges on the meaning of the sunspot record. Dr. Livingstone, I presume, will soon help us with some answers.
    ===========================================

  230. kim (08:57:31) :
    OK, my agony about Leif’s point about hypersensitivity of climate to solar input. I presumed too much about his feelings.
    It is not me that is hypersensitive, but the climate that must be if the tiny solar variations have any effect.

  231. I’m also waiting for Livingston’s gauss measurement of that poor wimpy 11010. And I do use CCD cameras for astrophotograpy, and I know about image stretching schemes and deconvolution techniques. I also see some pretty bad examples of dust donuts from lack of calibration in the white light and h-alpha images.

  232. E.M.Smith (03:11:03) :
    Do what you want with it. I hereby copyleft it with the provision that I may someday use it in a short book on GW errors…

    After sleeping on it, I think ‘copyleft’ has more restrictions than is deserved…
    So I hereby place it in the public domain. May it only have merit to deserve it.

  233. I believe that the surface carbon is not really the issue per se, it’s the extra stuff being pulled up out of sequestration en masse and dumped into the ecosphere. Along with all the toxins that took so many aeons to filter out. To me, AGW is giving out the right warning for all the wrong reasons.
    Irreplaceable energy sources are being squandered in a frivolous manner and very little effort is being made to filter the toxins at the source.
    To put it in the ancient story of the ants, winter preparation is being blown off for the ease of today.

  234. I get your gist about SC24 being late & lame, Leif.
    It’s struggling mightily for a good reason.
    Simply being late is a poor excuse, even for a solar cycle.

  235. E.M.Smith (11:51:13) :
    So maybe we ought to be calling it the Leif Minimum … how do these things get sorted out between the guy who predicted it first and the guy who predicted it for the best reasons?…
    None of the previous Grand Minima were named for any of the two reasons you mentioned, but for Solar System scientists that have had an impact [positive]. I suggest the Eddy Minimum.

  236. E.M.Smith (11:51:13) :
    Leif Svalgaard (07:15:20) :
    b) that cycle 24 is one with weak solar activity
    I hope so, as I have predicted precisely that: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
    So maybe we ought to be calling it the Leif Minimum … how do these things get sorted out between the guy who predicted it first and the guy who predicted it for the best reasons?…

    Sorry If I have to upset Dr. Svalgaard. His article was Received 3 October 2004; revised 10 November 2004; accepted 9 December 2004; published 11 January 2005.
    My equation which is predicting New Dalton was published 1 year and 3 days earlier.
    Report number astro-ph/0401107, Title Evidence of a multi resonant system within solar periodic activity Author(s) Vukcevic, M A
    Imprint 8 Jan 2004.
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/704882?ln=fr
    Sorry Dr. Svalgaard !

  237. Leif (11:14:19)
    Yes, I understand. It wasn’t your hypersensitivity I was presuming, but your agony. I agonize over it, because I believe the sun is dominant in the cycling climate, and believe that unknown cycles from the sun cause that dominance, but can’t solve the hypersensitivity problem. I can smell a solution, but can’t see it. Not very scientific, at least not very productive of mechanism.
    ==================================

  238. Lets not get carried away…Svalgaard has predicted one low cycle around 75 SSN, which is far from predicting a grand minimum. My vote is for the Jose Minimum, he will be recognized for making the biggest discovery.

  239. The whole idea behind discussing things that are not yet understood or understood poorly, is to open the doors to fresh thinking, and to open the window to let some fresh air into the room.
    Analysis paralysis.

  240. For those interested in grand minima….I am currently going back 5000 yrs and mapping out all the previous grand minima and maxima and mapping it against the 11000 year C14 record, and its looking exciting. I will publish the results on here soon.

  241. If we get a new spot that forms in the opposite hemispere of the Sun, it has the same polarity/leading of the No. Hemisphere plage we now see, that then makes it an SC23. What does a SC23 spot this late in the game change, if anything?

  242. Robert Bateman,
    The analysis paralysis post is good. Your point about squandering resources is taken, although the devil is in the details.
    One of the resources we need to pass on to the future is an accurate history of what is happening now. If they decide what we recorded is not good enough for them to use, and they need to adjust it because they decide it’s wrong, they may as well throw it out the window and start over, as this whole AGW fiasco painfully indicates.
    Jumping off soapbox…
    …NOW 😉
    Andrew ♫

  243. Both Learmoth and Mauna Loa have the new spot on White Light images, though I must use Equalized stretch to see it. Much like 07/19 and 07/20 spot, which were counted.
    An SC23 is NOT what I was expecting to see, but I’ll be out tomorrow with scope & paper.

  244. Looks like SC23 just keeps on going and going…
    Just saw that small spot on SOHO just south of the equator. Wonder how long it’ll last.
    Time for an updated prediction?

  245. I hope it lasts long enough for me to get a good look at it. I’m curious to see if it is as wispy as 11010.
    Spotted regions not numbered by NOAA/SWPC.
    [S737] This region emerged in the southwest quadrant on January 18 and has developed slowly.
    Indeed, it may be one of those you cannot see until the sun is near the zenith.
    STAR has it numbered.

  246. kim (15:11:42) :
    I believe the sun is dominant in the cycling climate, and believe that unknown cycles from the sun cause that dominance, but can’t solve the hypersensitivity problem. I can smell a solution, but can’t see it. Not very scientific, at least not very productive of mechanism.

    My best guess so far is a composite of the Svalgaard GCR thesis with a UV/O3 ‘kicker’. The sun backs off on output, the UV reduces such that O3 production is cut back out of proportion (I posted a link to an O3 anomaly chart some time ago seeming to show this; down 40% at N.Pole.). The solar magnetosphere contracts. The GCR increase both makes more clouds in the middle of the planet (after Svalgaard) and helps erode the O3 at the poles in particular.
    I’ve seen a graph showing that the only GHG blocking the 9-10 micron range is O3. If true, as it reduces poleward, you get a nice big 9-10 micron window radiating IR into space at the same time mid latitude clouds cut down on heat input. That ought to give what we have now (cold pole with warm tropical air battling for control as the ‘lava lamp’ blobs of hot & cold wobble about.) As the poles drop to OhMyGod cold -50 to -80 the H2O window ought to open and all that cold precipitation might scrub a fair amount of CO2 out at the poles.
    Issues: It’s all highly speculative on my part and poorly backed. We need to see the Svalgaard mechanism show it’s face better. I have not incorporated any understanding of temperature changes with altitude (i.e. it’s a 2d talking points model, not a 3d conceptual model). I have only seen one reference to the O3 being the sole blocker of 9-10 microns and I don’t know if a very cold pole can radiate effectively in that window.
    So if that is helpful in finding a mechanism, great. If it’s just bunk and rubbish, tell me in about a week so I can enjoy the bliss of ignorance a bit longer 😉

  247. Congrats to WUWT on the very well deserved win.
    Many thanks also to all the excellent posters here. Informative. Thoughtful. Challenging.
    E.M.Smith (23:56:48) : “Who measures clouds?
    See my last post Mike J (03:20:52). The 3 organisations that I know of are NASA’s CERES, ISCCP FD (only a name to me, I haven’t looked them up), and BBSO’s Earthshine . They show albedo increasing until around 2000, then decreasing sharply over 1-2 years, then either flattening out or increasing a bit more. It all tallies quite well with ocean temperature measurements showing ocean warming slowing dramatically up to about 2003, and the oceans now having cooled since about 2006. [see links in my last post].
    Leif Svalgaard (23:29:07) : “The short answer (to why the sun is not the climate driver) is two-fold…..
    My feeling is that we have failed to show that the sun is the driver, not that we have shown that the sun is not the driver. It is possible that there are many other ways of looking at it, which we have not tried yet. LS refers to a 130yr study, but much longer-term studies do look very convincing. eg. in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
    Walter Cronanty (07:23:36) :
    My answer to your question is : no, the AP article is not correct, and in any case it is pretty irrelevant. If temperatures have started to turn down, or do ever turn down, then the hottest year of all occurs just before that . What matters now is what happens next, and there are plenty of indications are that we could be in for some cooling.
    matt v. (15:16:04) : good post, I think you are on the right track.
    Leif Svalgaard (11:14:19) : “It is not me that is hypersensitive, but the climate that must be if the tiny solar variations have any effect.
    Maybe it is. I don’t think the possibility has in any way been eliminated. It’s just proving hard to find anything concrete one way or the other. (Now I see kim (15:11:42) has said it rather well). I don’t think we’ve heard the last of solar activity, sunspot cycles, cosmic rays, and albedo. Not by a long chalk.

  248. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:03:56) :
    Archibald is spot on…..
    “Solar Cycle 23 is now 19 years old”

    The first clear region of cycle 23 was 7923 on May 10th, 1996, only 12.6 years ago. Region 7855 in March 1995 may have been SC24. The torsional oscillation for cycle 23 started in 1994, 15 years ago.
    Cycles do not start at the peak of the previous cycle.

  249. Leif Svalgaard (04:58:40) :
    Cycles do not start at the peak of the previous cycle.
    Archibald’s point is the start of the Hale cycle…something no one else has picked up on.
    only 12.6 years ago
    And still going, not exactly common.

  250. kim (15:11:42) :
    I believe the sun is dominant in the cycling climate, and believe that unknown cycles from the sun cause that dominance, but can’t solve the hypersensitivity problem. I can smell a solution, but can’t see it. Not very scientific, at least not very productive of mechanism.
    You are spot on kim…I can smell it too, look at the C14 records over 11000 yrs, it follows a trend…the information is there, we just need to drag it out. I will have something concrete very soon. The cycles are not unknown.

  251. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (06:17:09) :
    “Cycles do not start at the peak of the previous cycle.”
    Archibald’s point is the start of the Hale cycle…something no one else has picked up on.

    Nonsense. What is the Hale cycle in your opinion?

  252. Leif Svalgaard (08:00:33) :
    Nonsense
    You just love that word….the Hale cycle is 2 Schwabe cycles, and whether it starts at maximum or minimum is beside the the point. Archibald through creative thinking has a found a statistic that is interesting. It might be time for the more creative amongst us.

  253. Mike.j,
    Based on the analysis of 5 major past climate periods consisting of 3 solar cycles each and an analysis of the associated PDO, AMO,ENSO and the solar cycles between 1843 AND 2008 , I came to the following tentative and summary conclusion.
    2008 -2030
    PDO WENT NEGATIVE IN 2007 AND IS DECLINING. THE POSITIVE AMO IS ALMOST SPENT. AMO HAS BEEN DECLINING SINCE MID 2008. ENSO IS IN LA NINA PHASE .
    SOLAR CYCLE # 24 IS SLOW TO START AND IS EXPECTED TO BE OF LOW ACTIVITY ACCORDING TO SOME .PERSONALLY I DON’T THINK IT WILL PICK UP UNTIL MID YEAR. ALSO SOLAR CYCLE # 25 MAY BE OF LOW ACTIVITY. THE TREND OF THE PDO, AMO AND ENSO PERIOD IS SIMILAR TO THE 1943-1976 PERIOD EXCEPT THERE WAS MUCH HIGHER SOLAR ACTIVITY IN 1943 -1976 WHEN THE YEARLY SUNSPOT NUMBER AVERAGE FOR 30 YEARS WAS 75. NOW WE ARE PREDICTING A PEAK OF 75. THE 1943-1976 LEVEL OF SOLAR ACTIVITY WHICH WAS ONE OF THE PAST HIGHEST MAY NOT BE PRESENT IN 2008-2040. HENCE THE PERIOD IS LIKELY TO BE A COOL PERIOD.
    HOWEVER THERE IS STILL SOME SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT FUTURE SOLAR ACTIVITY AS OTHERS ARE PREDICTING HIGHER SOLAR ACTIVITY [100 -130 RANGE.] THE RANGE OF PREDICTIONS IS 75-165 MAXIMUM SUNSPOT NUMBER.
    IN MY OPINION THE WEATHER MAY BE SIMILAR TO 1950 ‘S, 1960’S AND 1970’S IF NOT COOLER IF THE SUN STAYS AT LOW ACTIVITY LEVEL.
    IN MY OPINION IT IS NOT THE SUN ALONE OR THE OCEANS ALONE THAT DRIVE THE WEATHER. IT IS THEIR INTERACTION TOGETHER.
    HENCE I PREDICT A NET COOL PERIOD AND NOT GLOBAL WARMING.

  254. Looks like this is going to be a “one day wonder.” I am wondering whether there is some designated time a sunspot must exist before “it counts.”

  255. Oh, no david, that was a late-night stand that ran out the door at 3am.
    I seriously doubt it ever got to drawing visibility before fading into the wee hours of the morning.
    Now, if some nice boffins will devise a scale of visibility between the SOHO satellite visibility and the Solar Projection visibility thresholds, and number it from -1 to say -25, they can start adding them onto the regular graphs as spots below zero.
    Then we can see a little more of what is going on under that smoke screen the Sun is using to hide what it’s doing.

  256. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (08:24:20) :
    “Nonsense”
    You just love that word….the Hale cycle is 2 Schwabe cycles, and whether it starts at maximum or minimum is beside the the point.

    The difference between ‘wrong’ and ‘nonsense’ is that the former is just being factual incorrect, the latter is being conceptually incorrect.
    So, the currently fading SC23 spot belongs to the ‘Hale’ cycle that started in 1990 at the maximum of cycle 22 according to ‘creative’ thinking. Schwabe and Hale cycles start near minimum according to established nomenclature. Mixing min and max is what is nonsense.
    Even if we count from previous maximum, SC22 produced spots 19 years later, SC21 produced spots 20 years later, SC20 produced spots 20 years later, SC19 produced spots 20 years later, etc. Being factually correct beats creative thinking every time. The butterfly diagram http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif is good for this.

  257. A strange sunspot has emerged:
    “A new sunspot is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows. Credit: SOHO/MDI”
    From Space Weather
    Another response to the new sunspot:
    http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/01/solar-cycle-23-not-done-yet-stay-tuned.html

  258. To: Robert Bateman:
    Do you have a hydrogen alpha filter? I have a 0.56 angstrom daystar (University) which I havn’t used for 2 years due to solar inactivity. It looks like another year to wait.

  259. “” Henry Galt (19:09:14) :
    Jeff Id (13:32:54) :
    “Ed Scott,
    My money job is in optics. I am interested in getting the absorption spectra for gaseous CO2 for the full range of solar wavelengths, yet so far I can’t find it. It has to be out there.
    If anyone knows where I can find the data I have seen plotted so many times, it would be appreciated. I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.”
    I don’t agree that “It has to be out there”. In fact I think that, broadly, it was one of the very first things that was disappeared when this scam was thought up.
    I have some questions.
    All-
    Why are we constantly told that the science is settled on this matter? Along with all the “this was explained in 1896″ stuff.
    Where is the location of all the(/any) new, revealing, authoritative evidence that CO2 “does” anything that the billions of dollars per year thrown at this settled science has purchased on behalf of the tax paying public?
    George- In the spirit of your post at (11:54:45) : (and in some hope that your copy of The Infrared Handbook is a book you keep to hand)
    What is the real IR fingerprint of CO2?
    Why are there still no numbers on the comparison of the fingerprint absorption of CO2 compared to the quantity of its black body absorption? I may have this completely arse-about-face but I am frustrated that we are told “someone knows” and maybe it’s you 😉 “”
    Henry,
    A big part of the problem is that while the “fingerprint” of CO2 is actually quite well known, that is only a part of the problem. For what happens in our atmosphere, CO2 is but a small impurity in a sea of nitrogen and oxygen; with about a 1% each of H2O and Ar (average H2O content).
    The Infrared part of the CO2 “fingerprint” is reasonably well understood; and incidently the best overall curve of that I actually received from Jim Peden; who is an occasional poster here, and is very knoweldgeable on spectra. Both of us happen to be on a short list from around the, world, who routinely correspond amongst ourselves. That list is a subset of the originally 400, and recently revised at 650, but now over 700 scientists from all over the world who are on public record, as not being part of the concensus that the science is settled. Those lists and the short bios of all on the list are a part of the Senate record; particularly the Senate EPW Committee , chaired by CA Senator Barbara Boxer, with Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, being the minority leader on that committee.
    (our host here, Anthony, is also on the short list of that secret society).
    But back to CO2, which looks like this:- O=C-O ;
    It is a linear molecule with a double chemical bond between Oxygen and Carbon; and as depicted here, the right hand double bond is seen edge on, since the two bond pairs are in two planes, perpendicular to each other. They are actually the vertices of a regular tetrahedron, and if you have such a thing you will easily see that each edge of a regular tetrahedron has an edge opposite it which is perpendicular to it.
    So imagine those bonds to be like little thin springs, which can stretch or bend. The pairs can stretch in unison, so the carbon atom stays stationary, and the Oxygens oscillate in opposite directions along the axis of the molecule. That’s the symmetrical stretch mode. The two Oxygens can vibrate in the same direction, with the Carbon moving back and forth between them. All three are moving, but the CM stays stationary; this is the assymmetrical stretch mode, and occurs at about4.2 microns. The symmetrical stretch mode is not supposed to be IR active, since the center of the electric charge is stationary, so no dipole moment shows up.
    The interesting mode occurs when the O on the right moves up and down, with the two springs on the right bending vertically, so the molecule bends.
    The situation on the left is much stiffer as to bending in that vertical plane; but it is obvious that it is no different from the situation on the right; except it is at rightangles; so the left oxygen can vibrate in and out of the paper, at exactly the same frequency as the right one. The two modes of bending vibration are identical and indistinguishable, so it is a degenerate situation, commonly referred to as simply the bending mode or the degenerate bending mode. This takes place at a 14.77 micron wavelength and is the one responsible for CO2 infamy, since the peak of the earth’s thermal emissions is around 10.1 microns at a mean 15C temperature.
    The trouble is that we don’t have a pure CO2 atmosphere; we only have 385 ppm which is one molecule in 2597. Any one CO2 molecule has to look through a surrounding cloud of 14 layers of air molecules before it sees another CO2 molecule anywhere.
    So they do not act in concert; each CO2 moelcule is an orphan, and they interract in energy exchanges with the nirtogen and oxygen molecules; so the IR photons captured by CO2 to excite this bending vibration result in mechanical energy being transmitted to the regular air molecules in collisions, which heats up the air.
    Well if I go on, I am going to die of starvation; so I’ll have to think more about this after lunch.

  260. Jack:
    No, I don’t have a filter except for a LPR for 1-1/4″ and 2″ that I used when I was in San Jose some 5 years back. The rest are CRGB on an SBIG CFW8 used for astro-imaging.
    I have a friend here who has a Coronodo Solar Scope, and he’s just as disgusted with the poor showing the last 2 years due to the lackadaisacal Sun. We were asked to help out at the Solstice showing this past June, but it was cancelled due to nothing to show the public.
    From out point of view, the Sun is a crashing bore these days.

  261. re: Hale Cycle
    Despite a strong disagreement on the matter with Dr. Svalgaard (argued elsewhere some six months ago) I believe that Hale cycle is only a surface (top layers) effect only. If it was not, than polar field would not be able to change so swiftly, for such a large body. I believe that even Dr. Hathaway unintentionally said so.
    Dr. H explains: “The poles end up flipping because these flows transport south-pointing magnetic flux to the north magnetic pole, and north-pointing flux to the south magnetic pole.” The dipole field steadily weakens as oppositely-directed flux accumulates at the Sun’s poles until, at the height of solar maximum, the magnetic poles change polarity and begin to grow in a new direction.
    Elsewhere his colegues from NASA give ‘explanation’ if this context:
    The Sun’s basic magnetic field, like Earth’s, resembles that of a bar magnet.
    Either this is a nonsense or the Hale cycle is just a surface effect, and the Sun has an internal “long term steady” source of magnetic field (as the other magnetic bodies of the solar system do). Such source, if it does exist, would have low intensity field, and it is easily overridden by the fluctuating surface changes.
    It is enough to take one look at polar field of Dr. H’s up to date magnetic butterfly diagram
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg
    to realise that this is not a field generated by an internal magnetic dynamo, although such may exists somewhere dip down and does not do a flip every 11 years .

  262. ” ‘minimum’ is not a compromise. The discussion was about what the symptoms of minimum were.”
    Perhaps ‘gridlock’ is a more accurate characterization. Our luminary so effectively argued his case April 2007 for Rmax of 70 in 2013 that he was pleased to join the reactionaries at 95 in 2012, the conservatives went for Rmax of 145 and the June 2007 minimum was abandoned by all.
    So much for refusing to accomodate compromise.

  263. matt v. (08:39:23) : I like your analysis / prediction [or should that be “projection” as per IPCC?]. Regarding your “in my opinion it is not the sun alone or the oceans alone that drive the weather. it is their interaction together” – yes I agree, but what is really crucial for climate is the total heat content of the oceans. If the IPCC is correct, then atmospheric CO2 is continually causing heat to be retained by the planet, and the only realistic place that the heat can be stored is in the oceans. Stuff can slosh around all over the planet, changing the weather, the “global surface temperature”, sea surface temperature, atmospheric temperatures, regional temperatures, etc, etc, but the total heat content of the oceans MUST increase.
    We now have peer-reviewed scientific papers (AGWers please note : peer-reviewed, so they must be true) that show (a) oceans cooling (in total not just surface) and (b) albedo increasing to match. IMHO the inference is very clear :
    1. Something drives albedo.
    2. Albedo drives ocean heat content.
    3. Ocean heat content is a driver of climate.
    In 2. there is no timelag. In 3 there can be.
    Links to the two papers are :
    albedo : http://start.org/journals/pip/jd/2008JD010734-pip.pdf
    oceans : http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
    But arising from the papers alone (ie, not relying on my analysis) is the inescapable conclusion that the use of “cloud feedback” by the IPCC [IPCC Report AR4 8.6.2.3] to provide 40% of global warming via ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) is just plain wrong.
    Jeff Id (13:32:54) : “I’d like to try and reproduce those greenhouse calculations for my own understanding.
    Please do, the sooner the better. The more ways we can find of getting away from fake science the better. But to my mind, the recent findings re albedo and oceans (as above) already destroy the AGW argument. Not that they should have been needed, as many scientists have already demolished AGW from all sorts of different angles – but for some reason no-one will listen.

  264. George E. Smith,
    I want to find the wavelength absorption data in a series for gaseous CO2, methane, air and water vapor. I am familiar with the vibration mode analysis for absorption as you described but am hoping for measured data. I like to get a feel for the magnitude of numbers and without these curves it is difficult for me to understand the true magnitude of energy increase by CO2 (I’m not trusting other peoples numbers). I think the calcs will be a little tricky but I have some ideas on how I would like to handle it. Only trouble is, finding a source is difficult.
    Some other posters left links which I looked at but haven’t thoroughly gone through (I will, my thanks to them). I didn’t see any data series jump out, only graphs. If you have an idea, it would be appreciated.

  265. Leif said “Yes, this is well-understood and monitored. The total power input [includes flares and CMEs] is of the order of tens of GigaWatt, which is about a million times less than what TSI gives.”
    Leif,
    My original question for calculations was not for solar wind input but for induced earth currents, telluric currents, and how those currents are impacted by changes in solar output.
    I agree relative to TSI , the power input maybe considered negligible but only if you are modeling that input in the same way you model radiative heating. However a small input of energy can be amplified much like pushing a rock over a ledge. Small changes in solar input could greatly magnify the energy of telluric current because the energy due to telluric currents would include not just solar input effects on magnetic fields but couples that change to the mechanical energy from the earth’s rotation and ocean currents, etc. It is then transformed to electrical energy analogous to a cold mountain stream being able to burn your toast by transforming mechanical energy into electrical.
    From everything I can read there is great difficulty in measuring telluric currents on a global scale due to the vast variations in topography and conductance as well as impacts of drought, etc.. It seems that after a spurt of inquiry into telluric currents from the late 19th century and early, the difficulty of modeling these currents has relegated research to engineering problems of protecting cables, pipelines and grids.
    I was hoping that your interest in solar impacts on climate would have examined the effect of such external source variations on telluric currents and they might have been recently modeled. But judging from your answer I assume that has not been done. However if I assume incorrectly I would greatly appreciate any links to that research.

  266. “” Jeff Id (13:39:08) :
    George E. Smith,
    I want to find the wavelength absorption data in a series for gaseous CO2, methane, air and water vapor. I am familiar with the vibration mode analysis for absorption as you described but am hoping for measured data. I like to get a feel for the magnitude of numbers and without these curves it is difficult for me to understand the true magnitude of energy increase by CO2 (I’m not trusting other peoples numbers). I think the calcs will be a little tricky but I have some ideas on how I would like to handle it. Only trouble is, finding a source is difficult.
    Some other posters left links which I looked at but haven’t thoroughly gone through (I will, my thanks to them). I didn’t see any data series jump out, only graphs. If you have an idea, it would be appreciated. “”
    Well Jeff, that is the $64 question; I have frustrated myself over the very same considerations. The problem is that it is difficult to calculate such things at a fundamental level, and actual measurments have to be made under some specific experimental conditions.
    If I were designing an RF amplifier for the front end of a new HD television to receive broadcast signals, I know that I can obtain a signal generator, that is capable of producing controlled monochromatic signals at any and every frequency int he range that ineed for my amplifier, so bench testing the performance is relatively straight forward.
    The trouble is we can’t very easily make a “signal generator” that we can tune over the range of from say 0.1 micron wavelength to 100 micron wavelength (3000-3 THz).
    And I can buy an oscilloscope that is capable of viewing the signals over the whole TV range, but there is no such thing as a detector for that whole range, that is of interest in climate physics.
    Nuclear physicists are used to specifying the probabilities of nuclear “reactions” in terms of “crossections”. In the case of a nitrogen atom’s response to an incoming high energy proton or maybe a neutron; they paint a target of a certain size centered on the atom, and if the incoming hits that target, the reaction happens; but if it misses, the reaction doesn’t happen, and they specify the area of those crossection targets in “Barns” which is 10^-24 squ cm. Yes literally it derives from hitting the side of a barn.
    Now in principle, the question of an IR thermal energy photon being captured by a CO2 molecule and exciting one of the known modes of vibration, can also be specified as a crossection. Then from the density of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, and the size of the bullseye, you can calculate the probability of absorption of that energy in a certain path length. But those things are usually measured as an absorption coefficient, in an exponential absorption equation, where the flux decays as e^-alpha x, where alpha is the absorption coefficient.
    That simple equation works in things like optical color filter glasses, where energy once absorbed is turned completley into local heating, and the transmission can be calculated easily for any thickness x .
    It gets complicated though if the glass happens to be fluorescent, so even though it absorbs the original photon, it subsequently emits a lower energy longer wave photon, instead of making nothing but heating effects.
    Same thing happens in gases, where the excited gas molecule, cna re-emit virtually the same photon it absorbed and return to the original state. sometimes, particularly in atomic spectra, that re-emission may be prohibited by various rules, so the probability of it happening may be very low. But the excited molecule, will usually collide with some ordinary molecule of the air, and some sort of maybe elastic collision will occur, with an energy re-distribution that depends on teh species, and also the collision geometry.
    These collisions result in a distribution of molecular velocities, which end up shifting the wavelength of photons that can be absorbed or emitted, and these result in broadening of the intrinsically narrow molecular absorption line.
    The first atomic clock that was successful, used the ammonia molecule which has a triangle of hydrogens, with a nitrogen at the top of the tetrahedron. The nitrogen is capable of popping throught the H triangle, and ending up at the bottom of an inverted tetrahedron, and that mode of vibration is excited by a microwave frequency; which is known very accurately. But such events are performed in a very low density of ammonia molecules, or better yet in a controlled molecular beam, where molecular collisions are virtually eliminated. Then the intrinsic width of the ammonia line is extremely narrow making for a very accurate atomic clock. Of course modern Cesium or rubidium oscillators have replaced ammonia, and hydrogen and verious laser sources promise even more accurate clocks.
    In the hustle and bustle of the atmosphere, the CO2 line is broadened out to something like 13.5 to 16.5 microns, due to the effetcs of collisions (pressure) and temperature, which affects bith collision rates and molecular velocites, which Doppler modulate the range of wavelengths that can be absorbed or emitted from the CO2.
    Running outside to you barbecue patio to read the official thermometer, is one thing, and as Anthony has shown us, is difficult to get right.
    But developing fundamental reaction parameters is a very tedious laboratory process, and you don’t do it unless you really want to know the answer in a big way.
    The Military is reasonably happy with the results that can be measured out in an actual environment, along a horizontal path, because mostly what they want to know is signal propagation ranges in infrared sensing systems.
    Anyhow, I too have looked for fundamental absorption parameters and such, for CO2 or even water vapor, and it is out there somewhere but hard to locate. AS I said Jim Peden sent me what is the best graphs I currently have; which itself is very illuminating, when you compare the water and the CO2 spectra.
    George

  267. gary gulrud (12:33:08) :
    Our luminary so effectively argued […]
    So much for refusing to accomodate compromise.

    My discussion was about the physics and natural phenomena. Yours seems to have taken on an odious ad-hom tone. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    vukcevic (12:28:57) :
    Despite a strong disagreement on the matter with Dr. Svalgaard I believe that Hale cycle is only a surface (top layers) effect only.
    First, let’s stop talking about the ‘Hale’ cycle. There is no Hale cycle. You can arbitrarily consider cycle N and N+1 to be two parts of a 22-year cycle, but so is also the other arbitrary pairing N and N-1. The 22-year cycle is not a ‘physical’ cycle.
    Second, the Babcock dynamo that is the basis for my prediction is a shallow dynamo. There are two shear zones [where dynamos can operate] in the interior: one at the bottom of the convection zone [deep dynamo, long magnetic memory] and one just below the surface [shallow dynamo, short magnetic memory]. ‘Mine’ is the shallow one.
    Reversal of the polar fields is a surface process in any case [irrespective of where the dynamo is].
    Jim Steele (13:39:41) :
    induced earth currents, telluric currents, and how those currents are impacted by changes in solar output.
    The telluric currents are induced in the Earth by the ionospheric currents via an electromagnetic field propagated in the space between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, like a guided wave between two conducting plates. As such the telluric currents ‘follow’ the ionospheric ones [their magnetic effect being about half of that from above]. Since the subsurface conductivity varies a lot more than the ionospheric conductance, the telluric currents are more irregular [can actually be used to probe the conductivity and are therefore useful prospecting tools]. As far as the impact of changes in the solar output, the telluric currents just follow the external currents. They do not ‘live their own lives’, so to speak.

  268. Leif Svalgaard (10:29:37) :
    Even if we count from previous maximum, SC22 produced spots 19 years later, SC21 produced spots 20 years later, SC20 produced spots 20 years later, SC19 produced spots 20 years later, etc. Being factually correct beats creative thinking every time.
    I might wait for Dr. Archibald’s response.

  269. Jim Steele (13:39:41) :
    But judging from your answer I assume that has not been done. However if I assume incorrectly I would greatly appreciate any links to that research.
    They have. The easiest for me is simply to ask you to do a Google search on: mantle conductivity magnetic

  270. George E. Smith
    “But those things are usually measured as an absorption coefficient, in an exponential absorption equation, where the flux decays as e^-alpha x, where alpha is the absorption coefficient.”
    This is what I want to find
    “That simple equation works in things like optical color filter glasses, where energy once absorbed is turned completley into local heating, and the transmission can be calculated easily for any thickness x .”
    As I said, I work in optics and have designed di-electric optical coatings, ray trace software, non-imaging lenses, vision systems, worked with multiple forms of interferometery and dozens of other optics related works. I am familiar with the “signal generator and detector requireements”. I am also intimately familiar with phosphors and the absorption/reemission problem.
    The re-emission is something I haven’t solved in the puzzle (besides finding the data), if I can treat it as a bulk material a greybody emission may would be enough due to the thermal transfer between molecules (there are references which indicate vast majority of the re-emission from CO2 is through collisions) but I need to do more work on that.
    I have seen several absorption curves in other articles as generated by tunable sources, I just can’t find the raw data assembled into a continuous curve. If it isn’t available I can use the calculated curves (no data there either).
    I don’t plan to make a full climate model but my thought is, I can make a 3D finite element version of the atmosphere to perform a monte-carlo raytrace analysis which will give an idea of the actual improvement in energy absorption by CO2. A basic version would be able to take into account atmospheric density and moisture level, then I could add in some feedback and other things just to explore the net energy difference.
    If nothing else, it would make an interesting blog post.

  271. Thank you, Leif. That’s getting close to 1500, and I’ll assume that was on the best day or somewhere near it.

  272. Robert Bateman (19:54:58) :
    I’ll assume that was on the best day or somewhere near it.
    The average of the first two days. The third day was very difficult to get a good measurement.

  273. E.M.Smith
    Re burning a steak. I hope you were joking since steak is primarily made up of hydrocarbons which, if heated sufficiently in the presence of oxygen, will definitely burn.

  274. “have taken on an odious ad-hom tone. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
    Au contraire, good Dr. The issue is whether the solar minimum is indeed a deterministic identification. Here at WUWT, on or about July 27 of last year, at the halfway point of your local minimum in SS count and radio flux, both you and Janssens argued the continued viability of the March ’08 minimum.
    If indeed, the smoothed SS count for succeeding months had to risen and stayed above 5 March would have been ‘the’ minimum. But this was by then a very long shot and the gambit relied, in your expert opinions, on ancillary tangibles.
    Second, the geomagnetic indicies were inarguably of no use whatever at that point in establishing ‘the’ minimum because they are likewise dependent on another cause. Near zero they and SS counts are not meaningfully related.

  275. actuator (21:14:11) :
    E.M.Smith
    Re burning a steak. I hope you were joking since steak is primarily made up of hydrocarbons which, if heated sufficiently in the presence of oxygen, will definitely burn.

    I was joking but … the lean portions are mostly water… 75% or so. See:
    http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Factsheets/Water_in_Meats/index.asp
    Maybe the steaks you buy are marbled enough to catch fire and burn, but mine just char and sneer at me even on the BBQ 😉

  276. Leif Svalgaard (05:08:38) :
    E.M.Smith (02:00:30) :
    My best guess so far is a composite of the Svalgaard GCR thesis
    Svensmark, not me, please/

    Sorry… brain thought Svensmark, fingers typed what they had seen most of recently… wish I knew why that happens. (The form of the error is called “Proximity Capture” and is why you sometimes find yourself headed somewhere familiar like home or work, when you really were headed somewhere near there.)

  277. Mike J (12:44:59) :
    We now have peer-reviewed scientific papers (AGWers please note : peer-reviewed, so they must be true) that show (a) oceans cooling (in total not just surface) and (b) albedo increasing to match. IMHO the inference is very clear :
    1. Something drives albedo.
    2. Albedo drives ocean heat content.
    3. Ocean heat content is a driver of climate.
    In 2. there is no timelag. In 3 there can be.

    To which I would add that we have cold polar air (like, oh -50 F falling on the central USA) that can not be from a cold water pool in the ocean making the air cold. That argues for heat leaving the air at the poles to somewhere other than water, which argues for an IR window left open over the poles. GCRs have been shown to reduce O3 and O3 is the only gas blocking the 9-10 micron window. (And potentially lower UV from the sleepy sun might also be causal in the lower O3 levels observed lately).

  278. gary gulrud (06:15:07) :
    “have taken on an odious ad-hom tone. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
    Au contraire, good Dr.

    Some people never are, even when they should.

  279. actuator (21:14:11) :
    E.M.Smith
    Re burning a steak. I hope you were joking since steak is primarily made up of hydrocarbons which, if heated sufficiently in the presence of oxygen, will definitely burn.

    As I have demonstrated unintentionally with my ‘cordon noir’ cooking technique on several occasions. 🙁

  280. “You should be ashamed of yourself…Some people never are”
    The final shabby refuge of the helpless, assigning shame.

  281. gary gulrud (04:32:48) :
    “You should be ashamed of yourself…Some people never are”
    The final shabby refuge of the helpless, assigning shame.

    Sounds like the final shabby refuge of the clueless and shameless

  282. A third argument against using the geomagnetic method to establish SS minimum is that it provides no advantage over direct count, e.g., the butterfly diagrams, which stretch back into the 1800’s, to solve an issue known to investigators for that duration.
    In any event, this determination of cycle length (where the counts of adjacent cycle spots are equal) overestimates the length of 23 and underestimates the length of 24, at most half as prolific as its predecessor.
    A fourth, and final argument, is that one establishes a local solar parameter by a distant, weakly related effect. This is the very error snaring Hathaway in his original 24 Rmax estimate–using a measure of geomagetic storms following Rmax to predict the SS count of the subsdequent cycle, distant in space and time.
    To recap, 1.) The method is no help in prediction of the minimum, 2.) It is no help in identifying a minimum at hand, 3.) It is not as accurate as existing methods already considered in minima definition, 4.) The method relies on a correlation of weak causal relation.
    Clueless?

Comments are closed.