Examining SORCE data shows the Sun continues its slide toward somnolence

Guest post by Guillermo Gonzalez

I recently happened upon the SORCE/TIM website and decided to look up the plot of the full total solar irradiance (TSI) dataset (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#plots)

guillermo_image1
SORCE TSI since 2003 - Click for a larger image

The SORCE mission began collecting TSI data in February 2003.

I was curious to see if the variations in the TSI had begun to rise yet, perhaps indicating a start to cycle 24. Visual inspection of the SORCE TSI plot showed just the opposite – variations continue to decline in amplitude. If cycle 24 has started, there are no signs of it in these data.

We can be a bit more quantitative if we examine, instead, a plot of TSI variance with time. I produced such a plot using the daily average TSI data provided on the SORCE web site.

guillermo_image2
TSI variance, current minimum - Click for a larger image

The red data are variance values calculated at two-week intervals. The blue curve is the smoothed data calculated in the same way as smoothed sunspot numbers (basically a 12-month running average). Note, the vertical axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale.

To compare the recent TSI variance trend with the previous sunspot minimum, I looked up the ACRIM2 daily average TSI data at: http://www.acrim.com/Data%20Products.htm

guillermo_image3
TSI variance, 1996 minimum - Click for a larger image

These data are plotted on the same scale as the SORCE data. The smoothed data show a minimum TSI variance near the beginning of 1996, some months before sunspot minimum (October 1996). Notice that the minimum value for the variance during the 1996 minimum was about an order of magnitude larger than the present TSI variance.

The SORCE web site quotes long-term 1-sigma precision (relative accuracy) of their TSI measurements to be 0.001%/yr. This corresponds to a variance of 2  ´ 10-4 W2 m-4. However, the precision should be considerably better than this on the 2-week timescale that I selected for calculating the variance. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate a quote for the estimated precision of the ACRIM2 measurements. It would be worthwhile to know if the minimum TSI variance of the previous sunspot minimum measured by ACRIM2needs to be corrected for the instrumental precision.

Guillermo Gonzalez writes on his background:

I’m an astronomer, though my present title is associate professor of physics at Grove City College, PA. I  wrote a paper (in Solar Physics) with Ken Schatten back in 1987 on  predicting the next solar maximum with geomagnetic indices. That was my only contribution on anything having to do with the Sun-Earth connection, but I also got a letter published in Physics Today in  1997 wherein I urged readers to takethe Sun-Earth climate connection  more seriously.

These days most of my research is on extrasolar planets.

UPDATE: I received a suggestion for an overlay via email from Terry Dunleavy and I’ve worked one up below. This was done graphically. I took great care to get the two lined up correctly. Note however that the datasets span different lengths of time, as you can note on the two timescales I’ve included on the combined graph.  The vertical scale matches exactly between graphs though.  – Anthony

guillermo_overlay_by_watts1
TSI variance graphs combined - click for a larger image

UPDATE2: Here is another graphical comparison of the two TSI variance graphs, scaled to have a matching X-axis and appropriately aligned side by side. – Anthony

Click for a larger image
Click for a larger image
0 0 votes
Article Rating
434 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Arndt
April 25, 2009 4:01 pm

Hi,
I think Leif might differ but this could be a new grand minimum. Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more. However TSI does vary enough to correlate to cooling or warming. I do how ever think it is related to the Tropical Thunder storm regions and the link between the ionosphere and troposphere. A simple change of 2 to 3% in cloud cover is enough to explain the warming and cooling of the historical period.

Alan S. Blue
April 25, 2009 4:06 pm

There are a few dramatic outliers on the first plot. Are these true readings or an equipment or methodology oddity? (Speaking of the TSI of 1357.4 or so in 2003).
REPLY: I’m guessing large sunspot patches, such as this event in October 2003, which seems to coincide with the largest TSI spike
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/solar_system/stories_2003/solar_storm_oct_2003.html
– Anthony

John H
April 25, 2009 4:08 pm

I wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying?
Seems like that would have been a new cry long ago.

Ron de Haan
April 25, 2009 4:15 pm

Very interesting information.
Thanks

Robert Wood
April 25, 2009 4:17 pm

I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.
How do they expalin this remains static?
Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.

Robert Wood
April 25, 2009 4:19 pm

John H @16:08:06
… wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying
Let’s hope they don’t or we’re into Aztec Sun sacrifice.

April 25, 2009 4:27 pm

I’m a geologist/mining engineer so I’m very much uninitiated in the field of solar physics except for the wonderful tutorial that I am exposed to on this blog almost daily. I’ve followed the drama of the failed forecasts of when cycle 24 is going to begin and heard of desperate researchers who are almost counting dust mites on instrument objective lenses.
It is certainly easy to see in your first SCORCE figure the damping of TSI variance with time. But also evident is the decline in intensity to 1360.7 watts. Is this particularly low? Normal? When you get a long quiescent period like the Maunder minimum, does the intensity continue to decline or does it flatten out and sit there for decades?

Neil O'Rourke
April 25, 2009 4:31 pm

If you look at Leif’s TSI graph http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png , it shows an uptick in TSI.
What gives?
REPLY: There’s uptick is in 10.7cm flux (magenta) I don’t see much if any of an uptick in the TSI (dark blue) – Anthony

d
April 25, 2009 4:34 pm

Everyone was thinking in dec 2012 when the Mayan calender ended that was going to be the year when we had a super sunspot year and the world would change. Well lets turn it around and say that in dec 2012 cycle 24 still wont hav started and yes things will change but not like some expected!! Hmmmm

Rob Erhardt
April 25, 2009 4:36 pm

Yes. And I wonder why no one of prominance is crying that Global Warming
is dead.
Latest MSU data show temps dipping below 2008 levels. And East Pacific
SST`s are cooling(again).

voodoo
April 25, 2009 4:37 pm

John H (16:08:06) says :
“I wonder why no one is crying that the sun is dying?
Seems like that would have been a new cry long ago.”
It take too much creative energy and marketing chutzpah to tax and subjugate on the basis of a declining sun. AGW is so much better for that.

Evan Jones
Editor
April 25, 2009 4:39 pm

The sky is falling. Literally.

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 4:40 pm

The first thing that strikes me when I see that top graph is the amplitude.
To be more precise, the waning of amplitude vs time.
I would like to see 1992 to 1997 for a comparison.
Is this to be expected, or is this just another example of the waning amplitudes we see in flux, ssn and gcr’s (last 2-4 mos)?
I am reminded of the behavior of a complex piece of equipment as the batteries slowly die out.
Those 3 data sets behavior is attention-getting.
Add TSI to the list and it gets in your face.
Really would like to hear from Dr. Archibald on this.

Larry Poe
April 25, 2009 4:40 pm

Leif Svalgaard has chart, updated daily, showing a slight move up in TSE as well as a more pronounced uptick in F10.7 flux:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png

Larry Poe
April 25, 2009 4:41 pm

Oops. TSI, not TSE.

Alan S. Blue
April 25, 2009 4:42 pm

Gary Pearse,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090328163643.htm
“Modelers estimate that TSI increased roughly 0.08 percent as the Sun exited the Maunder Minimum, which lasted for much of the 1700s. But even if TSI radiometers had been available at the time, the increase in irradiance was so gradual that identifying the trend would have been difficult.”

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 4:44 pm

REPLY: There’s uptick is in 10.7cm flux (magenta) I don’t see much if any of an uptick in the TSI (dark blue) – Anthony
I see that, too. The amplitude falls of there as well.
What you might see on a oscilliscope hooked to a radio signal as the transmitting object goes beyond the range of reception.
Take that graph, run a straight line from the latest midpoint back across to the left. What do you see?

Evan Jones
Editor
April 25, 2009 4:44 pm

All our fears and complications
Can be pushed away with us
Let’s not let it fade away
‘Cause the memories of sunshine’s gone away (sunshine’s gone away)
And these tears inside our heart are too afraid
Tell me what should I say (what should I say?)
To ever bring’ em back my way
Is it much to late to say I’m sorry now?

Evan Jones
Editor
April 25, 2009 4:46 pm

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine
You make me happy when skies are gray
You’ll never know dear, how much I love you
Please don’t take my sunshine away

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 4:50 pm

As the suggested main driver of climate wanes, so does the Global Warming.
More than just Antarctic Ice is spreading, so is the fall of Global Temps.
Do you suppose they will snap out of it should the Sun suddenly turn orange on a clear day? I have wondered to myself about that many times.
Exaclty what would a 180 from Global Warming 24/7 media blitz succumb to?

Wondering Aloud
April 25, 2009 4:54 pm

Isn’t Leif currently listing November of 2008 as the bottom of the cycle? I thought I saw that somewhere. His graph is pretty flat but that doesn’t mean that isn’t the bottom.

Adam from Kansas
April 25, 2009 4:57 pm

I wonder if there’s connections here.
TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.
If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.

len
April 25, 2009 5:00 pm

[snip – automakers? Totally Off Topic]

kim
April 25, 2009 5:02 pm

On Leif’s graph the dotted blue line is not rising; in fact toward the end it is running along the tops of the readings, instead of the middle. The solid blue line runs along the bottom, and it is rising. So why is flux rising, and the TSI is just getting more still?
==========================================

April 25, 2009 5:04 pm

First factor: fluctuations decreasing, both the individual ones and the multiple ones. Second factor: the line is definitely levelling out very smoothly to horizontal, and has just about reached full horizontal, cannot get any more horizontal, so it might have reached nadir and is about to turn.
Third factor: could be wrong.

April 25, 2009 5:08 pm

[snip posted on wrong thread, no politics allowed on the surface of the sun]

Bill Illis
April 25, 2009 5:11 pm

Here is a zoom-in of SORCE TSI over the past 9 months.
It seems that the lowest TSI recorded so far was July or August 2008 (which corresponds with the the lowest sunspot numbers as well).
But there has not been any kind of substantive up-tick since and both the TSI and sunspot numbers have threatened to go lower than the July-August minimum in the past few months. So, no minimum to declare yet.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=1950&STOP_DATE=2500&TIME_SPAN=6&PLOT=Plot+Data

April 25, 2009 5:12 pm

Come on dark prophet!,
speak out again your lie,
tell us we are doomed,
tell us we will die,
of warm, heat, by our sins provoked,
old sun by your cry has been also scared
and caused a long and deep chill instead

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 5:12 pm

Exaclty what would a 180 from Global Warming 24/7 media blitz succumb to?
Make that: Exactly what event would cause the Global Warming 24/7 media blitz to fall silent?
I can still see the pasty faces of Bush, Bernanke & Paulson as they stood before the media and explained the trouble we were in.
There certainly will come a day of blood-drained faces for AGW if the Sun continues to fizzle. You cannot hide it, you cannot slick-talk it into action.

Squidly
April 25, 2009 5:12 pm

d (16:34:39) :
Everyone was thinking in dec 2012 when the Mayan calender ended …

Actually, the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012, as much as it simply cycles and starts over again, as it has done 14 previous times. Mayan’s understood natural cycles very well.

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 5:19 pm

kim (17:02:56) :
So why is flux rising, and the TSI is just getting more still?

Yeah, What’s Up With That?
Watts = Volts x Amps.
Insufficient amperage or voltage might be a question to ask.
Shrunken or constricted flow. Line drop. Dying battery. Corroded armature of breaks in windings.
If the gauss values of the latest spots are any indication, there might be something up with that.

April 25, 2009 5:25 pm

I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 5:27 pm

Landscheidt Minimum? 😉

Lindsay H
April 25, 2009 5:30 pm

I believe TSI does not include the solar magnetic flux’s influence on the earth and this is also a critical factor. Tapping et al produced this paper in 2006
MODELLING SOLARMAGNETIC FLUX AND IRRADIANCE
DURING AND SINCE THE MAUNDER MINIMUM
which is worth a look
http://www.lps.umontreal.ca/~paquetteh/Maunder_SP.pdf

Evan Jones
Editor
April 25, 2009 5:31 pm

Nah, it’s gotta be “Ad Ho Minimum”.
(That definitely gets my vote for best so far.)

Evan Jones
Editor
April 25, 2009 5:34 pm

Looks like it’s flatlining to me.
(Shouldn’t a frantic beeping be going on in some solar hospital somewhere?)

kim
April 25, 2009 5:37 pm

John Finn 17:25:56
Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out. Leif is dubious about the connection because if the connection is through TSI then the magnifying effect of whatever is the connecting mechanism would introduce an unstable climate sensitivity, which we do not see.
So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?
=====================================

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 5:42 pm

“John Finn (17:25:56) : How exactly?”
Don’t look for exact John. Even Einstein wasn’t exact.

Ron de Haan
April 25, 2009 5:43 pm

[snip – wrong thread on this – this is a political comment intended for Waxman thread]

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 5:53 pm

I have speculated spectral shift of TSI, but that got me nowhere, and for good reason. Amplitude is the behavior of the day, so I’ll now defer to Amps.
Ain’t got no flow. Too contricted. Valve is jammed slighty ajar from closed.

Keith Minto
April 25, 2009 5:53 pm

In financial charting terms the TSI ‘flatlining’ with lower peaks and higher troughs is moving into a wedge pattern and suggests a breakout, in either direction.
I certainly don’t know if this applies to TSI pattern but time will tell.
I must be looking at too many charts

Ron de Haan
April 25, 2009 5:55 pm

kim (17:37:34) :
John Finn 17:25:56
Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out. Leif is dubious about the connection because if the connection is through TSI then the magnifying effect of whatever is the connecting mechanism would introduce an unstable climate sensitivity, which we do not see.
So, instead of being apparently dismissive, start getting curious. What is the solution to this great question?
=====================================
Yes and in the mean time low temp records from 1880 are broken today.
So what is happening?
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Record+cold+temperatures+Saskatchewan/1531746/story.html

Joel Shore
April 25, 2009 6:00 pm

Adam from Kansas says:

TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.
If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.

I don’t really see how your last statement follows from the rest. Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming over the last 30+ years. In fact, as kim noted above, one of the reasons that Leif is skeptical of the solar connection is that it would seem to imply a high climate sensitivity.

Terry Jackson
April 25, 2009 6:06 pm

Last summer Alaska was quite cool. Here are two articles from the Anchorage paper.
http://www.adn.com/626/story/473786.html
http://www.adn.com/front/story/518517.html
It seldom rose above 60, and there was still a lot of snow visible on the Kenai mountains when I left mid September. The propane man noted in July that we were having a nice mild winter.
With the sun going quieter and the PDO cooler, I expect an even cooler summer this year.
OK it’s anecdotal and only one place, but it does offer a glimpse of the effects in the area they should be most pronounced.
The good news is this should offer an observational opportunity to vastly improve our understanding of the climate and the effects of the sun.

Mike Bryant
April 25, 2009 6:07 pm

As the light of freedom fades and dims
So does the sun.
As the mind of science reels and swims
So sinks the sun.
Have mankind’s failing works and sins
Brought down the sun?
Have the proud who think they’ve won
Who’ve made our science come undone
Who’ve put our offspring in a hole
Have they assassinated Sol?
The sun has drifted off to sleep
Sol cares not if we pray or weep
He’s shut his eyes in slumber deep
Life’s promises only our’s to keep.

Bob Montle
April 25, 2009 6:08 pm

“These data are plotted on the same scale as the SORCE data.”
Am I missing something? The horizontal scale sure looks different on the graphs for the two cycles.
The x-axis covers six years in the present cycle but ten years in the previous one.

April 25, 2009 6:09 pm

Joel Shore (18:00:34) :So somebody or something (Most sacred Al´s CO2 perhaps) heated the pacific ocean temperatures to the 97-98 El Nino heights?

E.M.Smith
Editor
April 25, 2009 6:11 pm

Keith Minto (17:53:57) : In financial charting terms the TSI ‘flatlining’ with lower peaks and higher troughs is moving into a wedge pattern and suggests a breakout, in either direction.
I certainly don’t know if this applies to TSI pattern but time will tell.
I must be looking at too many charts

Or a stock with no earnings, making losses, and not much prospect, in that slow decay to the flat line “take out” price in bankruptcy… You know, like GM, Freddie Mac FRE, AIG, City Group C all ending up near $1.x and flat lined…
Yeah, I been looking at too many charts too 😉 but the parallels are useful!

kim
April 25, 2009 6:12 pm

Joel 18:00:34
Easy answer to the warming of the last quarter of the last century. It was the PDO in its warming phase. Tsonis et al have a nice study explaining the temperature variations around the steady rise from the end of the Little Ice Age by the coupling and uncoupling of natural cycles, mostly the oceanic oscillations. What we don’t know is what is causing the steady rise in temperature from the end of the Little Ice Age. What we do know is that it is not from CO2 because the rise in CO2 curve doesn’t match the underlying rise.
=========================================

Joel Shore
April 25, 2009 6:17 pm

Along the lines of my previous comment, it is worth looking at some of the recent papers by K.-K. Tung et al: http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/tung/publications.html (e.g., “Constraining Model Transient Climate Response using Independent Observations of Solar-Cycle Forcing and Response” or “Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface in NCEP and ERA-40 data: A linear Discriminant Analysis”. It is also worth reading what Hansen et al at GISTEMP have to say about solar irradiance in their 2008 climate summary: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

alphajuno
April 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Although this project just started, we should get some good data from CLARREO in a few years. Goals may change based on how the instrumentation development proceeds but CLARREO may put the “total” back into TSI. We don’t currently measure all of the solar spectrum and make assumptions about certain wavelengths. It may also help determine if TSI is closer to 1361ish or 1366ish or 1371ish (or more). I think it’s hard to say that a climate model is working well if you don’t have an accurate measurement of TSI.
http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/about-science.html

Joel Shore
April 25, 2009 6:25 pm

kim says:

What we do know is that it is not from CO2 because the rise in CO2 curve doesn’t match the underlying rise.

No? Looks like a pretty good match to me: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2782192258_e2f6b5e758.jpg with a transient climate response (TCR) of ~2 K, which is right about at the center of the IPCC range for this parameter. Of course, this comes along with caveats regarding contributions from other forcings (e.g., both positive forcings from other greenhouse gases and negative forcings from aerosols) and other sources of climate variability that makes the actual determination of a TCR or equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the instrumental temperature record subject to quite large error bars. (Better estimates comes from paleoclimate events, such as the last glacial maximum, response to volcanic eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, and…best yet…combining all of these data together.)

kim
April 25, 2009 6:52 pm

Joel 18:25:59
We’ve seen that graph before; the only time there is a good match is for the last quarter of the last century. Before and after that time the match is poor, particularly just lately, and for the time before your graph starts. You are displaying confirmation bias by interpreting that graph to show a match between CO2 rise and temperature rise.
=======================================

Fuelmaker
April 25, 2009 6:54 pm

Robert Wood (16:17:13) :
I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.
How do they explain this remains static?
Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.
That is probably the biggest fraud in the models. The generally accepted effect of a CO2 doubling just due to radiative forcing is only about 1 deg C, and this is with a lot of hand-waving. To “fit” the hockey stick observations, the modelers force unsubstantiated amplifiers into the models. The biggest one is the theory that as CO2 and temperature rise, clouds disappear so the albedo rises. I’m sure there are meteorologists who can easily disprove this theory based on temperature, humidity, and CO2 variations. I don’t think that the warmer tropics have significantly less cloud cover or that the high CO2 from autumn forested areas make clouds disappear.

kim
April 25, 2009 6:57 pm

Also, Joel, even if that graph had any validity, the 1.2K sensitivity line is a better match to the data, but then the 1.2K line suffers from an even greater mismatch before your graph begins. Nice try, even pretty slick, but it doesn’t say what you purport that it does.
=====================================

norman hasty
April 25, 2009 7:01 pm

Looks like some of the downward spikes correlate to hurricanes. Can someone overlay a “storm” graph on the tsi graph? Just curious.
REPLY: Hurricanes in no way have any effect here. This data is measured from satellite in space, the dips are sunspots like the monster dual spots in October 2003 – Anthony

Robert
April 25, 2009 7:27 pm

John Finn (17:25:56)
Hey, I have an idea, maybe its not the .05% change in TSI that is causing all of this climate panic. After all we understand this process completely. Nope it’s clear the problem is not the local variable star. It has got to be an infinitesimal increase in a trace gas that helps make life possible that will kill us all.
To stop this call now and for $199,999,500,000.00 we can bottle all of this nasty stuff and save the planet.
/sarc

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 7:29 pm

Terry Jackson (18:06:37)
What happens in Alaska as far as winter temps directly affects both Canada and the US, as the cold Arctic air masses develop there and plunge south and west.
The first indication last fall was when the temps in Fairbanks plunged to -20F.
It got steadily worse as the season wore on. I would expect more of the same this year, and progress steadily towards an even colder winter.
Which is why I say time runs thin for AGW.
They must surely know it. With GCR’s a year behind solar activity, next winter’s shadow looms large.
Dead quiet solar activity hold little hope at that length of delay.

E.M.Smith
Editor
April 25, 2009 7:35 pm

Joel Shore (18:00:34) :
Adam from Kansas says:
“TSI continues to drop, SST’s have peaked when the TSI was at the highest level in the last solar cycle and has dropped since, it also appears the SOI is now on a noticable upward trend (hit +10 today) since cycle 23 was winding down towards the minimum.
If these connections hold any weight, than the AGW house of cards really will be falling down.”
I don’t really see how your last statement follows from the rest. Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming over the last 30+ years.

Um, maybe just maybe if the sun “has enough of an effect on climate” the high cycle of solar output over those 30 years caused the rising temps and now the dropping solar output is causing cooling. It’s how cause and effect works. You know, both ways…
In fact, as kim noted above, one of the reasons that Leif is skeptical of the solar connection is that it would seem to imply a high climate sensitivity.
The light slowly dawns….
God I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning…
See, it’s like this, if the connection exists and if the high sensitivity it implies is real, then the world will be getting very very cold. It will take 20 years or so, but it will happen in a more or less direct trend. Most folks believe what they see, so while they saw slight warming for 30 years they were willing to let the AGW crowd run rampant. When they are seeing snow in places they haven’t seen in 30 years and crops are going in 2 weeks late and skiing runs an extra month, well, folks are just going to laugh their derrieres off when you try to sell them the Global Warming story.
That is why the second statement directly follows the premiss.
Now we don’t know what the mechanism might be, but when correlation runs both ways with very high temporal synchrony AND when the AGW thesis is not predicting (pardon me, projecting) anything with accuracy; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know AGW is toast; all it takes is Joe and Jane Six Pack sitting on a too cold beach with loads of snow in the mountains too late in the season and at the poles (rather like we have happening now…)
So read it and weep. Old Sol is getting the last laugh. All it takes is waiting now (assuming the solar thesis is true, of course 😉
Now you may have 2 years to cram an agenda through, but you know, the voter is a fickle beast and ‘feeling had’ has a way of focusing folks. So I’d suggest considering just how much vengeance Joe and Jane are going to ask for when that moment comes. Overreaching usually leads to downfall…
“AHh, Vanity, my favorite sin” (The Devil’s Advocate)…

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 7:36 pm

How can you have a ramping flux, but nothing else is happening?
I’m going to keep on guessing at this in a vacuum.
The flux is the voltage. The gauss of the spots & faculae are the amperage.
The voltage may rise in a cycle, but rise in isolation.
TSI, ain’t got no amperage, ain’t got no melody.
Today, the volume on the Solar Index was minimal. Shares traded at under $1, and papers were filed to request more time until deslisting occurs.

John W.
April 25, 2009 7:42 pm

From the ACRIM website:
“Monitoring TSI variability is clearly an important component of climate change research, particularly in the context of understanding the relative forcings of natural and anthropogenic processes. The requirements for a long-term, climate TSI database can be inferred from a recent National Research Council study which concluded that gradual variations in solar luminosity of as little as 0.25 % was the likely forcing for the ‘little ice age’ that persisted in varying degree from the late 14th to the mid 19th centuries. A centuries-long TSI database will have to be calibrated by either precision or accuracy to a small fraction of this value to be of any use in assessing the magnitude of solar forcing. ”
(Emphasis added)
Good to know there are still some real scientists out there.

Ninderthana
April 25, 2009 7:44 pm

John Finn 17:25:56
Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out.
John Finn,
I believe that the answer to your question is the Solar/Lunar Tides.
I am now convinced that the small variations in Solar insulation of
~ 0.1 % has an effect upon the world climate but that this effect is relatively
muted. In other words, I am asserting that if there is a mutiplicative
factor that amplifies the effects of the small changes in solar insulation,
it is not large.
The model I have develop argues that, on centennial time scales, the Earth’s climate is primarily driven by a combination of changes in the
Earth’s rotation rate and changes in the amplitudes of the lunar/solar tides.
This model asserts that the level of solar activity, the changes in the Earth’s rotation rate and the amplitudes of the solar/lunar tides are all driven by the same underlying mechanism.
I am arguing that the apparent synchronous variation between
the level of solar activity and the Earth’s average temperature is just that,
and APPRARENT synchronization. The two phenomenon just appear to
go up and down together. They are not strongly coupled.
Hence, my money is on the lunar/solar tides (and accompanying changes in the Earth’s rotation rate) as the link between level of solar activity and the Earth’s climate. These important linking factors negate the need to have a multiplicative factor to amplify the small changes in solar insolation.

ladynsniffer
April 25, 2009 7:56 pm

[snip – website you reference (yours) has adult content, this violates our site policy]

David L. Hagen
April 25, 2009 8:39 pm

Guillermo
Thanks for plotting the log of variance. That decline of about 1.5 orders of magnitude lower than the previous 1996 minimum appears to be a dramatic change.
The current cycle 23 is longer than the previous cycle 22.
Could there be a correlation of this decline in variance with the length of the cycle?
Note the decline in global temperature with increasing cycle length:
Reichel, R., P. Thejll, and K. Lassen (2001), The cause-and-effect relationship of solar cycle length and the Northern Hemisphere air surface temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 106(A8), 15,635–15,641.

It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern Hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11-year solar cycle. In this paper it is shown that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed solar cycle length and the cycle mean of Northern Hemisphere land air temperature for the twentieth century, at the 99% significance level. This indicates the existence of a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

This may lead to a correlation between the decline in variance with the decline in global temperature where both correlate with the length of the cycle.
Anthony – regarding norman hasty’s comment, he may have meant the opposite – could the Forbrush dropouts be triggering storms?
i.e. sudden reduction in TSI – gives a sudden reduction in heating – causing a spike in cooling temperature gradient. Could that trigger storms?

John F. Hultquist
April 25, 2009 9:06 pm

The first comment, Jim Arndt (16:01:21) , mentioned “ Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more.”
This idea was discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Can someone explain in simple language what the following terms mean in the context of this thread and sunspots:
visible
invisible
gone (not there)
not gone but invisible
disappear
TSI
The mentioned paper said:
“…show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.”
When I read the original Penn and Livingston paper the analogy I thought of was: If there is a dark stain on a white wall and I use white paint to re-paint the wall, the stain is not gone but it is invisible.
So is the Penn & Livingston observation equivalent to a Maunder or Dalton Minimum or something entirely new? At those times did “the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra … become warmer” and invisible, or were there none?

alphajuno
April 25, 2009 9:10 pm

John Finn
Remember that SORCE was put into service into service in 2003 which was not the peak of cycle 23. On the contrary, it was already on the downslope considerably. If normalization of previous measurements can be believed (and the data in the link below seems reasonable), the decrease is .16% – for those of us keeping track at home…
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/SVECSE2008/pdf/woods_svecse.pdf

Steve Keohane
April 25, 2009 9:23 pm

Assuming it is not TSI, the best guesses/theories I’ve seen are albedo/cosmic rays which has already been brought up, and the other is friction between the now diminished solar wind, and the atmosphere. Has not the atmosphere contracted? Meaning less surface area + less solar wind=cooler? I don’t remember if this was just thrown out as an idea by someone, or a link to a paper was offered. I don’t see a paper right off the bat in my files, so either there wasn’t one offered or I didn’t save it.

April 25, 2009 9:27 pm

Part of the confusion about F10.7 and TSI comes from the fact that people forget [or don’t know or willfully ignore – yes, such people exist too…] that what we see comes from at least two sources. There is an obvious rotational signature [the vertical lines are 27 days apart – not one month] riding on top of a slowly varying background – the lower envelope as shown by my lines. These two contributions have different physical causes [and we don’t need to go into detail here about what those causes are – the diehards can go read http://www.leif.org/research/Synoptic-Radio-Observations.pdf ], the rotational contribution more closely linked to obvious solar activity [spots, plages, faculae, etc] while the background comes from more widespread magnetic fields [the ‘network’, ephemeral regions, coronal density (for F10.7)]. As the cycle peters out, the amplitude of the rotational component declines exponentially. As the new cycle slowly builds without any large spots yet, only the network and smallish emerging magnetic flux begin to increase, and that we see in the slow rise of the lower envelope [most clearly in the F10.7 curve]. Lumping the two components together [e.g. by showing an ‘average’ curve] is combining oranges and apples. So there is something for everybody: the rotational signal is going away, the background is rising, the meaningless average is flat-lining. Every sort of bias is supported by the data by suitable cherry picking.

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 9:30 pm

“We know that the sun was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle. Average global temperatures have dropped slightly over the past seven (now 8) years.”
–Ian Clark
-hydrogeologist and professor
-arctic specialist
-Department of Earth Sciences
-University of Ottawa

anna v
April 25, 2009 9:34 pm

Have a look on the recent measured albedo curve. The link is from Leif,
http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png
It is from this paper: http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
Albedo has large variations with respect to its effect in the models. If this variation were inserted in the IPCC models we would have cooling inevitably.

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 9:37 pm

“None of the major climate changes in the last 1000 years can be explained by co2….. The sun is driving climate change. Co2 is irrelevant.”
–Piers Corbyn
-solar physisist
-WeatherAction.com
-‘The SuperWeatherman’

Justin Sane
April 25, 2009 9:39 pm

Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?

Pat
April 25, 2009 9:45 pm

New South Wales, Australia. Earliest snow in a decade…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-has-first-snowfall-of-the-2009-season-20090426-aj6j.html
I’ve noted on this site before that the summer was cooler than last year. This autum has been cooler too, this winter is looking to be cold too. We’ll see. All that CO2 don’t appear to be doing a thing in the face of a cooling Sun.

kim
April 25, 2009 9:45 pm

Leif 21:27:50
Nice explanation for my question about why the flux curve is rising but not the TSI curve. So, will there be a clue in the rising(eventually) of the rotational component curve as to whether the spots will disappear or not? Or is that presently unknown?
==============================================

kim
April 25, 2009 9:51 pm

anna v 21:34:44
Oh, it’s gonna be clouds, alright, kim asserts confidently. But will it be cosmic rays or a mechanism like Erl is working on, or heh heh, both or neither. It is so marvelous to wonder. Especially so when one is not constrained by physical realities. Leif doesn’t know what he’s missing.
=============================================

Bill Hunter
April 25, 2009 9:53 pm

John Finn (17:25:56) :
I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?
FEEDBACK!!!!!

April 25, 2009 10:02 pm

anna v (21:34:44) :
Have a look on the recent measured albedo curve.
kim (21:51:31) :
But will it be cosmic rays
The measured albedo curve does not follow the solar cycle or the cosmic rays count.

April 25, 2009 10:05 pm

Bill Hunter (21:53:29) :
“I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?”
FEEDBACK!!!!!

That is not explaining anything ‘exactly’. There is a 7% variation each year from July to January, which is two orders of magnitude larger than the 0.05%. Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…

April 25, 2009 10:12 pm

kim (21:45:48) :
why the flux curve is rising but not the TSI curve.
But it is: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
So, will there be a clue in the rising(eventually) of the rotational component curve as to whether the spots will disappear or not? Or is that presently unknown?
probably unknown, but my guess is that the rotational component will not be much changed if the spots became invisible.

John F. Hultquist
April 25, 2009 10:13 pm

Some folks seem to be still trying to say TSI isn’t important because the change is so small. But the argument isn’t that this is a direct cause but that something is going on, as yet not understood, such that what the Sun does or does not do interacts with Earth and the Cosmos. There seem to be several ideas but none yet have pushed all the others aside.
The only thing that doesn’t seem to work is a direct CO2 forcing. One only has to consider any period before or after 1976-1998. How many years does an idea have to fail before you toss it away and move on?

April 25, 2009 10:18 pm

Justin Sane (21:39:34) :
Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?
No, that is not a good way of running the average. The running average should be plotted at the time of the midpoint.

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 10:18 pm

“Pat (21:45:26) : New South Wales, Australia. Earliest snow in a decade…”
I thought they said Australia is burning?

Frederick Michael
April 25, 2009 10:26 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:27:50) :
That was awesome; thanks for the link too. With the arctic sea ice recovering so dramatically, it looks like something other than CO2 is the key. I’m struggling to understand it all but you have helped a lot.
Us amateurs are lucky that the pros are willing to take the time to post here.

anna v
April 25, 2009 10:32 pm

I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system. The beats of the system will not have much to do with the individual rhythms, there will be hills and troughs, that is the only prediction that can be made without running some sort of chaotic model ala Tsonis et al, taking in everything, from the the 7% seasonal change in the heating of the sun on the oceans to the evaporation rates,the ocean fluidity, the cosmic rays, plankton, etc. etc. It is not a simple harmonic oscillator solution. In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects, but one cannot say offhand : “cause: effect”.

Pat
April 25, 2009 10:33 pm

“Just Want Truth… (22:18:55) :
“Pat (21:45:26) : New South Wales, Australia. Earliest snow in a decade…”
I thought they said Australia is burning?”
Australia usually burns during summer naturally and normally but more so when people start fires.

Bill Hunter
April 25, 2009 10:34 pm

[I]Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…[/I]
Maybe not . . . .only one pole was getting hotter.

GK
April 25, 2009 10:34 pm

Leif is probably right. Min probably was around Nov08 going from his data
BUT… we`ll see over the next 3 months. If things dont start picking up RIGHT NOW, then the upturns he has in his data are just minor anomolies, and we are probably in a genuine grand minimum type event. The only part of his data that is unambiguously increasing is the 10.7 flux, and that fell last month and this month will also be lower than the Jan-Feb peak.
What we call a “Grand Minimum” is nothing more than a SC where the SSN doesnt get above 10 or so. Maybe we passed the minimum in Nov08 as Leif has said, but nothing much more will happen for the next decade. I hope not

April 25, 2009 10:36 pm

Fuelmaker (18:54:58) :
Robert Wood (16:17:13) :
I agree with Jim. Temperature is surely most sensitive to the Earth’s albedo….. even in the Global Climate Models used by the warmenists.
How do they expalin this remains static?
Maybe one of the Team can put me really to rights on this question.

Perhaps, albedo magnitude, as it is measured nowadays, doesn’t include drag transfer coefficient and/or photon streams from the unexposed materials below the surface after the energy has been transferred by conduction from the subsurface to the surface.
It is a plausible explanation to your question because heat transfer in the subsurface has been often dismissed in measurements of the outgoing radiation. Until now, it has not been computed adequately, or its adequate measurement doesn’t fit into a focal idea. Kiehl and Trenberth only refer to it as “other sources”; however, the value included in their scheme related to the energy balance seems to have been deduced by simple subtraction, not from real measurements.

April 25, 2009 10:41 pm

Kiehl and Trenberth estimates that “thermals” upwelling energy is 24 W/m^2, but that magnitude is highly speculative.

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 10:43 pm

“Various parameters appear more important than CO2, like fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”
–Claude Allegre
-Institute of Geophysics, Paris

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 11:11 pm

from Lubos Motl’s :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/polish-nas-joined-climate-skeptics.html
Wroclaw-Warsaw, 12 February 2009, the Polish NAS joins climate skeptics
“1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering…. ”
English translation at Benny Peiser’s web site :
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/PAS.htm
In original Polish :
http://www.kngeol.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/2.Stanowisko%20KNG%20w%20sprawie%20zmian%20klimatu.pdf

George Schuh
April 25, 2009 11:12 pm

Perhaps the ratio of low versus high cloud albedo is the important factor. If I understand the cosmic ray cloud seeding theory, more low clouds should form in times of reduced magnetic activity as indicated by times of sun spot minima.

Robert Bateman
April 25, 2009 11:14 pm

There is but too little C02 in Earth’s atmosphere, and it doesn’t force , it follows warming & cooling. It’s greenhouse signature is logarhyrhmic, not linear.
As for TSI, GCR influencing albedo, those are real drivers, though they currently seem not the whole picture.
However little they seem, their presence or abscence is postive or negative.
Don’t forget the shrunken outer atmosphere. Surprise, surprise.
The Earth is cooling.
So, how do you want to describe the how & why?
Would you say that the oceans are the biggest heat sink, but forget to mention that they too are subject to heating & cooling? Or should we treat them as if they cool or heat themselves?
How about underwater volcanoes flipping the cold water to the surface in synch to solar languish? Are there changes to tidal forces on Earth not in sympathy to sun & moon? Gravity itself, does it play a part?
If the solution to this mystery resides in unifying all 4 forces, it’s likely to elude at present.
Which leaves the Sun languishing and the Earth cooling.
G’night.

bill
April 25, 2009 11:17 pm

Heres one I did earlier
HADCRUT3V vs CO2 (1 year average)
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3634/tempvsco2.jpg
Quite a nice straight line really (it shouldn’t be of course)
And of course it does not say which came first.

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 11:24 pm

“Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.”
–Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin
-Merited Scientist of Russia
-fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
-staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute

April 25, 2009 11:27 pm

GK (22:34:30) :
The only part of his data that is unambiguously increasing is the 10.7 flux, and that fell last month and this month will also be lower than the Jan-Feb peak.
No, no, no, no. How many times must I say this? You should look at the ‘adjusted to 1AU’ flux, not the ‘observed’ flux. The latter mainly shows that the Earth since January has increased its distance to the Sun. A constant [at the Sun] F10.7 flux will decrease 7 % from January to July. F10.7 is going UP. Here are the monthly means:
2008 Dec 66.99
2009 Jan 67.60
2009 Feb 68.33
2009 Mar 68.55
2009 Apr 70.33 (until right now)
And to return to the topic of the posting. Here is the standard deviation over 27-day solar rotations (over 2 weeks is too short) since 1976. I plot the standard deviation rather than its square [the variance]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Standard%20Deviation%20of%2027-Day-Rotations%20of%20TSI.png
This outs the current data a bit in perspective.
Bill Hunter (22:34:13) :
“Perhaps the FEEDBACK knows to leave that variation alone…” Maybe not . . . .only one pole was getting hotter.
I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…

Just Want Truth...
April 25, 2009 11:59 pm

“…..a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades…. It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
–Boris Komitov, Institute of Astronomy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
&
–Vladimir Kaftan, Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Aerial Surveying and Cartography, Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, Russia
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=288314
and
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf

Editor
April 26, 2009 12:17 am

From the website where the TSI data is found:
“Research and Applications
Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth. These estimates extrapolate many recent detailed observations to long-term observations of fewer (or even one) measurement. For example, accurate TSI measurements from the last 25 years are correlated with solar measurements of sunspots and faculae; these correlations can then be used to extrapolate the TSI to time periods prior to accurate space-borne measurements, since the solar records extend back 100 years for faculae and 400 years for sunspots. Over this extended time range, the extrapolated TSI record can be compared with longer term records, such as tree rings or ice cores, and correlation with these allows extension of the estimated TSI to more distant times, albeit with decreasing certainty. This extrapolation is important for understanding the relationship between TSI and the Earth’s climate; yet the extrapolation begins with the comparison of solar surface features to accurate TSI measurements, a record which is currently only 25 years long.”
So nice of them to put it in the fine print.

Phillip Bratby
April 26, 2009 12:21 am

John Finn (17:25:56) :
“I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?”
I think I must be missing something too. The CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone up by about 100ppm, which by my reckoning is about 0.01% (I may have the math wrong). And how exactly is that supposed to warm the climate enough to need to spend trillions to cure it?

kuhnkat
April 26, 2009 12:35 am

John Flinn,
Are you familiar with the phrase “the area under the curve.”
Right now there is much less area under the curve compared to the previous several cycles and it is continuing.

peter vd berg
April 26, 2009 12:41 am

http://www.wageningenuniversiteit.nl/NL/nieuwsagenda/nieuws/zon090423.htm
this is a link to a dutch site, it claims that since 1928 the solar input on the surface has steadily increased by 2% a year and they receive 18 W more
p/M2 now then 80 years ago.
They are however quite balanced by adding that this is a probably local caused by less cloud cover.

Kath
April 26, 2009 12:41 am

I’m new to watching the Sun so I have a little question:
Plages appear to be associated with the formation of sunspots. We are also getting small sun spot specks appear in these plage regions. Is it possible to have a rising cycle towards a weak maximum dominated by an increasing number of plages and low contrast (invisible?) sunspot specks?

M White
April 26, 2009 1:02 am

I came accross this yesterday
http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2000/16.pdf
It suggests that solar cycles lasted an average of 205 years during part of the last Ice Age. Don’t know its validity.
“A cycle of 205 years has been found in the 10Be record from the GRIP ice core (Greenland) for the glacial period 25’000 to 50’000 years before present. There are clear indications that this cycle is due to solar
modulation of the galactic cosmic radiation.”

Neil O'Rourke
April 26, 2009 1:11 am

Hey Leif,
You mentioned the 27 day solar rotation a few times in this topic. What’s the significance of the solar rotation? Isn’t the Sun relatively homogenous?

Just Want Truth...
April 26, 2009 1:11 am

Record heat in California long gone now. Back to cold in the San Francisco Area with icy winds.

Just Want Truth...
April 26, 2009 1:16 am
Bruce Armour
April 26, 2009 1:25 am

Robert Bateman (17:19:44) :
Watts = Volts x Amps.
Robert Bateman (19:36:38) :
The flux is the voltage. The gauss of the spots & faculae are the amperage.
The April 23, 2009 UC Berkeley report titled “THEMIS mission tracks electrical tornadoes in space”, states:
“Earth-bound tornadoes are puny compared to “space tornadoes,” which span a volume as large as Earth and produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes, according to new observations by a suite of five NASA space probes.”
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/04/23_keiling.shtml
How many watts is this 100,000 amperes current from Sun to Earth?
How many volts?
How many hours a year does a 100,000 amperes current flow into Earth from the Sun?
Does the 100,000 amperes current cause global warming or global cooling?
(“While these intense currents do not cause any direct harm to humans, on the ground they can damage man-made structures, such as power transformers.”)
Could the 100,000 amperes current sporadically increase by orders of magnitude?
What is the return circuit from the Earth to the Sun?

John Edmondson
April 26, 2009 1:55 am

TSI variation tends to 0. Is this something new? F10.7 flux is increasing, but very slowly.
I can’t see how the 11 year solar cycle has a direct influence on Earth’s climate by direct solar radiation. The variation +/- 0.1% is just to small.
The solar magnetic field is the key. This also follows the 11 year cycle. When the sun is at solar minimum activity , like now, more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere and act as seeds for cloud formation. More clouds = higher albedo = lower temperature. Vice versa at solar maximum.
Having said that, the buffering effect of the oceans would tend to smooth out these variations. No obvious 11 year cycle of temp exists. There are variations on decadal scales, this is where the magnetic,cloud albedo effect comes in. The moving average (decades long) causes this variation.
If the sun is quiet for a long time, this pattern is broken. I would expect the earth’s cloudiness to increase quite quickly now. Is there anyway of testing this?

April 26, 2009 2:10 am

.
This is a letter I have sent to the BBC (and variations of it to newspapers). It might be worth reminding readers that posting on this board, while informative fun, does not spread the message. Only writing to the media will do that.
Helen Boaden,
BBC Complaints Executive
BBC London
Dear Madam,
Why is the BBC ignoring the fact of Global Cooling?
Contrary to standard BBC propaganda, there has been no global warming over the last 10 years (in fact, there was a slight cooling).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
(In fact, a slight cooling)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rss_1998-2008.png
Also, why is the BBC ignoring Lord Monckton, who has just been banned from giving evidence in US Congress AGAINST Global Warming?
News item:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/23/monckton-not-allowed-to-debate-with-gore-today/
Lord Monckton details:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
This is surely a newsworthy item – a ‘eccentric’ British aristocrat being banned from speaking in Congress – and yet you ignore it?
Why?
We all know why of course, because none of this fits the BBC’s Green agenda and propaganda. The BBC is the most biased media organisation in the world at present, and needs to be closed down.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
BTW, did you know that:
There has been no global warming over the last 10 years (in fact, there was a slight cooling)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/rss_1998-2008.png
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.1
That Antarctica is cooling
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml
That polar bear numbers are increasing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/04/25/arviat-bears.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868
Antarctic sea ice is growing, and at the greatest extent ever recorded
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.97.1
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2734
No Sunspots recently
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list53494
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1172399/Has-sun-gone-Earths-closest-star-dimmest-century.html
(Note the media lies here. A lack of sunspot activity caused the 17th century mini Ice Age, however our latest minimum has nothing to do with climate, and it is all manmade CO2. I have never seen such global deceit in my entire life.)
The theory of Sunspot activity driving ALL climate change.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Global Temperature vs Sunspot activity
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/offset:-0.1/plot/pmod/from:1978/offset:-1365.25/scale:0.2
(red plot is temperature, green in sunspot)
Note that the world has been cooling since 1998.
Letter from Lord Monckton: (enclosure)
.

April 26, 2009 2:31 am

Late to post but.
“The N.Pole isn’t responding.”
Doesn’t the ice core record (that we trust for temperature values?) show the N. Pole responding to climate change later than the S. Pole?
In addition to the excellent information given here, I suspect zeroed solar storms and reduced proton emission events permitting ozone recovery that reduces UV warming plays a (large?) part in the recent cooling.
The reducing volume of stratospheric cloud (offset by jet trails) may be significant to ozone recovery too.
Changing air currents must play a big role in the volume of ozone conveyed from high to low latitudes.
I’m looking, but any more info/opinion would sure be appreciated.
Reply: Read this post again and rethink your questions. ~ charles the moderator

John Edmondson
April 26, 2009 2:42 am

Ralph, you will get no joy from the BBC. Winning the lottery is more likely than an unbiased view from the taxpayer funded BBC.

April 26, 2009 2:44 am

Phillip Bratby (00:21:51) :
I think I must be missing something too.
You are.
The CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone up by about 100ppm, which by my reckoning is about 0.01% (I may have the math wrong).
Is this relevant? The CO2 concentration has gone up by ~30% and since it’s well accepted by pretty much all scientists (including Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Jack Barrett etc) that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ which is responsible for the earth being warmer than it would be without it, this is possibly a more relevant figure. However, it is the climate forcing effect which is of real interest. The 100 ppm (~30%) increase in the past ~150 years results in an increased forcing of ~1.6 w/m2 – compared to the change in TSI forcing of around 0.2 w/m2 (averaged over the the earth’s surface).
But, to all those who responded with comments about CO2, please note that I never mentioned CO2.
And how exactly is that supposed to warm the climate enough to need to spend trillions to cure it?

April 26, 2009 2:55 am

Recent attempts to question veracity of SSN during Maunder minimum period 1645-1700 may be out of place. From the graph
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SSNM.gif
it is more than clear there were lot of readings in the previous period 1615-1645 covering 3 distinctly visible cycles with high numbers.
There is no reason that the observers would suddenly fail to see sunspots if they were present. It is also unlikely that London was continuously cloudy for over 50 years. Simply sunspots may not have been visible to record. It is possible that Livingston-Penn type phenomenon was active.
I trust that there are no political motives involved to undermine Maunder period, in order to get in line with thinking of the AGW lobby.

April 26, 2009 2:58 am

.
>>Actually, the Mayan calendar does not end in 2012, as
>>much as it simply cycles and starts over again
Most ancient calendars did this, and the primary basis of the cycle was the Precession of the Equinox, which makes all the constellations cycle every 26,000 years – or one constellation ever 2,000 years or so.
In the West the last precessional change was from Aries to Pisces in AD 10, which is why Christianity adopted the symbol of the fish as their logo, while we now stand ‘At the Dawn of the Age of Aquarius’, as they say.
.

April 26, 2009 3:04 am

Terry Jackson (18:06:37) :
Last summer Alaska was quite cool. Here are two articles from the Anchorage paper………..With the sun going quieter and the PDO cooler, I expect an even cooler summer this year.
OK it’s anecdotal and only one place, but it does offer a glimpse of the effects in the area they should be most pronounced.
I actually think it’s reasonable to look at Alaska for signs of change. After all, it was in Alaska that the most pronounced (and immediate) warming was seen in the mid-1970s, it’s seems logical that a shift to cooling might also show up first here. See below for temperature plots of 3 Alaskan stations
Nome:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702000000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Anchorage:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702730000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Fairbanks:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425702610000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
PS ignore last paragraph on my previous post (2:44:29)

h.oldeboom
April 26, 2009 3:06 am

Just read in a local paper that codfish population increases; this could correlate with the lower seawatertemperatures in their living areas. Therefore I would suggest to consider codfish , a temperature sensitive fish, as an indicator for de/in creasing seawatertemperatures comparable with the ARGOS seawatertemperature measurement system. Al this of course in relation with decreasing solar activity.

April 26, 2009 3:07 am

.
>>Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate that
>>climate varies detectably with the solar cycle does not really address
>>the fundamental question of what has caused the general warming
>>over the last 30+ years.
“Whether the Sun has an effect on climate”??
What is up with these people? The Sun IS THE CLIMATE. Without the Sun there is no climate, just a celestial blob hovering around absolute zero, plus the odd rise to 3 degrees Kelvin when a volcano belches.
The Sun has to be the primary driver of climate. Active Sun equals hotter planet. Quiet Sun equals cooler planet. Its not rocket science, you know.
.

Robinson
April 26, 2009 3:07 am

So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping” effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate? I’m assuming there must be one; perhaps a few years, perhaps a decade or so.

GK
April 26, 2009 3:13 am

Leif, I stand corrected !! Thanks.
As someone else asked, what is the significance of the 27 day rotational period?
Are you saying TSI has variation from differnt sides of the Sun ? Surely not ?
Is this due to variation in different areas of the sun, or tidal/wobble thing, or something else ? Or have I totally missed the point !!

April 26, 2009 3:17 am

.
>>TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5
>>years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?
Correct me if I am wrong, but TSI does not include magnetic flux, and it is the latter that has reduced considerably recently, along with TSI.
Take a look at the second of these graphs;
http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/060306_sun_model_02.jpg
Magnetic flux is strongly linked to Sunspot activity, which is why the latter is a predictive tool to climate temperature.
.

April 26, 2009 3:24 am

.
>>t suggests that solar cycles lasted an average of 205 years
>>during part of the last Ice Age. Don’t know its validity.
Yes, but this could be an extension of the 166-year Gleissberg cycle, which is superimposed upon the usual 11-year cycle.
The Sun has many cycles.
.

Ozzie John
April 26, 2009 3:41 am

I noticed the post from ‘anna v’ highlighting the albedo data on Leif’s site.
http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png
What really stands out is the big dip in albedo which seems to coincide with the big El Nino event of 98, and subsequent warming. If this data is accurate then it would certainly seem to indicate a very significant driver in the earth’s climate. ie-ENSO phases.
It would be nice to see recent data post 2005.

MA
April 26, 2009 4:04 am

anna v (22:32:17) : “I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system…”
Have anyone ever opposed that?
“In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects”
And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?

James
April 26, 2009 4:06 am

Stark graphs. Furthemore my eyes detect, if anything, an element of accelerated decline in the current minimum.

April 26, 2009 4:06 am

John Finn (17:25:56) :
I think I must be missing something. TSI appears to be about 0.05% lower than it was 5 years ago – and this is supposed to cool the climate. How exactly?

Insulation? Those of us who live in cool climates insulate our houses to save energy and preserve indoor heat. Those who live in tropical climates sometimes “dress the heat out”. It is all about insulation.
The clouds insulate the ground from the rays of the sun, by reflecting the radiation back into space. With a constant TSI but varying cloud coverage the effect will be a varying climate.
We know that the sun’s magnetic field varies much more than TSI. If Svensmark is right about magnetic fields, GCR and cloud coverage …. ?

Tim Channon
April 26, 2009 4:12 am

The reader is now warned to put down your coffee before reading this PRESS RELEASE: Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Got that 2004?
One David Hathaway mentions 2010 as cycle 24 solar max. (I am not poking fun, is hard to deal with the unknown, but nevertheless is amusing in hindsight)
“Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.
October 18, 2004: Six … long … years.”
This puts a different complexion on the *entire* SORCE dataset as showing the sun in an abnormal state. (in case you missed the quotes, is my comment)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15318

April 26, 2009 4:35 am

Last significant peak of SC23 was in 2002.25 year, or 7.08 years ago. If we go back to the corresponding peak of SC22 it was in 1991.58.
If one wishes to be utterly simplistic, it follows the present time in the sunspot cycle, all being equal, should be roughly same as 1998.66 when monthly smoothed SSN was 68 or actual SSN=92.
In short: If SC24 was a near-repeat of SC23 then we should now have SSN at least 60+.
If we take SC23max about 120 and assume predicted SC24max about 70 then present SSN should have been about 40.

April 26, 2009 4:36 am

>>So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity
>>than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping”
>>effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate?.
Prof Landscheidt says 7 or 8 years.
.

Geoff Sherrington
April 26, 2009 4:36 am

Back in August 2005 I posted on Climate Audit to the effect that recreationally, I had used cross-semivariograms from geostatistics to examine a number of effects, fun work from the 1970s.
See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=320
More fully, I was interested in variables with an annual time base, to reduce autocorrelation, so I hunted through journals like “Scientific American” for long annual time series than digitised them. The longest time series was the sunspot count, so I correlatated it with anything I could find that was reported for 50 years or more. There were measures for the fur trade of the Hudson’s Bay Company, the yield of tomatoes in California, the copper price on the NY stock exchange, American employment, USA GNP per capita and several others that I have now forgotten.
The rationale was that in indirect ways many of these are connected, albeit indirectly and with lags, with sunlight. More light gives better crops, more trade, more prosperity, more production of other commodities. Of course, confounding factors abound.
If it has not been done and published, I think it would be a fascinating exercise to repeat using mathematicians’ statistics of today and including more recent data.
In my quick and crude fun analysis, I was surprised by the number of above factors that appeared correlated, some of them rather well. But then, it might have been conceptually and mathematically flawed. Correlation is not causation.
My present thoughts are that if there is a connection between solar irradiance and earth temperature, it will show out in some of these indirect measures. A cold climate might equate with a cold economy, that type of expression.

zolov
April 26, 2009 4:43 am

1. Maybe not feedback, but the climate is a chaotic system and linear or pseudo- linea mathmatics don’t necessarily apply.
2. Although the TSI change is small what about the far-extreme UV? This changes significantly more tha the visible part of the spectrum. Increase in energy deposited in the outermost region of the atmosphere surely reduces the effectiive temperatue gagdient across it (already non-linear) and so ultimately affects the heat treansfer from surface to outer space.
3.Can we see a plot of XUV radiation vs time over several solar cyvles?

Frank K.
April 26, 2009 4:50 am

Tim Channon (04:12:37) :
From that linked press release:
“Hathaway is an expert forecaster of the solar cycle. He keeps track of sunspot numbers (the best known indicator of solar activity) and predicts years in advance when the next peaks and valleys will come.”
Yup.
And…
“But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.
The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought. ”
Heh.

maz2
April 26, 2009 4:53 am

One of the joys of a bibliophile is stumbling across passages like this: the past is prologue.
These two phrases caught my attention :
“”that tranquil eye which knoweth not envy”.”
“the copper brute with the firey face covered with black pimples.”
No “black pimples” today?
…-
“Notes From An African Diary*
In Africa I learned why those Scythian tribesmen, whose habits are recorded by Julian,
reserved their sharpest arrows to shoot at the sun.
To Julian, who was a sun worshipper, that was sacrilege.
Had I possessed a long-range gun on the journey to Lake Chad in the late summer of 1934,
I would willingly have sent a charge into “that tranquil eye which knoweth not envy”.
In Africa I hated the sun with an impotent fury, the fury that made Giovanni Papini,
before his conversion, speak of “the copper brute with the firey face covered with black pimples.”
On the spur of the moment, Youssef ibn Avrahim and I invented epithets even more expressive of our
helpless rage.”
*Pierre van Paasen
Days of Our Years
1903-1939

Frank K.
April 26, 2009 5:06 am

I also decided to check out the latest NASA press release:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_minimum09.html
and found this…
“Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.
Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, “possibly by the end of the year,” to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.”
I believe the statements “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next.” and “No one fully understands the underlying physics of…” can aptly be applied to other areas of science e.g. numerical climate modeling…

anna v
April 26, 2009 5:16 am

MA (04:04:36) :
anna v (22:32:17) : “I still think that we are dealing with a chaotic system…”
Have anyone ever opposed that?

Everyone who thinks that a direct cause:effect can be found concentrating on one of the input variables.
“In such systems it is possible for small changes to induce large effects”
And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?

I was actually thinking of the small effect of TSI changes over the sun cycle as a small input. I consider that it is already demonstrated on this blog that the CO2 effect is irrelevant. H2O now, is another question. Though the perfect analogue chaotic model would include everything.

kim
April 26, 2009 5:40 am

Wouldn’t it be possible for changes in albedo, that is clouds, during the seasonal change in TSI on the one year cycle(from January to July and back) to give the sort of climate sensitivity necessary to explain the variation in climate? Any potential instability from such a mechanism would be damped within months as the earth’s distance from the sun changed back.
==============================================

Just Want Truth...
April 26, 2009 5:49 am

Bruce Armour (01:25:54) :
This article is interesting Bruce!
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/04/23_keiling.shtml

Basil
Editor
April 26, 2009 5:59 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:18:28) :
Justin Sane (21:39:34) :
Why does the 12 month running average not go to the end of the data? Shouldn’t the 12 month running average be the current month and the last 11 months rather than the 12 months ending roughly 11-12 months earlier?
No, that is not a good way of running the average. The running average should be plotted at the time of the midpoint.

Look at it this way. Take a series that has steadily trended downward for some time. Using a 12 month average to the latest figure shows the moving average trending down to the present. But suppose at just this point in time the series turns back up and begins to steadily trend upwards. Once another 6 months of data are in, you find that a 12 month average at this point in time was higher than what you were showing using an average that came to the present. So using the endpoint resulted in a lower 12 month average than actually the case.
With a moving average, you want data on either side of the current point.
For once, I agree with Leif. 😉
BTW, I’m sure there is too much cyclomania in it for Leif’s taste, but I found the Komitov paper linked to by “Just Want Truth…” to be an interesting read.
http://www.astro.bas.bg/AIJ/issues/n9/BKomitov.pdf

Just Want Truth...
April 26, 2009 6:10 am

For those who have never seen this video on space weather/cosmoclimatology I’ll post the link once more :

Alan the Brit
April 26, 2009 6:25 am

I know this is just coincidence but my back is broad enough!
October 2007, step drop function appeared to occur in Solar output, Leif said it wasn’t unusual.
January 2008, global temps plummet 0.6°C or thereabouts. Worst winters in 20-30 years in northern hemisphere.
Solar Cycle 23 just won’t stop but keeps dragging out, Cycle 24 can’t get going. Nobody seems to have much of a real cluse when SC24 will start they keep extending the start dates every 6 months or so. When it does start it’s a damp squib!
Lousey summer weather in UK. Met Office says winter 08/09 will be as mild or milder than previous winters. Arctic summer melt didn’t break records & starts showing possible recovery. Stupid Brit half-wits keep trying to sail, canoe, walk to NP to prove it’s all melted, but keep running into ice that shouldn’t be there according to the warmists, genuine & disingenuine alike!
First October snows in 2008 for 75 years whilst UK government debates climate change bill. Coldest start to winter in UK for November for 20-30 years. 2009 coldest winter for 20 -30 years. All this is entirely in keeping with the Met Office’s understanding of Climate Change. Northern hemisphere winters significnatly colder than usual, or for around 30 years. 2009 globally cooler than 2008, 07, 06, 05 ,etc. Extended La Ninas, PDO shifts to cool phase, AMO shifts to cool phase.
Antarctic sea-ice at greatest recorded extent. Temps in Antarctica cooler. Whether it warms or cools in Antarctica it’s still in keeping with climate models as evidence of AGW.
Longest period for lack of Sunspots for almost 100 years since 1913. Cold weather records still being set on north American continent. Snows falling in the most unlikely places for the first time in living memory, or long periods of absence over 2007-2009.
Sun’s magnetic field output at 50 year low since records began.
Prof Mike Lockwood says no respite from AGW by Sun’s low output. (Expect to see hurried paper published showing Sun’s output has no effect on global climate whatsoever, never has done, never will, a best fit curve exercise.)
Surely one of these self-opinionated, two-faced, sanctimonious, duplicitous, nose in the trough taxpayer funded politicans somewhere around the world would ask the question whether if there isn’t something in it?
BTW I’m no expert but shouldn’t that period be the Suess Cycle @ c200years whereas the notional 88 year periodicity is the gleissberg cycle?

Micky C (MC)
April 26, 2009 6:36 am

This will be buried in the noise but it seems to be relevant to the topic. Some people claim that small changes in TSI or sunspots for that matter cannot result in larger fluctuations in the climate. Now, maybe that is correct but I see a very similar effect with low pressure discharge plasmas everyday at work. I’ll explain briefly and you can make up your own minds.
First of all the Earth is receiving over 1300 W/m2 from the Sun everyday and this heat has been distributed into the oceans and land, though predominantly in the oceans. This has been going on for millenia and there is evidence of changes in the cycle, due to some factors, in the geological record. So we can assume that the ocean current circulation and atmospheric cycles leading to weather and climate patterns are a way to distribute the heat around and that these are not quite linear but have a non-linear complex nature.
Okay, so now to the plasmas: In low pressure discharge plasmas (like Xenon or Argon singly charged plasmas) there is a well known phenomenon where drift waves, or acoustic wave appear and how a very small change in the input power characteristics causes this. To put this in perpective, in some types of discharge (Kaufman type) a critical parameter is the anode voltage (Kaufman discharges have an internal plasma circuit: cathode and anode). The anode voltage directly relates to the space charge in the discharge and to the plasma potential. Kaufman discharge space charge i.e. the amount of ionisation, is controlled by varying the amount of electrons (anode current) or the time they spend in the discharge (magnet current) for a given gas flow rate. This can also be changed to increase the ionisation range.
What happens at acoustic wave onset is that the anode voltage starts with a ‘white’ noise frequency spectrum and within a small change of the magnet current (typically below 5%, which is a much smaller increase in discharge power, maybe 1%) suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency related to the electron temperature in the plasma and the size of the discharge chamber. The onset occurs very quickly, but the overall plasma energy is hardly affected, just redistributed into coherent anode voltage oscillation. The key is that the white noise can be 0.5 V peak to peak, but the acoustic oscillation is 2 volts peak to peak or more and occuring in the kHz range.
I have produced the effect in the lab and its just a transition state in the discharge; there is nothing harmful occuring to the chamber.
The basic point though is that a small change in input power causes a large change in behaviour because the ions in the plasma start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.
So it the ocean circulation is coupled to the physical geometry of the Earth and there are certain resonances then this redistribution of frequencies and hence changes in climate due to small changes in the sun is perfectly feasable. An additional part is that, again using the example of plasmas, if there is a frequency in the input power it does not have to be an exact fundamental frequency of the discharge to produce acoustic oscillation but only has to have an associated coupling factor. Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa. Hence for example El Nino could be excited by much longer oscillations in the TSI ro maybe sunspots.
If there is a sun-earth coupling then obviously is complicated and non-linear but to say that such an effect is not feasable in nature doesn’t reflect the case in plasmas where it is easily reproducable.

jgfox
April 26, 2009 6:44 am

Thanks for the SORCE data report by Guillermo Gonzalez
When I went to the SORCE website a few weeks ago to check the TSI data and compare it to prior VIRGO satellite data, I found a major gap in the baseline between the VIRGO and SORCE TIM instrument data.
Then I came across this note on the SORCE website:
“Special Note on TIM (Total Irradiance Monitor) TSI Data
“”The TIM measures TSI values 4.7 W/m2 lower than the VIRGO and 5.1 W/m2 lower than ACRIM III.””
http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?page=input_data_for_tsi.ion#note
WOW! That’s a major difference and makes me question all prior non-SORCE/TIM data and their use in global warming models.
That difference is much larger than the 1 W/m2 variance between the solar cycles as measured by the older VIRGO TSI instruments.
If you go to the VIRGO site there is a page long, mind numbing, description of how they cobblel together data from different instruments using mathematical hammers to achieve the “final” TSI .. … Level 0 to Level 1, then Level 1 to Level 1.8, and finally from Level 1.8 to Level 2.0.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#Data
Clearly TIM is simpler in design, more accurate, and provides direct TSI measurement.
A meeting in May 16, 2006 reviewed the different TSI instruments, but did not come to a conclusion rating one over the other. Open admittance that prior measurements are not as accurate as portrayed is a very sensitive scientific/political issue and silence appears safer than open debate.
TIM is the instrument of choice for future NASA flights.
I received this note from
Greg Kopp -TIM Instrument Scientist Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics
“We have been working with the TSI community on resolving these differences, starting with a NASA-organized community workshop at NIST a couple of years ago.
Since then, we have built a new facility to calibrate TSI radiometers against a NIST-calibrated cryogenic radiometer prior to flight, and have used this facility to validate the performance of the next TIM, which will launch in early 2010 on NASA’s Glory mission. Prior to the Glory/TIM, no flight TSI instrument has been validated end-to-end for irradiance under flight-like operating conditions.”

April 26, 2009 6:47 am

I don’t have much to add, I read other than thanks Guillermo, Anthony and Lief for the post and replies. Educational as always.
Jeff

Editor
April 26, 2009 6:58 am

John F. Hultquist (21:06:50) :

The first comment, Jim Arndt (16:01:21) , mentioned Penn and Livingston look to be right more and more.
This idea was discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Can someone explain in simple language what the following terms mean in the context of this thread and sunspots:

The Livingston & Penn paper doesn’t really connect to this thread. It talks about a weakening of the magnetic fields around in in sunspots that has been ongoing for more than a 11-year solar cycle, this thread concerns itself with effects involving the whole sun.
Quick summary, but without referring back to L&P:
visible
Typical sunspot. Dark spot on the sun visible with a decent telescope or unmagnified viewing. (Both with appropriate filtering, of course.) The dark color is not black, it’s just an area of cooler plasma that radiates less light.
invisible
Area on the sun where the plasma is not cool but where the magnetic field shows there is a sunspot. I beleive the magnetic field is determined by looking at both polarization of light and “line splitting” where spectral lines are modified by magnetic fields in the area.
gone (not there)
Area that no longer has the magnetic signature. (It won’t have the visible signature either).
not gone but invisible
Area where the magnetic field has weakened enough to allow enough convection to allow the plasma temperature at the surface warm up so it no longer looks dark.
disappear
Have to check the context. If it’s “spots will disappear by 2015” then it means sunspot magnetic fields will be too weak to let any spot become visible.
TSI
Total Solar Iradience. Usually expressed as the total watts of all electomagnetic radiation (light including IR and UV), radio – anything that warms up an absorbing target – passing through a square meter of the top of our atmosphere (or perhaps now the altitude of the satellites that measure TSI).

The mentioned paper said:
“…show consistent trends in which the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra have become warmer (45K per year) and their magnetic field strengths have decreased (77 Gauss per year), independently of the normal 11-year sunspot cycle. A linear extrapolation of these trends suggests that few sunspots will be visible after 2015.”
When I read the original Penn and Livingston paper the analogy I thought of was: If there is a dark stain on a white wall and I use white paint to re-paint the wall, the stain is not gone but it is invisible.

A better analogy might be a dimmer switch dimming the surface of the sun, strong magnetic fields mean strong dimmer. The idea that somthing is covering the sun is not what’s going on.

So is the Penn & Livingston observation equivalent to a Maunder or Dalton Minimum or something entirely new? At those times did “the darkest parts of the sunspot umbra … become warmer” and invisible, or were there none?

No one knows. The main reason Science rejected the paper was that it didn’t propose a mechanism, it was just a statisical look at the interesting observations and wasn’t interesting enough for Science. It’s almost certain that this has happened in the past, but we didn’t have our current tools to observe the magnetic field part. My gut feeling is that the Dalton Minimum was just a period with weak cycles, but this might have happened during the Maunder Minimum. Check back in 70 years or so, we’ll have a much better idea of how the pieces fit.
——
OT:
Record heat in New England yesterday. I don’t see a nice table, but http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/recordbreaking.shtml lists sites Boston MA, Bridgeport CT, Hartford CT, Providence RI, Worcester MA, Albany NY, Burlington VT, Portland ME, Caribou ME, Concord NH, New York NY, Newark NJ
More records may be set through Tuesday. All part of the warm wave that heated up California a few days ago.

Joel Shore
April 26, 2009 7:08 am

ralph ellis:

“Whether the Sun has an effect on climate”??
What is up with these people? The Sun IS THE CLIMATE. Without the Sun there is no climate, just a celestial blob hovering around absolute zero, plus the odd rise to 3 degrees Kelvin when a volcano belches.
The Sun has to be the primary driver of climate. Active Sun equals hotter planet. Quiet Sun equals cooler planet. Its not rocket science, you know.

Well, I guess if you change what “these people” say then it becomes easy to attack the resulting strawman and actually think that you have said something relevant. The original phrase said, “Whether or not the sun has enough of an effect on climate…”
Look, the fact is that the W/m^2 change in forcing from the solar variations is considerably smaller than the forcing due to changes in CO2 levels. In order to make claims that changes in the sun are still the dominant factor in the climate over the last half century, it is necessary to posit some feedback mechanism such as cosmic rays that acts selectively only on the solar forcing. (It is apparently also necessary to ignore the fact that there has been no real trend in cosmic rays over the time when the warming has occurred.)
It is strange that the very same people who are so skeptical of positive feedbacks that act on all forcings equally are so willing to believe in positive feedbacks that act selectively on the forcing that they want to believe is most important.
[Actually, whether or not there is a detectable temperature effect due to the 11-year solar cycle comes down mainly to the issue of damping. I.e., the changes in forcing from min to max of the solar cycle is enough to cause a detectable change in temperature with our current estimates of climate sensitivity if it happens slowly enough…but it is not clear whether these changes are detectable once the damping effects associated with the frequency of these variations in factored in…and particularly when trying to separate this from other climate variability factors.]

April 26, 2009 7:27 am

OT but Catlin crew have come up with a new spin on the scientific ‘value’ of their jaunt.
The purpose of the Catlin Arctic Survey is for the Ice Team of Pen Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels to gather data that will help scientists to assess how the ice is melting across the region where the expedition is drilling. In the planning stages, the team worked closely with scientists to ensure they would be gathering exactly the type of information required during their time on the ice. When the team returns in May, the role of the scientists will once again be in the ascendant. But for now, the skills that are needed are those of an experienced expedition team.
It’s a Brave New World indeed!

April 26, 2009 7:28 am
bill
April 26, 2009 7:33 am

ralph ellis (02:10:11) :
…No Sunspots recently
…(Note the media lies here. A lack of sunspot activity caused the 17th century mini Ice Age, however our latest minimum has nothing to do with climate, and it is all manmade CO2. I have never seen such global deceit in my entire life.)
The theory of Sunspot activity driving ALL climate change.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Global Temperature vs Sunspot activity
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/offset:-0.1/plot/pmod/from:1978/offset:-1365.25/scale:0.2

Isn’t this shooting yourself in the foot????
Let’s assume xxx is the cause of GW and TSI is another modulation on that temp rise.
LOW TSI (currently) = lower temperatures – apparently true at present but then this is not explaining the CONSTANT rise over the last 30 years which must be caused by xxx.
LOW TSI has in your eyes pulled the risen temperature down to near average temps.
In the next solar maximum, whenever that occurs say 5 years time, the reduction will be removed and we will be on a new high. So there will be a total of 15 years (10 years colling as you stated + 5 more for TSI to reach maximum) of TSI cooling. This is 15 years where xxx effect has been increasing. It’s going to be very HOT. We must find what xxx is!!!!!
You make the assertion that TI is THE cause of temperature variation. Why does this evident 11 year cycle not appear on FFT plots of temperature.
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5025/cetssnavgfft.jpg
You then use a plot to prove this. Even this does not show the effect – Temperature shows a sinusoidal component added to a positive linear trend. The TSI shows a sinusoidal component without the trend (fortuitously over thie period you chose the TSI sinusois and the temp sinusoid are similar frequencies.
Take a look at this plot comparing temperature vs SSN and Temperature vs CO2. Which do you think has the most significant effect on temperature?:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2553/hadcrutvsco2andssn.jpg

April 26, 2009 7:40 am

GK (03:13:30) :
Are you saying TSI has variation from differnt sides of the Sun ? Surely not ?
Surely, yes. Imagine you have a huge sunspot on one side of the Sun. When that spot is facing us, TSI is smaller. When the spot is at 90 degrees [a quarter of a rotation] away from us we don’t see the spot, but we do see the enhanced brightness around the spot [called faculae] and so TSI is higher. So there is a distinct signature in TSI to the passage of a huge spot across the solar disk: first TSI goes up, then down, and finally [when the spot rotates out of view] up again.
On http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png I have indicated the effect by an arrow pointing to a significant spot in 2008.23. The green sunspot curve was way up [relative to now, at least]. F10.7 sot up [the pink curve], but TSI had a deep minimum flanked by maxima. Since the magnetic field from that spot group takes a long time to disappear, TSI was enhanced every 27 days since then, giving rise to the 27-day recurrent peak in TSI. The amplitude of that peak has been slowly decreasing since. Around 2008.80 there was a [smaller] injection of new magnetic flux [see the green and pink curves] that has helped keeping the peak alive, but now it is clearly dying down.

April 26, 2009 7:40 am

John Finn 17:25:56
Interesting that you ask how such a small deviation in TSI can have large climatic effects. That is the most important question, if, in fact, the sun directs the climate. We don’t know the answer and great prizes await those who figure it out.

Last night I have consulted with my pillow (it means that this issue was going round and round again in my subconscious). Well; this is my “pet” theory as Dr.Leif would put it:
Returning to BASICS It DOES has large climatic effects!
But attenuated and/or increased by:
Volumetric Heat Capacity
Air =0.001297 j cm3/kg
Water=4.186 j cm3/kg
3227 times
Material Thermal conductivity
Air at 0° C 0.024 W/m K 86.24 j/m K
Water at 20°C 0.6 W/m K 2160.00 j/m K
25 times
BOTH MODULATED BY CONVECTION This is where GWrs. are out of the picture

Ron de Haan
April 26, 2009 7:40 am

Frank K. (04:50:43) :
Tim Channon (04:12:37) :
From that linked press release:
“Hathaway is an expert forecaster of the solar cycle. He keeps track of sunspot numbers (the best known indicator of solar activity) and predicts years in advance when the next peaks and valleys will come.”
Yup.
And…
“But researchers are making progress. Hathaway and colleague Bob Wilson, both working at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believe they’ve found a simple way to predict the date of the next solar minimum. “We examined data from the last 8 solar cycles and discovered that Solar Min follows the first spotless day after Solar Max by 34 months,” explains Hathaway.
The most recent solar maximum was in late 2000. The first spotless day after that was Jan 28, 2004. So, using Hathaway and Wilson’s simple rule, solar minimum should arrive in late 2006. That’s about a year earlier than previously thought. ”
Heh.
Frank K and Tim Channon,
Just enter the name Hathaway in the search field of WUWT.
You will know than that you are recycling “old news”
Hathaway here is feeded to the sharks here everytime he opens his mouth.

bill
April 26, 2009 7:44 am

Sorry forgot to say that data is from march 1958 to july 2008

April 26, 2009 7:48 am

Almost fell off my chair when I read this on the Daily Telegram website
“The increase in the amount of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, may have helped to slow global warming. However as the world cuts pollution it will speed up again.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5202877/Global-warming-slowed-by-pollution.html

April 26, 2009 7:57 am

Frank K. (05:06:10) :
No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.
A statement from NASA that some choose to ignore.

Martin Mason
April 26, 2009 8:08 am

Joel Shore
After many years of apathy I have started looking at these climate change issues. So far I believe that the man made CO2 warming theory is weak and the AGW extremists and AGW driven politicians basically lunatics. I also don’t believe in positive CO2 feedbacks because time has shown that they have never happened. However I agree that the TSI theory doesn’t explain everything. There are other factors and in such a complex system I’d expect that to be so. I’d expect our knowledge on what is really happening to be very small (compared to what some would have us believe) yet acknowledge that much is being discovered. This is mainly due to people challenging the consensus which is patently incorrect and patently far short of enough solid information to initiate anything other than long term startegic planning. To my eyes there is no possible justification for the draconian measures proposed. There are far more important things to spend our money on.

Frank K.
April 26, 2009 8:20 am

Ron de Haan (07:40:49) :
Frank K and Tim Channon,
Just enter the name Hathaway in the search field of WUWT.
You will know than that you are recycling “old news”

Yes, I know it old news, but it is good for all to review these predictions of yesteryear, in light of current events, just to emphasize the point that we don’t understand as much of the physical world as we think we do. This is a very important topic at this time as the US government is about to embark on policies attempting to “control” the climate of the earth based on incomplete evidence, controversial theories, and poorly understood physics (as expressed in the AOGCMs). And the scientists and policy makers advocating these policies are today as sure of themselves as Dr. Hathaway was back in 2004…

April 26, 2009 8:32 am

As much as I enjoy a technical proof of what I already knew about Al Gore, and this thread is a good example; math is not required to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Keeping in mind that the IPCC climate models don’t know how to handle clouds, punch up channel 212 on Dish Network to get a live view of the earth from stationary orbit. Visualize the white from the clouds as energy reflected back to space and the dark areas as energy absorbed on Earth. Now if some warm monger tells you that the effect of clouds can be ignored give them all of the respect they deserve.
If indeed fewer sunspots, cause more clouds then read this thread again and to out and buy new sweaters.

J. Bob
April 26, 2009 8:38 am

Bill -Figure T_est_05 shows this longer wave, with about a 50 year period. This used the FFT to filter & re-contruct the signal.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_05-NVRm1.gif
Fig T_est_05 shows a fairly strong amplitude. It also shows that there is a peaking about the year 2000. This peaking around the year 2000 of this and other wave would suggest that the recent warm up could be due to the re-enforcement of several waves such as the 50 and 10 year wave.
The ~50+ year cycle seems to have a stong amplitude on both your sunspot data and east England temp.

Alan the Brit
April 26, 2009 9:01 am

Steve:-)
Read through the article three times & it still sounds a complete load of bovine faecal content! Absolute nonsense. Sounds like a softening up process for the doom & gloom sayers who can’t predcit/second-guess/project/have a stab at what is goingto happen, not a clue any of them!

BarryW
April 26, 2009 9:05 am

Geoff Sherrington (04:36:50) :
The Discovery channel recently had a piece on putting small mirrors in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight to counteract AGW from CO2. Of course no one discussed the effects of reduced sunlight on crops and such. Cures in this realm could be much worse than the “disease”. Since they think of a warmer more benign climate as being such “disease”.

bill
April 26, 2009 9:05 am

An improved version of the comparison between temperature and TSI/CO2
This time there is no averaging of the data.
CO2 x axis is just the sorted PPM figures without regard to dates
SSN/TSI x axis is again just sorted without regard to dates
data date range is still mar 1958 to jul 2009
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2553/hadcrutvsco2andssn.jpg
Plots show that temperature is increased by
0.00006 deg C per sun spot!
or 0.01 deg C per CO2 ppm

crosspatch
April 26, 2009 9:15 am

All I know is that something is totally whack with the maple syrup supply. There isn’t any at Trader Joe’s. At Costco a container that used to sell for under $10 is currently $32. Is Spring so late in New England that the maple syrup run has changed?

MartinGAtkins
April 26, 2009 9:25 am

Leif Svalgaard (23:27:39) :

I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…

If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation. It’s only when the constant deviates in some way would you expect any climate reaction. Having said that, I’m in no way hanging my hat on the current solar conditions having any effect on the recent plateauing of global temps.
I tend to think that the recent changes in the ocean currents would smother any apparently trivial but interesting changes in solar output.

Bill Illis
April 26, 2009 9:30 am

OT, but to bill,
The straightness of your CO2 versus temperature line is just a function of the logarithmic formula and where we are on the CO2 line now.
The line is nearly straight starting in about 1985 (it isn’t before this date, it is exponential) and then it will stay almost linear till about 550 ppm (2070) and then it starts to flatten out.
It is just a characteristic of the logarithmic formulae and the position we are at now on the chart. This is, in part, why the IPCC says the trend should be 0.2C per decade because that is the near-linear trend that occurs for this time period in the theory.
You should convert your CO2 numbers to Ln(CO2) though – it won’t make much difference at this point.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5721/newhadcrut3warming.png

April 26, 2009 9:37 am

MartinGAtkins (09:25:52) :
“I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…”
If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation.

You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

Richard Sharpe
April 26, 2009 9:45 am

Leif says:

You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

Ahhh, but these “feedbacks” also have a low-pass filter, so they are unable to see the relatively high frequency annual components …

April 26, 2009 10:14 am

Richard Sharpe (09:45:02) :
Ahhh, but these “feedbacks” also have a low-pass filter, so they are unable to see the relatively high frequency annual components …
I guess one can devise a ‘feedback’ scheme that produces just what one wants to see in the data.

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 10:39 am

Leif Svalgaard (07:40:23) :
The falling amplitude of TSI should give us a very clear picture of the level of strength of sunspots/faculae. Since the end of 2008, those spots have been visibly weak and greatly diminished in contrast.
Until we get some sort of halfway decent spots, the TSI is going to look like 80 grit sandpaper.

April 26, 2009 10:39 am

Towards the end of Wolf Minimum in 1340s Black Death (Bubonic plague) that swept through Europe killed millions.
In the middle of Maunder Minimum the Great Plague of London, 1665–1666, was the another major outbreak of the bubonic plague in Europe.
The third Pandemic began in Central Asia. It spread worldwide, killing millions, into the early 20th century (Dalton minimum).
Now Swine Flu is rearing its ugly head. Is it possible that reduction in UV radiation (normally killing the nasty germs) is contributing to the occurrence of these calamities?
Any medics on the forum?

Joel Shore
April 26, 2009 10:54 am

Martin Mason says:

I also don’t believe in positive CO2 feedbacks because time has shown that they have never happened.

First of all, I wouldn’t call them “CO2 feedbacks” because, unlike the feedbacks that the “skeptics” are proposing to amplify solar variations, these feedbacks are not specific to the mechanism of CO2 causing the warming. They are feedbacks that occur at least roughly the same for any source of warming.
Second of all, those who study paleoclimate generally seem to disagree with you on this point of what the past climate record shows http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 :

Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes over the past century suggest that the average global temperature will rise by between 1.5º and 4.5ºC if the atmospheric CO2 concentration doubles. In their Perspective, Schrag and Alley look at records of past climate change, from the last ice age to millions of years ago, to determine whether this climate sensitivity is realistic. They conclude that the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models.

Editor
April 26, 2009 11:13 am

crosspatch (09:15:59) :

All I know is that something is totally whack with the maple syrup supply. There isn’t any at Trader Joe’s. At Costco a container that used to sell for under $10 is currently $32. Is Spring so late in New England that the maple syrup run has changed?

My guess is that last year’s production has run out and this year’s hasn’t made far beyond the sugar shack (there’s one small outfit just up the hill from me but I haven’t talked with the owner about the season).
Maple syrup production is extremely weather dependent. A lot of times in New England it evens out – poor production in one area goes with a banner year in another. However, Canada is the biggest producer by far, and Quebec seemed to have a lousy year last year (50 Mlb – million pounds) and will have exceeded the 86 Mlb record with 91-100 Mlb this year. Some of that record may go with expanded tapping.
That from http://www.country-guide.ca/east/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=98804&issue=04152009&story_id=&PC=FBC
Very good report at http://flavorchase.tillinghastmaple.com/2008/12/07/maple-syrup-prices-rocket-up-in-2008-may-head-back-down-in-2009.aspx though it tries to predict 2009 results in 2008.

Stephen Wilde
April 26, 2009 11:17 am

Could Leif or someone equally knowledgeable please explain why the above chart shows a TSI currently at only 1361.
Previous reconstructions as discussed here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true
indicate that during the recent warming we were at about 1366.
The difference is sizeable and a cause for concern.

MartinGAtkins
April 26, 2009 11:23 am

Leif says
“I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…”
MartinGAtkins says
If that remains true year in year out, then it becomes a constant and would play no part in any long term climate variation.

You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.

I think it’s you that is missing the point. I wasn’t questioning that there may be a feed back mechanism. For any feed back to vary the climate then the constant must deviate. Otherwise you end up with equilibrium.
The point I was making is that the current conditions are very unlikely to be due to the any short term drop in solar output such as we have now.
The present change in the ocean SST’s would swamp any signal.

April 26, 2009 11:27 am

“Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes…”
More globaloney based on computer models. That link is a perfect example of speculation by people trolling for grant money. But when real world evidence is taken into account, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity at all to CO2: click
So, who are you gonna believe? The planet? Or a couple of jamokes fiddling with a GCM to get the results they want?
I’ll put my trust in the planet, over the rank speculation of these grant seeking taxsuckers. Mother Nature says, “Don’t worry.”
Mother Nature is right.

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 11:29 am

Steven: Good eye !
Remodeled data? Ground source data vs spaceborne source data?

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 11:33 am

Mother Nature is right. Stepping outside… almost May and there’s yet another cold front moved through with the howling Spring winds leaving behind a perfectly sunny day with a cold bite in the air and ice in the birdbath.
My how the years have chilled.
Haven’t been able to project a Tiny Tim since January. Good thing I looked.

George Gillan
April 26, 2009 11:41 am

You missed the point again. I must not be very good at making it. The issue was “FEEDBACK!!!!!”. If the feedbacks could amplify a variation a hundred times as small (0.05%), then they would have an enormous effect on the full 7% variation. And the solar cycle variation also happens cycle in and cycle out.
Lief,
In the interest of helping to clarify your meaning… clearly there are significant seasonal variations in climate.
To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?
Explaining that might help to set the context for your view on multi-year (solar cycle, etc.) differences in climate.

April 26, 2009 11:59 am

The oceans are selling off its assets and no income from old source of cash!

Joel Shore
April 26, 2009 12:22 pm

Smokey:

I’ll put my trust in the planet, over the rank speculation of these grant seeking taxsuckers. Mother Nature says, “Don’t worry.”

I’ll put my trust in scientists who actually understand the difference between signal and noise in the data and who understand how to plot things so that don’t produce plots that would only be expected to show temperature (modulo noise) tracking CO2 levels if the climate sensitivity were 5X what the IPCC says it is.

Daryl M
April 26, 2009 12:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (10:14:22) :
“I guess one can devise a ‘feedback’ scheme that produces just what one wants to see in the data.”
You guess that? Wow, you’re really going out on a limb. LOL.
If it’s not an established fact that people devise feedback schemes produce what they want from the data, then there are no facts. Isn’t this what lies at the very core of the AGW debate?

Ron de Haan
April 26, 2009 12:54 pm

vukcevic (10:39:34) :
“Towards the end of Wolf Minimum in 1340s Black Death (Bubonic plague) that swept through Europe killed millions.
In the middle of Maunder Minimum the Great Plague of London, 1665–1666, was the another major outbreak of the bubonic plague in Europe.
The third Pandemic began in Central Asia. It spread worldwide, killing millions, into the early 20th century (Dalton minimum).
Now Swine Flu is rearing its ugly head. Is it possible that reduction in UV radiation (normally killing the nasty germs) is contributing to the occurrence of these calamities?
Any medics on the forum?”
I am not a medic.
I know that some bacteria respond to UV but viruses…?
Flu epidemics occur almost every winter.
I think that other factors must be taken into consideration.
What to think of reduced resistance against sickness because of malnutrition or even famine?
This combined with the lack of basic hygienic facilities like toilets, closed disposal water systems, clean drinking water, pest control and the presence of swamps near cities.
The bubonic plaque was caused by rats that carried flees.
I have found an article pointing out that the bubonic plague could have caused the Little Ice Age stating that abandoned farm land was covered by trees, absorbing the CO2, thus causing the Little Ice Age.
I don’t believe this because of the CO2 link and because it is an article from the BBC,
but here you have it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm
I have found this other link on the web but it’s about malaria.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol6no1/reiter.htm

MattB
April 26, 2009 1:53 pm

There is some attachment to this, but I will be more interested in just the UV portion of the spectrum. I know that typicaly UV goes down 6% durring a minimum (trying to find out what it is for this minimum, but haven’t yet). Anoter thing most of us agree on is that GCR’s go up durring solar minimum. Now a question I have is what are the possibilities that lower UV’s translate to a rise in bacteria and virus’s (UV kills these) and an increse in GCR’s translates to an increse in new strains due to mutation. Could be a double whammy for infectious disease, ala the samonella outbreaks and the new swine flu. I know at this point I have no evedence, but there seems to be a plausable working theory, thought I would share 🙂

gloria merritt
April 26, 2009 2:01 pm

Three comments – 1. Just found this blog and I love it!
2. Maple sap production (flow from the tree) is directly related to barometric pressure. 3. And if the oceans are “rising” due to global warming, why isn’t all the waterfront property on sale? After all, if the current owners of the waterfront property actually believed that there was actual global warming with subsequent consequences, they would be voting with their pocketbook and dumping the property now. Don’t you think?

April 26, 2009 2:08 pm

Ron de Haan,
Thanks for your research. Well, well I would never…
You have to forgive my macabre sense of humour, I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs (in case they got this global warming lark wrong), but never suspected that someone did attempt to do real science on a possible link.
I have to be more careful in future.

April 26, 2009 2:19 pm

Stephen Wilde (11:17:28) :
Could Leif or someone equally knowledgeable please explain why the above chart shows a TSI currently at only 1361.
The satellite measurements by different satellites [ http://acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.jpg ] have varied between 1361 and 1374 simply because it is very difficult to make absolute measurements that accurate. The relative error is much much smaller.
George Gillan (11:41:30) :
To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?
Summer/winter? northern hemisphere summer? The Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees, that gives you summer/winter. Nothing to do with the Sun.

Frank K.
April 26, 2009 2:26 pm

“I’ll put my trust in scientists who actually understand the difference between signal and noise in the data and who understand how to plot things so that don’t produce plots that would only be expected to show temperature (modulo noise) tracking CO2 levels if the climate sensitivity were 5X what the IPCC says it is.”
Who might those scientists be? Jim Hansen? Al Gore?

Molon Labe
April 26, 2009 2:49 pm

John Edmondson (01:55:25) :
“If the sun is quiet for a long time, this pattern is broken. I would expect the earth’s cloudiness to increase quite quickly now. Is there anyway of testing this?”
The amount of electricity produced by solar energy panels should be a good proxy for cloudiness. For stations which sell power back to the grid, the records should be complete.

Bill Hunter
April 26, 2009 2:49 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:27:39) :
[i]I guess you missed the point: the variation from January to July is almost 100 times larger than the solar cycle variation of TSI…[/i]
I didn’t miss that Leif. So one is 100 times as strong and cycles in a year and the other cycles in maybe a 100 years?
Maybe if the southern hemisphere were the mirror image to the northern hemisphere maybe we could compare the temperature of Moscow North to Moscow South and know what you are talking about.

kim
April 26, 2009 3:01 pm

Joel 12:22:30
We’ve been over this. You seem to trust scientists who find a signal in the CO2/temperature relationship that isn’t there. Get a clue, that’s a big problem.
=========================================

George Gillan
April 26, 2009 3:14 pm

George Gillan (11:41:30) :
To what mechanism do you ascribe the yearly variations in climate (i.e. winter vs summer) – plain TSI difference, some feedback mechanism, some amplification mechanism, some other mechanism?
Leif Svalgaard (14:19:44) :
Summer/winter? northern hemisphere summer? The Earth’s axis is tilted 23 degrees, that gives you summer/winter. Nothing to do with the Sun.

Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solor Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. 🙂
Is it only the direct effect of the difference in solar radiation received, or is that effect increased by feedback, or amplified (but not by feedback), or some other mechanism?
The point of the question being the summer/winter effect compared and contrasted with the longer term (multi-year) variances in climate. How do the mechanisms at work compare? Of course the longer cycle ocean circulation patterns would not cause the winter/summer difference, but what of the various ‘feedback’ and/or ‘amplification’ mechanisms that people keep throwing around?
I hope I am being more clear this time.

Ellie in Belfast
April 26, 2009 3:18 pm

vukcevic (10:39:34) :
Surely the 1918 ‘Spanish flu’ pandemic was not at a solar minimum and the milder 1957 ‘Asian flu’ pandemic was at the peak of a strong cycle (19)? Pandemics result from the combined action of two things: genetic mutation and recombination (including animal strains which become able to infect humans)
MattB (13:53:55):
UV kills by causing mutations in DNA – too many that the organism can’t repair, or changes in vital genes. I’m no expert but I think the summer/winter variation would have much greater significance than the current solar minimum, which is why flu tends to be seasonal.

April 26, 2009 3:22 pm

Bill Hunter (14:49:47) :
I didn’t miss that Leif. So one is 100 times as strong and cycles in a year and the other cycles in maybe a 100 years?
I’m talking about this:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE.png
The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has. The feedbacks that produce climate trends out of the blue but no clear signal out of the red elude me. For me, it is not enough that you just state something. Explain and demonstrate quantitatively why that is in terms I [and others] can easily understand.

April 26, 2009 3:31 pm

gloria merritt (14:01:35) : “And if the oceans are “rising” due to global warming, why isn’t all the waterfront property on sale? “
And more importantly, why would Al Gore buy waterfront property?

April 26, 2009 3:31 pm

George Gillan (15:14:59) :
Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solar Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. 🙂
I resent strongly the insinuation that I ‘dodged’ anything. The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt, and summer/winter has nothing to do with the Sun. Perhaps this can explain it to you:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Seasons.shtml

April 26, 2009 3:36 pm

Ellie in Belfast
You have to forgive my macabre sense of humour, I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs (in case they got this global warming lark wrong).
I have to be more careful in future.

April 26, 2009 3:47 pm

I am not a scientist but read extensively on many scientific topics and understand statistics pretty well. I do not understand Lief’s explanation of how a 27 day solar radiation affects the amount of energy coming from the sun. Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations I would assume they develop randomly around the solar sphere (I understand that they develop nearer the poles and migrate to the center) and over time would develop equally at all spots, cancelling out any particular 27 rotation effect.

MattB
April 26, 2009 3:52 pm

http://americanaquariumproducts.com/AquariumUVSterilization.html
UVC radiation triggers the formation of peptide bonds between certain amino acids in the microbe’s DNA molecules. This renders bacteria, viruses and molds harmless by robbing them of the ability to reproduce.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mutation
Cosmic rays from space, for instance, are natural, but they are mutagenic.
Note, I do not doubt other things at play, and this by no means should be even close to a full fledged paper on the subject. Just meant as a place for thought. There is another paper out there talking about the mutinagenic effects on men in space. In their case the effects seem mostly temporary, but then we are multicellular with a higher tolerance for such things.

April 26, 2009 4:03 pm

vukcevic (15:36:18) : I was trying to put fear of God into some of AGWs
Problem is…they believe in a Goddess, GAIA, and their most exalted preaching leader is HIM, the unnamable , that fatty alien who came from nowhere and who will take all their followers to a still unknown planet free of CO2.

Ellie in Belfast
April 26, 2009 4:18 pm

Vukevic,
I saw your reply to Ron de Haan when page refreshed after I hit ‘submit’. It made me smile.

April 26, 2009 4:26 pm

[snip – The next person to mention SWINE FLU on this thread will be kicked off for 48 hours. STAY ON TOPIC – Anthony]

April 26, 2009 4:34 pm

Understood

April 26, 2009 4:43 pm

kevin roche (15:47:53) :
Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations
But it does! Both in a deep sense and in the following more trivial sense: suppose solar activity [as now] is really low and there is only big spot per year. That spot will develop at a given location and decay there, taking several months to die away. As it does, each time during a solar rotation that the spot area faces us, we’ll see enhanced emission. Like a lighthouse.

Joel Shore
April 26, 2009 5:00 pm

Smokey says:

“Climate models and efforts to explain global temperature changes…”
More globaloney based on computer models. That link is a perfect example of speculation by people trolling for grant money. But when real world evidence is taken into account, there doesn’t seem to be much sensitivity at all to CO2: click

By the way, it sometimes helps you get better comprehension of what is being said if you actually read more than one sentence. If you had read beyond that first sentence, you would have understood that the whole point of that article was to look at what the real world evidence from paleoclimate data is and then ask how it compares to what the models say. The conclusion that they reach is “the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models. “

Sideliner
April 26, 2009 5:00 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:22:48) :

I’m talking about this:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE.png
The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has.

I like your stated ´simple´ dilemma which even can start to be explored without detailed physics.
To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.

April 26, 2009 5:03 pm

Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses, we have to begin taking some money from our “savings”(the seas), so these begin to cool down…
We, of course, hope that someday, in the near future, things will improve and our “income” will return to its current levels.
So, it is a matter of the “economics” (econos=house, greek) of energy, how it is received, how much (rather the same amount always), how much of it we save it, which are the ways to spend it, etc.etc.

Bill Hunter
April 26, 2009 5:18 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:22:48) :
[i]The red curve is the TSI actually observed at and by the Earth since 2003. The blue curve is what TSI looks like at 1 AU, but this is not what the climate system sees. It sees the red curve. Now, I do not expect [and cannot explain – perhaps you can] why the red curve has no effect, and the blue has. Explain and demonstrate quantitatively why that is in terms I [and others] can easily understand.[/i]
Leif it appears to me you are one suggesting the red curve has no effect. I merely suggested that the effect has not been measured and that the frequency of the cycle in question would have an effect on how much feedback you might receive from a given cycle.
Remove all the modifying factors then should not a TSI change of 1 over a 100 years equal a TSI change of 100 over one year? Is that well enough quantified?
The modifying factors could well change the amplitude of the net change though, with the higher frequency cycle not obtaining the same amplitude of the lower frequency cycle because of feedbacks extending into the next phase and moderating it.
I see that every day living at the edge of the Pacific Ocean. 50 miles inland the daily temperature range can be 60 degrees greater.
Seems to me the red curve annual cycle is already integrated into the climate system and may well explain some of the regular water cycles we see in the oceans. . . .some of which take years to play out and exhibit all sorts of frequencies or harmonics.
So in short I also believe the red curve has an effect. Its pretty hard to imagine how changes in TSI could have no effect. If you truly believe not perhaps you could explain how that would work. . . .some cosmic membrane that works like a water saving showerhead or something like that. . . .sounds rather cloudy.

April 26, 2009 5:27 pm

Sideliner (17:00:39) :
To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.
In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].
Adolfo Giurfa (17:03:57) :
Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses…
OK, we receive $13.61 at solar max and $13.60 at solar min…

April 26, 2009 5:29 pm

Sideliner (17:00:39) :
To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.
In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].
Adolfo Giurfa (17:03:57) :
Let us put it this issue of the TSI this way: We receive a certain amount of “money” which varies during 11 years, up and down…but, suddenly, it lowers more than expected, so, in order to keep our current expenses…
OK, we receive $1361.50 at solar max and $1360.25 at solar min…, and now all of the sudden we only got $1360.20, so we have to change our lifestyle…

Sideliner
April 26, 2009 5:58 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :
Sideliner (17:00:39) :
To start; I don´t fully understand Leif´s statement that the oscillating red curve (observed by the Earth) has no effect [on the climate system, I assume]. Please explain.
Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

I follow you if that was an immediate linear effect on temperature of any TSI change. But is this what we are discussing? Sorry, I am confused. Are we on the same ´timescale´page for this particular issue? Need to clarify that.
Due to the timezone diff I have to jump into horizontal soon, so I have not looked up the graphs; From top of my head – Isn´t the average global temperature slightly lower during the southern hemisphere summer, even if the TSI in that period is higher? Well, of course we know it is probably mostly due to the different ocean/land characteristics of the hemispheres.
Yet again in a simple minded way [and with a lot of if´s..]; What would the immediate temperature variations be if there was no TSI variation during the year? Similarily, if the TSI oscillation was shifted half a year with the highest peak during northern hemisphere´s summer? And subsequently the effect on longer-term climate for these cases?

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 6:11 pm

The Facular Indications for SC24:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin3.htm
2nd graph as compared to 1913 http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/2008fac.JPG
Since July 2008, the cycle has been in a very low state in terms of white-light faculae. When the 1st quater 2009 data comes out, I will update the graph.
It really does look an order of magnitude weaker than 1913.

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 6:14 pm

In my haste, oops.
The 1913 graph goes from zero to 500 on the Y axis.
The 2008 graph goes from zero to 450 on the Y axis.
I’ll fix it later.

George Gillan
April 26, 2009 6:19 pm

Leif Svalgaard (15:31:24) :
George Gillan (15:14:59) :
Leif, you used my poor wording to dodge the question. So not ‘TSI’ but instead Received Solar Irradiance (I’m unsure of the official term), certainly affected by the Earth’s tilt. Nothing to do with the sun? Everything to do with the sun, of course. 🙂
I resent strongly the insinuation that I ‘dodged’ anything. The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt, and summer/winter has nothing to do with the Sun. Perhaps this can explain it to you:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Seasons.shtml

Leif, I apologize, I didn’t mean ‘dodge’ as strongly as it obviously came across. It’s obvious that I have failed to communicate effectively, for which I also apologize. I’ll make one last try and then drop the matter to avoid wasting your time:
I am not seeking to understand the earth’s seasons, I already do understand them. Of course, without the effect of the sun’s radiation, there would be no summers or winters as the hemispheres angle toward or away from the sun. What I am attempting is to offer the seasons as a comparison for the effects of received solar radiation as it varies. In northern hemisphere winter the NH effectively receives less solar radiation than in NH summer due to the more oblique angle to the sun. Is summer warmer than winter because:
a) Just the direct result of more solar radiation in the hemisphere.
b) More SR plus some feedback mechanism.
c) More SR plus some amplification mechanism.
d) Some other mechanism or combination.
If the increase in received solar radiation (on the hemisphere) is by itself inadequate to explain the increase in temperatures that occur in summer, then perhaps one or more other mechanisms are at work (locally, within the hemisphere). Presumably, the effect of those mechanisms can be estimated by accounting for the direct effect of the increased received solar radiation in summer and subtracting that from the total observed effect.
You have pointed out many times on this site that variations in globally received solar radiation (if I abbreviate as ‘TSI’ would that be correct?) are inadequate to explain climate variations over the course of sunspot cycles and beyond. I realize that some mechanisms exist globally that do not exist within a hemisphere, and that some mechanisms act on multi-year cycles but not within seasonal cycles. Still, some feedback mechanisms that are present on a global scale might also act within a hemisphere (and at a much smaller scale) during the seasons.
I was trying to lay that out as a possible bridge between some of the questions posted and your answers to them (which were not connecting with the questioners).
It seemed a much more obvious comparison at first, but it has turned out to be a long and tortuous road to communicate it. At this point I presume it will be of little or no help.

Editor
April 26, 2009 6:20 pm

Sideliner, Leif is asking you a rhetorical question to see if you recognise what each represents. The irradiance at 1 AU has no bearing on Earth climate because Earth is not always at 1 AU from the Sun. The distance of the earth changes because our orbit is slightly elliptical. 1 AU is merely the average distance of the Earth from the Sun. When we are closer, we obviously receive more radiation from the Sun, and when further away, we receive less.
If we are furthest away from the sun AND polar precession has the north pole pointing away from the sun, AND solar emission is at a minimum, the Earth will receive the minimum possible irradiance. All these factors have an impact on the other line he was trying to draw your attention to and making you aware that the 1 AU irradiance line is really irrelevant.

April 26, 2009 6:20 pm

Sideliner (17:58:18) :
I follow you if that was an immediate linear effect on temperature of any TSI change. But is this what we are discussing?
A change in TSI does produce a change in temperature. The formula is simple dT/T = 1/4 dTSI/TSI, so a 0.05% change in TSI produces a 1/4 * 0.05% = 0.0125% change in temperature T, or 0.036 degrees K. A 7% change in TSI produces a change of 7/4% of T = 5 degrees K, which might be of the right order [although it seems a bit high still] of the change due to the changing distance to the Sun. Now, people tell me that the 0.036K should be much larger because of feedback, and I ask why the 5K would also not be a lot larger because of feedback. I get a story about time scale, about ‘its already in the climate system’, etc. But that is, to me, not an explanation. I want to know which feedback mechanisms, how much they amplify as a function of time scale, basic stuff that will allow a straightforward engineering-type assessment of what is going on.

April 26, 2009 6:43 pm

George Gillan (18:19:49) :
Is summer warmer than winter because:
a) Just the direct result of more solar radiation in the hemisphere.

Yes, just like it is warmer during the day than at night.
There are, of course, some second order effects [e.g. varying distance, different land/sea distribution, oceans currents, winds, etc], but to first order, I think it is as simple as that. If you think otherwise you will have to convince me.

Pat
April 26, 2009 6:50 pm
April 26, 2009 6:51 pm

Dear Anthony Watts… I’d like to bring your attention to the outbreak of Swine Influenza in Mexico and United States. It’s worth a special thread because WHO is selling the idea on an “atypical” epidemic which could turns out into a pandemic. I’m living in Mexico and I could answer some doubts about this epidemic.

Pat
April 26, 2009 6:56 pm

PS. Ooops, forgot to mention this snow is 6 weeks ahead of the official start to the ski season in the region.

Paul Vaughan
April 26, 2009 6:58 pm

– – –
Ninderthana (19:44:50)
“These important linking factors negate the need to have a multiplicative factor to amplify the small changes in solar insolation.”

We need more of this kind of thinking.
– – –
Re: anna v
Thanks for pointing out the following paper:
Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov (2007). A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L13705.
http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf
The methodology is not as new as they claim, but it is good to see this application.
– – –
MA (04:04:36)
“And that means that we must prepare for that the butterfly CO2 can induce large effects, and don’t bother that much about the elephants in the room?”

Don’t forget about limits.
The problem is that sometimes too much faith is placed in ‘decompositions’, ‘corrections’, & ‘adjustments’, which can make it harder to extract finer roots. There’s a lot of mileage & important activity in fine roots. Trees depend on more than fat-root structure.
– – –
Joel Shore (07:08:11)
“It is strange that the very same people who are so skeptical of positive feedbacks that act on all forcings equally are so willing to believe in positive feedbacks that act selectively on the forcing that they want to believe is most important.”

Let’s not forget about limits.
“[Actually, whether or not there is a detectable temperature effect due to the 11-year solar cycle comes down mainly to the issue of damping. I.e., the changes in forcing from min to max of the solar cycle is enough to cause a detectable change in temperature with our current estimates of climate sensitivity if it happens slowly enough…but it is not clear whether these changes are detectable once the damping effects associated with the frequency of these variations in factored in…and particularly when trying to separate this from other climate variability factors.]”
This assessment seems based on cherry-picked investigative methodology.
– – –
Glass shatters …
Bridges collapse …
Micky C (MC) (06:36:54)
==
“[…] suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency […]
The onset occurs very quickly […]
The key is that the white noise can […]”
“[…] start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.”
“Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa.”

==
Very refreshing to see awareness of ^this magnitude.
– – –
Re: Steve (07:48:06)
hilarious.
& interesting article – thanks
Re: Alan the Brit (09:01:06)
good commentary on this
– – –
Maurice Garoutte (08:32:27)
“If indeed fewer sunspots, cause more clouds […]”

If it was such a straight, linear relationship …
– – –
Leif Svalgaard (15:31:24)
“The Globally Received Solar Irradiance has nothing to do with the Earth’s tilt […]”

This would be an interesting (but not easy) generalization to challenge ….
– – –
Bill Hunter (14:49:47)
“Maybe if the southern hemisphere were the mirror image to the northern hemisphere maybe we could compare the temperature of Moscow North to Moscow South and know what you are talking about.”

^This was a clever comment.
– – –
— Robinson (03:07:34) —
“So, given that the oceans have a vastly greater heat capacity than the atmosphere, does anyone know what the “damping” effect (lag) may be on temperature/climate? I’m assuming there must be one; perhaps a few years, perhaps a decade or so.”

— ralph ellis (04:36:24) —
“Prof Landscheidt says 7 or 8 years.”

There are sensible arguments suggesting multiple (i.e. a range of) timescales (reaching up into the thousands (of years)) …with plenty of non-stationarity.
– – –
Bill Hunter (17:18:35)
“Seems to me the red curve annual cycle is already integrated into the climate system and may well explain some of the regular water cycles we see in the oceans. . . .some of which take years to play out and exhibit all sorts of frequencies or harmonics.”

Interesting – & tricky to investigate, particularly in the sociological context of (partially-misguided) undying, widespread beliefs about decompositions (particularly diurnal & seasonal ones), which can have a blinding effect, as mentioned above.
– – –
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (04:06:26)
“We know that the sun’s magnetic field varies much more than TSI. If Svensmark is right about magnetic fields, GCR and cloud coverage …. ?”

This is another one of these “elephant in the room” scenarios. Based on the various comments I see regularly posted about GCR/cloud theories, I have to wonder if some of the people [not Carsten] posting are aware of a more dominant factor: dewpoint.
….and to be clear: I’m not suggesting GCRs have no effect on cloud formation ….but my impression is that some will benefit from thinking about where/how GCRs fit into pictures like the following:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kastens/curriculum/BRF/water/rain/Rain1.GIF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dewpoint-RH.svg
– – –
kevin roche (15:47:53)
“Unless the sun preferentially develops sunspots and associated phenomenon in certain locations […]”

Solar scientists refer to them as ‘active longitudes’. The sun’s average rotation period (as viewed from Earth) at the solar equator is ~27 days. (I like Leif’s lighthouse analogy.)
There is plenty of literature on the subject – very interesting – lots of controversy in recent years since a few solar scientists [who Leif suggests occupy a parallel universe] have taken the stand that some very important (& very basic) things have been ‘overlooked’ for many decades.
The most vocal opponents at least concede that there is merit in investigating active longitudes via twisted-reference-frames since the sun’s convective zone exhibits differential rotation (slower towards the poles).
As for the dominant ~27 day signal (statistically significant even in the traditional, untwisted frames), no one appears to be disputing that. The first harmonic (~13.5 days) also shows up prominently in some indices.
Leif (& Wilcox) published an important paper in 1976 that also shows a clear 28.5 day signal in HMF structure, which exhibits intermittency related to the solar cycle. (Note: This is roughly the period of solar-core rotation.)
A variety of studies point out north-south asymmetries in features such as the exact period & persistence of signals.
– – –
Frank K. (05:06:10)
“I believe the statements “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next.” and “No one fully understands the underlying physics of…” can aptly be applied to other areas of science e.g. numerical climate modeling…”

…. and economics. Solar physics, climate science, & economics have a lot in common. (Check on the nature & details of disputes in the literature – plenty of discord & paradox.)
– – –
Basil (05:59:43)
“With a moving average, you want data on either side of the current point.”

There are contexts in which centering moving-averages on points other than window-mid-points is sensible, but any such deviation from convention is best pointed out assertively (along with rationale).
Beware the pervasive use (some would say misuse) of the term “running” as though it is synonymous with “moving”. There is no stopping this train, so the dictionary has to bend accordingly – and we all have to read carefully to discern (&/or infer from context) what is actually meant each time we encounter the terms.
– – –
Adolfo Giurfa (16:03:01)
“Problem is…they believe in a Goddess, GAIA, and their most exalted preaching leader is HIM, the unnamable , that fatty alien who came from nowhere and who will take all their followers to a still unknown planet free of CO2.

Comments like ^this, particularly when they appear in bold, do little for the image of WUWT.
– – –
Re: Geoff Sherrington (04:36:50)
A very interesting post – thank you Geoff.

April 26, 2009 7:03 pm

BTW, for those who have asked about the epidemic, viruses are sensible to UV even when they are not cells, because they have nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) and enzymes.
The outbreak in Mexico has been the product of negligence from the federal Health authorities in Mexico.
H1N1 is not a “new” virus because it appeared for the first time in Oregon in 1976. The virus shifted (jumped) from swine to humans due to continuous and prolonged contact between humans and pig cattle.
The virus is sensible to antiviral therapy. The disease doesn’t kill people, but the complications generated by deficient medical attention.
A vaccine exists, even though the CDC and WHO has decreed it wouldn’t work.

April 26, 2009 7:05 pm

>>Look, the fact is that the W/m^2 change in forcing from
>>the solar variations is considerably smaller than the forcing
>>due to changes in CO2 levels. In order to make claims that
>>changes in the sun are still the dominant factor in the climate
>>over the last half century,
Where is the evidence that CO2 forces warming? – all I see is CO2 following warming, the Sun forcing CO2 levels.
Conversely, while the visible spectrum of the Sun has not varied a great deal, the magnetic flux has.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/solar_ap_index_10062008.png
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell_files/image002.jpg
There are many routes by which these variations in magnetic flux can effect climate on Earth.
.

kim
April 26, 2009 7:11 pm

Leif 18:20:55
I wonder if the feedback to the 5C warming just gets started when it is halted and reversed by the change of the season. In other words, it’s a process which gets abrupted every six months. Clouds certainly could be the intermediary, and since the feedback which would give too much sensitivity keeps getting stopped, we don’t see that signature.
============================================

fajartrisandiyana
April 26, 2009 7:16 pm

cool…………….

April 26, 2009 7:22 pm

kim (19:11:04) :
[…]since the feedback which would give too much sensitivity keeps getting stopped, we don’t see that signature.
All this is just hand waving. Feedbacks can be quantized and formalized, so many degrees for so many watts on this and that time scale. If they cannot then it is just worthless mumbo jumbo, or worse: derived by backwards and circular arguments: lemme see, how much ‘feedback’ do I need to account for this or that…

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 7:25 pm

Pat (18:56:12)
I have my eye peeled for your reports.
I watched the scene play out last year down under.
And noted the condition in Alaska as the equinox passed in Sept.
Now, it’s back to you down under.
Hopefully, you live in an area that has snowplows.
I can imagine the chaos when SF Bay area North starts accumulating snow next winter as this thing deepens.

April 26, 2009 7:34 pm

.
>>Isn’t this shooting yourself in the foot????
I think you misunderstand the whole argument.
The influence of the eleven year Sunspot cycle is smoothed out via ocean storage, so the individual peaks are not readily apparent. But you can see them, just.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1970/scale:0.005/plot/pmod/from:1970/scale:0.5/offset:-682
It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent: (This graph uses the geomagnetic index as a proxy for sunspot activity.)
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/Fig6e.jpg
It is these temperature changes that force CO2 changes.
.

Pat
April 26, 2009 7:44 pm

Robert,
No dramas. Fortunately I live nowhere near the snow when it falls here in New South Wales.
January is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. We’ve had a cool summer here, humid, but cooler than last year. Cool summer, cool autum, winter will be too.
One thing I have noticed about the summer just past. We have something called the “Aussie wave” here, and it relates to flying insects, you have to continuously swipe them away from your face, hence the “Aussie wave” as it looks like you are waving to someone all the time. The summer before last was normal, ie, it was hotter than the summer just past. Lots of flies. The summer just gone, there was almost none. Too cold for them? Damn straight!

kim
April 26, 2009 8:03 pm

Leif 19:22:53
You want the jigsaw puzzle nearly complete before you will see it. I’m just trying to do the edges first. Might not my suggested mechanism damp the otherwise too great sensitivity? I mention this at 05:40:56, too,
===============================================

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 8:11 pm

Yes, the Sun continues it’s slide.

kim
April 26, 2009 8:14 pm

kim at 20:03:38 and
Leif at 19:22:53
I think George Gillan at 18:19:49 is sniffing around this idea, too.
========================================

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 8:32 pm

Pat (19:44:01)
No dramas, just the signposts up ahead for what is coming, and the signposts behind us for where we have been.
W/m2 is not doing it for me.
I am very interested in what is going on regards our Sun, and the changes we see all around us.

MartinGAtkins
April 26, 2009 8:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard (17:29:28) :

In my simple-minded way, if I accept feedbacks to make 1 degree out of 1 W/m2, then I expect them to make 100 degrees out of a 100 W/m2. This clearly does not happen, so explain to me why not [and don’t just say that it doesn’t].

Because feedbacks can be both positive and negative and not necessarily linear. Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil. Your a scientist so I don’t need to explain why the rise in temperature of the water would be constant but not linear and would eventually reach equilibrium with both positive and negative feedbacks canceling each other out.
If you increase the heat source then the water temperature would rise again until at sea level it reaches 100C. Then after that it will begin boil but the actual temperature of the water will fall slightly at the onset of boiling. This is why we put lids on our cooking pots. That is simplified example of a positive input leading to a negative result in the short term.
It is the same for our climate. It doesn’t matter whether any heat source varies provided the variable is constant over many years. It’s only that mankind has the attention span of a goldfish that we would think any global decadal temperature trend of +/- 0.15 is in any way significant. Any slight change in solar output would have to be constant over many years before any feedbacks would react and they would be probably cumulative in both directions until a new equilibrium was reached in a time span of perhaps hundreds of years…depending on intensity of the deviation.

anna v
April 26, 2009 8:57 pm

MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
Speculation is free. Suppose your pot is just bellow the boiling point, and a 0.1% change in heat brings it over. Large effect from small input.
In the earth scenario? The 6 month large heating is just at the edge to start a PDO change when the .01% yearly drop in sun heating pushes it over.
As I said, speculation. One needs to put down the equations, all equations entering the game, and calculate. As this cannot be done with the GCM models since they are full of linear approximations for all nonlinear quantities, an analogue like the one Tsonis et all use in their ocean model, but enriched by all the equations that influence the climate of earth, has to be created and used.

April 26, 2009 9:01 pm

MartinGAtkins (20:32:14) :
Think of a saucepan of water. If you put a lighted candle underneath it, it will almost certainly warm the water but will probably not cause it to boil.
That is not a feedback situation but a directly driven process. I have a feeling that ‘feedback’ is not being used in this discussion in its correct meaning, but rather as a shorthand for whatever mysterious process we need to have operating to have things come out the way we want it to.
kim (20:03:38) :
Might not my suggested mechanism damp the otherwise too great sensitivity?
You know that I’m not into ‘might not’, ‘could not’, ‘isn’t it possible’ things. If you have a process, spell out how it works, quantify it, make it real. Otherwise you don’t have anything.

April 26, 2009 9:05 pm

ralph ellis (19:34:41) :
But you can see them, just.
No, I cannot. Perhaps a Yogi Berra quote is needed here: “If I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it…”
It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent
In the above plot of real data there is no such apparent correlation.

bill
April 26, 2009 9:13 pm

I ask again
Why is there no correlatuin in the TSI and temperature but there is between CO2 and temperature as shown in the following plots.
CO2 x axis is just the sorted PPM figures without regard to dates
SSN/TSI x axis is again just sorted without regard to dates
data date range is mar 1958 to jul 2009
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2553/hadcrutvsco2andssn.jpg
And this lack of correlation between TSI and Temperature is shown in the FFT of the TSI and temperatures:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5025/cetssnavgfft.jpg
Am I wrong assuming that TSI would show up SOME temperature effect in these two plots if it was an important climate forcing?

April 26, 2009 9:21 pm

ralph ellis (19:34:41) :
It is the long-term Sunspot activity trends that force climate change, and here the correlations are quite apparent
Take a look at real data. First geomagnetic activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-1844-2008.png
then temperatures:
http://www.leif.org/research/Global%20Temperature%20Anomalies.png
Geomagnetic activity in the 1840-1860s was comparable to the 1940-1950s and even now. The temperature in the 1850s was significantly lower than now, so no long-term trend there.
So, both in the last 40 years and in the last 170 years there has been no correlation between temperatures and geomagnetic activity.

April 26, 2009 10:04 pm

bill (21:13:23) :
Am I wrong assuming that TSI would show up SOME temperature effect in these two plots if it was an important climate forcing?
You plot against SSN, not TSI, but if we make the good assumption that all solar indices are so correlated with each other that it doesn’t matter which one we use, you are not wrong. I fact, you are correct. There must be a some small TSI response, but it is buried in the noise.

Robert Bateman
April 26, 2009 10:21 pm

Okay. Can we declare TSI to be roadkill and get back to What’s Up With the Sun already?
We’re not happening here.
Things external to the Earth are.
How about them?

masonmart
April 26, 2009 10:40 pm

Joel Shore
The past records that I have seen in the form of a saw tooth with CO2 following Temperature don’t indicate positive feedbacknor any runaway temperature as temperature always led CO2 back down again. I’m no climatologist but surely that shows very little or no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature but the reverse?
Surely you must agree that the CO2 only driving temperature model iss fatally weak and that there are some very strong arguments now that support this. Do you not feel now that it may be the wrong group being called deniers?
The general public also doesn’t believe what it now sees as political propaganda.
In the 1990s I was convinced of the AGW argument because of a string of hot summers in the UK but I did also notice that in the tropical regions where I was working at the time it was temperatures as normal. Now I’m a sceptic, mainly because of the good science supporting the sceptical viewpoint but also because of the fraud and deceit from the politicians and political scientists.

Pat
April 27, 2009 12:27 am

“Robert Bateman (20:32:13) :
Pat (19:44:01)
No dramas, just the signposts up ahead for what is coming, and the signposts behind us for where we have been.
W/m2 is not doing it for me.
I am very interested in what is going on regards our Sun, and the changes we see all around us.”
15-30cm snow falls in the alpine regions of Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. Today, temperature lows were 14c below average for this time of year. Winter, still a couple of months away, is going to be an interesting one this year me thinks.

April 27, 2009 12:50 am

Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count
Recent attempts to question accuracy of the Maunder minimum sunspot count, are utter nonsense. This period was characterised by works of four giants of astronomy Isaac Newton, John Flamsteed, Robert Hooke and Edmond Halley. It was not a cosy club of grandees, there was great deal of rivalry and mutual criticism at the Royal Society, so it is unlikely that a ‘sloppy records’ could get through.
Ergo: the Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count has to be considered as ACCURATE.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/SSNM.gif

Henry Porter
April 27, 2009 12:54 am

The Independet (London) has an interesting article about solar activity today
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
The Independent is the leading advocate of climate change theory in teh British media so it’s nice to see it live up to its name.

Geoff Sherrington
April 27, 2009 1:54 am

This might not be the best place to philosophise, so pls snip if I stray.
Climate change is expected, rather than no change with time. The degree is in question. People are probably most interested in self-interest. What does it translate to for me and my family?
Climate change produces various levels of effect. These below are open to argument.
The primary effects are sunlight intensity, cloudiness, wind patterns and more.
The secondary effects are temperature, rainfall, albedo and so on.
The tertiary effects are plant growth, sea level change, storm frequency etc.
The quaternary effects are food shortage/surplus, insect spread, maybe disease spread, species relocations.
At stage 5 we are looking at effects of the above on personal and corporate incomes, commodity prices and so on. Emergence of new technologies, venture capital changes.
In stage six we have stock markets, the start of effects on national and global economies and a transition from physics to economics. Design of motor vehicles, economies of manufacture, etc.
In stage 7 we find stockbrokers jumping out of windows, suicide rates changing, surveys of the optimism of people for future prospects, changes to school curricula.
About stage 8 we have the flow on to crime rates, rates of imprisonment, executions. Alcohol consumption per capita changes. (Other drugs are a bit more complicated).
Stage 9 comes to bickering and warfare.
Stage 10 is nukem time.
The above is simplified and not all will agree with it. The exercise to follow is not to argue differences and nuances, but simply to accept that there is a consequential set of stages.
The further down this dependency scale one goes, the closer one comes to effects that people fear.
So far in the Great Global Warming debate, the methods and correlations have been temperature-centric. People are not afraid of slow global temperature change. They enjoy a sharp change often when they go on vacation and the change from winter to summer is far bigger than the AGW magnitude.
I propose that the correlations be done again without assuming any effect to be the reference effect. That is, toss as many variables as feasible into a big correlation matrix that goes back as far as the data allow for each variable, then see which factors correlate. Then look to causation. Then look to remediation if needed.
It should emerge that it is wrong to be temperature-centric. (What a relief that would be, such freedom from known errors!). If there is a more appropriate platform, then it might benefit all to adopt it.
It is not an easy exercise and the correct statistical treatment would need a great deal of care, so it has to have a hypothetical benefit to be worth the effort.
The hypothesis is that a better understanding of the change of the human condition could be achieved. In the best ultimate outcome, one or more contributions to warfare might be identified, leading to reduction possibilities.
A more modest outcome could be a demonstration that some of the remedial actions for tipping points can be thrown out of the equations.
An outcome related to this thread would be a strong correlation between one form of solar output and the well-being of people. That’s really the bottom line. People are concerned for themselves and (limited) future generations. If they know that it’s just the natural cycles of the sun, then all would relax except a few diehards whose grants had not expired.

April 27, 2009 2:36 am

Leif Svalgaard (18:20:55) :
…A 7% change in TSI produces a change of 7/4% of T = 5 degrees K, which might be of the right order [although it seems a bit high still] of the change due to the changing distance to the Sun.
Leif
I’m not sure my thinking is right here, but it seems to me that any heating/cooling due to the earth’s elliptical orbit would be most evident at the equator, i.e. with a circular orbit the equator would receive roughly the same solar energy in January as it would in July.
I’ve just checked a few ‘GISS’ stations at random which are located near the equator and it looks (at first glance) that temperatures throughout the year are surprsingly (to me ) constant. I haven’t done any stats so the ‘no change’ hypothesis might well be falsified. There are also problems with equatorial stations in that they are pretty sparse and there may be issues with reliability, but the AMSU raw temperatures also show the troposphere to be cooler in January than July.
I can see the different Land/Ocean ratios in the NH/SH would be a factor and thermal inertia will dampen the amplitude compared to the solar orbital cycle. But…
I guess what I’m asking is: Is there a global change in temp due to the elliptical orbit?

April 27, 2009 2:42 am

.
>>Take a look at this plot comparing temperature vs
>>SSN and Temperature vs CO2. Which do you think
>>has the most significant effect on temperature?:
And here is a comparison between milk production and Hispanic population growth in the US.
http://foodmapper.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/milk-production-chart.png
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/HispanicPopulationGrowthGraph.jpg
Clearly, unless the US controls its milk production, it will never get immigration from Mexico under control. The correlation is clear and irrefutable.
.

nevket240
April 27, 2009 2:55 am

The failure of the next solar cycle to ramp up was , no doubt, Hansens tipping point remark from late 08. In other words. (hey fellow scammers, start back tracking, bring in some uhi from China for a start) Even Nasa’s funding orgy is not going to beat nature.
regards from a cold wet Southern Oz.

April 27, 2009 2:56 am

.
N.B. With reference to graph correlations I posted above, the CO2 data cannot explain the Medieval Warming nor the Maunder and Dalton cooling eras – whereas the Sunspot (magnetic flux) data explains both perfectly.
In addition, the Sunspot data has predicted the recent cooling, whereas the CO2 graphs and supporters all predicted continued warming. We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is significant in climate terms. The CO2 theory cannot explain this (and will not even admit to it!), whereas the Sun explains everything.
And as I said before, if scientists believe that the lack of Sunspot activity caused the Dalton and Maunder ‘Ice Age’ minimums, as most seem to do – then it is explicit that sunspot activity does effect climate here on Earth. It is obvious, therefore, that the recent fall in Sun activity WILL effect our climate likewise, and the only argument should be “to what degree”.
I think a logical answer to that question would be “to the same degree as the Maunder and Dalton minimums. If we get a similar fall in Sun activity, we will get a similar fall in temperature (minus a smidgen to keep the CO2 enthusiasts happy, of course).
But it is clear from this that the PRIMARY driver of climate on Earth is the Sun. It is, after all, the only thing that caused weather and climate on Earth – as I said before, without it global temperatures would be hovering around 3 Kelvin.
Ralph

April 27, 2009 3:23 am

.
Quote from Independent:
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect.
End quote
I could have written this myself, or perhaps I did. Congress should recite this verse (from the Gospel of Solar Forcing), before evert sitting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
The article goes on:
But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.
End quote
There is a clear trend here, not only of Global Cooling, but Global Cold Feet too.
.

April 27, 2009 3:43 am

Interesting quote from the Independent [from Ralph’s link above]:
If the Earth cools under a quiet Sun, then it may be an indication that the increase in the Sun’s activity since the Little Ice Age has been the dominant factor in global temperature rises. That would also mean that we have overestimated the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to an increase of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial three parts per 10,000 by volume to today’s four parts per 10,000.
Finally, some needed perspective. “Climate sensitivity” is the wild card. Lots of folks speculate on its number, and they have computer models to prove they’re right. Guesses range from under 1 to over 6. But it’s speculation. Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.
And if the CO2 = AGW argument goes down in flames [which it will if sensitivity is a low number], then the entire human-caused global warming argument goes down with it.

bill
April 27, 2009 4:07 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:04:07) :
you’re correct! I’ll dig out the TSI data and redo the plot.
Paul Vaughan (18:58:24) :
Micky C (MC) (06:36:54)
“[…] suddenly starts oscillating at an acoustic frequency […]
The onset occurs very quickly […]
The key is that the white noise can […]”
“[…] start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.”
“Interestingly, longer oscillations can be excited by shorter oscillations and vice versa.”

An interesting theory – If I understand correctly you are suggesting that the 11 year solar cycle is providing synchrous stimulous to an underdamped system with a resonance at an exact multiple of the 11 years. certainly not an infeasible situation. So in this case one would be looking at harmonics of 11years – 22, 44,55,66 etc.
Looking at the plot of FFTs
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5025/cetssnavgfft.jpg
There is no evidence for 22, 33, 44 or 55years althoug above 30 years the FFT becomes limited by insufficient samples. The 31 year peak (which I think should be nearer 32) may be the only evidence that there is a stimulatred harmonic.
It should be remembered that the harmonic needs a stimulous at the exact same time in its resonance for build up to occur (a stimulous fractionally out will damp the oscillation). It should also be remembered that TSI is not an exact 11 years but varies between 9 and 14(?) so resonance will not readily build.
There are problems with the resonance
1. There are lager influences that will stimulate the resonance that are not synchronous with solar effects – Eruptions and seasons
2. I cannot see how a high frequence can stimulate a low frequency resonance. At one point in the resonance cycle it is pulling temperature to stimulate resonance and then half a cycle later it is pulling and negating the stimulous – try simulating a LC circuit in a Spice simulator – LOW freq (resonant freq/n) will stimulate resonance especially if a pulse is used But Hi freq (resonance*n) will not stimulate the resonant circuit
3. white noise (which TSI is not) will be modified by the resonant circuit and depending on its damping factor will basically filter the resonant frequency. It will not increase its amplitude, but where does the rest of the filtered energy go???
4. TSI modulates the suns output. A resonant “thing” cannot increase the average power it can only redistribute it.

bill
April 27, 2009 4:14 am

Smokey (03:43:23) :
…Real world evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is a very low number, certainly under 2. And if that is the case, then the effect of CO2 can be disregarded.

So I come back to the problem SSN== TSI does not appear in temperature outputs either FFT or Temp vs SSN. BUT temp vs CO2 shows a correlation. Why?

bill
April 27, 2009 4:25 am

ralph ellis (02:56:17) :
N.B. With reference to graph correlations I posted above, the CO2 data cannot explain the Medieval Warming nor the Maunder and Dalton cooling eras – whereas the Sunspot (magnetic flux) data explains both perfectly.
In addition, the Sunspot data has predicted the recent cooling, whereas the CO2 graphs and supporters all predicted continued warming. We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is significant in climate terms. The CO2 theory cannot explain this (and will not even admit to it!), whereas the Sun explains everything.

I will ask then what is the sun doing that is not included in the TSI that has been causing a “Steady” wam since 1900s and has now changed to a cooling.
Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?

anna v
April 27, 2009 4:31 am

It is not only arctic ice that has cracks. How about this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.
Do we want scientific truth as far as we know it, or do we want good PR. Nothing like the PR of a cooling sun to offset a warming arctic :).
Micky C (MC) (06:36:54) :
I am impressed by this effect you describe.
The basic point though is that a small change in input power causes a large change in behaviour because the ions in the plasma start to vibrate coherently and can no longer maintain the broadband energy to oscillate as a background. Hence acoustic waves appear.
Maybe it could be used to see how small tides on the sun ( less than 2mm) could influence the plasma or even the sunspot rate and provide the missing link to what look like spurious correlations.
We have to wait and see if there really is a grand minimum in the cards.

April 27, 2009 4:37 am

>>We have now had ten years of climate cooling/stasis, which is
>>significant in climate terms
And you have to factor into these global temperature graphs another significant (and often ignored) forcing factor. This is known as the AGW bias, in which every snippet of data is rounded up instead of down.
I would estimate that half of the ‘hockey stick’ that we have been presented is the result of “AGW bias”.
.

April 27, 2009 4:41 am

>>Are you hypothesising a new form of energy that solar
>>scientists no nothing about and cannot measure?
Its called magnetic flux and solar wind. Have you not heard of these before?
Science fiction writers have known all about these phenomina for decades, you should broaden your mind a little.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seedlings-Solar-Winds-Other-Stories/dp/0980170303/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240832386&sr=1-2
.

bill
April 27, 2009 5:13 am

I know its only a proxy but surely French pinot Noir Grape harvest dates would have been affected by a global little ice age (1315 to 1850) and maunder min. (1645 to 1715).
But grape harvest dates show little sign of cold period
1340 to 1480 and 1630 to 1690 seem about as warm as 1990s
a cold spike at 1450
a warm spike at 1522
only 1740 to 1890 show harvests delayed by more than 5 days
Perhaps they were skating on rivers in UK and Netherlands but in pinot noir country weather was not a lot different. Certainly ther were not total crop failures.
The graph below compares central england temps and grape harvest anomalies.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6204/grapeharvestcetlongqc0.jpg

April 27, 2009 5:13 am

The problem with these kind of threads is that I spend so much time downloading interesting papers I haven’t seen! And i have no time left to use them! Big thank you, as ever.
My thoughts:
First and foremost all references to anthropogenic CO2 and its radiative forcing effect – remember, the latter – at about 2 watts/square metre in the atmosphere is a computed effect and already includes a water vapour feedback effect (for which there is no direct evidence) of 300% (see Lindzen’s work and Monckton’s article in the newsletter of the American Physical Society);
Second: there is a voluminous oceanographic literature on detected solar cycles in both ocean surface temperature and depth average temperature, global and regional, including the variation over 11 years picked up by Camp and Tung at Seattle – these authors also found a spatial component of polar amplification; there is an even larger literature on paleoclimate proxies analysed for cycles – showing 11, 22 and longer harmonics;
Third: the TSI (I am not clear if it includes UV – but if it does, the UV is probably accounting for the reduced variance as it normally varies by 8% over the 11 year cycle, compared to 0.1% for the visible spectrum – and UV is a chief suspect in climate impact via atmospheric heating effects in the polar regions that affect the location of the jetstream;
Fourth: ocean temperatures in the tropics stay pretty constant, but show periodic pulses – ENSO, meaning the warm waters go north and south – when they go south they eventually get entrained in the circumpolar current, spun round the planet in a zone of permanent heat loss – with some build up off the Antarctic Peninsula, and do not contribute greatly to the warming signal – which is mostly in the northern hemisphere and contained in two major ocean gyres in the North Pacific and North Atlantic – westerly winds then warm Alaska and western Europe, and the warm pools also feedback to the jetstream and shift the standing wave (which can bring torrential rain to Britain, as in 2007, 2008) – check out the work of Charles Perry at the US geological survey;
the north Pacific pool loses heat to the storm tracks that dump it in Alaska – but there is a cycle of 30 years build up and loss – that cycle ended in the autumn of 2006 and Alaska began to cool – the differential temperature between Alaska and the Beaufort Sea determines the strength of the wind-driven gyre and the whole dynamic of the Arctic basin – which has a long cycle of 70-80 years – with the latest peak melting the summer ice, but now reversing – there is no further feed-in of warm water, so I expect the cooling to continue –
Despite the correlation to TSI (and UV) – I suspect there is an amplifier in the form of cloud – not as feedback from the warming ocean, but in the spatial distribution of cloud banks in relation to the warm pools of water – and there is the reality of long er term changes in percentage cloud – the Intl Satellite Cloud Climatology Project has up-to-date data and can be broken down to low-level reflective cloud – which has reduced by 4% over the post-1980 global warming period – quite enough to creat ‘global warming’ – indeed it dwarfs the computed carbon effect – as shown by Palle’s graphs on albedo.
The AGW camp believe that the reduced cloud is a feedback of warming oceans and the warming oceans are caused carbon dioxide – but NASA’s experts are less convinced and rightly point out that the clouds could be primary and causing the warming
and for Micky C
the plasma electrics are under-researched – my intuition tells me they have a role – and Brian Tinsley at the University of Dallas has several papers suggesting this – voltages and voltage changes (shocks) can clear the air of aerosol, and several papers show that the ‘global dimming’ of the 1945-1980 period when global temperatures were low, was not caused by anthropogenic sulphur – but by a combination of cloud and natural aerosol effects, and likewise the ‘brightening’ observed thereafter – now accepted even by the IPCC, but the modellers who replicated this effect don’t draw attention to it!
ocean heat storage data shows no increase since about 2002, just after the ISCCP and albedo data of Palle showed increased global cloud cover and reflectance – this will have contributed most to the current lowering of global temperatures – and has timelags also to land temperatures – but occurred during a solar maximum – so these ocean cycles, land cycles, solar cycles – they do not line up easily and require a more sophisticated analysis using time lags and harmonics – each ocean basin has a different cycle – for example, the current low in the PDO will also depress the amplitude of the ENSO.
These cycles are COMPLEX and global warming and cooling is clearly MULTIFACTORAL!
I have had a stab at explaining this complexity in a book due out in June – ‘Chill – a Reassessment of Global Warming Theory’. I estimate from all the data I have seen that the CO2 effect contributes between 15-20% to the unusual warming signal of the late 20th century – thus halving CO2 emissions by 2050 (a tall order for the global economy) will deal with 7-10% of the driving force and hence have no effect on what the climate does in this century.

April 27, 2009 5:27 am

bill (04:07:47) :
2. I cannot see how a high frequency can stimulate a low frequency resonance.
High frequencies frequently excite a lower frequency resonance.
Here is an example from a personal experience: on opening of Millennium (wobbly) bridge in London, most people, including myself were walking at 2-3 paces a second, bridge started to oscillate at its natural resonance oscillations at less then ones per second, which with feedback forced people to walk at same rate.
If even small amount of feedback is involved then resonant synchronisation could be an important factor.
See:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/ and follow link solar current.

April 27, 2009 5:48 am

vukcevic (00:50:58) : Ergo: the Maunder minimum Sunspot Number Count has to be considered as ACCURATE.
Cycle 24 and cycle 25 SSN curve will look almost the same in the next few years!!. (Hope it will be considered accurate by then 🙂 )

Pat
April 27, 2009 5:57 am

Professor Ian Plimer on SBS, here in Australia tonight, author of a book “Heaven and Earth”, speaks out at the concensus on climate change. Yay!!! The word *IS* spreading it appears.
This guy is awesome!!!! Refering to the 4 sets of data sources which shows a cooling trend from 1998.

Dave B
April 27, 2009 6:06 am