Guest Post by David Archibald
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.
Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.
The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.
Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.
Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.
What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
Sponsored IT training links:
Achieve guaranteed success using up to date 646-230 dumps and 642-426 study guide prepared by 642-661 certified experts.
Leif Svalgaard (05:10:29)
Can we be sure that there isn’t a restoring force of some currently unspecified type ?
There is a good deal about space, matter and the ‘material’ of the cosmos that we currently do not know.
If observations point to the possible existence of such a restoring force then we should not ignore the observations.
Can we have a little less rancour between David Archibald and Leif Svalgaaard please.
I find David’s work very persuasive in the light of real world events and I appreciate Leif’s intellectual rigour even if I find myself disagreeing with the weight he attaches or does not attach to various phenomena.
In regarding the influence of CO2 as not being a significant climate driver we are all on the same side here and I see a drift towards a real climate (as opposed to a Realclimate) solution as within reach.
Leif Svalgaard (15:46:46)
“If the decrease is 1 or 2 W/m2, the temperature changes will be 0.05K to 0.1K, which is known territory.”
Suppose oceanic variations are normally capable of an amplification of solar changes by multiplying solar changes by 5 times either up or down (it might be more or less than 5 times in the real world but 5 times will do for illustrative purposes).
A stable solar input to the Earth system could result in real world observations varying between 0.5K and – 0.5K depending on the current oceanic behaviour.
Now, if the oceans are in phase or out of phase with solar changes whether up or down and for long periods of time then the amplification factor both up and down gets steadily greater and in such situations could well exceed 5 times up or down.
The oceans can be regarded as a battery with variable rates of charge and discharge that can build up a bigger charge if their own behaviour causes a net build up of energy for longer than ‘normal’. Who knows what the maximium oceanic capacity is for amplification or suppression of the initial solar signal. It could be a lot more or a lot less than 5 times the background solar change depending on internal oceanic behaviour.
It seems to me that it is perfectly feasible that all observed global air temperature changes can be adequately accounted for by solar variation (albeit small) over time being supplemented or countered by oceanic variations periodically amplifying or suppressing those solar variations.
A global air temperature change of about 0.7K over 100 years (which is all we have recorded) would be well within what could be achieved by oceanic changes superimposed on smaller solar changes without any need to speculate about an alternative external forcing.
The late 20th Century was unusual in that solar activity was greater than previously observed going back to 1600.
I take Leif’s point that in absolute terms the solar variation was but a tiny proportion of total solar output.
However, taking Leif’s own parameter of 2W/m2 resulting in a temperature change of 0.1K then taking the oceanic amplification effect into account and also considering that the solar output and warming El Nino events were consistently high for several decades then I fail to see how a global air temperature rise of about 0.7K during the 20th Century can be regarded as in any way unusual or unexpected.
Stephen Wilde (11:34:30) :
If observations point to the possible existence of such a restoring force then we should not ignore the observations.
What observations?
We actually know a very large amount of stuff about the physics that drives all of this. The argument that ‘we don’t know anything’ does hold. I would call this the ‘Al Gore’ argument: “if we don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
A good example of the depth of our knowledge is the Standard Solar Model that was spectacularly confirmed by helioseismology and neutrino measurements. As far as the solar cycle is concerned we think we know the physics, but we are hampered by two things 1: computer power for the simulation [same problem the climate people have] and 2: knowledge about the ‘boundary conditions [what are the actual flows and their properties, etc]. These problems are being slowly chipped away at with better computers and better observations [e.g. SDO due for launch soon].
A real problem is the tendency to adopt simple [and therefore mostly wrong] approaches [a la AGW] with unsound foundations [cyclomania, astrology, extrapolation on sparse data, wiggle matching, statistics on too few degrees of freedom, etc, as y’all have seen amble examples of on the blog, with more to come, I’m sure].
As far as Archibald is concerned there is no rancor. I express my opinion as I see it and call things ‘blather’ if they are. I do have some expertise in this field and I apply it, and do not need to rely on unnamed ‘gentlemen from the lower 48’. This is not an argument of authority as I’m always willing [as far as I can] to explain why I think so.
The remarks were:
—————-
X> Leif Svalgaard (12:46:06) :
—————-
Y> Stephen Wilde (11:34:30) :
If observations point to the possible existence of such a restoring force then we should not ignore the observations.
—————-
X> What observations?
—————-
The obvious: The force of the Sun’s own gravitational field. Why ignore it?
You would also declare a steady state solar entity when in fact that has been shown repeatedly as not being the case.
How many solar cycles must you experience before the obvious becomes so?
Leif Svalgaard (12:46:06)
“What observations ?”
We are seeing day by day that the solar cycle varies in ways not understood by yourself, Mr. Hathaway or anyone else.
I appreciate how much we have discovered about the sun but it isn’t working for predictive purposes. Just as the climate models are not working.
Something keeps the behaviour of the sun within certain bounds but as we are seeing those bounds are not yet clear to us.
Personally, I am not inclined to dismiss a possible ‘restoring force’ so readily.
Stephen Wilde (12:45:29) :
Suppose oceanic variations are normally capable of an amplification of solar changes by multiplying solar changes by 5 times either up or down
Then that would be supposition. Where are the data supporting this?
What you are saying in effect is that we could explain all the temperature variation by supposing such and such a factor. That is a circular argument in my book. Maybe, maybe not. Unless we can show that there is such a factor, we can’t know what is going on.
Highlander (13:08:16) :
The obvious: The force of the Sun’s own gravitational field. Why ignore it?
Because it is constant over time.
Stephen Wilde (13:40:55) :
Something keeps the behaviour of the sun within certain bounds but as we are seeing those bounds are not yet clear to us.
The great mass of the Sun ensures that it cannot change much rapidly, so we don’t see much change. As far as solar activity is concerned, we have seen the bottom [no spots] and we have seen a lot [1780s, 1950s], so there doesn’t seem much room for unknown territory there. But, if you spot some, I’m all ears.
“Leif Svalgaard (14:04:07) :
Stephen Wilde (12:45:29) :
Suppose oceanic variations are normally capable of an amplification of solar changes by multiplying solar changes by 5 times either up or down
Leif Svalgaard.
Then that would be supposition. Where are the data supporting this?
What you are saying in effect is that we could explain all the temperature variation by supposing such and such a factor. That is a circular argument in my book. Maybe, maybe not. Unless we can show that there is such a factor, we can’t know what is going on.”
We see that the energy released by the oceans, in particular the Pacific, changes at approximately 30 year intervals. Faster energy release by the oceans clearly supplements or offsets solar variations depending on what the sun is doing at the time. Likewise slower energy release.
The changes in the rate of energy release by the oceans have never been measured so I cannot attribute a value to it but it clearly happens and should not be ignored given the profound and obvious effect on global air temperatures.
There clearly is such a factor. It needs measuring.
“Stephen Wilde (13:40:55) :
Something keeps the behaviour of the sun within certain bounds but as we are seeing those bounds are not yet clear to us.
Leif Svalgaard
The great mass of the Sun ensures that it cannot change much rapidly, so we don’t see much change. As far as solar activity is concerned, we have seen the bottom [no spots] and we have seen a lot [1780s, 1950s], so there doesn’t seem much room for unknown territory there. But, if you spot some, I’m all ears.”
The lengths of time for periods of no spots and periods of many spots and everything in between are unknown territory. It is the length of time at a specific level of solar activity that dictates the quantity of solar shortwave entering the oceans during any particular period. That then supplies the total quantity of energy that the oceans can then play around with.
We have no idea as regards either the changing rate of energy acquisition by the oceans from solar shortwave or the changing rate of energy release to the air. Both vary constantly in a continual interplay which dictates the rate of energy flow from oceans to air. All climate scenarios including the models assume constancy which I submit is clearly wrong.
The air circulation systems then respond with what we see as climate and weather.
The comment was:
—————-
Highlander (13:08:16) :
The obvious: The force of the Sun’s own gravitational field. Why ignore it?
—————-
Leif Svalgaard (14:04:07) :
Because it is constant over time.
—————-
Most incorrect!
.
If a tree falls in the wood, and no one witnessed the event, did the tree actually fall?
.
Now, you ~might~ be given to think constancy, but I would caution against that thought inasmuch that ether affects everything we might observe from a distance. All energy of whatever sort requires the ether for transmission.
.
How much do we ~actually know~ about the character of the ether other than to say it exists?
.
If its character changes unbeknownst to us, then how do we affirm what we measured was actually ~what~ we measured?
.
If something is all around you all the time, you tend to ignore it. If it changes character uniformly then everything ~else~ is seen to have changed and NOT the ether simply because IT is not being measured.
.
And before you wax dismissive, allow me just this: Just because you can’t measure something, that doesn’t in the least mean it doesn’t exist.
.
The Sun is physical known. Its character is seen to change over time. No aspect of it is in ~any way~ constant other than the fact that it changes, right along with everything else.
Stephen Wilde (13:40:55) :
Personally, I am not inclined to dismiss a possible ‘restoring force’ so readily.
A typical sunspot cycle has a max of 110. So ‘oscillates’ between 0 and 110. The mean [or equilibrium, because an oscillation is about an equilibrium] would be 55. So, we have an ‘oscillation’ of +/-55 about the ‘equilibrium’ 55. What is the ‘restoring force’ that brings us back to the equilibrium? This is simply not the way solar activity works. What we have is a number of ‘excitations’ that go up from zero, then die away. Not oscillations about the equilibrium value of 55, which would mean that there was a ‘force’ or process that would force the count away from equilibrium, e.g. towards zero, and the a ‘restoring force’ that would take us back to the equilibrium, followed by another force moving us away from equilibrium, to 110, before the ‘restoring force’ kicks in and takes us back to equilibrium. Is this what you have in mind?
The comment was:
—————-
Leif Svalgaard (14:04:07) :
[…]
The great mass of the Sun ensures that it cannot change much rapidly, so we don’t see much change.
—————-
Then you’ll please be explaining supernovae?
The comment was:
—————-
Stephen Wilde (12:45:29) :
[…]
The oceans can be regarded as a battery with variable rates of charge and discharge that can build up a bigger charge if their own behaviour causes a net build up of energy for longer than ‘normal’. Who knows what the maximium oceanic capacity is for amplification or suppression of the initial solar signal. It could be a lot more or a lot less than 5 times the background solar change depending on internal oceanic behaviour.
—————-
That’s an interesting thought, but it is without any kind of validity.
.
First, water does NOT store energy, neither does any other substance.
.
Second, the effect can NEVER overcome the cause: Water heated by the sun can ~never~ produce a heat value greater than that which caused it to become heated.
.
For the oceans to ‘amplify’ energy, they would have to be possessing of some kind of heretofore unknown ability to ‘generate’ a feedback loop such as to INCREASE the already expended energy from the Sun and absorbed by the water.
.
They do not: They have ~only~ that which they started out with.
.
Ergo, water merely releases energy at the same rate it was able to absorb that energy. That cannot in any way be said to ‘store’ energy.
.
If it ~did~ such, then hot beverages would remain toasty and my ale would remain nice and frosty cold!
Stephen Wilde (14:38:17) :
The changes in the rate of energy release by the oceans have never been measured so I cannot attribute a value to it
If it has never been measured, how do you know how large it is?
The lengths of time for periods of no spots and periods of many spots and everything in between are unknown territory.
We have 400+ years of direct observations and 12,000 years of proxy data that show just variations similar to what we see, so no evidence of anything spectacular.
We have no idea …
If we have no ideas, then we can’t say anything besides what we have observed.
Highlander (14:40:05) :
Just because you can’t measure something, that doesn’t in the least mean it doesn’t exist.
If it has ANY effect it can measured, and if cannot be measured, then it has no effect and can be safely ignored.
The Sun is seen to change over time.
Absolutely, its luminosity changes by 1% in a hundred million years, just wait long enough and you’ll get your changes…
Highlander (14:48:37) :
Then you’ll please be explaining supernovae?
Supernovae cannot happen to stars with a mass less that 1.25 times that of the Sun, so will not happen to us. We know rather precisely why and how supernovae happen, and the Sun does not fall in a category that can give rise to a supernova.
The comment was:
—————-
X> Leif Svalgaard (17:28:15) :
—————-
Highlander (14:40:05) :
Just because you can’t measure something, that doesn’t in the least mean it doesn’t exist.
—————-
X> If it has ANY effect it can measured, and if cannot be measured, then it has no effect and can be safely ignored.
—————-
Nonsense!
.
You are aware of catalysts, are you not?
.
Aside from that, if you don’t know how to detect the existence of a thing, then you cannot declare that it doesn’t exist or have some kind of affect.
.
Your thinking proceeds along the lines of the arrogant, as did the many others who preceded you in virtually all fields of science.
—————-
The comment was:
—————-
X> Leif Svalgaard (17:28:15) :
—————-
Highlander (14:48:37) :
Then you’ll please be explaining supernovae?
—————-
X> Supernovae cannot happen to stars with a mass less that 1.25 times that of the Sun, so will not happen to us. We know rather precisely why and how supernovae happen, and the Sun does not fall in a category that can give rise to a supernova.
—————-
And you’ve gone into deep space to fully test that hypothesis, have you?
.
Theory is great on paper …
.
Highlander (18:08:14) :
And you’ve gone into deep space to fully test that hypothesis, have you?
No, not me, but a green-skinned alien with pointed ears landed on my lawn the other day. Over a beer or two he loosened up and told me a few things…
Leif Svalgaard (19:15:11) :
Whilst on the generic topic of green aliens who have observed supernovas, did they comment or explain the “atom addition” theory of atomic buildup towards iron (Fe56) by fusion of smaller nuclei.
The theorectic sequence is clear: He + He fuses, or He + Si fuses , or He + C fuses, or even C + C fuses, and the result is a new atom with a new isotope number. The lighter the atomic weight, the less the ion repulsion between nuclei and so the easier it is to collide with enough force to fuse. The heavier the nuclei, the less likely they are to have been created in the first place and the more the ionic repulsion, and so the less likely they are to react. (Our own sun can go no further than a cool “red” expansion about the size of the orbit of Venus, much too small to throw material out of our solar system. So we will not ever get recycled into higher weight atoms and must content ourselves with a single star’s lifetime of energy.)
Thus it appears more likely that 2 He nuclei will react than two Silicon or a Silicon and a Carbon. A Carbon and an He are more likely to fuse than two Oxygen or two Silicon, because the He is more likely to find a carbon nuclei to hit than two Silicon find each other.
OK, fine. I can follow the green alien’s first part of their explanation just fine.
The basic “numbers” of the lower number atoms are proportional, and many (not all) are in near multiples of 2 protons and an atomic weight of 4. Hydrogen is most numerous, He less so as he Big Bang predicts. The remainder are supposedly built up from these “blocks” by simple fusion in the first generation suns, thrown into space, absorbed by even larger suns which later supernova, which throw third and fourth generation fusion products out which are absorbed by fifth and sixth generation suns that then supernova and repeat the pattern. Cool. Makes sense.
But, my question to the green alien sources is about that supernova explosion process: can a single supernova pressure wave create several generations of fusion products in the same wave, or are we limited to one generation in each supernova?
I would think we could only have one generation per star since the “reaction zone” is expanding radially outward through each star’s photosphere of unburned earlier generation material? If the “pressure wave” had multiple peaks, or the early parts of the pressure wave were strong enough to induce fusion on their own, then the fusion reactions at this early point would “push back” into the star and against the later part of the wave. If so, then would this cause a rebound back through the star, which would diturb the symerty of the supernova, and would disturb the final clooud of dust and plasma away from the supernova.
But the photo’s I’ve seen of recent supernovas (not the first second and third generation though!) are usually, but not always, symmetric. Can we calculate how many generations of fusion were required to create the number of higher weight atoms we know exist now by making extimates of how the supernova pressure wave assembled nuclei?
tallbloke (00:15:46) :
Richard (15:48:06) :
I would be happy to see some indisputable evidence of the Sun’s influence on our global temperatures, albeit masked to an extent by natural variations like El Nino, Nina etc.
“Here you go:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/mean:43/detrend:0.38/plot/pmod/from:1979/offset:-1366.4/scale:0.1 ”
Now that Correlation between Sea Surface temperatures and “composite TSI monthly averages” is truly remarkable! I read somewhere else about this, but never realised that “composite TSI monthly averages” would correlate so well with sea surface temperatures.
From the graph it appears obvious the “composite TSI” goes up and down and the sea surface temperatures follow suit after a lag of a few years. The sun appears to be the overwhelmingly greatest driver of these temperatures.
Now if that happens with Sea Surface temperatures, you can bet your bottom dollar that LAND TEMPERATURES will do exactly the same but with a lesser lag.
When we measure so called “Global temperatures”, we measure the air temperatures over land and the sea water temperatures over the water, then average it out as a “Global temperature”, which is crazy!
What adds to this crazy situation is so-called climate scientists fiddling the data, removing data, and indulging in outright lies and deceit.
The sea’s slosh around, the surface waters move north and south, east and west and mix slowly with deeper waters. The air in the meantime moves much more rapidly, heating and cooling with the waters and the land and we try and measure those temperatures and call it a “Global Temperature”!
It seems to me that the term “Global Temperature” need rationalising and defining in a more scientific fashion.
RACookPE1978 (20:42:10) :
Whilst on the generic topic of green aliens who have observed supernovas, did they comment or explain the “atom addition” theory of atomic buildup towards iron (Fe56) by fusion of smaller nuclei.
The alien told me that H burns to He, then the He burns to C, then adding He to C gives you O, then up in steps of 4 atomic units to Ne, Mg, Si, S, and finally Fe. All these reactions take place in shells around each other, going faster and faster. Once Fe is reached no more energy can be produced by fusion and the star implodes in a matter of a fraction of second. The infalling matter rebounds and the star explodes as a supernova. There is only one implosion and ‘pressure wave’. We have a reasonably good handle how all of this proceeds. There are other ways of producing a supernova, so there are different ‘types’ of them. The whole process of generation of elements was understood and described by Hoyle, Fowler, and the Burbridges [husband/wife team] in the 1950s. I’m not quite sure what your underlying question was.
Developing further on that thought, the satellite temperatures which at least measure some approximation of the global air temperatures are a far more meaningful indication of “Global Temperature” rather than a mix of air and sea water temperatures, which are fairly meaningless and indeed misleading.
And further analysing the above graph the PMOD composite TSI monthly averages doesnt tell the whole story. For example the SST’s around 1987 ~ 1992 should have been much higher than they were and those between 1997 ~ 2005 should have been less than if the “PMOD composite TSI monthly averages” were the accurate description of the solar influence.
I have always thought that solar wind, directed directly at the Earth would have a major influence on our atmospheric temperatures. For example sunspots are a good proxy for solar flares. But only those solar flares that directly hit the Earth would influence our weather. I wonder if there is good data for the solar wind hitting the Earth and how the variation of this correlates with our temperatures.
Also I observe that, for what its worth, the “PMOD composite TSI monthly averages” minima are getting progressively lower for the last 3 cycles. Based on this I would guess that we are in for a cooler period over the next few years.
Richard (22:33:36) :
Also I observe that, for what its worth, the “PMOD composite TSI monthly averages” minima are getting progressively lower for the last 3 cycles.
As we have discussed repeatedly here, the PMOD composite has calibration problems and TSI is most likely not lower now than at previous minima.
Leif Svalgaard (22:57:12) :
“As we have discussed repeatedly here, the PMOD composite has calibration problems and TSI is most likely not lower now than at previous minima.”
Ok PMOD has calibration problems but is the statement that ” TSI is most likely not lower now than at previous minima” based on any other data or evidence?
What we do know is the Sunspot cycle is at its lowest minima for a long time. Based purely on this the PMOD data at least for this latest cycle seems reasonable.
Do we know the type, extent or magnitude of PMOD calibration errors? Are they systematic? Can they be corrected?
Richard (23:36:38) :
Ok PMOD has calibration problems but is the statement that ” TSI is most likely not lower now than at previous minima” based on any other data or evidence?
The best TSI data we have right now is SORCE http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
PMOD has been drifting lower with respect to SORCE which is the basis for making the statement I made.
Do we know the type, extent or magnitude of PMOD calibration errors? Are they systematic? Can they be corrected?
Yes, yes, and yes. But experimenters are not happy to do this and it make take a long time to fix [if ever].
I wonder if Leif could tell me something about the link between geomagnetism, the global electrical circuit, and the solar magnetic flux.
Leif mentioned that the geomagnetic flux can be measured with a compass needle and it correlates so well to changes in the solar magnetic flux that the records going back into the 1800’s can be used to re-estimate sunspot activity. Therefore, there is a close link between the solar magnetic flux, sunspot numbers, the geomagnetic flux, changes in the earth’s length of day.
Leif said that the magnetic effect causes strong electrical currents 60 miles overhead or is it the other way round? Or is it a cybernetic control feedback loop in operation where cause and effect are not really the issue?
Is it the case that the sun’s changing magnetic flux interacts with the earth’s magnetic flux which induces strong electric currents above the earth, which then feed back to produce a torque acting against or accelerating the earth’s rotation, thus producing the small observed changes in earth’s length of day?
The earth’s magnetic field is produced by the flow of currents containing magnetically active elements under the earth’s crust. Dr Richard Gross of NASA, who has worked on the changes in length of day, says they are mainly produced by the changing of these flows of molten material.
Is it possible that the changing solar magnetic flux lies behind these changes under the earths crust through the chain of linked phenomena outlined above?
Thanks
Richard (22:33:36) :
And further analysing the above graph the PMOD composite TSI monthly averages doesnt tell the whole story. For example the SST’s around 1987 ~ 1992 should have been much higher than they were and those between 1997 ~ 2005 should have been less than if the “PMOD composite TSI monthly averages” were the accurate description of the solar influence.
There was a whacking great el nino in ’98. This is the ocean losing heat accumulated during the run of high amplitude-short minimum cycles in the latter half of the C20th. This is part of the ocean amplification process alluded to by Stephen Wilde above.
The oceans must have stored a lot of extra heat to have expanded and produced the sea level rise measured by satellite altimetry. My calculations, verified by Leif Svalgaard some weeks ago, imply a ‘forcing’ of some 4W/m^2 during the period 1993-2003. This implies the sun was significantly more active than late last century when sea surface temperatures fell from 1870-1900, though other terrestrial amplifying effects suc as the reduced cloud cover 1980-1998 must have played a large part too.
This is why I believe that the changes in TSI, though small, can have a large enough effect, when coupled with the changing heat storage/release modes of the oceans and changing cloud cover driven by and feeding back to sea surface temperatures, can explain most of the changes in earth’s temperature over the last century.
I think there is an additional component, linked to heat coming from the earth’s interior through the thin crust of the sea bed, which changes in accordance with the overturning of radioactive elements in the earth’s core. Hence my question to Leif above. Although changes in the amount of heat coming through the crust on land are very small, the sea bed is thinner, and very active in places, as the catastrophic Tsunami around indonesia a few years ago shows. Coincidentally(?!), this is also the area where the Pacific warm pool spreads it’s heat from, which produces major el nino’s like ’98.
My investigations, if they turn out to have any merit, imply that heat from this source may account for up to 30% of temperature change on the earth after the sun has been magnetically more active. Due to the large inertia’s involved, I think there is a lag of around 30 years on big swings in the sun’s magnetic activity, and changes in the overturning of radioactive elements and the subsequent crustal heat transfer.
If I’m right about changes in the earth’s length of day correlating to changes in the currents of the molten mixture of magnetically active and radioactive elements in the earth’s interior, this might explain why I’m able to reproduce the earth’s temperature history using a combination of a curve produced by a count of sunspots above and below what I estimate to be the the ocean equilibrium level, and the curve produced by changes in length of day.
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=temp-hist-80.gif
The mismatch around the war years is due to the incorrect calibration of cooling water intake temperature sensors used in military vessels. This is a well known problem which my graph and it’s underlying principles, if it is seen to have any merit, may help to resolve.
Perhaps this paper provides some validation for my ideas. I’d be grateful if Leif or anyone else would take a look and let me have some thoughts.
http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
The best-fit equation based on the
highest coefficient of determination (R2) occurred when temperature anomalies were
advanced (lagged) seven years ahead of magnetic anomalies (Cross-Correlation, Fig1).
Results show that 1958-2000 magnetic anomalies explained 79.2-percent (R2 = 0.792
with p < 0.01) of the 1965-2006 Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (5)
temperature-anomaly variability (Series1, Fig 1).
As model verification, 1958-1993 magnetic anomalies were regressed against
1965-2000 temperature anomalies; while explaining only 68.5-percent (R2 = 0.685 with p
< 0.01) of temperature-anomaly variability. The resulting regression-equation coefficients
were used to model 1958-2000 and predict 2001-2006 temperature anomalies (Series2,
Fig 1). All computed temperature anomalies fell within the 95-percent confidence
interval of Series1 values, thus further validating the model.