Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling

The peer-reviewed work that effectively roasts the AGW alarmists is mounting steadily. Will President Obama follow through on this promise to return scientific integrity to the governing processes?
Perhaps John Holdren, Jane Lubchenco, Steven Chu, and Carol Browner need to pay close attention to Scafetta’s conclusion: “The PMOD TSI composite, which has been used by the IPCC and most climate modelers, has been found to be based on arbitrary and questionable assumptions. . . . climate had a significant preindustrial variability which is incompatible
with a hockey stick temperature graph.”

Really interesting but Figure 6 is not showing here or at the link.

I love this! The past four weeks have delivered one trip hammer blow after another to the AGW frauds. Real science will eventually trump all fictions. A few of us may be burned at the stake, drawn, quartered, dissed, or otherwise abused by the “faithful,” but Science and Facts will win in the end.
Color me, another delighted physicist.

Scafetta provides a predictive empirical model incorporating dynamic parameters driven by TSI. Svensmark’s climatology theory of solar parameters modulating cosmic rays which modulate clouds and albedo may provide the major link between TSI and climate.
Their predictions can be tested against those of CO2 driven global climate models. May the best model(s) win.

Leif Svalgaard
“condisering”
Leave the jokes to the professionals! 🙂

As he says: “The ACRIM-PMOD controversy is quite complex”
But there is too much “pathos” (passion) around this. pointing perhaps to something that really happened back then in the 80’s and which irritates those who want temperatures only related to CO2 instead of what common sense indicates: the Sun (that round and brilliant thing up there which warm us all).
As the proverb says: “when the river sounds it’s because it’s carrying pebbles down”

The sooner the better: timetochooseagain (10:08:52) : Thanks for your fast link to the paper:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

Correlation is not causation, but… Could it be another no solar causation?:
http://www.biocab.org/Correlation_Coefficient_TSI.jpg
Notice the correlation between asymmetries of ΔT and TSI in the last 50 years (approximately since the operation of satellites) are almost all positive.
An asymmetry is described as the deviation of an obtained magnitude from an accepted standard magnitude, 1364.5 W/m^2 for TSI and 0 K for ΔT. I took 0 K for ΔT because it would be a deviation as from the baseline, and the baseline for change of temperature is 0.0 K.

Dr. Svalgaard @ 11:15:54
I’m glad you said it. I was afraid to…

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) :
“There is little doubt that the solar cycle signal is of the order of 0.1K. ”
I totally agree with you that TSI alone is not sufficient to produce the effects observed, especially with the results of Lindzen, Spencer and others showing negative feedback on radiative perturbations, meaning that TSI variations would be attenuated, not amplified.
Which leaves cosmic rays and clouds. The energy transfer is still small, but the energy entering the camera lens is small too, but you still get the picture. Its what’s inside the camera that counts.

Leif Svalgaard (11:15:54) : Schwartz’s analysis, as well as Scafetta’s, of time response are 1. Entirely and 2. Mostly independent of the TSI data. The only objection you may raise to this paper from your area of expertise would be that Lean is used in the model:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD009586.pdf
But Schwartz’s analysis was quite different.
Also: “BTW, I’m puzzled by people saying that this kill’s AGW dead. Rather Scafetta shows clearly [if he is correct] that by far the greatest contribution since 1980 is not solar [his figures 5 and 6]. Al Gore could use Scafetta’s Figures as great support for AGW.”
This is an odd attempt to gloss over nuance. Nobody doubts that there is some AGW (fellow deniers, speak now or forever hold your peace (piece?)!) but if the magnitude is significantly reduced, where is the alarm? Or as Michaels and Balling (Climate of Extremes) say “The more “something else” is causing warming, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse emissions.” and “We’re not arguing against AGW, but rather against DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming).
Incidentally, I recommend Climate of Extremes to all WUWT readers. You won’t agree with everything in it (they think there is good evidence for an emerging AGW signal) but it is a marvelous book nonetheless.

Speaking of which, how’s that “El Nino” doing?

This paper basically shows that there is either new factor emerging since 1980, affecting the temperature (like increased greenhouse effect), or the temperatures measured are wrong. Since satellite temperatures follow the [B] curve pretty good, I vote for UHI effect, artificially flawing the surface station temperature record, which is well known fact.
[B] curve shows no net increase between 1980 and 2009; UAH shows exactly the same.
@Kum Dollison, El Nino looks quite unwell: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
SOI index oscillates between negative and positive: http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

“When taken into account the entire range of possible TSI satellite composite since 1980, the solar contribution to climate change ranges from a slight cooling to a significant warming, which can be as large as 65% of the total observed global warming.”
Kinda like the FIIK stamp I used to use.

Juraj V. (13:16:32) : SOI index oscillates between negative and positive:
Going up…so el nino going out and la nina coming back?

Mike Jonas (13:34:52)
I acknowledged that the effect of cosmic rays, if demonstrated, would have a modulating effect on climate changes initiated by the oceans. I think that is enough to cover your point.
Leif Svalgaard (13:35:50)
And I’ll keep repeating it in any relevant context until real world evidence disproves it or someone comes up with a better proposition.
How can someone who accepts that so much is not known be so sure that he is right in dismissing so much ?
There is a certain dissonance in your contributions.
I defer to you in solar matters but in nothing else.

Nogw (11:38:29) :
vukcevic What is it the cause of that “Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift” ?
Just an idle speculation, but it does appear to be some loose correlation between speed and direction of magnetic poles movement and the intensity of solar activity, possible both relating to the same planetary reference.
If polar moves can affect oceans conveyor belt, than it would appear that the solar activity is affecting temperature anomaly, but it is not necessarily so. Of course, none of it can be conclusively proved, otherwise we would not have such raging battle between the two camps.
In this kind of science there is no certainty, just set of probabilities.

Leif Svalgaard (14:42:20) :
Each year [in northern winter] the Earth receives 100 times more energy from the Sun as that due to solar activity at solar maximum.
And each year, the southern hemisphere, with a more extensive ocean surface than the northern hemisphere, during northern winter, receives ~3.3% more energy from the Sun than the northern hemisphere. Remember that the Earth is Northern Hemisphere + Southern Hemisphere.
This heats the ocean that therefore expands 7 millimeter in the next few months. That heat is lost again during the other half of the year. So why would the few photons that are due to solar activity also not get lost again, but stored up for decades? How does a photon know that is to radiate away or that it is to stay stored?
Because the energy is not stored in the oceans, ground and subsurface materials only as kinetic energy, but also as chemical energy, potential gravitational energy, etc. It is not that the photon knows that it has to be radiated away; it is not possible because the absorbed photon is no more there. There would be photons to be radiated away when the surroundings outside the oceans, including the outer space, would offer more available microstates toward which that energy can be transferred (or diffused… or dispersed).

vukcevic: You wrote, “What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that…Recent increase in speed of magnetic poles drift, affecting oceans’ conveyor belt circulation.”
I’ve shown the rise to be an aftereffect (residuals) of the significant El Nino events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
That’s what the SST data says. No theories, just cause and effect that’s present in the data.

FAO graph, here: http://www.giurfa.com/fao_temps.jpg

Robert Wood (09:51:12) :
“I haven’t read the paper. Why does he say the TSI is uncertain since 1980?”
Watch this video where Scarfati explains the issues about TSI measurements due to the use of different satelites and different quality sensor equipment and the controversy among the people operating these satelites and (here we go again) the used computer models to tie the data from the different measurements together.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/century-to-decade-climate-change-created-by-planetary-motion/

Pamela Gray: You wrote, “The Pacific equatorial positive SST’s appear to be weakening. I predict ENSO neutral by winter. Some of the NOAA statistical models are predicting ENSO neutral as well.”
It would be nice. There’s still some elevated subsurface anomalies (though they do seem to be disappearing):
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
The problem with that suburface profile is we can’t tell why those subsurface anomalies are declining. Did they dissipate? Did subsurface currents carry them out of the profile area? Will they reappear?

Interesting that Scafetta has dropped all references to what he thinks drives the modulation of the Sun which in turn affects our climate. He is very firmly in the Planetary Influence camp but not quite prepared to come out in this paper.

Nogw (18:51:51) :
James Shirley:An unusual “solar event” will take place in the years 1990-1992″
“When the sun goes backward”, James Shirley.
Something indeed happened in 1989-90 and considering time lag: 97-98 El Nino.
The Sun goes backward every 10 years, its is going backward right now, but the difference is the shape of that backward path that happens 3 times every 172 years. Shirley was close, as was Landscheidt both recognizing the increased momentum in 1990 but both failing to see the full impact of the N/U factor.

anna v (21:28:10) :
Planetary influence, lunar influence, galactic influence and God knows what influence.
All these correlations with cyclical data are just fortuitous in my opinion, and it behooves serious scientists to be wary of making causative statements, so it is good that he does not mention such stuff.
I doubt whether you have even looked at the correlations, but instead blindly fob it off with grand sweeping statements. A lot of famous discoveries start off with great correlations which are subsequently proved at a later stage.
Using your logic none of those discoveries would be with us today.

correlation is not causation –
But you make it sound as though correlation means no causation. In fact, correlation implies causation. It is the engine that drives scientific enquiry. What causes what, or is it a third or fourth or more elements that cause the correlated observations?
Consider the Earth-Venus resonance. There does not seem to be enough force acting between the 2 bodies to create a resonance, but a resonance is observed. Is it a fluke? Is the theory inadequate? Is there another explanation altogether?
It may well be that planetary influence are bigger than suspected due to some as yet unknown factor that multiplies its effect like resonance.

Micky C (16:38) If the results[of properly quantifying the CO2 forcing mechanism] are out there (I haven’t seen them on literature searches) then let’s shout about it. I don’t care it matches the original estimates. This is where the AGW argument should get made. Not in cyberspace or in the low correlation coefficients of proxies.
Hear, hear. Anyone got any info? Anyone asked at RC?? Noted that Steve Mc over at Erice is working for part of this too?
Meanwhile, I want to hear that Scafetta’s material re. ACRIM can be replicated. His adjustment makes a lot of sense but I want to see the data in the open. And I want to see how the “fit” with solar patterns can be used to extract the “65% solar” conclusion – with or without a mechanism to explain the correlation. Those who haven’t seen it might enjoy Scafetta’s February presentation and the accompanying slides.

OT:
Dr. Svalgaard,
(you´ll have to excuse my english, it´s not my native language)
I`ve come across your posts at ClimateAudit, and find it very plausable that there hasen´t been any trend in the TSI for the past century.
So, I guess I´m asking, that if i go through the comments at CA, whit time, is there any discussion about the impact of this to the feedbacks and climate sensivity? I´ve gone throw some of the comments there and this far there hasn´t been very much discussion about the sensivity issues.
I wont bother, if most off the comments over there just offer their own theories and discus the TSI and not the impacts of it beeing at the same levels as hundreds of years ago. If this is the case, could you point out anything to start whit?

lulo (23:54:38)
Correct, and a point I have made elsewhere.
Warming ocean surfaces initially reduce low cloud cover as the higher temperature in the air leads to an increase in vapour carrying capacity.
Then increased evaporation and convection leads to increased cloud cover but at a higher level with precipitation and an increase in the speed of the hydrological cycle and a faster transfer of energy from surface to space.
The opposite happens when the ocean surfaces cool down.
It is the variability of the global ocean surfaces in their rate of energy release to the air which is the driving force. Nothing else comes close but there may be modulating factors such as the Svensmark idea.

Leif, you unfairly edited my comment before you replied to it. I also said I would consider better propositions. Perhaps you would like to come up with one and be constructive for once ?
Sitting in an ivory tower, using your specialist knowledge as a defensive barrier is all very well but it doesn’t give you authority on non solar issues and such an approach is essentially very easy and very lazy.
Knowledge about the sun is all very well but it tells us nothing about how the climate system responds to solar input.

When people realize that main focus of Global Warming criticism should be focused to UHI? It is not so clever to make thousands of papers trying to explain GISS dataset (especially last decades) with various reasons regarding dataset as reliable to describing global temperature trends.
Is there any paper which compares global temperature trends taken from urban/rural stations? If not, I strongly recommend to do one to someone who has needed data available. After that we should discuss and explain that trend which is obtained using rural stations only.

anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation“
Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.

Claude Harvey (01:02:39) :
Well said! I couldn’t agree more.
I’m reading Ian Plimer’s book, heaven and earth, and it singularly compels you to look at much larger timescales when considering earth’s climate. Anything less than 1000 years all you can say about temperature is, as you so succinctly put it “trending upward or trending downward”.
There is clearly no evidence in paleoclimate histroy that says CO2 is a key driver of climate change. Moreover man’s impact on CO2 levels has been infinitesimal when considered in a historic context over the last 540 million years.
What we do know is that earth’s climate is driven by a number of factors which combine in an impossibly complex and chaotic fashion.
What we don’t even know is what all those factors are let alone how they combine. To start to build models that can therefore predict climate is no more than a start and we should not rely on them for policy. [BTW the good folks who contribute to this excellent blog with their some very well thought out theories may want to consider this point].
There is a good analogy I think with the art of stock trading: Stock market traders have been looking for the holy grail (a model that predicts market moves) since trading began and every year models come and go because markets are complex and chaotic (the model fails after a while).
In the meantime we will have to pay for this AGW/Climate change alarmist nonsense with jobs, wealth destruction and the inevitable brownouts that will come until folks can see the emporers (our political leaders) have no clothes on.
Perhaps the scientists studying climate change should all go away and work out how it all works and say nothing until they can agree on a model that clearly predicts climate for the next million years 🙂 just a thought.

There are five ‘ifs’ in that comment, Leif. That’s as close to quantifying the mechanism that I can get. ::grin::
=========================================

And the alteration of cosmic ray peaks doesn’t have to work through clouds to have an effect on heating. If it doesn’t, though, then the proposed mechanism is even more occult.
=============================

What I can’t understand is how people can argue that the sun’s variance is too weak to cause recent warming but then admit that it was the trigger for the start and end of the ice ages (now official). Surely the assumption of the latter proves there exists an amplifying mechanism for the former. How could a weak solar effect be a trigger of anything? The two hypotheses are contradictory.
And no the GHG feedback half-theory doesn’t fill the gap because it only covers the heating part of the cycle, is responsible for a max. of 30% even of that heating part (ref. Severinghaus on realclimate) and is clearly neither the actual trigger nor has much retardation effect on the cooling (a problem the alarmists just calmly skip over).

Actually Svensmark posited another amplifier to add to Leif’s shortlist – that of positive water vapor feedback – which of course exists for all ocean heating mechanisms. I suspect he just felt like hoisting the alarmists with their own petard.

Paul Vaughan (02:17:52) :
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation“
Screaming this does not advance the discussion Anna.
I am fairly sure that on the net,
bold is emphasis
capitals is shouting
bold capitals is screaming.
So I was just using emphasis, not screaming.

Leif Svalgaard (09:41:48) :
“What he does [his Figure 5] is trying to show that the rise in Temps since 1980 is much larger than can be accounted for by any of the assumed TSI-reconstructions. One could argue that this could be due to three things
1) his model is wrong
2) TSI is wrong
3) Temp increase is due to CO2 and not solar activity.”
I assume you are a big supporter of theory #3? I have heard so.
One couldn’t argue this because there are hundreds of variables which could be have caused this.
Three may be a pretty neat number and it is tempting to dismiss solar activity and conclude: “Well if it ain’t the sun, it must be CO2”, but considering we know close to nil about the sun and its connections to climate we can’t make such assumptions.
Maybe it is not the sun directly, but maybe it is not CO2 either.

From the same paper:
George Vangengeim, the founder of ACI, is a well-known Russian climatologist. The Vangengeim-Girs classification is the basis of the modern Russian climatological school of thought. According to this system, all observable variation in atmospheric circulation is classified into three basic types by direction of the air mass transfer: Meridional (C); Western (W), and Eastern (E). Each of the abovementioned forms is calculated from the daily atmospheric pressure charts over northern Atlantic-Eurasian region. General direction of the transfer of cyclonic and anticylonic air masses is known to
depend on the distribution of atmospheric pressure over the Atlantic-Eurasian region (the atmosphere topography).
The recurrence of each circulation form (W, E, or C) during the year is expressed in days. Total annual duration of the three circulation forms sums therefore to 365 (or 366 in a leap year). The index is defined by the number of days with the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. It is more
conveniently expressed as an anomaly (actual data minus the long-term average). The sum of anomalies can be displayed in a chart of the so-called integral curve of the atmospheric circulation. The annual sum of the occurrence of all circulation anomalies is equal to zero: (C) +(W) + (E) = 0.
The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W+E): (W + E) =
– (C) Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is ontinuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included). It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones
correspond to the periods of global cooling. (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).
The third important index is Length of Day (LOD) – a geophysical index that characterizes variation in the earth rotational velocity. Full time series of LOD cover more than 350 years, with the mostreliable data obtained in the last 150 years (Stephenson and Morrison 1995). The long-term LOD 5
dynamics is in close correlation with the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks (Klyashtorin and Sidorenkov 1996).
More to be found in:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/Y2787E00.HTM
and at Google:
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=q3mGCiLjkBIC&dq=Climate+change+and+long-term+fluctuations+of+commercial+catches:+the+possibility+of+forecasting&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=eeMbhAuqBz&sig=_1lsR1rSR_VCIgSqgHop2hvARQk&hl=es&ei=AhmMSsnhFsiQtge1mejCDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

tallbloke (06:27:36) :
I note however, that Scafetta also mentions the Loehle reconstruction, and this would offer another guide to long timescale calibration of the model. As you said the other day, you don’t rely on one series or type of quantity in coming to conclusions about the calibration and quantification of TSI.
Some of the proxies used for the reconstruction of temperature for the last two millennia have been used also for the reconstructions of total solar irradiance in the same period. Loehle’s database on temperature for the period comprehending the last 400 years and Lean’s TSI reconstruction using proxies and sunspots for the same period are highly correlated. However, when we compare the Lean’s reconstruction of TSI based only on 11 years cycles with Loehle’s reconstruction of temperature, we find the correlation fails in the middle of the database, so we have to disregard the totals and use magnitudes related to amplitude and longitude of the cycles. After that, the events match perfectly.
Anna… The Sun is the source of energy for the Earth, thus, in this case, the Sun is the cause of warming; even when some people try to turn the Sun down, it is warming the Earth… yet.

Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).

Hofstadter noted that the bulk of mathematics, whether ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’, fails to find practical application within its period of study and is lost, awaiting resurrection.
The notion of progress in Science, herein assumed by most, is one of those unexamined assumptions we tend to take for granted. That the data are reliable if repeatable is another, appropriately challenged by the authors.

Here’s a thing I’ve been toying with for a few days. You take the temperature record – hadcrut3v global. Use narrow band bandpass filters on it to find peak frequencies/phase/amplitude. Add the output of the filters ansd see what you get.
By taking mid band frequency amplitude and phase one should then be able to reconstruct the temperature record from a series of sine (cosine) waves – this is shown in the second plot.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
1/Frequency bands from .5 years to 1000 years were searched but the longest period that produced output was 150years.
The green line in these plots is the output of the 36 bands/cosines and as can be seen there is no trend. There is something else pushing the trend upwards.
One bodge has been to increase the amplitude of all bands by 2.3 to give the same sort of variability in the temp record.
A second bodge is to add a trend line that forces the synthesised temperature to conform to the hadcrut3v. As can be seen both the cosine and filter outputs follow the curve “rather well”. Of particular note is the lack of temperature increase followed by fall over the last few years and 2 peaks at 1877 and 1998 being modelled with a “good” correlation.
There is a rapid warming between 1930 and 1945 which is not followed by the synthesised data.
This plot shows the relative amplitudes and periods of the synthesised waves
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5240/synthesisedtemperaturea.jpg
The synthesis of course means that individual periods can be removed to see the effect of tsi etc.
This is a work in progress but unless someone shows it to be a pile of poo I think it is interesting!

Whoops, that should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.

This 1977 paper in the Nature journal effectively speculates that the Maunder Minimum could make a repeat performance exactly 357.4 years (2 X 178.7 years) later. Using 1649 to 1710 as a conservative estimate of the actual spotless interval of the Maunder Minimum rather than 1645-1715 yields a tentative prediction of a spotless solar minimum from 2007.4 to ~2067. Chance or more than chance? Only time will tell. There is still time to place your bets.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v266/n5601/abs/266434a0.html
Nature 266, 434 – 435 (31 March 1977); doi:10.1038/266434a0
Planetary tides during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum
CHARLES M. SMYTHE & JOHN A. EDDY
High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80303
“CONTROL of the 11-yr and longer cycles of solar activity tides raised on the Sun resulting from the gravitational pulls of the planets has often been suggested. Rudolf Wolf and R. C. Carrington were among the early astronomers who pointed out this possibility in the middle nineteenth century1. The close coincidence of the sidereal period of gravitationally important Jupiter (11.87 yr) with the mean period of the observed annual sunspot means (11.3 yr) raises the possibility of such a relationship; the range of possible configurations of the other planets allows a wide realm of other tidal periods and effects. In daily sunspot numbers, a small but consistent periodicity at the sidereal period of the planet Mercury has been found2, and a possible 178.7-yr period in sunspots (about twice the Gleissberg cycle) has been linked with multi-planet tidal influences3. Wood and Wood4 have applied a dynamical theory which includes all planets but Mars to reinforce their belief in a more than chance relationship. We reconstruct here Sun-centred planetary conjunctions and tidal potentials for the AD 1645−1715 period of sunspot absence (the Maunder Minimum). These are found to be effectively indistinguishable from patterns of conjunctions and power spectra of tidal potential in the modern era of a well-established 11-yr sunspot cycle. This places a new and difficult constraint on any tidal theory of sunspot formation.”

If we have five boxes and three cats are caged into the boxes, one cat per cage, we would have two available boxes for being occupied by one cat each. If we have other three cats into a bigger cage which can contain all of them, that is, the six cats, and we have the remainder three cats into the bigger cage and wish to distribute the remainder these three cats into the smaller boxes, we would be able of accomodating only two cats in the remainder two boxes because the other three boxes had bee occupied, each one with one cat, so we would have one cat that cannot be distributed into the boxes. That remainder cat will be retained into the huge box until one of the five smaller boxes is available for accomodating the last cat.
Damn! Your friend came with other six cats!!! Well, the big box can contain them all, no problem. We have to wait Charles to come with more empty cages, or wait, perhaps hours, days, months, years or centuries, until the small cages will be available (empty) again, so we could distribute five of the six new cats into the empty small boxes, one cat per cage.
It’s quite simple. 🙂

Paul Vaughan (08:38:39) :
Re: anna v (06:55:49)
anna v (21:28:10) “correlation is not causation”
Clarification:
This does not advance the discussion (whether emphasized, shouted, screamed, … or whispered).
Can you expand on this statement?
In my opinion “correlation is not causation” is one of the two basic scientific fundaments that climate science is mixed up about, including the contingent of planet cycle fans. The other is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for a proof of a scientific statement. This cannot be repeated often enough either in whispers or in shouts.

Stephen Wilde (09:32:22) :
not the quantity of energy involved that sets temperature but the speed of transmission through the system.
Leif Svalgaard:
You lost me on that one. The system consisting of the Sun and the Earth involves a transmission of energy from Sun to Earth at the speed of light… Same thing for the steak broiling on a BBQ…
No, the system being sun to oceans, oceans to air and air to space.
Shortwave entering air and water gets slowed down and re radiated as longer wave radiation and the energy lost in the conversion from shortwave to longwave manifests itself as an increased temperature of both water and air.
It’s like the flow of current through a resistor. Whilst passing through the resistor the electical current slows down temporarily and generates heat and then leaves the resistor at a lower voltage but at the same speed as it entered the resistor.
Now in the case of the Earth which is a sphere floating in space ALL the departing energy is in the form of radiated longwave because the heat energy gets converted back to radiative energy before it can depart.
That is why the energy value of the shortwave coming in and the longwave going out are pretty much the same except during periods of minor radiative imbalance.
The thing is that the oceans and the air deal with that incoming shortwave very differently.
Each has internal circulations and deals with the energy passing through on different timescales. The oceanic effect far outweighs the effect of the air and so drives the whole process with the effect of the air as a mere passenger. The air is always forced to emulate the oceans and the mechanism for that is the speed of the hydrological cycle mediated by the latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems.
As you will know any quantity of power can pass through something with nil resistance and no heat energy will be generated. On the other hand a small amount of energy passing through something with high resistance will generate much energy as heat.
So it is with the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is set by the resistance to the solar energy flow provided by both air and water and by far the greater effect is from the water. The Hot Water Bottle Effect as I have named it.
The greenhouse effect in the air is relatively insignificant and any human contribution truly miniscule and unmeasurable.
Does that help ?
As regards the other query that was a typo and should read ‘polar and equatorial air masses’.

Stephen Wilde (09:57:59) :
“Now, whether we can even measure that small change is another matter.”
I suggest that it can be measured
Leif Svalgaard
Of course we can measure 0.1K, but do we have measurements at the time of Maunder Minimum with that accuracy? I think not, so it has not been observed
We can see that if you are right about the quantity of energy variation then the observed real world and apparently proportionate climate response is that which we see from the Maunder Minimum to today.
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
If you cannot be that precise then some other quantity = one Maunder Minimum.
Either way the cause and effect should not be denied on the basis of a subjective assumption that for some unspecified reason the variation in energy is ‘too small’.
Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.

Leif Svalgaard (11:14:30) :
Stephen Wilde (11:00:14) :
Perhaps you should look at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
vukcevic (10:59:23) :

“Leif Svalgaard (11:31:42) :
Stephen Wilde (11:09:43) :
That is 0.1K over 400 years = one Maunder Minimum if you insist on an equation.
so 0.1K/400 = 0.00025K per year”
Reply:
That is the observed climate response whether you like it or not.
Anyway it is not appropriate to divide it equally over the number of years. A good number of the years concerned were closer to 0.1K lower as compared to now. The progression of the solar variation over the past 400 years has been pretty uneven. There was a Dalton Minimum as well plus other variations en route.
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Stephen Wilde
“Unless you can come up with a new reason for the Maunder Minimum then that apparently tiny solar variation is the only card on the table and you should not deny it.”
Leif Svalgaard
It is not the only card. There are other cards. Here is another one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2005JA011459.pdf:
“[44] 44Ti activity in meteorites shows a decreasing trend during the past 235 years over which the data are available. This implies that GCR flux in the interplanetary space (1 to 3 AU) has decreased over the past 235 years by about 43%”
Some people would consider that another card, others would say that the geomagnetic field has declined during that time and that that is yet another card, perhaps biospheric cards, or AGW [CO2 or land-use, burning of hardwood forests in the US, asheries], spectral changes [one of yours I think], volcanoes, planets manipulating LOD or shining their magnetic fields on us, and so on. Lots of cards, some [admittedly] weirder than others”
Reply:
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
As regards spectral changes it was not and is not ‘one of mine’. I merely started asking you for advice on that but your replies were so slippery that I was no better informed at the end of our exchange.

vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?

Nasif.
For completeness then microstates are relevant but for a general overview they are (in my humble opinion) too small to consider.
The oceans literally swamp everything else.

Nogw (12:10:55) :
vukcevic (10:59:23) : Where is it that zero geomagnetic field “window”?
I specifically shifted Y-scale by a factor, so location of the component sampled, cannot be easily detected.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
Any scientist among you, if interested in cooperation my email can be found here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/em.txt

tallbloke (12:19:34)
I certainly support a gradual increase on ocean heat content whilst solar input is rising and possibly a short lag before ocean heat content comes down from a peak and starts falling in response to a falling solar input.
However I tend to agree with Leif and Nicola about the lack of long term energy storage because of the cooling effects of positive ENSO and PDO phenomena which warm the air but try to reduce ocean energy content quite quickly during periods of high solar input.
Nevertheless the oceans are a long term heat store but only as a historical product of past solar/oceanic interactions so there is a bit of a contradiction there.
Certainly the solar input exceeded oceanic energy release right through cycles 18 to 23 which suits you and Nicola but Leif seems to have problems with that on the grounds that to him solar variation is so small.
Personally I think Leif a bit blinkered on that. If there is a conflict between reality and assumptions then reality wins every time and I think Leif’s views on scale are adrift of what reality is telling us.
I don’t think anyone’s ideas need to rely on a carry over of stored energy in the oceans from a run of strong solar cycles to a period of weak cycles anyway and I’m puzzled as to how Leif got that bee in his bonnet. Someone may have said it at one point but without realising that it is unnecessary.
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity but the process is very irregular because of the overlapping ENSO and PDO phenomena which can both accelerate and decelerate accumulation or loss of oceanic energy on very differing timescales and both in opposition to and in support of solar trends at any given time. Additionally different oceans have different cycles on different time scales so that makes it messier still.
In the end the best diagnostic indicator of net global warming of the oceans or net global cooling of the oceans is the average latitudinal position of the air circulation systems.
Of course, when the oceans are cooling the air is warming and vice versa.

Leif Svalgaard (13:11:08) :
Stephen Wilde (11:55:14) :
Can you deny that solar shortwave coming in is converted to radiated longwave going out. What is that exactly if not a consequence of resistance in the air and water to the flow of solar energy ?
Leif Svalgaard
Putting ’solar’ in the sentence doesn’t change anything. The ‘resistance’ idea still doesn’t make sense..
Reply:
I’ll leave others to judge the merits of your comment. Of course I could have said ‘former solar energy’ but any sensible reader would get the point.
Stephen Wilde (12:07:59) :
Perhaps 0.5K over 200 years = one Dalton Minimum.
Leif Svalgaard
Perhaps you mean 0.05K…
Reply
Yes. Quite right. Thank you.
Stephen Wilde
On a balance of probability I would go for solar variability of one sort or another. I’ve no more idea than you how it is done but real world observations prevail.
Leif Svalgaard
And what would they be? What observations show us that the temperature now is no more than 0.1K [and that was an upper limit] higher than during the Maunder Minimum? I thought people were throwing numbers around at least ten or twenty times higher…
Reply:
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet and that begs the question as to whether your numbers are correct which not all solar scientists accept.
The energy in the climate system is not evenly distributed. An expansion of the polar air masses at the expense of the equatorial air masses (as a result of a small average temperature change) can result in huge temperature changes for areas that move from one side of the mid latitude jets to another or which have the experience of winds switching from maritime sources to continental sources.
There are many other variables involved in translating a change in solar energy input to real world climate consequences.
That is the point at which your solar expertise breaks down 🙂

“Stephen Wilde (13:04:55) :
To square the circle I would suggest that over time the ocean energy content does follow the sun and rises and falls with it’s level of activity
Leif Svalgaard
I have indicated that we agree on this, and that that ’swell’ is of the order of at most 0.1K, so is hardly observable, therefore the observed much larger variation is not due to the tiny changes in heat input that solar radiation gives us
Reply:
Firstly I really don’t accept the validity of all the adjustments you have been making to TSI and sunspot numbers since the Maunder Minimum but I don’t want to make an issue of that here. Suffice it to say that not all solar scientists are in full agreement with your approach.
Anyway, whatever the ‘swell’ may have been the global climate has changed since 1600. As it had previously from the Roman Warm Period to the Dark Ages to the Mediaeval Maximun to the Little Ice Age to today with our recent Modern Maximum.
The only source of energy to the system is the sun. It cannot come from nowhere. All those changes pre date the effects of significant human CO2 emissions.
So, either the changes are caused by the sun or they are caused by some internal Earthly process or by a combination of both.
I have selected a combination of sun and oceans. You are determined to exclude the sun at all costs. God knows why but take it from me that that is damaging your credibility and trying my patience.
I am open to any suggestions that seem plausible but your solar stability ideas just don’t ring true.
Now I’m happy to take you at your word and watch real world events to see what transpires. However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.
May I respectfully suggest that unless real world events reverse in the very near future your ideas will go the way of the dodo.
Please forgive my directness. I am getting too old to waste time.

Stephen Wilde (13:51:36) :
However we now have a less active sun, negative oceans and a cooling world.
In my post above bill (09:51:01) : I showed a synthesised a temperature emulation using 36 fundamental frequencies – Did not really expect it to be possible but have a look at the result.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6135/synthesisedtemperature.jpg
This shows that the temperature record can be simulated for short term perturbations, BUT there is no frequency that simulates the last few decades of temperature rise. The last decade of static temperature with a fall for the last couple of years is well simulated and shows temperature rise continuing after 2010. the world is not cooling!
By summing only the periods associated with TSI (9 to 14 years) the simulation shows an effect on temperature of 0.14C Peak which is inline with Leif’s 0.1C (average?)

Leif Svalgaard (08:55:56) :
RE: Ti44 in meteors
Thank you for the Taricco et al paper.
I managed to find the Usokin paper but haven’t had chance to digest it yet in depth – you may have seen it in the past but if not here’s the link:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/44Ti_A&A_2006.pdf
Also came across this (while searching) that looks like it came from a Heartland Conference on the role of solar activity and climate – again I guess you know most of it and are not short of reading material [:-)} but should you care to glance through it and add any comments idc on another thread I’ll pick them up.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%205.pdf
My quick read on the Usokin paper drew me to this quote:
“The extended 44Ti data set and the model computations
also allow a verification of the model reconstruction of the
solar open magnetic flux, which exhibits a significant secular
variation, including nearly a doubling over the last century
(Lockwood et al. 1999; Solanki et al. 2002).”
Am I correct in reading this as a significant rise in solar activity over the last century?
If not would you be so kind as explain in rather plain terms what the statement says I would as ever be grateful.
Please note that thanks to your guidance I now believe our climate is an incredibly complex and chaotic system and that the Sun is just a part of it….
Thanks for your contribution as always.

Tenuc (15:57:44) :
Our climate is a very complex dynamic chotic system…
“God does not play dice” (A.Einstein)
After one knows something it happens to be so simple.
It is very easy to conveniently label all what we don´t know as “chaotic”; that is like a MD saying:”that was caused by a virus”(btw, the next time somebody tells you that, ask him to show you a photo of it)

Jimmy Haigh (19:19:23) :
PaulHClark (18:41:28) :
Any guess, after the last 10 years of debate that you have witnessed, how much manmade CO2 contributions really make to changing our climate?
Leif Svalgaard (18:56:59) :
“…I have no clue.”
Now try getting that response (the only correct one, IMHO) from a ‘climate scientist’!
Honest climate scientist would say “It’s negligible” because, from the total of 107 ppmV of atmospheric carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in the last 24 years, human activities are responsible of a tiny 5%, which barely represents 5.35 ppmV. 5.35 ppmV would drive a change of temperature of 0.03 K.
On the other hand, the natural contribution for the current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 101.65 ppmV, which would drive a change of temperature of 0.45 K.
However, if you ask a honest physicist, he would tell you that the contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities would drive the tropospheric temperature by some 0.02 K, while the natural contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would drive the tropospheric temperature up to 0.3 K.
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null. Why? Because the physicist knows that the carbon dioxide does not store more energy than the surface (land and oceans) and the subsurface materials because of its low Pp in the atmosphere and its poor thermal properties, and the energy always flows (or is transferred, dispersed or diffused) spontaneously from the systems in a high energy density state (like the Sun, for example) towards the systems in a low energy density state (like the carbon dioxide system, for example). 😉
I hope my dissertation has answered your question.

Nasif Nahle (12:10:40) :
You are clear in your explanation, but you are demonstrating what I said about not knowing the difference between necessary and sufficient in scientific proofs.
It is not sufficient to have the sun and its huge energy to be able to know the climate as we measure it. You yourself say:
Evidently, it’s not hard to fill the Earth with solar energy. The problem is how much of the energy accepted by the Earth-system would be dispersed toward other surrounding systems’ microstates and if those microstates are available or not.
talking of “how much of the energy accepted” “how it is dispersed” means that it is not sufficient to have the large impinging sun energy to solve the problem. It is necessary to know many other conditions too.
That the sun outputs a lot of energy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define climate.

Leif Svalgaard (21:57:56) :
Nasif Nahle (19:57:38) :
If you ask again a physicist about the change of temperature of the surface due to the human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, he would tell you… null.
And he would be wrong.
Where and why?

Stephen Wilde (13:31:15) :
A change of 0.1K in solar energy received does not necessarily result in a climate response of 0.1K at every location on the planet. Or indeed anywhere on the planet
Leif Svalgaard
Nobody would be so silly to suggest a uniform response. It may be positive in one area and negative in an other. I’m talking about average over the globe, as everybody else is when discussing this, e.g. Scafetta himself
Reply:
My point was that a small average change in global temperatrure can produce large variability in individual locations because of the shift of that location in relation to the positions of the nearby air circulation systems.
Whether the temperature change which you calculate is sufficient to, say, move large areas of the continental parts of the northern hemisphere to the north of the mid latitude jets makes a huge difference especially given that most observations of climate in those times were in such regions.
If your figures are right about the extremely limited (even negligible) solar variability then the climate is telling us that that is nevertheless sufficient to make a huge difference to the climate conditions over the northern land masses and that would have a sizeable ‘knock on’ effect on the rest of the globe.
So. one could add the globally unbalanced conductive behaviour of the northern land masses to a variable energy supply to the air from the oceans in trying to explain the sheer size of observed climate variability in the face of a negligible solar forcing. That still seems unlikely so that something is probably still not properly understood about solar influences on climate.
Alternatively there are little green men moving the Earth’s air circulation systems around 🙂
When it is clear that something is not correctly understood then judgement has to come into play to decide on a way forward. Sticking to existing assumptions is merely a blind mantra in such a situation. Not that I am really suggesting those little green men but the solar stability idea is moving in that direction.
Once one has excluded all other possibilities then the obvious one must be the truth however unlikely, so in the end the sun it is as the final arbiter as regards Earth’s climate.
It’s just an issue of how.

How, Stephen? Why two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks cool the earth in one phase of the PDO and two out of three of the solar cycle cosmic ray peaks in the next phase of the PDO warm the earth. I’ll leave the more quantitative explications of the ‘how’ to you and Leif.
============================================

kim (23:57:49)
I’d love to know the answer.
Leif is far better qualified than me on the solar quantities side of things but I think I have a better grip on the mechanics of what happens after the solar energy reaches the Earth.
Note that my climate description does not depend on any particular level of solar variability as long as it is not zero. That is why Leif’s apparent enthusiasm to get it as near to zero as possible is rather unsettling to me. His efforts are an unnecessary distraction away from the mechanics of the overall global system that I am describing.
All I need is a radiative imbalance between solar energy penetrating the oceans and the oceans then releasing that energy to the air.
As long as there is such an imbalance on any scale then over time the system will behave in the way I have described it. I don’t thoink it is seriously disputed that such an imbalance is always present to some extent hence all the talk about ocean energy/heat content which does indeed vary.
I should leave Leif to his own devices because unless he can get solar variability down to zero then I should have no concerns.
As long as there is any solar variability however small (and he does admit some) then my ideas work and the problem of scaling from small solar variability to apparently large climate responses just requires extensions and enhancements of my climate description. I am happy to leave the oceanic side of the system to others. I am satisfied that I have got the ocean to air to space portion correct and in accordance with both basic physics and observations.
I am also sure that many other ideas such as those of Svensmark and others including possibly yourself, tallbloke Erl Happ and lots more can be slotted in but probably as second order modulating factors rather than primary drivers.
As far as the air is concerned the oceans are in absolute control and any realistic climate description has to be built on that.
Any challenge to my description can only be successful if it can be shown that the oceans are not in control once the solar energy arrives in the Earth’s climate syatem.

Stephen Wilde (23:08:27) :
Removal of solar variability from the climate equation leaves us with nothing to rely on to explain climate variability other than little green men.
Something is wrong with the solar observations, solar equations or our understanding of how solar changes affect the Earth. Possibly all three.

Why ignore all the other factors – GHGs (reduce radiation away), Albedo (reflect radiation away), Dust (check out the dust levels during ice ages – it is usually elevated), O3 (absorbs uv), milankovich cycles, etc
Every year the earth temperature cycles – in UK perhaps an average of -2 to +18C mainly due to the angle presented to the sun. The top few metres of sea also change in temperature (people swim in the UK sea during summer but less do in winter). Changes in solar radiation have a time lag to temperature of less than 1 year. Changes in temperature due to solar irradiation differences (11 year cycle) will be seen in the temperature record. A simple FFT of single station or global temperature shows that these cycles are only present in the background noise – using narrow band bandpass filters as I showed above, shows that the temperature fluctuation due to TSI is less than 0.15C peak-peak.
There is no significant 11 22 18.6 year cycles present in the temperature record.
The only sources of energy is the sun (ignoring the very small core heating). The only loss of energy is via radiation (however, growing things will store energy indefinitely). The sea will only “store” energy for short periods
The short term fluctuations in the sun output have little measured effect. That only leaves changing the radiation out or locking/releasing the energy in organic stuff for long term (greater than 1000years) variation

bill (01:57:30)
Sorry bill.
I should have said ‘long term variability’ since ultimately it is the long term variability of the sun which is the only source of long term variability in oceanic energy content.
All the other variables act on shorter time scales and involve wavelengths that do not penetrate back into the ocean surface unless they affect the amount of sunlight reaching the surface so that it’s back to the sun again.

Stephen 00:40:06
Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers. By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
====================

Leif Svalgaard (22:10:50) :
Geoff Sharp (21:58:06) :
Ok…thanks for the explanation, I must revisit my source suggesting the 16% variation (it did seem very credible at the time).
But I still think the argument of collecting TSI at sea level would end a lot of this debate.
————–
TSI has been measured like that for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Greeley_Abbot

Come on Leif that link is a joke….the project has never been undertaken. Also the amount of your UV variance in the TSI is also of question. I will come back shortly with some data. Stay tuned…..

“By the way, don’t underestimate Leif’s knowledge of the climate systems; he’s been thinking about them for a long while, and is well known for putting his finger precisely on the main flaw in a lot of theories.”
Point taken, but from time to time it’s very tempting to respond with like for like.

“kim (05:14:24) :
Stephen 00:40:06
Thanks for that. We still have the thorny problem of how any magnifying mechanism for a solar phenomenon is prevented from a runaway effect on climate. This is the bucket of cold water Leif keeps pitching upon hot speculation. I think that climate regulation is complex enough to have so many varying feedbacks as to be self-centering, the water cycle being foremost among them, but I’m just speculating, at which Leif rightfully sneers”
It’s a good point to suggest that any mechanism that can magnify the tiny solar variability enough to produce the observed climate response should be so powerful as to cause a runaway effect.
However I’m not sure that it does indeed need to be magnified in the sense of being made larger or rather amplified.
My point about sensitivity comes back here. A tiny solar change can apparently produce what appears to us to be a large climate response but so what ?
All one needs to start with is a radiative imbalance into and out of the oceans then add time then add the oceanic ability to sometimes accelerate and sometimes decelerate the rate of energy release to the air.
That seems to be enough to shift the size and positions of the air circulation systems but then that process itself changes the rate of energy transfer from surface to space and prevents a runaway situation.
You might call my comments speculation but I don’t think they are. They are logical interpretations of what we actually see.
The oceans do vary the rate of energy release to the air on 30 year timescales.I’ve no idea why.
The latitudinal positions of the air circulation systems do change in response (always following, never leading the oceans).The reason for that is clear in that faster energy release from the oceans increases the size of the equatorial air masses.
The speed of the hydrological cycle does change with the shifts in the air circulation systems. That is also clear.
The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
Now all that is data and a logical interpretation of that data is not
mere speculation.
One cannot ignore all that data just because what we know of the numbers involved fails to match that data.
The numbers are either wrong or irrelevant, possibly both.

Stephen Wilde (08:08:24) :
The main global temperature trends do follow trends in solar activity back to at least the Roman Warm Period. Even Leif’s charts show that.
Or even closer geomagnetic activity. There is, however remote, possibility they are part and parcel of the same controlling mechanism.
Here is my updated temp-geomag chart
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

Leif Svalgaard (09:03:51) :
“Based on a cherry picked [undisclosed] location. Pick another one [POT-SED-NGK] and you get the opposite variation: http://www.leif.org/research/Component.png”
You could not be more wrong Sir, as a scientist of repute, you should know what to look for. Not my fault you looked at geomag data for 40 + years and failed to spot it.
If you looked at right PLACES you would have found this!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif
You can check provenance of my data by getting in touch with your mates at NOAA (NGDC), with their powerful computers, they could check it in no time at all. If they whish to save time and effort, someone could contact me. In time, I will give a full description of the process, until then Sir, patience is advisable, or maybe look into some dubious aspects of the proposed SSN revision.
Do not waste time with TSI and SSN counts, get your self a magnetometer ! If you whish to counter AGW, ask NOAA to verify data with me, and then email chart to your member of parliament, to your senator or congressman, or whoever you voted to represent your interests!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GeoMagField.gif

Correct that to refer to pre 750 AD instead of pre 1000 AD