See sunspots run

From Spaceweather.com

The sun is showing signs of life. There are no fewer than five active regions on the sun’s surface, shown here in an extreme ultraviolet photo taken this morning by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO):

Each circle contains a sunspot or proto-sunspot belonging to new Solar Cycle 24. After two years of record-low sunspot numbers and many month-long stretches of utter quiet, this is a notable outbreak. Whether it heralds a genuine trend or merely marks a temporary, statistical uptick in activity remains to be seen.

Advertisements

213 thoughts on “See sunspots run

  1. I really hope the sun is waking up. It’s been getting too cold for my liking. Snow staying on the ground for a week before christmas hasn’t been seen where I live for decades.

  2. Now how is the magnetic fieldstrength. Is the Livingston & Penn forecast broken now? Or are they still on track though more numerous?

  3. It would be interesting to see what the magnetic intensity is of 1035 and it’s diminutive cousins. Is there an updated source for Livingston and Penn’s analysis work?

  4. “Whether it heralds a genuine trend or merely marks a temporary, statistical uptick in activity remains to be seen.”
    Indeed, but you have admit it is quite spectacular after such a long pause.

  5. Despite the emergence of all these regions (1037 = non-existent), and the severe over-inflation of sunspot number (42 for 22 Dec)… Solar Wind is still weak, as is the K-Index.
    You may recall on 17 December, spaceweather.com reported this:
    “The recently invisible spot is now nine times wider than Earth and crackling with C-class solar flares. A series of eruptions on Dec. 16th sent two and perhaps three coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the general direction of our planet. High-latitude sky watchers should be alert for auroras when the clouds arrive beginning on Dec. 18th or 19th.”
    Well, those dates passed and nothing happened. 18th, 19th, 20th passed with no reports of increased auroras. Perhaps the flare dissipated along the way.. O_o
    The L&P Umbral Data Graphic has been updated and up until now the readings are falling right where they should be.
    1035 did not break the trend as some thought it would.

  6. Judging from the latest STEREO image we are due for another quiet spell, though there may be something coming in the Southern Hemisphere.
    We will have to see if it turns out to actually be a “spot” or not.

  7. Again another uptick in sunspots attending a meteor shower event (perseid, taurids, and gemini). Tests should be performed on the remants of the recent meteor shower to determine their exposure to cosmic rays so that scientists can make comparisons to changes with the cosmic ray flux.

  8. Definite increase in activity, but the NOAA count of 43 is very ambitious and will be pulled back by SIDC and further restrained by the Layman’s Count. We are finally on the upswing of a grand minimum cycle that has a long way to go before reaching a smoothed monthly count of 50.
    We have missed 3 days of this action because of a SOHO outage, this is the first time the Layman’s count will need to use GONG images for the final assessment. 1035 is the only major group and the darkness ratio (similar to L&P contrast) comes in at 73% which is equal highest for SC24, with 1029 providing the same reading. Overall trend for SC24 darkness is probably on the up.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  9. tallbloke (23:52:09) :
    I really hope the sun is waking up. It’s been getting too cold for my liking. Snow staying on the ground for a week before christmas hasn’t been seen where I live for decades.
    I agree. I am resigned to this being the beginning of a Solar Grand Minimum but I was fearful it was starting to look like a Maunder. A Dalton type minimum would be quite enough. With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again? I was in the blob of -45C (-58C wind chill) early on December 13th … and this is a weak El Nino and I am just across the Rockies from the Pacific? … is there a chant to cheer on the Sun?

  10. I have a theory there is a bit of a lag phase. Just because the sun is getting a bit active now doesn’t mean we aren’t in for a bit of cooling.

  11. That bastard Sol I always liked him as a fit for Global warming..
    He is why our faces are shaped this way. Every land animal has a face designed not to look at the cunning conniving sciver.
    Tell all Global Leaders we have tracked down the Global warming Malefactor, we looked up at the sky.
    Now all we need, is a trillion dollar grant and some of them subsidy things we promises to build rockets ships and then Lassoo, that cunning thing and tame him.
    Stuff this roping or harpooning CO2 molecules.
    We will have a crack at heliocentric centre.
    On a serious not, tho there might be some correlations to be found.

  12. If there’s concerns sunspot numbers are being set too high, do we get a new sunspot skeptic blog called sunspotAudit ? Watch out or the realClimate lot will get there first!

  13. vukcevic (02:12:52) :
    Polar fields are still stuck in the grove, no sign of turning.
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif

    Right on Vuk, I have been watching the same graph for 18 months and still no sign of a turn. Does this current cycle display the chance of not following the normal Hale cycle like some proxy records from the Maunder suggest?
    meemoe_uk (02:41:14) :
    do we get a new sunspot skeptic blog called sunspotAudit ?
    The Layman’s Count already has that covered.

  14. If the sun doesn’t go back blank within the next 2 days, we will not break last years spotless count. bummer.

  15. “meemoe_uk (02:41:14) :
    If there’s concerns sunspot numbers are being set too high, do we get a new sunspot skeptic blog called sunspotAudit ? Watch out or the realClimate lot will get there first!”
    Refer to:
    http://translate.google.co.za/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/&ei=AHWVSrv_K5zLjAfom5zbDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
    and:
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
    These counts in my opinion, are much more accurate and paint a clear picture of the current shift from the modern solar maximum of 1935-2005 to the new minimum of 2005 – ?.
    Each spot is carefully analyzed.

  16. This continuously updated plot by Leif
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
    shows that 24 has not yet reached the height of the last 23 large bunch, sometime in the beginning of 2008.
    Only the MF in this plot has not picked up yet, and I understand it has a six month delay. If the minimum was end of 2008 beginning 2009, it should have started picking up by now. Interesting times for sun watchers, even amateur ones.

  17. meemoe_uk (02:41:14) :
    If there’s concerns sunspot numbers are being set too high, do we get a new
    sunspot skeptic blog called sunspotAudit ? Watch out or the realClimate lot will get
    there first!

    Geoff Sharp already beat them to it with the Layman’s Sunspot count!
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
    Great idea by the way Geoff. I rather compare apples and apples.

  18. re: the fear of the consequences of a minimum.
    Personally, I fear Big Brother more. Mankind will survive the “Bosch-like world” of solar funk. Persevering through that sort of stuff is how we got as far as we’ve gotten.
    A boot in the face forever is another thing.
    Better Bosch than Big Brother.

  19. That 5 spots come up almost simultaneously, all several hundred thousand miles apart, is quite remarkable. Clearly any common cause must lie deep under the surface.

  20. tallbloke (23:52:09) :
    I really hope the sun is waking up. It’s been getting too cold for my liking. Snow staying on the ground for a week before christmas hasn’t been seen where I live for decades.

    If you check out the world climate widget you might notice that the November global (UAH) temperature anomaly is +0.50, i.e. the warmest November in the record. There’s a pretty fair chance that January 2010 will be the warmest January on record and an even chance that 2010 will be the warmest year on record. While the US may be a bit chilly at the moment the same cannot be aid for the rest of the world.
    If we are getting record anomalies while the sun is in a deep slumber I ‘m a bit fearful about what might happen if it actually starts to become more active. The solar/climate link is becoming increasingly less believable.

  21. Philip T. Downman (23:54:50) :
    Now how is the magnetic fieldstrength. Is the Livingston & Penn forecast broken now? Or are they still on track though more numerous?
    L&P says nothing about the number of spots. They are still on track [see below]
    SSam (23:56:32) :
    It would be interesting to see what the magnetic intensity is of 1035 and it’s diminutive cousins. Is there an updated source for Livingston and Penn’s analysis work?
    This plot is always up to date: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
    1035 and friends are the rightmost data points and they span are right where they should be.
    vukcevic (02:12:52) :
    Polar fields are still stuck in the grove, no sign of turning.
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif

    With new activity, the polar fields begin their slow decline. They have by now dropped 25% since mid-2006 [pink arrow]: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO%20Polar%20Fields.png
    meemoe_uk (02:41:14) :
    If there’s concerns sunspot numbers are being set too high
    The current activity can always be seen here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
    The little black specks on the lower [green] graph are the SIDC counts which [by definition] are only 60% of the SWPC count.

  22. trolls must have been huddled up under the bridge in a desperate prayer meeting for sun spots

  23. meemoe_uk (02:41:14) :
    If there’s concerns sunspot numbers are being set too high, do we get a new sunspot skeptic blog called sunspotAudit ? Watch out or the realClimate lot will get there first!
    The blog you are looking for is called
    daltonsminima.wordpress.com
    It is in Italian.

  24. Capn Jack: Obligatory Simpson’s quote: “From the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.” –Mr. Burns

  25. Jeff L (05:06:06) :
    Anyone noticed the Planetary A Index is still very small despite more sunspot activity? Does this tie into Penn & Livingston’s work?
    Analysis / significance anyone

    Not to mention a similar result with the solar wind….

  26. P Gosselin (23:54:25) :
    But looking at the latest image, there is not really much to see.
    The image from SOHO is “the latest” and has 12/22/09 as the date.
    This may be the date of the posting and not the date of the picture or simply a mistake.
    Mauna Loa site shows a lot of activity in several spectrums on 12/21 that could not fade that quickly in a day. And the pic is very different than SOHO
    http://mlso.hao.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/mlso_homepage.cgi
    SIDC report of 12/21 shows a large number
    SOLAR INDICES FOR 21 Dec 2009
    WOLF NUMBER CATANIA : 058
    10CM SOLAR FLUX : 083
    http://www.sidc.be/products/meu

  27. IMHO, the sunspot/solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud connection to average global surface temperature is a multidecadal effect. To see the climate change influence of the sun, one has to look at the strength of several 11-year cycles and then factor in a delay. A few more spots now mean next to nothing!
    The current cycle is well below average and, as I understand it, the next cycle is forecast to be weaker than this one. These weaker cycles will allow more cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, resulting in a slight up tick in the amount of low-level clouds over the next several decades. This will result in slightly less sunlight warming the worlds oceans which, in turn, will result in slightly cooler atmospheric temperatures around the middle of the 21st century.
    In the meantime, the negative phases of the PDO and AMO will continue our current cooling trend. It is when these ocean cycles trend positive again in a few decades that the solar influence will begin to be noticable, preventing much in the way of warming.
    CO2, of course, will have little impact on global temperatures, just like it has throughout the history of the planet.

  28. John Finn:
    “The US may be a bit chilly” and “the same cannot be said of the rest of the world”.
    A bit chilly is an understatement and in my part of the world (Europe), It is bloody freezing.

  29. Jim Clarke (05:48:51) :
    IMHO, the sunspot/solar wind/cosmic ray/cloud connection to average global surface temperature is a multidecadal effect. To see the climate change influence of the sun, one has to look at the strength of several 11-year cycles and then factor in a delay. A few more spots now mean next to nothing!

    I recall reading a peer-reviewed paper (can’t remember the reference now) where the author calculated a seven year delay between slight changes in solar output and its effect on the earth’s surface temperature.  It struck me at the time that with an eleven year sun spot cycle the effects would mostly be lost in the wash; unless you tied together five very large cycles or if you had a deep minimum.
    Mike Ramsey

  30. John Finn
    Perhaps you didn’t notice that October was very near the coldest ever and if not for the wildly inflated corrupted surface records would have been colder? I seriously think there is a warming bias even in the UAH record aren’t they standardized using ground stations that we know have a bias?
    As for 09 as a whole being warm… how much of that is due to phantom imaginary warming in Siberia or warming in Canada due to eliminating stations in cold places? 120%? . As for 2010, keep saying warmer sooner or later you’re likely to be right.
    Obviously the world is growing much warmer that is why we have the huge caravans of people fleeing from Florida and Texas and Arizona and flooding into Michigan and Northern Wisconsin and Minnesota.

  31. I have always been curious about jet stream behavior but am now adding Arctic Oscillations to my daily study. This in addition to oceanic SST and trade wind conditions.
    I think at the moment, the P and A long-term ocean oscillations are in neutral, not in a decidedly cold or warm multi-decadel phase. The Pacific is in a moderate El Nino condition but that may be one of those blips during a cold long-term phase. It’s just too early to tell. What is interesting is the Arctic oscillation and jet stream behavior. We seem to be having a mix of north and south jet stream tracts with a high degree of loopiness, along with a move south and reverse rotation to the Arctic Oscillation, a position thought to be necessary for Arctic ice to build up to average and above levels and send brrrrr cold temps our way.

  32. John Finn (03:47:38) :
    I ‘m a bit fearful about what might happen if it actually starts to become more active. The solar/climate link is becoming increasingly less believable.

    It’s the surface temperature record which is becoming increasingly less believable IMO.
    Warmest ever blah blah. Yeah, Right!

  33. John Finn (03:47:38)
    “There’s a pretty fair chance that January 2010 will be the warmest January on record and an even chance that 2010 will be the warmest year on record. While the US may be a bit chilly at the moment the same cannot be aid for the rest of the world”
    Are you kidding? It has been snowing in Portugal 2 weeks before Christmas, something I don´t recall ever seeing or hearing about. It´s Portugal, not Central Europe where the cold has been so intense that the Eurostar Train stalled in the Channel Tunnel this week.
    Wishful thinking is one thing, ingoring facts is something different.
    I have been following Joe Bastardi’s forecasts and he is predicting a very cold winter, both in the US and Europe. He is expecting a “triple crown” of cooling for the coming years:
    1. low solar activity
    2. start of the cold PDO phase
    3. increased vulcanic and seismic activity
    On this last one, I should mention that we had our strongest quake in the last 40 years here in Portugal last week. Plus, is anyone following the Phillipine volcano that is threatening to erupt?
    Should be worth to see if these 3 come together sometime soon.

  34. Jeff L (05:06:06) :
    Anyone noticed the Planetary A Index is still very small despite more sunspot activity? Does this tie into Penn & Livingston’s work?

    No, not at all. Different thing.
    Don B (05:32:26) :
    If the negative correlation between length of the sunspot cycle and subsequent temperature holds up, the long SC 23 means cooling is in the pipeline for the next decade.
    There is no negative correlation. At best, at very weak [not significant] positive correlation: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
    jmrSudbury (05:43:16) :
    vucevik, should the average for the Stanford graph not be (N+S)/2 instead of their (N-S)/2?
    No, because N and S have opposite signs and cancel out in the sum.

  35. Interesting to see that the prediction by Livingston and Penn still holds: the current sunspot data is, well, spot on for their disappearance in 2015 or so.

  36. The Oulu neutron counter is showing a higher flux now than in September. I did not see any downward trend in the data at other neutron counters at Leif’s page.
    http://www.leif.org/research/
    I wish there was an easy way to look at the total cloud cover. (Especially in the tropics.)

  37. Leif Svalgaard (03:49:31) :
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    With new activity, the polar fields begin their slow decline. They have by now dropped 25% since mid-2006 [pink arrow]: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO%20Polar%20Fields.png
    I need PFs to move on, if my prediction of a SSNmax is to turn up by the end of 2013. I maybe wrong, but I think yours was not far off (have to look it up).
    jmrSudbury (05:43:16) :
    “vucevik, should the average for the Stanford graph not be (N+S)/2 instead of their (N-S)/2? “
    John M Reynolds”
    If S(outh) has negative value then: N- (-S) = N+S.
    Geoff Sharp (02:55:07) :
    “Right on Vuk, I have been watching the same graph for 18 months and still no sign of a turn. Does this current cycle display the chance of not following the normal Hale cycle like some proxy records from the Maunder suggest?”
    Hi Geoff. If one is a skeptic towards accepted science, and goes by erroneous path of thinking that there is an external drive to it, than it could be concluded that whole thing might be getting out of phase. My equations show similar problem around 1800-1810. I am expecting major problem with PFs around 2020-2025. We have to wait and see.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif

  38. Very good to see you post again, Dr. Svalgaard. As I recall you had said that we passed the absolute minimum some months ago, this surge in activity would seem to indicate that you were correct.

  39. Ho boy, this is too complex for my laic brain. The only thing that makes sense to me is what Pamela said.
    We seem to be having … a high degree of loopiness.
    And so it seems to me. ☺
    All good stuff from you technical people. Thanks for your insights.
    Stay warm.

  40. Pamela Gray (06:17:51) : “I have always been curious about jet stream behavior but am now adding Arctic Oscillations to my daily study. This in addition to oceanic SST and trade wind conditions.”
    Are these conditions a result of climate/weather or is climate/weather a result of these conditions?
    Geoff Sharp (02:55:07) : “The Layman’s Count already has that covered.”
    Nice work. Has anyone ever considered simply using the same methods as in the distant past to count spots in conjunction with the modern methods and then comparing the two to see what the difference is?

  41. As noted in a message that I sent about eight days ago to Dr. John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama, the scientific community has no knowledge about Earth’s heat source (the Sun) because politicians misused federal grant funds to protect the inflated egos of power-hungry scientists over the past five decades (1960-2010):
    “Former President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of an unholy alliance developing between scientists and politicians in his farewell address in January 1961, but despite his warning that is exactly what has happened.
    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a private group that numbers you among its members, has trained scientists with grant funds the way Pavlov trained dogs with dog biscuits – at least since the time when I started my research career in 1960.
    The integrity of publicly financed science has been essentially destroyed.
    Here are a few empirical facts that have been discovered – but ignored or distorted by the influence peddlers who control research funds and foolishly tried to control scientific truths:
    1. The Sun is the iron-rich remnant of the supernova that ejected all of the material now orbiting it about five (5) billion (10^9) years ago.
    2. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with Hydrogen – the lightest of all elements – but the Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H).
    3. Solar energy comes primarily from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core – NOT from H-fusion.
    4. Solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is a waste product (neutron-decay product) from the solar engine.
    5. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away, although one hundred and seventy-eight (178) authors claimed in 2001 that the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory confirmed this illusion.
    6. Earth’s climate is changing, has changed in the past, and will always change because our climate is controlled by the stormy Sun – a variable star.
    The experimental basis for these statements are in four papers and references therein:
    1. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201;
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/
    2. “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, paper #1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1
    3. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856;
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509
    4. “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144;
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
    Again, I wish you well” (in your efforts to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration” in science). “Your success will determine whether or not future generations have the opportunity to enjoy a life of continuous discovery.”
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  42. Is Joe Romm blaming the increased sun spot activity on global warming?
    Mann made?
    For thousands of years, men have claimed the power to influence the gods.

  43. par5 (00:18:58) :
    Hathaway should be happy- moving the goalposts can be exhausting

    LOL. ..
    Seriously, a new solar theory is needed to replace “settled science”. Though there is one already, it´s dangerous to mention it, one risks excomulgation, condemnation is out there menacing apostates with inquisition! 🙂
    http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

  44. Actually, the sun reflects the Consciousness of Humans on this Planet. The Collective Mind… wherein for the first time in written history, the ENTIRE COnsciousous of ALL living things here, Humans, “Animals,” Plants, especially, the Earth, herself, is suffering. Everything is out of Balance, and is calling out to SOME Power, for help!!

  45. I read once, David Archibald said the lag between solar activity or inactivity and galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) volume in the atmosphere is 1 year. Meaning the current high volume of GCRs is a result of solar minimum last year. The continued solar minimum this year will allow more GCRs in the atmosphere next year.
    Can anyone discuss if that 1-year lag is generally accepted among solar physics or geophysics literature? Thank you.

  46. “With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
    It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.

  47. cont’d
    How can this Planet, even us, continue this way? Everything is wrong. There is mental turmoil and a great pain, mental and physical, everywhere. This is reflected in Nature. In deed, we ARE part of Nature. We ARE part of the Universe.
    And no Living THing is being ignored. Something is happening in the wings, and is about to come through!
    There are a great many people feeling this too. What is is or when it will happen, I don’t know. But it’s coming.
    I encourage you all to laugh in the face of adversity. ANd join together with your fellows, in all ways. Embrace each other.
    Love and Blessings to all.

  48. Oliver K. Manuel (07:32:12) :
    As noted in a message that I sent about eight days ago to Dr. John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama, the scientific community has no knowledge about Earth’s heat source (the Sun)
    Oh yes, we do. Your ideas are just plain wacko, to be blunt but correct. What was the answer you received?

  49. Nonoy Oplas (07:46:46) :
    Can anyone discuss if that 1-year lag is generally accepted among solar physics or geophysics literature?
    It takes about a year for the solar wind to fill up the heliosphere, so a one-year lag is to be expected.

  50. John Finn
    If you expand your time frame a bit you’ll find that there is nothing remarkable about the climate we have experienced for the last decade. It’s also unremarkable that we have warmed 1C after the conclusion of a “Little Ice Age”. Take a look at the temperature charts for the last 10,000 to 1million years and you’ll find that the temps we are experiencing are not unique except for the fact that for 90% of that time period there is an ice sheet a mile thick above Chicago and New York.
    It should be no surprise Also that Anthropologists are finding new paths through the Alps now that Glaciers have retreated to their more normal interglacial period extents. The retreat of the glaciers is also revealing other evidence of human habitation at these high elevations.
    Since I live in Chicago, I think it’s important to keep in perspective how lucky we are to live at this particular point in history. People in this area of the world are quite capable of handling temperatures that range from -30F to +100F. I think we’ll survive just fine if that temperature range is -27F to +103F.
    Shiny
    Edward

  51. How many anomalies can you have before it becomes the new normal?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

    Interestingly looking further ahead, the latest European monthly model guidance has a cold anomaly three weeks ahead. And the American model that has been so good through December has consistently signalled a cold anomaly for February throughout Europe.

  52. The only thing I see, as far as progress in the Solar Cycle 24 activity level goes, is that we have gone from scattered blinking Tiny Tims interspersed with a normal spot group to a consistent side of the Sun that displays concurrent blinking Tiny Tims and a normal sized spot group.
    If there is concern about getting overexcited, I can see why.
    After wandering in the Solar Activity Desert for nearly 2 years, anything consistent looks like a big deal. Just a little more ways to go, and the Tow Truck will have the cycle winched out of the ditch it slid into.

  53. rhodeymark (07:46:54) :

    “With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
    It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.”
    The greatest extreme between high and low tide at Tower Bridge is 25 feet (7.62m). The strong tidal flow stops build up of ice. However, if the Thames barrier
    http://www.earth-photography.com/photos/Countries/England/England_London_ThamesBarrier.jpg
    is closed for some 24-48 hours we would have plenty of ice now.

  54. Thanks a million, Leif! A great honor to get a reply from you.
    Guys, it’s possible that the great blizzard of Dec 09 can be repeated next year. Over here in the tropics, Philippines, it’s possible we’ll have a wet Christmas, seldom happens, because of persistent monsoon and cold front blowing from the north-east. Cloudy skies everyday in a supposedly dry December in this part of the tropics.

  55. Stacey:
    Paul Hudson is my local television weather guy.
    Over the last few years my father has took him to task on several occassions over some of his statements about AGW on the weather reports.
    Paul dropped a lot of the propaganda on tv a while back.
    I would like to think Paul Hudson is sincere and that he was ingesting the leaked e-mails rather than suppressing them for that six weeks.
    He has always been well mannered and seems quite a genuine guy in his e-mails to my father.
    But,who knows.

  56. Mark (06:21:16) : There is no el Nino whatsoever. El Nino (The child) was named after the warm current that runs from north to south along the northern peruvian coast, where it was named by fishermen as such because it uses to appear around christmas, but as you can see in the next graph, 1+2 el nino regions appear blue, indicating that the usual cold Humboldt´s current is running from south to north along the same coasts, fueled by the south pacific anticyclone (counter clock wise):
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
    And watch the -5°C anomalies. Neither is el Nino nor La Nina (el nino 3-4 still warm) so it´s el Nino in “intersting times”.
    Chilly christmas and frozen new year….that I would call it the “Copenhagen Syndrome”

  57. I think there were 17 days without sunspots before the recent outbreak of spots. They are still quite small.
    So far sunspot activity in 2009, as measured by the number of sunspots, is down 18% from 2008 and is 87.32% below the expected. 2009 should have the third fewest days with sunspots since 1849.
    Solar winds remain low. I would assume that the quiet Sun will soon return due to the low strength of the magnetic field as measured by the AP index.

  58. Quote Leif Svalgaard (07:54:38) :
    1. “Your ideas are just plain wacko, to be blunt but correct.”
    Name calling has no place in real science, Leif.
    Name calling, phony titles, research grants, and awards are the tool used by NAS, Al Gore, and the UN’s IPCC to keep fools herded into the pact of consensus “scientists.”
    2. “What was the answer you received?”
    I waited eight days for a reply, but none came. I will post it here if a reply is received.
    My experience suggests that President Obama’s and Dr. Holdren “efforts to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration” in science are mere window dressing – without substance.
    How sad it is that federal tax funds – allocated to protect science as a resource that is vital to our national security – have corrupted science and destroyed its credibility.
    I would hate to be President Obama’s place and know that a large fraction of the scientific reports that I receive are purposeful distortions.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  59. We know from Leif and other solar scientists that the variation in solar output during a single cycle and from cycle to cycle is too small to account for observed climate variation.
    However we do have evidence from the SABER satellite that when the solar wind is more turbulent there is a faster rate of energy transfer from the upper atmosphere to space.
    That would imply that the stratosphere should cool during a period of active sun and warm during a period of less active sun which is just what we have observed.
    If that is the case we need to reconsider the effect of more sunspots since the turbulence of the solar wind is linked to overall solar activity.
    What could be happening at present is that we have a negative PDO (despite the current El Nino conditions) holding energy back from the air over a timescale of 25 to 30 years PLUS an increasing level of solar activity from the recent minimum.
    That means that for a while the air will generally be showing a net loss of energy to space because of the negative oceanic phase supplying less energy to the air and additionally for the rest of solar cycle 24 there will be a higher level of solar turbulence than at present which will be accelerating energy from stratosphere to space.
    That is in fact a cool/cool scenario for the troposphere. Not only will there be less energy entering the troposphere from the oceans but there will be more energy being lost more quickly to space.
    Thus my guess is that the slight solar revival is not going to help AGW theory one bit.

  60. Yea….. but with a field strength of less than 3 nano Teslas this is why we often see it on the magnetogram and even at UV etc. Just that the visible range seems to have little variance. Why is this ? Nobody really knows. Th field strength has been falling dramatically over recent years and still the dynamo is practically at walking pace, and that is part of it. Who knows, it is just a big nuclear reactor, but still a pretty small star, as stars go……
    Still this will cause some extreme weather events here on the globe, even if it isn’t “gloaah-bull waaarmingg” as the Rev. Al Gore would say. Remeber that even in vast ice ages in times past the Sun was still active. Other things affect the amount of radiation reaching Earth. It isn’t just sunspots.
    All the other nearby planets, and the moon affect Earth’s tilt and precession, and the orbital ellipse of the Earth is constantly varying. Furthermore variations in teh Earths own magnetic field mean that the amount of radiation of all types reaching the Earth does vary with time and indeed move across the Earth and the poles are constantly changing thier geographic location.
    Then there are the supernovae we don’t even know about yet, when we see one explode, it’s only then that the particles will be flooding through. but wait a shower of particles arriving now might be from a supernova that we haven’t even seen yet due to light bending and black holes, and dark matter, and the bleedin’ Higgs-Boson, flamin’ Hadron Collider sabotaging itself from the future or the gray goo will spread all round the globe and change the albedo which will cause the clouds to grow (or shrink) but then the sea, ah the sea. It is all very complex, and that aint the half of it.
    And you lot thought it a few sunspots meant it would be getting warmer down here on the 3rd rock from the Sun. Oh no, it aint that simple.
    Jus wait until we get a strike from a Near Earth Object or a Rogue Comet or a Giant Meteor. By the Gods Greek Chariots, then you WILL see “Climate Change” !

  61. Leif, It would be a nice Christmas present if you would update the charts of the most recent IMF, SW and Solar Data. Hint, hint. 😉

  62. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to visualize the Earth from space using IR wavelengths that are scaled by the ratio of the average typical absolute solar temperature to the typical average absolute surface temperature of the earth to form the primary color bands for ‘earth light.’ I think such pictures might show the absorptive shading that causes the greenhouse effect and where convective cloud-top heat transfer was occurring.
    Such images might also illuminate effects due to changes in the intensity of solar activity. Just as our normal vision is tuned to the maximum energy radiated by the sun, these false-color images would be tuned to the maximum energy re-radiated by the earth.

  63. Stephen Wilde (08:24:01) :
    However we do have evidence from the SABER satellite that when the solar wind is more turbulent there is a faster rate of energy transfer from the upper atmosphere to space.
    I don’t know what you are talking about: ‘solar wind more turbulent’. If you do, please explain.
    Daryl M (08:32:02) :
    Leif, It would be a nice Christmas present if you would update the charts of the most recent IMF, SW and Solar Data. Hint, hint. 😉
    Check out this blog and topic on Xmas morning 🙂

  64. Oliver K. Manuel (08:22:55) :
    1. “Your ideas are just plain wacko, to be blunt but correct.”
    Name calling has no place in real science, Leif.

    You have to learn the difference between the man and the idea.
    Honorable men can have wacko ideas. Yours are very high on that scale.

  65. Time for another Bagdad Bob quote:
    “Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say.”
    Applies to all scientists.

  66. vukcevic (07:16:50) :
    Oliver K. Manuel (08:22:55) :
    It is wonderful to have here so egregious iconoclasts.
    It´s my intuitive knowledge that all these new theories have a place in Alfven´s electrical universe, just making some adaptations, like removing the theory of internal solar fusion.

  67. Table Tennis Balls & Current Buns
    See these images from the “GONG”
    The Magnetograms are pretty convincing,
    but again the visible disc is a ping-pong ball,
    with maybe a suggestion of a few pin holes.
    This room is freezing by the way !
    I am away for a heat at the nuclear reactor #2.

  68. Leif Svalgaard:(08:44:36)
    Stephen Wilde (08:24:01) :
    However we do have evidence from the SABER satellite that when the solar wind is more turbulent there is a faster rate of energy transfer from the upper atmosphere to space.
    Leif Svalgaard:
    I don’t know what you are talking about: ’solar wind more turbulent’. If you do, please explain
    Reply:
    I don’t understand why you have a problem with that. Perhaps another word would be better such as ‘irregular’ or ‘lumpy’.
    Or do you contend that the flow of energy from the sun is smooth and constant whether the sun be active or inactive ?
    Please explain.

  69. Stephen Wilde (09:09:01) :
    Or do you contend that the flow of energy from the sun is smooth and constant whether the sun be active or inactive ?
    It is your notion of ‘flow of energy from the sun’ that is strange and perhaps misunderstood. The total energy varies extremely little and is for all practically purposes very smooth.

  70. tallbloke (06:23:53) :

    John Finn (03:47:38) :
    I ‘m a bit fearful about what might happen if it actually starts to become more active. The solar/climate link is becoming increasingly less believable.


    It’s the surface temperature record which is becoming increasingly less believable IMO.
    I wasn’t referring to the surface record. I was referring to the UAH satellite record. It is it the UAH record which has the November anomaly of +0.50. A record for November.

  71. Hey, Anthony, Moderators, and readers, I have a question. Our knowledge of sunspot cycles depends a lot on the centuries of data gathered on the subject. However, there are many sunspots that we can see today that we could not see with the technology with which we started. Since we still have that old technology and could compare observations with it with observations with SOHO, could we make an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of sunspots too small to see and adjust the old sunspot records accordingly?

  72. Wondering Aloud (06:16:09) :
    John Finn
    Perhaps you didn’t notice that October was very near the coldest ever and if not for the wildly inflated corrupted surface records would have been colder?
    No I didn’t notice that. I think you may be referring to the US which contrary to the views of a number of posters is not the world.
    I seriously think there is a warming bias even in the UAH record aren’t they standardized using ground stations that we know have a bias?
    Of course, that must be what’s happening. UAH has developed a bias which presunmably kicked in around June time. And how many more times is someone going to make this completely false claim about UAH calibration to the surface record.

  73. Leif Svalgaard (09:14:01) :
    Stephen Wilde (09:09:01) :
    Yes, please settle this issue. What do you mean by “turbulent”? Are there whirles and eddies?

  74. Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
    That should help separate the effects of the sunspot cycle from other drivers of climate.

  75. JonesII (09:00:08) :
    “vukcevic (07:16:50) :
    Oliver K. Manuel (08:22:55) :
    It is wonderful to have here so egregious iconoclasts…..”
    Had to look up “egregious”, it doesn’t sound too good.
    Iconoclast, yes from age of five, in an legaly atheist society, my granddad had an orthodox icon on the living room wall, which occasionally had to be hidden, if a ‘pc’ visitor was coming. At one of those occasions I did some minor damage, so I suppose I must be an “iconoclast”.
    Alfven is fine, the electric universe is far too extreme for my understanding, I just tread mine own ‘wacko’ path.

  76. Philip T. Downman (09:32:48) :
    Leif Svalgaard (09:14:01) :
    Stephen Wilde (09:09:01) :
    Yes, please settle this issue. What do you mean by “turbulent”? Are there whirles and eddies?

    We get two kinds of energy flowing from the Sun:
    1: radiation
    2: particles
    For 1 we can break it down to
    a: TSI 1361 W/m2
    b: and within that UV (200-300 nm) 15 W/m2
    and UV (0-200 nm) 0.1 W/m2
    I don’t know how we can talk about ‘turbulence’ in the electromagnetic radiation
    For 2 we have [rare] solar proton events 0.002 W/m2
    and solar wind 0.0003 W/m2
    For these there can be turbulence [and is], but the energy is down to less than a millionth of the EM flux, so don’t amount to ‘turbulence in the energy flow’.
    Basically, I have no idea what he is referring to. Perhaps some garbled NASA press release.

  77. K (09:33:39) :
    Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
    And you’ll get it.
    Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.

  78. John Finn (09:30:46) :
    The body of the temperature record has been drug around tied to the bumper of the data manglers so long we’re not sure which planet it’s supposed to represent.
    The October anomaly reported must have resulted from record cold in the US offset by fish-boiling oceans and withering heat that burned whole continents.
    At some point, it starts resembling “2012” computerized apocalyptic scenes.
    But really, isn’t this topic about sunspots, and the long dry spell apparently ending?

  79. Leif Svalgaard (10:08:09) :
    K (09:33:39) :
    Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
    And you’ll get it.
    Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.
    Not necessarily! I was convinced it was the Sun, then your energy numbers some time ago raised serious doubt. Recently I came across data showing temperature rise in the middle of the Maunder min, did some further research, there may be some kind of a common link, but it appears that one is not direct cause of the other (solar activity-climate).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif

  80. David (09:27:34) :
    Hey, Anthony, Moderators, and readers, I have a question. Our knowledge of sunspot cycles depends a lot on the centuries of data gathered on the subject. However, there are many sunspots that we can see today that we could not see with the technology with which we started. Since we still have that old technology and could compare observations with it with observations with SOHO, could we make an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of sunspots too small to see and adjust the old sunspot records accordingly?
    Perhaps the reason the old equipment is not used alongside the modern equipment for comparison is the same reason urban sites and rural sites are not seperated and compared . If you want to show there is no link to cold periods and the lack of sunspots, debunk the old data, or use equipment that can now see a pimple on a nats ass. If you want to show warming use mainly urban sites.

  81. I hope to see the sun heat up. As much as I would like to see the AGW Crew get their due, I don’t want to see that at the expense of so many lives lost if, in fact, the sun actually has some say in the climate of the world.
    Truth will win out in any case. Time is always on the side of truth.
    Merry Christmas to all.

  82. This sun activity, sorry if I contradict some, is due to Anthony´s meddling in the sun affairs again…evrey time he does it the sun awakens. 🙂

  83. David (09:27:34) :
    … Since we still have that old technology and could compare observations with it with observations with SOHO, could we make an algorithm that accounts for the percentage of sunspots too small to see and adjust the old sunspot records accordingly?
    It was answered toward the beginning of the discussion by Geoff Sharp. Here is the Layman’s Sunspot Count web page: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

  84. NASA has admitted that the sun warms the earth 🙂
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
    NASA Shows Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
    Download image
    HAMPTON, Va., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere

  85. The sunspot number for today is 42. On this date in 2001 it was 215. I’m not getting excited about the sun “perking up” until it really does. For now I’m just going to keep reading and learning because there sure isn’t going to be any swimming in the near future.

  86. How does funding for solar research compare to other areas of climate science?
    Also o/t, but been plowing through the texts Leif and others recommended. Last night I got a strange look from my better half for chuckling while reading an astrophysics book. I was reading about helioseismology and got a mental image of a doctor with a stethoscope asking the sun to cough. Cut to a CME, and a slightly frazzled doctor saying ‘not that hard’. Wish I could turn that into a cartoon.

  87. John Finn (09:18:29) :
    tallbloke (06:23:53) :
    John Finn (03:47:38) :
    I ‘m a bit fearful about what might happen if it actually starts to become more active. The solar/climate link is becoming increasingly less believable.
    It’s the surface temperature record which is becoming increasingly less believable IMO.
    I wasn’t referring to the surface record. I was referring to the UAH satellite record. It is it the UAH record which has the November anomaly of +0.50. A record for November.

    In an el nino year. I think we’ll find the ocean has been losing plenty of heat in response to the lack of solar input. After the current convulsion of heat release from the ocean is when you’ll see the effect of the quiet sun kick in.

  88. I’m an imagery analyst by profession, having done that for the US Air Force for 20+ years. I’m not a solar scientist, but I can interpret information from imagery – ANY kind of imagery. It’s easy to pick out the two sets of sunspots on the right side of the image P Gosselin provided the link to. The SOHO dead pixel on the upper left of the image is also easily identified. There are other areas that show the sun’s surface is reacting to something with greater granularity, such as the spot to the right of the dead pixel. I think what we’re seeing are “protospots” – areas where there is greater than average magnetic activity, but not enough to develop fully into sunspots.
    Thankfully to better and better scientific tools, we’re able to detect smaller and smaller changes to the sun’s surface. Hopefully this information will also aid us in predicting both short-term and long-term weather phenomena on Earth.

  89. HAMPTON, Va., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere.
    “The Sun is in a very unusual period,” said Marty Mlynczak, SABER associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA Langley. “The Earth’s thermosphere is responding remarkably — up to an order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by some molecules.”
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
    The effect is more dramatic in the near surface layer. See:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    We do have some sunspots for Christmas, but the possibility remains that the Sun will soon revert to stretches of spotlessness.

  90. Philip T. Downman (09:32:48)
    Mark (12:27:27)
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html
    “SABER has revealed solar flare-ups — and a rapid Earth cooling response — on a nearly regular nine-day schedule. The cause appears to be coronal holes, which project strong solar winds, positioned 120 degrees apart on the sun’s surface. As the sun rotates every 27 days, these solar winds typically hit Earth every nine days. The high-speed winds sometimes appear with a seven-day periodicity, indicating that a fourth hole opens up.
    Sunspots unleash solar flares that create a ripple effect well beyond Earth. But when that energy flow does reach Earth, the atmosphere reciprocates by ejecting radiation as a cooling effect to maintain the planet’s energy balance. That cooling response creates the expansion and contraction of the upper atmosphere.”
    It seems that however ‘smooth’ the energy delivery from the sun is in the overall scheme of things it is nevertheless capable of disturbing the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Leif’s comment may be accurate but not sufficient to account for those observations.
    From the above link it seems that energy loss from the upper atmosphere to space is greater when the sun is more active and therefore presumably less when the sun is inactive.
    At first the link from Mark seems to contradict that:
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
    However I think the observation is being misreported. Less energy may be reaching the satellite which suggests cooling of the upper atmosphere but the reason for that would be that energy is coming through the Earth system more slowly as a result of the quieter sun. Thus a warming stratosphere ‘starving’ the higher levels of energy.
    Since the mid 90s as the level of solar activity fell after the peak of cycle 23 the stratosphere started warming:
    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
    On the other hand the stratosphere cooled during the earlier period of high solar activity and I would suggest that the reason was that the high level of solar activity accelerated the loss of energy from upper atmosphere to space.
    What we have to consider is the variable rates of energy transmission throughout the different sections of the Earth system.
    1) Solar input is variable but only a little as Leif correctly says.
    2) Energy release from the oceans to the air is far more variable than generally appreciated and may well be sufficient to account for all observed climate shifts to date.
    3) The speed of the hydrological cycle is very variable and depends on an interaction between energy release from the oceans and the temperature of the stratosphere. The temperature of the troposphere is along for the ride.
    4) The temperature of the stratosphere is variable and depends on an interaction between the energy flow from the surface (assisted by the variable speed of the hydrological cycle) and the rate at which energy can be radiated out to space.
    5) The rate of energy loss from upper atmosphere to space now seems to be variable as per the SABER findings.
    There are enough internal system variables to account for all observed climate changes throughout recorded history and as I have described elswhere the interplay of all those variables can account for the relatively stable climates of inter glacial periods, the highly unstable glacial epochs and the large size of observed climate swings in comparison to the tiny solar power variability depending entirely on the timing of the various variables as they supplement or offset one another over long periods.
    Unless Leif can show that the upper atmosphere is not affected by solar activity in the way that SABER observations suggest.

  91. Hey Tallbloke: If the current ocean heat release event is in response to the long minimum, then what happens when the Sun pops back to life like it is doing now and stays that way?
    BTW: I didn’t know you had a solar model that accurately predicted this, it looks as if your model(s) is among the best ones out there as of now.

  92. tallbloke (13:11:43) :
    ……
    In an el nino year. I think we’ll find the ocean has been losing plenty of heat in response to the lack of solar input. After the current convulsion of heat release from the ocean is when you’ll see the effect of the quiet sun kick in.
    Presumably the oceans lost a lot of heat in 1997/98 and again in 2002/03 and to a lesser extent in 2006/07. Since 1998 solar heat input has been from a fairly moderate solar cycle (SC23). Where does all this heat keep coming from. You seem to be saying this El Nino is the last hurrah and long-term cooling will kick in when it’s ended. I think you’re wrong.

  93. “Mark (12:26:38) :
    NASA has admitted that the sun warms the earth :)”
    Well, thats progress. Now we just need them to admit that there is no such thing as radiative equilibrium between the earth and space. The sun powers the earths heat engine (s), which extracts work and heat from the radiant energy in the form of weather, ocean currents and biological growth. Excess heat is radiated to space in accordance with radiation laws which are not perfectly understood, but this outgoing radiation must be less than the radiation received, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics are being violated.
    The rate of gain or loss in the energy of a system is determined by the rates of heating (from incoming solar radiation less outgoing radiation) and work done. There is no significant flow of matter between earth and space. Work requires energy, thus outgoing radiation can not equal incoming radiation without cooling or zero work being done (imagine earth as a snowball without atmosphere).
    The sun of course is our sole energy source, and thus heat source (excluding geothermal energy), and chemical reactions produce the heat which it radiates to us. it is not in radiative equilibrium, so why should earth in radiative equilibrium.
    CO2 is simply a tool to trap heat near the surface, and release it at the top of the atmosphere. It’s increase may actually be a negative feedback in response to warming to release more energy to space.
    Obviously, the Sun is as important to Earth as electricity is to my refrigerator.

  94. The solar wind is a good example of a solar output that can vary by more than the .1% TSI variance that keeps getting bandied about. During 1035 the solar wind barely managed to rise about 400 km/s, and if we look at the longer overview the wind strength is still on the decline.
    I plotted the data from the ACE satellite from 2006, there is no way to hide the decline.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/104
    The solar wind continues its decline which locks us in for at least another 12 months of reduced Heliosphere.
    Does anyone have any data on the solar UV output over the same period?

  95. As an update: There now are only two solar sunspot groups, each numbered 3, which ought to result in a new SWPC sunspot number 26 (if I’ve learned the equation properly).
    I, too, would be interested in knowing what the recent and present values are with respect to EUV, UV and IR, which may be the true climate drivers. I’m unconvinced that our atmosphere is entirely opaque to the broad UV spectrum, if only because my feet invariably get badly sunburned every time I go to the beach. And if UV varies by a matter of two magnitudes from solar max to min, I’d say there is a potential for significant heating or not heating.

  96. Robuk (12:08:00) :
    Our knowledge of sunspot cycles depends a lot on the centuries of data gathered on the subject. However, there are many sunspots that we can see today that we could not see with the technology with which we started.
    There is actually a way of checking and comparing the old data with modern one:
    Here is a talk on that I gave at the SOHO-23 science meeting in Maine a few months back: http://www.leif.org/research/Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf and a text to go with it: http://www.leif.org/research/SOHO-23,%20Updating%20the%20Historical%20Sunspot%20Record.pdf
    Stephen Wilde (14:11:12) :
    Unless Leif can show that the upper atmosphere is not affected by solar activity in the way that SABER observations
    The UPPER atmosphere [100 miles up and more] i VERY much affected by solar activity, but has no impact on our climate,

  97. vukcevic (10:48:18) :
    Leif Svalgaard (10:08:09) :
    K (09:33:39) :
    Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
    And you’ll get it.
    Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.
    Not necessarily! I was convinced it was the Sun, then your energy numbers some time ago raised serious doubt. Recently I came across data showing temperature rise in the middle of the Maunder min, did some further research, there may be some kind of a common link, but it appears that one is not direct cause of the other (solar activity-climate).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif
    Interesting Vuk.
    Geoff Sharp (16:09:09) :
    Good job Geoff, may be more than just some GCR flux hanging around our ever shrinking heliosphere and if I recall “lowered atmosphere.” Whole lot of “shrinking” goin on, hee hee.
    Leif Svalgaard (10:08:09) :
    K (09:33:39) :
    Too bad. I had hoped for several years of little solar activity.
    And you’ll get it.
    Unfortunately, it will not settle anything, as people’s opinions are already set in cement.
    Not quite cemented in myself yet. Sooooo many factors. Recently asked by my eldest brother whether or not he should cut more wood now than ever before in his life, I said, “Yes, I thinks so.”
    Good to see you “around,” Leif.

  98. *******
    22 12 2009
    John Finn (03:47:38) :
    If you check out the world climate widget you might notice that the November global (UAH) temperature anomaly is +0.50, i.e. the warmest November in the record.
    *******
    The warmest Nov since when, 1979? That was a noted cold period. And a whole half of a degree. OK….
    Sat temps are certainly much more reliable than surface temps, but they measure the whole atmosphere. They can’t detect the cold, shallow temp inversions at the surface right where we live (and neither can UHI-contaminated & screwy-method homogenized surface stations).
    Sat temps are OK, but even the whole atmosphere has little heat capacity. Ocean-heat content is the only way to go for measuring real heat changes that can affect climate.

  99. Hey step outside and see a temperature fall of perhaps 25 degrees centigrade,
    or what about the temperature difference between Miami FL. and Newark NJ., right now, what is that. Or how about Mumbai India, and Murmansk Russia.
    What is the meaning of this so called “average World temperature” ?
    What is the CO2 concentration in your house, or office, compared with the local public park, or how about the difference between CO2 at the official IPCC monitoring site, at the worlds most active volcano, Mauna Loa, and the middle of a tropical rainforest. That could vary from 250ppmv to 1200ppmv.
    Right here on Earth, right now.
    What is the meaning of this so called “average World CO2 concentration” ?
    Angels dancing on the point of a needle, or is it fleas on an elephant’s back ?
    Much ado about nothing, or the clamour of the times.

  100. Quote Mark (12:27:27):
    “NASA has stated that the sun warms the earth and when not active, cools the earth 🙂 ”
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-shows-quiet-sun-means-cooling-of-earths-upper-atmosphere-79432252.html
    That’s quite an admission for NASA!
    Solar cycles are cycles of magnetic fields that exit the visible solar “surface” – the photosphere – as sunspots. Most changes in Earth’s climate are caused by these natural changes in the Sun – a variable star [See: “Earth’s heat source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144]. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704v1
    Totally independent groups of research scientists who study the Sun and the Earth’s variable climate have arrived at a similar conclusion [P.D. Jose, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”, Astron. J. 70 (1965) 193-200; R.W. Fairbridge, and J.H. Shirley, “Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion”, Solar Physics 110 (1987) 191-220; Theodor Landscheidt, “New Little Ice Age instead of global warming?”, Energy & Environment 114 (2003) 327-350; J.H. Shirley “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282; Richard Mackey, “The Sun’s role in regulating Earth’s climate dynamics,” Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 123-130].
    Sunspots are produced when deep-seated magnetic fields – from the Sun’s neutron core or from the superconducting iron-rich material that surrounds its compact energetic core – protrude through the photosphere [See: “Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441 ].
    The Real Question: What causes solar variability?
    The Answer: Gravitational interactions of the Sun with planets jerk the Sun about the ever changing centre-of-mass of the Solar System. The depth of the Sun’s dense, energetic and magnetic neutron core shifts.
    Despite the evidence that Earth’s climate is linked with solar cycles, the mechanism for sunspot production remained a mystery for many years because this empirical fact could not be explained by the Standard Solar Model of a homogeneous, H-filled Sun.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  101. All the above is basically conjecture. The sun’s coronal mass ejections stimulate fusion and fission among the rocks of Earths layers. The most reactive of Earths materials do respond to sunspots and produce magnetism and radiation. This can be measured with a simple gauss-meter. The problem with such magnetism and radiation is that positive ions are released…much like the DU ammunition rounds in Gaza. Positive ions create sickness, cancers and death. They also build the evil within us…called satan or who-ever. Global cooling periods are ones of spiritual growth and happiness.
    Just to let you know that this is the truth. I knew the sun-spot minimums of the 60’s and 70’s. I hope the sun is destroyed so it can no longer give evil power on Earth!

  102. Leif says:
    “The UPPER atmosphere [100 miles up and more] is VERY much affected by solar activity, but has no impact on our climate.”
    That is where we will have to agree to disagree. I say that the radiative processes in the upper atmosphere do have a profound effect on climate by being a variable part of the radiative balancing process for the Earth as a whole. The rate of energy loss to space seems not to be a simple function of temperature differential but instead is significantly affected by solar activity.
    In my opinion the SABER observations show that there is a climate impact because the solar effect on that upper atmosphere affects the rate of radiative energy loss from the Earth system, as a whole, to space.
    That has an effect on the rate of radiative energy loss from each of the stratified layers of the atmosphere below it down to the stratosphere which forms a region of ‘buffering’ between the convection processes that dominate in the troposphere and the radiative processes that dominate from stratosphere upwards.
    Hence my most recent article at climaterealists.com
    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/The%20Missing%20Climate%20Link.pdf
    My main concern here was whether you (Leif) could administer a simple devastating blow to my proposals. Thus far, it seems not.
    To achieve that it needs to be shown that contrary to the SABER observations the effect of solar activity on the upper atmosphere truly has no effect on the net outward radiative flow. Can that be shown ?

  103. rhodeymark (07:46:54) :
    “With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
    It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.

    I can’t imagine the old bridge provided more back pressure than the Thames Barrier does.

  104. John Finn (14:58:55) :
    tallbloke (13:11:43) :
    ……
    In an el nino year. I think we’ll find the ocean has been losing plenty of heat in response to the lack of solar input. After the current convulsion of heat release from the ocean is when you’ll see the effect of the quiet sun kick in.
    Presumably the oceans lost a lot of heat in 1997/98 and again in 2002/03 and to a lesser extent in 2006/07. Since 1998 solar heat input has been from a fairly moderate solar cycle (SC23). Where does all this heat keep coming from. You seem to be saying this El Nino is the last hurrah and long-term cooling will kick in when it’s ended. I think you’re wrong.

    According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.
    The ’98 el nino and the current heat release are two different beasts. The ’98 el nino followed the previous solar minimum and rode on the back of a strong upswing in cycle 23 which was putting large amounts of energy into the extra tropical oceans at the same time the ’98 el nino was releasing heat from the Pacific Warm Pool and the high tropical humidity was keeping much of that released heat in the atmosphere.
    The current el nino is a modoki el nino where heat is being released more generally from the oceans worldwide into less humid air. Compare the temperature maps from the last few months with ’98 and you’ll see what I mean. And the sun hasn’t been putting the energy back into the oceans at the same time the el nino releases it.
    That’s why the ocean heat content is falling, and will take the global average temperature down with it after the current el nino subsides.

  105. Prof. Manuel,
    Thank you very much for explaining things. Your explanation made so much sense that I’ve printed it out to review and to discuss, in simpler terms of course, with my child. I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.

  106. Quote: Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
    1. “Thank you very much for explaining things. Your explanation made so much sense that I’ve printed it out to review and to discuss, in simpler terms of course, with my child.”
    2. “I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.”
    Thank you, Dan, for your kindness.
    1. Please show your child the discussion on Physics World of the magnetic connection between the Earth’s iron core and the Sun’s neutron core:
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38822
    and the ESA news report showing the interaction of Earth’s magnetic field with solar eruptions:
    http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html
    2. I will prepare and post additional references showing the relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity.
    Such observations are routinely dismissed or ignored by NASA and its army of solar “scientists.”
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  107. First i would like to say how much I appreciate the time spent with us uninformed by Leif, his patience, in replying to our questions goes beyond the norm.
    Now having put butter on Leif’s bread, i would like to ask him a question;
    What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.

  108. Stephen Wilde (14:11:12) :
    the highly unstable glacial epochs and the large size of observed climate swings in comparison to the tiny solar power variability depending entirely on the timing of the various variables as they supplement or offset one another over long periods.

    1) We haven’t been observing the sun long enough to know how stable it’s output is on glacial time scales.
    2) The 1C variation in earth’s temperature that we have observed and that all the global warming fuss is about is only ~0.3% of the earths temperature in Kelvin, which is what we should be using as a measurement.
    3) It appears from Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a calorimeter that there are terrestrial amplifiers of solar variability, so the sun’s 0.1% variation might easily account for the earth’s 0.3% temperature variation at the centennial timescale if there are long term trends in albedo.

  109. vukcevic,
    That’s what I was wondering so thank you for the reference. If a relationship can be drawn between the planetary cycles and solar activity, as I would expect from Prof. Manuel’s explanation, it should be demonstrable as your graph shows.
    The references to heresy, wacko and so forth indicate that it is not just global warming science that is infected with political correctness. Not that I would expect it to be limited to one area of science. Science reflects the flawed nature of those who conduct it and “consensus” is the constipation of progress.

  110. Quote: Dan Hampton (08:39:51) :
    “Consensus is the constipation of progress.”
    An excellent analogy!
    I may steal it and share with my haughty “consensus” colleagues who:
    1. Know the solar interior is 91% H (element #1) and 9% He (element #2).
    2. Learned absolutely nothing from all the space age measurements.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  111. tallbloke (08:21:34)
    Agreed on those points but the climate swings during glacial periods are pretty big, far bigger than anything we have observed directly.
    My proposed suite of interacting variables can accommodate what we have observed directly and those larger climate swings.
    I have previously pointed out the amplification potential of oceanic variability but my concern is to create an overarching concept which includes as many observed phenomena as possible hence the need to follow the energy flow through the entire Earth system.

  112. Dan Hampton (23:56:57) :
    I am particularly interested in knowing if there is a known relationship between the cycles of planetary motion and solar activity. If you can point me towards anything on the subject I would appreciate it.

    Well since Vuk has responded I will too. Dan, you might be interested in a couple of my own blog posts too, just click on my name. There are a couple of links to other sites which are run by people looking into this stuff as well as my own musings. I’ll add Vuk’s blog too.
    As Vuk said, it’s not establishment science, so take your critical judgement along with you.

  113. Stephen Wilde (09:31:21) :
    my concern is to create an overarching concept which includes as many observed phenomena as possible hence the need to follow the energy flow through the entire Earth system.

    A project befitting an encompassing mind such as your own Stephen. All the best to you for Christmas and the New Year.

  114. The claims that we experienced one of the warmest years on record in 2009 has opened the eyes of a lot of people, including myself. I trusted the numbers for years, but this arrogant leap is so vexing that I think it will be the final undoing of this sham.
    Growing seasons around the world were cut short in 2009 due to drops in temperature; especially in Canada and the US. Yield per acre of corn was abismal. The running joke this year in MN was that we did not have a summer, and now we are still getting nailed with low temps and snow. Obviously, the anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, except when heard over and over and over around the world, it gets a person questioning things. I think the climate nuts have finally “jumped the shark” so to speak.
    A rational person pulling a scam would know when to back away when things are starting to unravel. Instead these zealots go for broke and stretch the realm of believability. I live in the US and have friends in Canada, Europe, Bulgaria, and Japan. Every one of them have complained about how cold 2009 was. Where was all the warming at? Siberia?
    What really pisses me off is that I was duped for years, trusting in “pure” science. At the end of the day these are just people with agendas. I should have known better. I am rambling, but I am just shocked at the gaul of these people. If I played with number at my job the way these folks have I would be fired and probably put in jail.

  115. Oliver K. Manuel (07:04:06) :
    1. Please show your child the discussion on Physics World of the magnetic connection between the Earth’s iron core and the Sun’s neutron core:
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38822

    Hi Oliver, nice to hear from you here. I came across a couple of papers by a Russian scientist (lost the link unfortunately) who proposed a similar dipole-quadrupole interaction in the sun. Does this fit with mainstream solar theory?

  116. Prof. Manuel,
    Thank you for the two links. I’ll print these out as well. Any others would be much appreciated.

  117. rbateman (10:30:55) :
    A butterfly diagram from Debrecen
    Interesting diagram Robert, the gap in the data after 2003 looks strange?
    The SC24 pattern is certainly more sparse than the 2 previous cycles.

  118. If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankovitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankovitch), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun’s center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.
    (Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share.
    The magnetic impulses in the solar wind, from the rotation of the tilted ~12 degree magnetic poles of the sun, alternates the polarity of the magnetic fields introduced into the solar wind.
    Which in turn have driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the lunar declinational atmospheric tides in phase in the atmosphere. Because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day.
    At these culminations of declination movement, the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated in the Earth’s homo polar generated fields as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.
    The 18.6 year Mn pattern of Minimum to Maximum extremes, drive the decade long oscillations of the ocean basins, in combination with the timing of the Synod conjunctions of the outer planets, as a compounding signal, in the strengths and weakness of the cycles.
    The Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere, are the major mixing mechanism for the transportation, of tropical ocean warmth, and moisture over the land masses, in the mid-latitudes and polar regions, where it radiates away into space.
    Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Rossby wave, and resultant Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability.
    I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun’s magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it’s interactions with the Earth’s weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decade long durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets.
    Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination, there were several things I had to consider, In order to find a natural analog cycle to define the composite effects, that is the patterns in the weather .
    The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the ~172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis.
    The longer term/period parents (Milankovitch and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if these shorter Lunar declination cycles, were not considered for their effects, and calculated into the filtering of the swings, in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.
    A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as the daily weather data, of the past three cycles composited together, and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, presented on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the patterns, from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.
    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
    There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.
    By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) long cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events.
    The repeatability of the patterns, if used as a weather forecast, rivals the five day forecasts for accuracy, and does as well as the models do, out past a week. With the additional benefit of being usable for out to 15 years into the future.
    All of this can be done, just by extending the knowledge of the interactions, of the Sun with the planets, and their combined effects, on the Lunar tidal effects on the Earth’s atmospheric global circulation. Resulting in the further defining of the transfer of the outgoing heat budget, from the oceans.
    If by extrapolation, scientists could bother to study the interactions, between the close neighbors of the Sun, in the local arm of the Galaxy. With due consideration of their magnetic, radiative, and static field strengths, interacting the larger galactic fields, clouds and radiation background, the whole package of climate could be better seen.
    The wave of Star growth, that passed through the local area, created the unsteady state we are in, the continued interaction as they mature, and become more stable, brought us out of the steady state solid ice ball phase.
    The continuing solar stability as it ages, will give more stable climate in the future, why get all excited about it now. Just live and learn, asking the right questions, is the only thing that will give you the right answers.

  119. Fredrick Lightfoot (07:46:35) :
    What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.
    To first order: none.
    You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.
    On the other hand, pseudo-science is replete with all kinds of ‘influences’: electric currents, huge comets, aliens, …
    Some things might have effects, but are too rare to be of concern: nearby supernova going off or collisions with other stars.

  120. @rhodeymark (07:46:54) :
    “With the chaos of the last week can you imagine if the Thames froze over again?”
    It’s my understanding that for that to happen, London would need to reclaim their original bridge from Lake Havasu AZ. The new bridge offers substantially less back pressure.
    When the Thames froze in the LIA, the London Bridge now in AZ wasn’t there, as it’s a much later structure. Now, to be scrupulously fair, I have no idea what effect the London Bridge of the time would have had on the issue and even less idea of the scientific questions involved – but it wasn’t that bridge. This is the bridge of the period, from a contemporary engraving:
    http://urbanneighbourhood.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/the-living-bridge-over-the-thames/
    And some documentary records of the freezings.
    http://thames.me.uk/s00051.htm

  121. Leif Svalgaard (13:00:04) :
    Fredrick Lightfoot (07:46:35) :
    What is the effect on the sun as we travel through space? as all is not equal.
    To first order: none.
    You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.

    Who restarts the fire and adds fuel when it has burned low?
    Merry Christmas Leif.

  122. tallbloke (16:24:49) :
    “You might ask: “what is the effect on a blazing fire of the people sitting around the campfire and the insects flying around”. About the same.”
    Who restarts the fire and adds fuel when it has burned low?

    Does not apply to the Sun [it will burn out]. Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.

  123. Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
    Enjoy the festive period and if the sunspot fire is rekindled, so much the better for all of us no matter what brings it about.
    All the best.

  124. tallbloke (17:06:03) :
    Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
    Judged from past performance, I don’t think you could engage in cogent arguments anyway, so your decision is a wise one.

  125. tallbloke: You wrote, “According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.”
    Here a graph of Tropical Pacific OHC (0-700 meters) versus scaled Sunspot Number, NINO3.4 SST Anomalies, and Sato Mean Optical Thickness.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
    Of course the sharp rises in OHC happen during La Nina events, and those rises are the result of cloud cover changes, so I’m not sure how you would isolate solar from the ENSO-caused variations.
    Happy holidays.

  126. Leif Svalgaard (16:52:51) : … Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.
    The lure of the alchemist (one who was versed in the practice of alchemy and who sought an elixir of life and a panacea and an alkahest and the philosopher’s stone) remains strong, Leif. Your cautionary notes are welcomed and positive, engendering a healthy sceptcism… though you have every reason to at times doubt their effect.

  127. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (16:52:51):
    “Have we not have enough pseudo-science already? I have let several postings stand uncommented as testimonials to the dismal state of knowledge about how things work. Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.”
    In a deplorable state of scientific stagnation, you confuse scientific progress with pseudo-science and scientific stagnation with mainstream consensus science.
    What you think that you now know about the Sun -(A ball of 91% H + 9% He)- was information that I thought I knew in 1960, before starting to make measurements!
    May I suggest that you meditate on the comment by Dan Hampton (08:39:51) :
    “Consensus is the constipation of progress.”
    Even well-funded constipation cannot compete with the joy of continuous discovery!
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  128. Oliver K. Manuel (20:42:46) :
    What you think that you now know about the Sun -(A ball of 91% H + 9% He)- was information that I thought I knew in 1960, before starting to make measurements!
    It seems that the easiest person to fool is yourself.

  129. Leif :
    Your graph of N-S magnetic field http://www.leif.org/research/WSO%20Polar%20Fields.png) has inhomogeneous variance across the period 2003 to 2009. From my eyeball calculation, the variance is much greater prior to mid-2006. Is this instrumental error, or, has the sun really changed in the previous ten years?
    Based on my very brief acquaintance with your work, your trend line seems a little optimistic. I see this crap all the time in the biological sciences. You’ve thrown down the gauntlet and taken a stand. How long should we wait before we know if your position in incorrect?

  130. JDN (21:29:08) :
    inhomogeneous variance across the period 2003 to 2009. From my eyeball calculation, the variance is much greater prior to mid-2006. Is this instrumental error, or, has the sun really changed in the previous ten years?
    Combination of both. During 2003 the polar fields were still forming and solar activity was rather high. That produces variance. 2005 to May 2006 the Green Filter [that we use to isolate the 525 nm line in the green part of the spectrum that we observe] was deteriorating before finally failing. That produces variance. Since May 2006 the instrument has behaved and the Sun has been rather quiet. In the summer of 2008 we had 2000 wild fires in Northern California [the WF]. That produced some variance. It is normal for the polar fields to begin the decrease as the new cycle shows up. At the coming maximum [perhaps in 2014], the polar fields will have decreased to zero, so the decrease is set to accelerate.
    How long should we wait before we know if your position in incorrect?
    As there is no longer any SC23 activity, the polar fields can only decrease and they must disappear by 2014 [if our general ideas about how the Sun works and observations since 1926 are correct], so if by 2014 the polar fields have not gone away, something is amiss. That would be extremely exciting, but also extremely unlikely.

  131. Geoff Sharp (12:16:04) :
    The gap in the center of SC23 is due to the years 2004-2006 not having a full set of images collected.

  132. Leif Svalgaard (21:48:37) :
    Would you say that the decrease rate in the Polar Fields is a bit slow or normal?

  133. Leif Svalgaard (17:49:00) :
    tallbloke (17:06:03) :
    Don’t feel like arguing at this time of year so I’ll leave you content with your beliefs.
    Enjoy the festive period and if the sunspot fire is rekindled, so much the better for all of us no matter what brings it about.
    All the best
    Judged from past performance, I don’t think you could engage in cogent arguments anyway, so your decision is a wise one.

    I hope someone puts something nice in your Christmas stocking. 😉

  134. Bob Tisdale (18:32:23) :
    tallbloke: You wrote, “According to my model, the oceans will on average (notwithstanding cloud cover changes) lose energy when the SSN is below ~40 and gain energy when SSN is above ~40.”
    Here a graph of Tropical Pacific OHC (0-700 meters) versus scaled Sunspot Number, NINO3.4 SST Anomalies, and Sato Mean Optical Thickness.
    http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
    Of course the sharp rises in OHC happen during La Nina events, and those rises are the result of cloud cover changes, so I’m not sure how you would isolate solar from the ENSO-caused variations.
    Happy holidays.
    Hi Bob,
    my answer to that would be “by taking the longer term view”. Insolation at the surface is obviously more strongly affected by ocean-air caused cloud variation than solar variation, but clouds are also probably the amplifying mechanism for solar variation at the decadal and multidecadal scale, as far as we can tell from Nir Shaviv’s work and the ISSCP data. So although it all looks a bit chaotic in the short term, more general trends can be teased out using the right parameters. Changes in the trade winds are related to atmospheric angular momentum and the zonal ACI index. Variation in Earth’s length of day is a reasonable proxy for these, and when you combine that data with a cumulative count of sunspot numbers above and below the 40SSN I think represents the ocean equilibrium value, you get the black curve on this graph.
    http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/planetary_temperature-12.gif
    The Yellow curve represents the cumulative sunspot count combined with the motion of the sun with respect to the solar system centre of mass in the vertical ‘z’ axis. The green curve is derived only from planetary motion but I’m still working on that so I won’t go into it here as it’ll only wind Leif up and it’s the season of goodwill and peace to all men.
    Have a great Christmas.

  135. rbateman (22:41:06) :
    Would you say that the decrease rate in the Polar Fields is a bit slow or normal?
    You can compare with other cycles here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields.png
    Since the polar fields are only half of what they used to be, their rate of decline down to zero should only be about half, too. Or perhaps even shallower since the cycle is drawn out, so I’m not surprised. This looks quite normal or, at last, understandable.

  136. Daryl M (08:32:02) :
    Leif, It would be a nice Christmas present if you would update the charts of the most recent IMF, SW and Solar Data. Hint, hint. 😉
    Santa was early this year…

  137. Dr. Leif Svalgaard: “Sadly, these serve to undermine the scientific credibility of this blog.”
    As a warmist environazi who is rooting for a one world government taxing the hell out of all godloving Americans, I have to ask: What scientific credibility?
    This site is not about science, never has, never will be. This site is about stalling action. It is so successful at it that it will help bring about exactly the thing it thinks it’s fighting: a very large reduction in personal freedom. I’ll be here to congratulate. In fact, I congratulate already.
    [REPLY – Well, unlike nearly all pro-AGW sites, at least we don’t censor opposing views. If you think the evidence points the other way, you are welcome to adduce that argument. ~ Evan]

  138. I’d like to invite Neven to join in a Christmas cessation of hostilities and have a rhetoric free conversation about how we both see it.

  139. I find it hard to agree that the solar pole strength is around normal or “understandable”
    A quick look at the graph over a very short time frame shows the pattern has changed. http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
    The last time we saw similar lack of strength was during SC20 when the instruments we now use were in their infancy. SC20 was affected by the same unmentionable force as we see today, only somewhat weaker. The last time this occurred was during the Dalton. But “modern” science tries to tell us different, which reminds me of other sheep herding exercises that have been in the news lately.

  140. In the argument about correlation and causation, being an indicator of a real process, or being defined as the direct result, of a force in action. Where does the line get drawn, when the past cycles of correlation can be used to forecast the next cycle, then if that bears good results, something that then looks like causation, becomes a hypothesis, to be tested then the testing begins, such is Science.
    Pseudoscience as you call it is those things which seem to be there, but the questions to form the hypothesis, and test it are not asked in the right way to get valid answers. More data and better testing methods is all that is needed to “settle” the questions asked Keeping what works and throwing out what is “proven” to not work, is called progress.
    As long as no one asks the pertinent questions, the answers cannot be found. The limited funding available, should not be hoarded by those who would alter data sets, to use the fudged results to further a political agenda, but to seek the truth instead.
    “Government interference should always be merely preventive, and should have as it’s sole aim, the establishment of public security and peace.” ~The I Ching 3000 years of Chinese wisdom.

  141. Blogs and debates are the playing fields for kicking around new ideas, what is still standing after the dust settles, is the scoring method used.
    Single team sports are boring, it takes two (or more) sides to make a good season worth watching. It also helps if all teams playing, are equally funded and trained.

  142. odd how these solar threads always get so abusive. chill out. whos right and whos wrong will become clear enough in a few years.

  143. Geoff Sharp (04:42:31) :
    I find it hard to agree that the solar pole strength is around normal or “understandable”
    You misunderstand the issue. The question was about the rate of decline of the polar fields, not about their strength. Their strength is about half of what they were at the previous minimum [and at the minimum prior to SC20 they were also weak as you point out – as far as we know]. Since the polar fields determine the size of the next cycle [as far as we know according to the Babcock model and some modern dynamo theories] we expect SC24 to be weak [and it has so far obliged]. The last three years the polar fields have decreased 25%. This is the normal bit, and is understandable as the fields are slowly being eroded by new cycle flux moving towards the poles. By the maximum in 2014 [or so], the polar fields go to zero and reverse, so the decrease will have to speed up a bit, as it will [compare with previous cycles and you can see that happen]. So what is there to not agree with? The total polar magnetic flux is actually very small [about 1/1000 of the total magnetic flux that has been ‘processed’ though a solar cycle – or the same as the flux in just a few active regions], and the random walk process that produces the polar fields can easily account for the variations in strength from cycle to cycle. All of this is ‘modern science’ as you call it.
    Richard Holle (05:15:35) :
    Pseudoscience as you call it is those things which seem to be there, but the questions to form the hypothesis, and test it are not asked in the right way to get valid answers.
    No, pseudo-science is not just ‘unknown’ science that eventually will be vindicated. Pseudo-science is incorrect notions that violate physical law [as we know them] or postulate phenomena that do not occur.
    phlogiston (06:49:22) :
    odd how these solar threads always get so abusive.
    There is only the same handful of abusers, but they can be counted on to come out of the woodwork.

  144. @phlogiston (06:49:22) :
    …odd how these solar threads always get so abusive …
    I would name them so interesting.
    I try to never miss to read them completely,
    always like Leif’s comments,
    (A very personal Merry Christmas to you, Leif.)
    … and still do like to read the … unconventional, more exotic
    opinions…
    KlausB

  145. Stephen Wilde
    OT but since you’re on the thread, I had a question..
    Someone posted on the blog “climate sanity” recently some anecdotal data suggesting a correlation between the rate of change of sea level, and global air temperatures. But with a time lag of a year or so. When rate of sea level rise dropped, global temps dropped a year later, in quite good apparent synchrony (albeit over a limited period). On climate4you the rate of sea level rise is shown going back a few decades and since 1998, despite oscillation, there is a significant declining trend of rate of sea level rise.
    Is it plausible that rate of sea level change could be indicative of movement of energy into the upper layer of the ocean and thence to the atmosphere? Could it thus give us some kind of sneak preview of imminent global temperature trends?

  146. KlausB (08:21:45) :
    @phlogiston (06:49:22) :
    …odd how these solar threads always get so abusive …
    I would name them so interesting.

    Yes, they have good entertainment value. People also like to watch the clowns at a circus.

  147. Dr. Svalgaard, what do you think of the research of Dr. Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his CLOUD initiative? Did you see a recording of the presentation he gave a few months ago?

  148. @Leif Svalgaard (08:32:00) :
    Yeah, the sun and it’s behavior is one of humans biggest source of entertaining and puzzling over the last few thousand years. And still is.
    Here in Germany, a few people are trying to make longer term weather predictions, one of them is (link to english version) :
    http://www.langfristwetter.com/4411/105647.html
    He added an experimental version of linking precipitation/air pressure patterns to sun spots to the german version of his site.
    I did send him links to several of your last papers.
    Rgds
    KlausB

  149. phlogiston (08:30:03)
    Warmer sea surfaces represent faster energy loss from ocean to air.
    If continued for long enough that would normally reduce total ocean energy content and slow down or stop sea level rise.
    Once in the air the additional energy would take a while to leave the troposphere, possibly a year.
    In my view climate change (global air temperatures) are a result of changing rates of energy flow from sun to sea then sea to troposphere then troposphere to stratosphere then stratosphere to space.
    Differential changes in the rate of energy flow at each stage will result in temperature changes in each component of the system, sometimes together and sometimes separately.

  150. Leif Svalgaard (08:32:00) :
    KlausB (08:21:45) :
    @phlogiston (06:49:22) :
    …odd how these solar threads always get so abusive …
    I would name them so interesting.
    Yes, they have good entertainment value. People also like to watch the clowns at a circus.

    Watching the clowns in the tree ring circus has been highly entertaining. It’s great when the grumpy know-it-all clown who beats the other clowns up get’s his come uppance at the end of the act when the portly lady steps up to the microphone.

  151. David Corcoran (08:50:42) :
    Dr. Svalgaard, what do you think of the research of Dr. Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his CLOUD initiative? Did you see a recording of the presentation he gave a few months ago?
    Yes, I saw it. What might change hid own view could be the result of their experiments, but is it clear to me if the results would scale up. My personal opinion on the cosmic ray connection is negative at the moment, but is subject to change with the advent of new data.

  152. Leif Svalgaard (19:47:58) :
    Yes, I saw it. What might change his own view could be the result of their experiments, but is it not clear to me if the results would scale up.

  153. In addition to becoming portly over the past fifty years, we helped generate data from precise measurements that required these modifications to the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun:
    1. The Sun is the iron-rich remnant of a supernova that ejected all of the material now orbiting it ~5 Gy (5 billion or 5 x 10^9) years ago [“Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements”, Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci. 9 (1975) 104 122; “Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) 208-209 (1977); “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277 (1979) 615-620].
    2. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with Hydrogen – the lightest of all elements – but the Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H) [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics (1983) 18, 209-222; “Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections” 36th Lunar Science Conf. (2005) paper #1033].
    3. Solar energy comes primarily from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core – NOT from H-fusion [“Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98].
    4. Solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface is a waste product (neutron-decay product) from the solar engine [“The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass”, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856].
    5. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away [“Is there a deficit of solar neutrinos”, Second NO-VE workshop on neutrino oscillation
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410460v1%5D
    6. Earth’s climate is changing, has changed in the past, and will always change because our climate is controlled by a variable star that undergoes cycles of change as gravitational interactions cause its dense, energetic neutron core to move around inside the Sun [ “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704 ]
    Otherwise I might still believe that the Sun is a ball of Hydrogen.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  154. Some more specifics in regard to my earlier posting:
    Nir Shaviv writes the following about cosmic ray’s and climate at his blog:
    “Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 1015eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an ice house, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale.
    http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate”
    Yesterday Nasa came up with a “Great Interstellar discovery” made by the Voyager satellite http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
    However, this so called “Great Interstellar Discovery was already made in 1978: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ…223..589V
    It’s about our solar system entering an interstellar cloud with a high magnetic field and a temperature of over 6000 degree Celsius.
    These clouds are remnants from Super Nova’s.
    When we pass through such a cloud, according to NASA the following will happen: “the fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate.
    The 1978 report states that this cloud “might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate”.
    My question, who has any idea what will happen?
    Not entirely of topic in regard to my question is this well written article from Howard bloom that was published in WSJ:
    Climate Change Is Nature’s Way
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574599981936018834.html

  155. Oliver K. Manuel (20:27:19) :
    that required these modifications to the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun
    This is what I meant by pseudo-science with entertainment value.
    Ron de Haan (21:28:54) :
    Two day’s ago NASA came up with a “Great Interstellar Discovery”
    However, this so called “Great Interstellar Discovery was already made in 1978:

    We have seen so many of these ‘new discoveries’ from NASA that were discovered decades ago.
    Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate.
    I don’t think that additional compression will allow more cosmic rays to reach the Earth, rather the opposite, as it is the compression regions that scatter away the cosmic rays.
    Already the magnetic field in interstellar space is 100 times stronger than in the outer heliosphere. It is not the magnetic fields that determine the size of the heliosphere, but rather the pressure balance between the solar wind particle flow and the interstellar gas.

  156. NASA Publication: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere
    From this publication:
    “While this warming has no implications for climate change in the troposphere, a fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that the upper atmosphere will cool in response to increasing carbon dioxide”.
    Yes, another confirmation, NASA works for the Democratic Party and the UN IPCC!
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42048&src=eorss-nnews

  157. Stephen Wilde (10:06:52)
    Isn’t there one other route of energy transfer – deeper ocean to upper ocean or surface?

  158. Leif Svalgaard (05:47:00) :
    rbateman (22:41:06) :
    Would you say that the decrease rate in the Polar Fields is a bit slow or normal?
    You can compare with other cycles here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Polar%20Fields.png
    Since the polar fields are only half of what they used to be, their rate of decline down to zero should only be about half, too. Or perhaps even shallower since the cycle is drawn out, so I’m not surprised. This looks quite normal or, at last, understandable.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Thank you Leif for that update and comment.
    Leif Svalgaard (19:47:58) :
    My personal opinion on the cosmic ray connection is negative at the moment, but is subject to change with the advent of new data.
    Leif Svalgaard (22:18:58) :
    I don’t think that additional compression will allow more cosmic rays to reach the Earth, rather the opposite, as it is the compression regions that scatter away the cosmic rays.
    Already the magnetic field in interstellar space is 100 times stronger than in the outer heliosphere. It is not the magnetic fields that determine the size of the heliosphere, but rather the pressure balance between the solar wind particle flow and the interstellar gas.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yust keeps ‘blowing me away’ how out of all the matter that makes up the universe and interstellar regions that the only interstellar space weather factor that keeps getting talked about as being responsible for climate change is GCR.
    ~Spiderwoman~
    Tallbloke, want a song, try “Elevation” by U2.

  159. phlogiston (02:30:15)
    Of course. That internal ocean movement may well be what causes the variability in the rate at which the oceans release energy to the air.
    To my mind there is evidence of cycling on at least 3 timescales.

  160. Quote: Oliver K. Manuel (09:59:24) :
    [snip]
    Sorry that I lost my temper with Leif’s earlier suggestion that modifications to the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun are “pseudo-science with entertainment value.”
    Could I invite him to address the experimental data published in: “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); doi:10.1038/277615a0
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
    Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by slow neutron capture (the s-process) were enriched in silicon carbide (SiC) inclusions of a meteorite.
    Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by rapid neutron capture (the r-process) were enriched in diamond (C) inclusions of the same meteorite, together with all of its primordial He.
    In 1993 Professor F. Begemann of the Max-Planck Institut fuer Chemie in Mainz reported a similar separation of Ba, Nd, and Sm isotopes [“Isotopic abundance anomalies and the early solar system” in Origin and Evolution of the Elements (ed. Prantos, N., Vangioni-Flam, E. and Cassé, M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993) 518-527].
    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1993Data.htm
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  161. The “sun is a clothed neutron star” is surely one of those embarrassing paranoias that should be gently escorted off this site along with ideas such as that 911 was a CIA plot, aliens landed in area 51 and Barak Obama is a nazi etc. Many such posts are just warmists in drag trying to discredit the site. How “on earth” could life survive for 4 billion years close to such a variable object – where is the huge gravity, magnetic jet, milli-second rotational frequency, x-ray bursts etc. that would characterise such an object?

  162. Oliver K. Manuel (15:42:43) :
    Could I invite him to address the experimental data published in: “Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”
    Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by slow neutron capture (the s-process) were enriched in silicon carbide (SiC) inclusions of a meteorite.
    Isotopes of Kr, Te, and Xe that were made by rapid neutron capture (the r-process) were enriched in diamond (C) inclusions of the same meteorite, together with all of its primordial He.
    [“Isotopic abundance anomalies and the early solar system”

    All material heaver than Helium was produced by nucleosynthesis [mainly in supernovae], so there is no doubt [and you don’t need to waste our time on that] that supernovae were involved. But it does not follow from that the supernova was within the solar system or the sun. You have not presented ANY evidence or explanation [try to explain it here instead of referring to obscure papers]. A good test of either your understanding of an idea and/or the viability of it, is that you can in a single paragraph explain [not just state] the basic physics. So, now is your chance.
    Let me throw in a request for you to explain the presence of Deuterium in the solar system.

  163. Quote: Leif Svalgaard (16:14:22) :
    “1. All material heaver than Helium was produced by nucleosynthesis [mainly in supernovae], . . .
    2. But it does not follow from that the supernova was within the solar system or the sun.
    3. A good test of either your understanding of an idea and/or the viability of it, is that you can in a single paragraph explain [not just state] the basic physics. So, now is your chance.”
    – – – – – – – – – –
    3. Leif used no paragraphs – no, not even a single word – to address years of precise experimental data published in Nature 277 (1979) 615-620
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277615a0.html
    Clever debate technique; very poor science.
    2. Of course the supernova was in the solar system. The enrichment of lightweight isotopes MEASURED in the solar wind, the enrichment of lightweight s-products MEASURED in the solar photosphere, and the chemical composition MEASURED for meteorites and planets show that the Sun, the rocky planet that Leif rides on, and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of the same five elements from the deep interior of the supernova: Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S. The probability of this agreement being fortuitous is >0.0000000000000000000000000000001 [“Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios”, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) 345-348] http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1 [“Solar abundance of the elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, 36th Lunar Science Conference (2005) 1033] http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf
    1. All Helium was trapped in meteorite inclusions (made mostly of carbon) together with isotopes of heavy elements that were made by the r-process. If a nearby supernova injected the excess r-products OBSERVED in Kr, Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm, the same supernova would also have to be the source of all Helium in the solar system.
    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
    When isotope data from the 1996 Galileo probe into Jupiter were finally released in 1998, the MEASUREMENTS showed that the Helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter also contains excess Xe-136 from the r-process [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998) A97, abstract 5011 (1998)].
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
    Hundreds of measurements since 1960 have falsified the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun. The data have been manipulated like global temperature data.
    Climategate is but the tip of a very dirty iceberg!
    Still out of public view is NASA-gate: Hiding isotope data from the 1996 Galileo probe of Jupiter that would have confirmed the 1983 paper showing that the Sun is a ball of iron [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209–222].
    Purdue University has the C-SPAN tape recording of NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel S. Goldin ordering the release of the critical isotope data on January 7, 1998 at the end of his address on the “Future of Space Science” at the AAS meeting in Washington DC (C-SPAN Tape 98-01-07-22-1).
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    REPLY:
    I’ve reviewed your data and links, and I don’t see much there that is convincing. Particularly unconvincing is the claim about meteorites having that same composition as the sun, and that is what makes the sun’s process “iron based”. Well, it is obvious that the sun contains most of the mass of the solar system, which evolved from the primordial mix of the original gas and dust accretion, thus it more closely approximates the accretion composition than does any other component of the solar system. asteroids, and other strange and poorly understood facets of our solar system. To say that because meteorites match the sun’s composition and therefore the sun’s process are not hydrogen fusion based is an exponential leap of logic. It makes about as much sense as saying because you find traces of iron in automobile exhaust (like you do in the solar wind) that the engine that drives the car is somehow iron combustion process based rather than hydrocarbon combustion based. Like with an automobile engine, I have no doubt the sun has lots of iron in it, and many other elements, as would be expected in a second generation star, which is why see traces of iron and other heavy elements in solar wind. But I have no reason to believe it points to iron as the process driver. The iron core wobble theory based on planetary motion fails on simple Newtonian math related to mass of the planets orbiting at distance. There’s just not enough mass out there to make much of a difference.
    The arguments just don’t pass the Occam’s Razor test, IMHO. Sure we can argue these ad infinitum, and many do.
    I will say that I’m really not interested in discussing the iron sun theory here on WUWT, nor the electric universe theory, nor barycentrism. The reason is that all of these discussions turn nasty. WUWT has enough fights breaking out over climate issues, we don’t need this one to add to the foray. I grow tired of moderating them, and frankly I just don’t need the extra work.
    So please take it elsewhere rather than trying to turn every and any solar discussion here into one of these other topics. If you can’t, don’t complain if shut it down. – Anthony Watts

  164. Anthony
    So basically we have the Babcock-Leighton theory of all things solar and nothing else. With its extremely poor record and no understanding of the current grand minimum you are going out on a limb.
    Your censorship may well be termed AnthonyGate in the future.
    [Reply: There is no “censorship” of opposing views here. Certain topics may be off limits for the reasons given. ~dbstealey, moderator]
    REPLY2: Geoff, you have your own blog on these subjects at http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ which is linked to your name in every post you make here.
    Explain why you can’t discuss these in detail there, but instead have to inject the topics of your own blog into almost every discussion pertaining to the sun here at WUWT. I’m really not fond of your accusations. I don’t tell you how to run your own blog, or what you should/should not discuss there, so please stop telling me what I can and cannot do on my own, and in the process suggesting that because I want to run my own blog in my own way, which is my right, that it is “censorship”.
    I don’t want to discuss here the topics you raise, simple as that. I also don’t want to discuss Nazism, the 9/11 truther movement, and chemtrails – though many have tried. Will deferring these also be labeled “AnthonyGate”? One can only hope.
    Anthony

  165. Anthony
    The iron core wobble theory based on planetary motion fails on simple Newtonian math related to mass of the planets orbiting at distance. There’s just not enough mass out there to make much of a difference.
    Even Leif will tell you that you are wrong on this one, its not about tides…you are not qualified to make judgment in this area. Based on JPL we know the Sun’s path around the Solar System Centre is greatly manipulated by the gravity of the solar system planets. The Suns velocity around the Centre increases by 100% every 2nd solar cycle, this is indisputable.
    The Suns path currently is very different to its “normal” path, this altered path also occurred during SC20 and before that during the Dalton. Before that it occurred during the Maunder, Sporer and Wolf. It didnt happen in between these events.
    You are making a gross error by not allowing debate on this issue.

  166. Thanks Anthony, for allowing our data and links to be posted and for taking the time to review them yourself.
    You have performed a great service for all mankind in exposing Climategate, the tip of a very dirty iceberg.
    I will honor your decision to keep this site focused on the deceit of global warming.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  167. Geoff Sharp (04:57:55) :
    Anthony,
    you are not qualified to make judgment in this area.

    Neither are you, being seeming ignorant of celestial mechanics and basic physics.

  168. Leif Svalgaard (14:52:04) :
    Neither are you, being seeming ignorant of celestial mechanics and basic physics.
    Meteorology is Anthony’s expertise, at least what drives the Sun is a research area for me. My statement on the Suns orbit path and velocity that is a direct result of planetary gravity cannot be faulted.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/carsten.jpg
    There is only one person initiating the “nasty” comments, which would not be returned if the ad homs didn’t start in the first place. While I value your scientific comment on solar measurements, it was certainly more civil around here during your hiatus.

  169. Anthony, Geoff, and Leif,
    The Sun orbits the center-of-mass of the solar system, and the Sun’s wobble is linked with solar cycles and with Earth’s cycles of warming and cooling [ J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 368 (2006) 280-282].
    To visualize this, see the figure, “Motion of Barycenter of solar system relative to the Sun” on this Wikipedia web site:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  170. Geoff Sharp (18:16:49) :
    My statement on the Suns orbit path and velocity that is a direct result of planetary gravity cannot be faulted.
    That is not the issue. The Sun and the planets are in free fall in their combined gravitational field and thus feel no forces and angular momentum cannot be transferred without a couple, so the Sun’s velocity has no bearing on solar activity. This has been explained to you repeatedly. I fail to see how pointing out that your view lacks scientific basis can be ad-hom and ‘nasty’. This could well be a failing of mine, but so be it.

  171. Oliver K. Manuel (19:04:04) :
    J. Shirley, “Axial rotation, orbital revolution and solar spin-orbit coupling,”
    In the paper Shirley shows that there is no physical basis for the various correlations. He points out that: “The inappropriate use of rotational equations for modelling particle motions due to orbital revolution is an ongoing problem (yet another example is found in Section 2 of De Jager & Versteegh 2005). The present discussion is intended to help to prevent the recurrence of future errors of this type. The principal stumbling block for dynamical spin–orbit coupling hypotheses evidently lies in our identification of the solar motion as a state of free fall. To be successful, future solar spin–orbit coupling hypotheses must address and overcome this obstacle.”

  172. Leif,
    Do you agree that the Sun moves around the center-of-mass of the solar system?
    Do you agree that a compact, energetic solar core that is:
    a.) ~1,000,000,000,000,000 more dense than ordinary matter.
    b.) Highly energized by repulsive forces between neutrons.
    c.) Highly magnetic with a field of ~1,000,000,000,000 Gauss
    Would not necessarily stay centered and might wobble around inside the Sun to produce solar cycles of deep-seated magnetic fields protruding through the photosphere as sunspots?
    Thanks, Anthony, for letting Leif respond here.
    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  173. Future spin orbit coupling exercises have already been undertaken since Shirley decided to play the NASA game.
    My work with Gerry shows missing angular momentum between the Sun & Planets which could result in a trade off of AM.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/79
    The evidence continues to build, this is no time to stymie debate.
    REPLY: Feel free to discuss it all you want on your own blog at http://landscheidt.wordpress.com or at http://landscheidt.info
    Since my preferences continue to be ignored on this issue, (see above replies) I’m closing this thread. – Anthony

Comments are closed.