See sunspots run

But looking at the latest image, there is not really much to see.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

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?

Still looks like specs to me..

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.

Hathaway should be happy- moving the goalposts can be exhausting.

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.

Where is Leif Svalgaard? We need to have this explained

Where’s that graph – the one that keeps moving the cycle end-line? That’s really funny. Anyone got a link?

@ Barry Foster:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif
Is that the graph to which you were referring? They have now gotten rid of the second red prediction line.
John M Reynolds

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!

For those who can access the BBC’s iPlayer – here’s a link to a programme about a ‘Decade of Global Warming’ – some good stuff, no mention of hockey stick.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00pcd3z

“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.

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.

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.

At the Sun no one cares about our taxes

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

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

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

P Gosselin (23:54:25) :
But looking at the latest image, there is not really much to see.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
It is the Watt effect in reverse!  🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

‘Global Warming’ cure using balloons and 2inch hosepipe. ( Still $250million but better than $trillions imo).
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html

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?

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.

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!!

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😉

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.

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.

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.

tallbloke (06:23:53) :

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.

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.

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.

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?

This will be much ado about nothing. The sun will continue to stay quiet.

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.

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

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

Amazing!

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.

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.

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.

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?

*******
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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Lots of them. Earth/Moon orbit in sync with TSI for one. http://virakkraft.com/TSI-perigee-09.png
On a larger scale, Venus (and EMB) AM and solar activity: http://virakkraft.com/Venus-AM-SSN-1800-2009.png

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.

@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

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.

Reply: Dan Hampton (11:34:19) :
I recommend that you join and participate in the discussion group that Kirt Griffin formed and moderates on “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,”
neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an e-mail to neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

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?

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

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

[snip]

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.

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?

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

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.

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