December sunspots on the rise

wayne (09:30:54) : “The two major ways for the Earth to “hide” heat. On is to shove it deep in the oceans.”
Not according to Dr Robert Stevenson (deceased). He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987-1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. Writing in 2000 Dr Stevenson made this very unequivocal statement:
“Contrary to recent press reports (in 2000), that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.”
Dr Stevenson had reviewed the Levitus et al paper in 2000 and the full text of his article, complete with references, can be found here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
For 15 years, (in 2000) modellers have tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than that which has taken place.
Not discouraged, the modellers argue that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” is being stored in the deep oceans, and that it will eventually come back to haunt us. They’ve needed such a boost to prop up the man-induced greenhouse warming theory, but have had no observational evidence to support it. The Levitus, et al. article is now cited as the needed support.
The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.
Inland locations are less restrained by the oceans, so the surface air
experiences a wider temperature range than it does over the oceans. Land
cannot store heat for long, which is why hot days are quickly followed by cold nights in desert regions. For most of the Earth, however, the more dominant ocean temperatures fix the air temperature.
He concludes:
(1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven
decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no
net change;
(2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric
radiative forcing during that time, but there wasn’t. That must mean that a
suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the “greenhouse” impetus for
warming;implying, therefore,
(3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2;
indicating
(4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048°C/decade, that is, about 0.5°C this century, the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100
meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of
0.5°C in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have
data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO,
decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
It is an example of an old fashioned “hands-on” scientist versus models. He also wrote this account of the early IPCC process,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf
A clearer full text version is here:
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/globwarm.htm#fig1

Oliver K. Manuel (12:57:14) :
If the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled sun were correct, Leif would be correct in stating that ‘There is no known mechanism for this, . . . .’
In one of the ‘papers’, the following empirical formula is assumed to control the fractional abundance in the sun of elements with mass M relative to Hydrogen: f = (1/M)^4.56. Inserting M =1, 4, and 56, gives fractions for
Hydrogen f = 1
Helium f = 0.00179
Iron f = 0.0000000107 [I could have counted the number of zeroes wrongly, as there are so many]
These ideas are not even wrong.
REPLY: And here we are arguing the “iron sun” theory again. Everybody, please stop. – Anthony

I propose a tax on the Solar Magnetic Flux.
Then people can go around screaming: Flux Taxes!

Oliver K. Manuel (14:32:00) :
“The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
Makes you one of those, I take it 🙂
It is not about consensus, it is about making sense, and your stuff does not. You have not even once answered any of the specific questions I have asked you. Wondrous that Anthony puts up with this, but I guess that shows his great tolerance for fringe comments.

Phil. (11:09:00) :
I thought it was colder before the Maunder Minimum than during it.
Hmmm. I stand corrected. (where did I get this idea anyway?)
The evidence is all over the map (literally). One plot show the lowest global temp right at the beginning of the Maunder Minimum. Nothing supports my previous statement that the lowest temp was at the end.
The solar activity graph near the bottom here is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

tallbloke (15:21:29) :
Come on over if you like, but no ad homs please
I never post ad homs as you well know. But, I think the issue has been discussed at such length here already that there is no more meat on that horse. Perhaps Oliver can give you his imitation of a great scientist 🙂