Solar Cycle 24 Update

Say what you will, but I do not like the looks of the 10.7 cm data at all. The gamma rays are still off scale to the top. Unfortunately no measurements of either were available in the Dalton Minimum. We are roughly due for a de Vries minimum so we may very well be getting one.

I should correct the gamma ray statement with the C14 analysis that can be done carefully. There seems to be a bump up at the Dalton Minimum, but that is just eyeballing a chart.

In the second figure shouldn’t the green line be labeled Solar Cycle 23?

Oooooo. Nut cases like the warming. Warming equals panic and control. Not food and water.

There is a similar graph of SC24 verses SC5 that is updated monthly at the Layman’s Sunspot Count. Geoff also agrees with David, although Geoff’s graph shows a closer correlation . This will be interesting to watch.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

How does that fit with Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″? Is there an update to their graph?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Will solar cycle 24 ramp up and then collapse to throw us right into a Maunder Minimum?

This is so cool. Reflect for a minute the importance we place on a month by month divergence of periodic sequences to a sun that has been doing this for billions of years. Our month by month divergence is nothing compared to the stable activity of the sun over this time scale. Consider now our 20 plunges into glaciation that have each lasted over 100,000 years and our 20 periods of interglatial warming that lasts about 20,000 years.
The issue isn’t so much what is the impact of these changes to the planet, because the planet has survived these changes, The question is what would be the impact on our current civilization (less than 7000 years old) to major switchbacks to cold, indicated by long term solar activity.

I think we’ve already passed this cycles max and are headed towards minimum again with the new cycle magnetic polarity showing up in early 2013. We’ll probably be seeing mostly “specks” soon, again, and see 10.7 flux dip below 70 by the end of March.

@Peter of Sydney (21:58:28) :
“Wouldn’t it be nice to see climate scientists with any honesty left report this and conclude that reducing CO2 emissions may be the wrong thing to do, and in fact we should temporarily accelerate CO2 emissions to avoid a cold snap over the next couple of decades.”
Accelerate CO2 emissions to avoid a cold snap? Are you serious? Only if you really do believe that increased CO2 levels causes global warming to the extent believed by the AGW alarmists.

The universe has been around for 5 billion years >> Stephan
Try again.

We fault proponents of AGW for their faith in CO2 as the cause of the warming (or climate change) when there is no sufficient mechanism.
How then can we claim catastrophic cooling based on these numbers from the Sun? What is the sufficient mechanism in this case?

Mr. Archibald, can you takes some info I have stumbled on through many papers read in the last few months. It might let you leave one possibly open which might not be in your ensemble of knowledge to date.
Last year I noticed a 9 cycles in 100 year period in the current 1700-2009 data from SIDC when passing an eleven year simple box filter over the yearly data to remove the sine imprint. Of coarse, 1700 seems very close to the end of the preceding Maunder period. The years 1711, 1811, 1911 are all years immediately before a big rise in the smoothed graph data each century. I couldn’t answer the extra year.
Later, just by happenstance, I found something curious from a paper on reconstruction of solar cycles dating back to some 800 B.C. Of coarse, most are Chinese observations by eye at daybreak. Logically each observation most likely is not at an inter-cycle minimum year therefore cycle length can be extracted even in this very sparse data. The paper found the cycle length not at 11.003 years but 11.16 years over this 2800 year period. Other papers have listed this 11.16 year cycle length.
That seemed to answer why 9 by 11 equals 99 was not aligning but 9 by 11.16 equals 100.4 was, but random length-skewing seems to force alignment every ~100 years. Its as if an extra year was forced in every nine cycles of an apparent 11 year average length.
If the Dec. 2009 cycle start you mentioned above falls apart in the following months, this could point, if a minimum is not upon us, that 2011, or nearby, could be when the next cycle actually begins. It would be stange if that happens. I know, looking at cycle 21, 22, and 23 this is two to three years out of alignment but could be why the sun is acting somewhat unusual of late. That pattern has been a curiousity to me ever since. Time will tell if there is anything to it.
Thought you might find that curious also.

Huh, I meant a plot of SC 24 is shown, not SC 25.
John

desmugblog lists “The Sun”, as a driver for climate change as one of the false concepts touted by AGW skeptics. Oh no! It appears we are supposed to write off that big yellow ball in the sky that is the source for 99.999% of earth’s heat as having anything to do with changes in earth’s global temperatures!

Henry,
210 year de Vries cycle…
[PDF] The Past and Future of Climate solar activity, on a 210 year (de Vries) cycle. As it is now 213 years since the beginning of the Dalton Minimum, …
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/The%20Past%20and%20Future%20of%20Climate%202009.pdf
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N23/EDIT.php
The intensity of 210-year cycle (the de Vries cycle) is 2-4 times more than that of 90-year ones … century period coincides with epoch of 2400- and 210- year solar activity cycles enhancement. …
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000ESASP.463..521S
http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Raspopov_2008_PPP.pdf
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/researcherswhopreviouslydiscoveredthebicentennialcycle.doc

A few questions.
1. Is the cooling only going to affect the “northeast US”. Why for example did David not mention the the “high quality satellite data” (to use his words).
2. Why did he also not mention the Armagh data which is also prominent in his previous work.
3. Can he provide a link to the New Hampshire data.
4. Can he also provide us with the exact data used in his scatterplot and regression. I’ve counted 14 data points – what exactly do these represent.

I trust the comparisons based on the Layman’s Sunspot Count over other sunspot numbers. With better technology we are now seeing spots even a teenager before a date wouldn’t find. The solar cycle comparison to the Dalton minimum is even closer using the Layman’s count.
Further to this I would add that the correlation between solar activity and climate needs to be revisited. All three main global temperature records have been shown to be compromised. In addition there have been too many convenient adjustments to TSI and other solar activity indicators recently. Jack Eddy said “Many plugs”. The CLOUD experiment is one avenue of inquiry but I can think of a few others.

Why do we count sunspots again when they re-emerge from behind the sun? The large blotch near the top of the sun has been round twice since around Xmas.

If memory serves me correctly, cycles always ramp-up quickly and descend slowly. 4.3yrs ascending and 6.7yrs descending.
And according to solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center there has been a 6% reduction in the suns extreme UV wavelengths since 1996.
My laymans brain doesn’t comprehend all that too well so maybe someone knowledgable can explain it.

@hunter:
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
“…Special Recognition from NASA for service as PI in early lunar studies…”
Toolan

there is a very interesting PDF file on his website, concerning the sun’s control of the earths’ climate:
http://www.omatumr.com/
See “NEW: THE SUN: An Electro-Magnetic Plasma Diffuser that controls Earth’s climate” at the top of the page.
Toolan

hunter (01:47:47) :
And this as well. http://www.omatumr.com/abbre-resume.html
Cut ‘n’ paste his name, is all I did!

I’ve always been aware of and supportive of the idea that solar activity levels are linked to tropospheric temperature changes and David does excellent work on the topic.
However we have to take note of the facts that Leif gives us and on the basis of those facts it is certainly true that the variation of solar output between active and inactive phases is very tiny and on the face of it insufficient to provide the climate variability observed.
There are a number of potential amplification possibilities however including the Svensmark cosmic ray hypothesis, my suggestion as regards the effect of internal ocean circulations changing the rate at which energy is released to the air above and a number of proponents of amplification caused by chemical and physical processes in the upper air affecting albedo through cloudiness changes often involving changes within the ozone layer.
Generally I favour oceanic amplification rather than amplification arising in the atmosphere because of the enormous thermal inertia of the oceans and the fact that generally tropospheric air temperatures are seen to react very quickly to sea surface changes.
There have been attempts to suggest that the sea surface changes themselves are a result of changes in the air above which then feed back to the troposphere via the ocean surfaces but as yet I have not seen a convincing correlation to support that on longer multidecadal, century or millennium time scales but tallbloke has had a stab at that which I intend to look into more closely when time allows.
So the question arises as to whether the phasing of high solar activity with warmer tropospheric temperatures is simply a coincidence as I think Leif would contend whilst the true climate driver is in fact the oceans which currently vary the rate of release of energy approximately in phase with solar activity levels e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active and that tends to give the possibly false impression of a causative correlation between solar activity levels and tropospheric temperatures.
Whilst I admit that the point is unresolved I have described elsewhere the possible implications of the current timing of solar/oceanic/ tropospheric temperature phases being merely a temporary feature.
It turns out that if the phasing of solar and oceanic cycles can change over time and if higher solar activity actually facilitates the rate of energy loss to space from an expanded atmosphere (by more than the increase in raw solar power) then there is a plausible explanation for the relatively stable climates of interglacials and the wildly swinging climates observed during ice ages.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4433#comments_top

Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :
“I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.”
As I recall, NASA grants are acknowledged in these two 1972 papers:
1. “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”,
Nature 240, 99-101 (1972);
CODEN: NPSCA6; ISSN: 0300-8746
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf
2. “The role of isotopic mass fractionation in the production of
noble gas anomalies in lunar fines from the Apollo 15 mission”,
Proceedings of Third Lunar Science Conf, vol. 2, 1927-1945 (1972).
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm
Both papers report evidence of extreme mass fractionation of xenon isotopes.
Mass fractionation explains why the surface of the Sun is 91% H (the lightest of all elements) and 9% He (the next lightest element).
The first paper also contained wevidence that meteorites formed directly from supernova debris, before isotopes made in different stellar regions were mixed.
Both papers were unpopular at NASA and my grant was not renewed.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Thank you Vukcevic, I was going to ask that question, as to where we stand with that cycle.

I believe PI would be Principle Investigator.

Haven’t been here in a while…
From what I can recall the Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper has been criticized and apparently the correlation no longer exists…
I believe that the only fair comparison that can be made to the Dalton Minimum is with the Layman’s sunspot count.
Currently it is matching the activity of the Dalton.
Any updates on the L&P graphic? I heard L&P were to take some telescope time on the 24th of January 2010…
Some reckon that maximum of SC 24 is currently occurring, one of the reasons being that a couple of regions have made it twice across the face of the visible disc, a phenomenon which is generally associated with maximum.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/stereobehind.htm is currently showing a region that could make a third transition as sunspot 9393 did (which even had similar structure to sunspot 1035).
Could this mean that maximum is near?
Or do regions normally make two transitions in the 4 years pre-max?
No doubt SC 24 will be very interesting.
Max of 50 – 70 is quite probable.

@ John F. Hultquist (23:27:21) :
“We fault proponents of AGW for their faith in CO2 as the cause of the warming (or climate change) when there is no sufficient mechanism.
How then can we claim catastrophic cooling based on these numbers from the Sun? What is the sufficient mechanism in this case?”
John, google Svensmark. A hypothetical — some would say proven — cause is well understood.

Ray (22:41:28) :

How does that fit with Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″? Is there an update to their graph?

http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
I’m not sure how often this is updated…Maybe Leif could add a date on the graph.

I have my doubts about solar cylce 24’s shape. Since we have improved immeasurably in our ability to spot blemishes on the Sun’s face, through variuos filters and magnifications unavailable even 50 years ago, I believe we are guilty of overcounting it’s spots and we will continue to do so. We all kniow that sun specks were counted, when the face was (essentially) blank that would not have been visible years ago. I believe even though the conventions are unchanged the technology is giving rise to higher counts.
Does any serious work go into benchmarking or are we preserving the rules, but using new tools to count?

ohn F. Hultquist (23:16:37) :
The universe has been around for 5 billion years >> Stephan
Try again
If electric, it has been ALWAYS here.

When comparing to the Dalton Minimum cycles 5 & 6 remember that the spot counts back then were based on naked eye counts, and thus the more “rapid” rise of 24 might not differ from those in fact.

James F. Evans (01:14:58) :As vukcevic (00:05:17) explains maximum seem to be nearer, however little as compared with previous cycles.

Updates on the solar cycle are appreciated, but this repeated use of Hanover, NH by some of the solarists is getting old. Cherry picking one station to represent earth’s temp is worse than all the paleoclimate nonsense uncovered by Climate Audit et al.

Quote: hunter (01:47:47) :
“I am curious about the claim of Oliver K. Manuel to have been “Former NASA PI for Apollo”. This is a rather enormous claim. If it were true, you’d think there would be some record of this on NASA’s website. But a search for “Oliver Manuel” reveals only one result, which is about a poster presented at a meeting. “Oliver K. Manuel” gives no hits.”
Look for NASA Grant: NASA NGR 26-0030057
Quote: Jack Jennings (Aus) (03:53:19) :
“Hey Oliver
I have enjoyed & appreciated your posts.
I know I’m lazy – what does the PI stand for?”
Answer: PI = Principal Investigator.
Somewhere I may still have a very nice letter from NASA’s Administrator thanking me for being a Principal Investigator for Apollo.
That may also explain why I was invited to Washington, DC to the National Academy of Science Building on June 26, 2008 to help celebrate the 50th Anniversary of NASA and the International Geophysical Year (IGY) that was organized by the Space Science Board.
I publicly posed this question to the gathering – twice – much to the dismay of the NAS President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Question for the Space Science Board
Can the Space Science Board help NASA move away
from the untruths that are wrecking our economy?
• Earth is bathed in a steady flow of heat from
Hydrogen-fusion in the Hydrogen-filled Sun.
• Solar neutrinos from Hydrogen-fusion melt
(oscillate) away before reaching detectors.
• Earth’s climate is immune from cycles of solar
activity (sunspots, flares, eruptions).
• Therefore CO2 from our economic engines
caused global warming.
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor and Former
NASA PI for Apollo Lunar Studies
http://www.omatumr.com
REFERENCES:
1. P. D. Jose: 1965, “Sun’s motion and sunspots”,
Astronomy Journal 70, 193-200.
2. R. W. Fairbridge and J. H. Shirley: 1987, “Prolonged
minima and the 179 year cycle of the solar inertial motion,”
Solar Physics 110, 191-220.
3. Theodor Landscheidt: 1999, “Extrema in sunspot
cycle linked to Sun’s motion”, Solar Physics 189, 413-424.
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
4. O. Manuel et al: 2005, “Isotopes tell origin and
operation of the Sun” http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510001
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Microphones were removed from the aisle after lunch so the gathering would not be exposed to inconvenient truths.]

“wayne (03:06:34) :
After reading Friis-Christensen and Lassen’s paper I’m a little at loss of words. Wish I had found and read that month’s ago. Seems many of the same things I’ve been posting here were in that paper written back in 1991. A bit embarrassing. ”
Heck no ! If two independent thinkers reach the same observation from the same data – but working without collusion then it gives credibility to both.
An important principle is at stake here – results can be replicated. I just wish the same could be applied to all the climate papers published.

Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”
Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:
http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png
Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

Re: http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Uh-oh.
Excerpt (emphasis added):

Previous Positions
1983-1984, Visiting Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Astrophysics

Tata? As in the (formerly known as) Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)?
Ah-ha! Oliver K. Manuel is actually a plant from Pachauri sent to spy on us “deniers” and spew disinformation! GET HIM!!
Seriously though, Professor Manuel, how did that short stint come about?

Thanks Oliver.
I think I tuned in to WUWT around the time the “Weather station in Shenzhen” was first posted and have been an avid reader ever since. Whilst a lot flies over my head I’ve greatly appreciated the contributions from more knowledgeable folk – even the trolls, I’ve had to go and look up all these new terms !
This helps me greatly to suggest to my kids that they could be reading more widely than just accepting what is shown on the front page of the newspaper.
Whilst I don’t understand a lot of the technical stuff I value greatly the intellectual rigour which is clearly discernible.
I liked particularly the weather station projects as the pictures really put the lie to all the techo spiel – my kids got it. But I’m loving the sunspots – it seems I’m privy to a whole new body of knowledge being developed.
Cheers Jack
PS I do make my kids go and look things up so thanks for your latitude.

Tenuc: You wrote, “Hi Bob, do you by any chance have a similar graph for earlier periods please, say 200yag to date? The reason for this is that I read somewhere that there was a reasonable correlation between temp. and solar activity up to around 1965, but it’s gone pear-shaped since then? Any info would be useful please.”
SST reconstructions only go back to the 1850s, so there’s only160 years. With respect to the other portion of your question, there’s an obsolete TSI reconstruction that was created to help climate scientists explain the rise in global temperatures during the early 20th century. It’s the light gray one identified as Hoyt in the following graph from Leif Svalgaard:
http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
The current understanding of TSI variability is shown in red, the curve identified as Svalgaard. Its minimums show little change from one cycle to the next. So my guess is, the correlation you recall was based on an obsolete TSI reconstruction.
The graph is from a post titled IPCC 20th Century Simulations Get a Boost from Outdated Solar Forcings:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
It also ran here at WUWT.

Vuk etc (13:13:27) : The link you provided to the graphic of the Ocean Conveyor Belt…
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
…is believed to have a cycle length of 1500 years. But if you know of papers that express shorter time periods, please provide links. I’ve looked and can’t find them.
The ocean basin with the greatest multidecadal variability due to thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation is the North Atlantic. This phenomenon expresses itself in the variability in North Atlantic SST anomalies known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and its cycle length is about 60 to 80 years. Here’s a long-term (multiple century) reconstruction of North Atlantic SST from Gray et al (2004) “A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D.”
http://i47.tinypic.com/ekkhuc.png
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html
Most shorter-term representations of the AMO are represented by detrended North Atlantic SST anomalies:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2uqlw28.jpg
Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html
Regards

Bob Tisdale (13:59:18)
Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures and according to ships logs the mid latitude storm tracks were nearer the equator at those times which in my view is a ‘fingerprint’ of cooler ocean surfaces.
Then there is that source which said the ITCZ was nearer the equator during the LIA:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
and now it has moved northward again:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
It is well established that a warmer world is associated with more poleward tracks of weather systems so a cooler world would have more equatorward tracks.
Now if you could show me a period of time when the ocean surfaces warmed yet the jets moved equatorward then I might concede that you have a point.
Can you do that ?
The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.
That gives us the question as to whether or not that is circumnstantial or evidence of a direct causative correlation between all three variables or any two of them.
On the basis of what Leif says about the smallness of solar variability I suspect circumnstantial at the moment.
Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely ?

Stephen Wilde: Regarding your 14:49:55 reply. You began with, “Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures…”
Your statement upon which I based my request had nothing to do with the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum. You specifically used the word “currently”. I don’t believe any bloggers here at WUWT (other then yourself) would accept your interpretation of “currently” to represent the late 1600s to the early 1700s or the late 1700s to early 1800s.
Then you shifted topics to the ITCZ. Wrong subject.
Third try…
Stephen Wilde (03:40:14): You wrote, “…e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active…”
I replied, Really? Please show this on the following graph. Don’t forget to account for the El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo eruptions:
http://i50.tinypic.com/30vyigy.png
I continued, Would you like me to remove the effects of the volcanic eruptions and the linear effects of ENSO to see if that helps?

Basil (18:42:35) :I do not doubt that the variability in climate begins in the tropics, where solar insolation is greatest. But atmospheric processes play the greater role in distributing this energy poleward,
Would you say this is true due to the relative speed of atmospheric transport, relative to the ocean current speed. Due to the difference in mass, I’m having trouble imagining a mechanism that would work.

Bob Tisdale (17:03:20)
Third try at getting you to understand 🙂
By ‘currently’ I mean during the existing interglacial and overall on average not a specific moment of time such as a single day or even a single year.
Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.
The ocean surfaces from 2005 to 2009 have been releasing energy less fast than from 1998 to 2005 yet the ocean heat content has failed to increase. That clearly violates my ideas and also yours because you see a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans. Thus I suggest that the reason for that discrepancy would be the weak sun and/or increased albedo from more cloudiness.
I don’t see your problem with that proposal since it helps to retain the value of your concepts as well as mine in the face of what looks like contrary evidence namely a reduction of ocean heat content simultaneously with a slowing of the rate of energy release from the oceans.
As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.
When I read the work of others I try to get behind what they are trying to say because a single error or unclear wording within a submission is not an indication that the whole submission is wrong. A lawyer learns that very early on.
You seem to seize on a single comment that you may not agree with or which you do not like or maybe that you have not fully understood in the more general context and then fire off with both barrels.

Basil (18:42:35)
Yes it’s down to relative rates of energy transfer between different layers of the Earth system with the troposphere sandwiched in the middle being pulled and pushed this way and that way.
In the short term the air circulations in the troposphere carry most of the energy poleward but the long slow ocean movements set up the background trend against which the air circulation systems have to react.
The heart of the problem is not the planet’s radiative balance as a whole but the radiative balance between individual layered components of the Earth system.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of energy transfer varies all the time between ocean and air, air and space and between different layers in the oceans and air.
That is what we need to get a grip on to diagnose changes in the energy content of the troposphere.
The observed climate is just the equilibrium response to such variations with the positions of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle always adjusting to bring energy variations above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?)

So far concerning the current situation Leif Svaalgard has not been accurate…the sun’s lack of sunspots/activity is correlating with lower temps and freezing conditions in NH and SH especially in winter, both in 08, 09 and so far 2010. Of course it may mean nothing just a coincidence. That famous graph sunspot v temps would seems to be reverting to high correlation significance?

I have a question: Given where the current spots are traveling across the sun, how far into this solar cycle are we? I may be misunderstanding, but if spots get closer to the equator region of the sun later in the cycle, are starting the cycle now? or are we mid cycle? .. I hope that made sence.

Stephen Wilde: You replied, “As I suggested, your perspective is far too narrow.”
And your failure to illustrate your previous claim with the simple graph I provided you is telling.
You wrote, “Generally overall we do see low levels of solar activity at the same time as the ocean surfaces are cool and vice versa.”
And I have asked you repeatedly to use the graph I provided to back your claim. You don’t. If the data verified what you’ve written, you would have used that graph and discussed the rises and fall of global SST anomalies in response to the variations in solar activity.
You replied, “The ocean surfaces from 2005 to 2009 have been releasing energy less fast than from 1998 to 2005 yet the ocean heat content has failed to increase. That clearly violates my ideas and also yours because you see a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans.”
I suggest you return to my posts on ENSO and find where I have written that I see “a reduced rate of energy release as a period of energy recharge for the oceans.” Please find the post, because any discussion of energy discharge and recharge would be limited to the tropical Pacific Ocean, not “the oceans” in general, and would have been limited to discharge during El Nino events and recharge during La Nina events. Outside of the tropics, my writings are discussions of SST responding to ENSO-induced changes in atmospheric circulation, or to the ENSO-induced redistribution of warm waters by ocean currents, or, specific to the North Atlantic, in response to the AMO.
And just in case you believe that the tropical Pacific OHC responds to the solar cycle, I’ll put that to rest also. A blogger at my website commented that rises in tropical Pacific OHC occurred at solar maximums. This was not supported by data, so I replied, I’ve added scaled sunspot numbers to the graph of Tropical Pacific OHC vs NINO3.4 vs Sato Index data:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2dugxop.png
The anomalous rise in OHC that occurred in 1995 happened at the solar minimum between SS#22 and SS#23. The biggest factor in that rise was the strengthening of the trade winds above normal levels for the size of the La Nina. Refer to discussion under the heading of IS THERE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC GREENHOUSE GASES ON THE RECHARGE MODE OF ENSO?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
You concluded your comment above, Stephen, with, “You seem to seize on a single comment that you may not agree with or which you do not like or maybe that you have not fully understood in the more general context and then fire off with both barrels.”
I respond to comments that contradict data–in other words, that are factually wrong. You wrote in full, “So the question arises as to whether the phasing of high solar activity with warmer tropospheric temperatures is simply a coincidence as I think Leif would contend whilst the true climate driver is in fact the oceans which currently vary the rate of release of energy approximately in phase with solar activity levels e.g. currently the ocean surfaces tend to be positive (warming) at the same time as the sun is more active and that tends to give the possibly false impression of a causative correlation between solar activity levels and tropospheric temperatures.”
So if you feel I took your statement out of context, you could pull up some graphs from somewhere and detail the claims you’ve made. If you can illustrate parts of that paragraph, that’s fine, but the portion I responded to has no basis in fact. If it had, you would have used the graph I provided you and ended the discussion.
Stephen, this is not the first time you’ve made comments that contradict the instrument temperature record. On the “NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly” thread, just days ago, you wrote, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.” It’s tough to take that out of context. It is simply wrong. Average Global SST anomalies from 1979 to 2003 were significantly less than they are today. SST anomalies have risen over the past thirty years, which is one of the reasons this blog exists.
FYI, I don’t search for your comments. In fact, I scroll upwards from the bottom looking for replies to me or for questions directed toward me, so, most times, I have no idea who has written a specific comment until I reply.

Basil: You wrote, “You’d have a different perspective if you’d look at the first differences of the data. Check this out,” and provided this link:
http://i47.tinypic.com/kasavo.jpg
Do you have link to the source of the graph?
Regards

tallbloke (13:23:06) :
Ah, so it’s your idea that energy is accumulation of power 🙂

Basil,
Lunar is all you need
http://virakkraft.com/moon-volcano-temp.png
http://virakkraft.com/uah-rss-moon.png

Stephen Wilde: You wrote, speaking about me, not to me, “Until he can accommodate that into his ideas he will not ‘get’ what I say and we will continue to generate confusion.”
I understand precisely what you write. It’s very difficult to misinterpret when you write something as factually wrong as, “Global SSTs are higher than they were in 2007 but I’m thinking in terms of the period 1979 to 2003 when they were on average higher than today.”

Basil: Thanks for your explanation of how you created the graphs. I asked for the source because I’ve plotted the monthly change in sunspot numbers and the monthly change in global SST anomalies in the past (without the seasonal difference). I’ve never posted them because they illustrated little to no correlation:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2v9oehj.png
The dominant factor is, of course, ENSO, illustrated in a comparison of monthly changes in global SST anomalies versus scaled NINO3.4 SST anomalies:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2d144ux.png
With respect to the seasonal difference you use, I assume that you’re applying this to the temperature data, but not the sunspot data. Is this correct?
Regards

anna v (08:53:26) :
….
Hi Leif
I have the impression that in the plot above it is the anomaly of the following cycle that is being displayed. If I am not wrong, do you keep the same convention in your plots? Do you have anything written to accompany them?
anna
Ok, Anna – solar cycle 20 ended in 1976. It lasted 11.5-12 years.
1. Which data point corresponds to the temperature reading for that cycle? 2. What data was used to determine the temperatures?
3. How was the temperature calculated, i.e. is it the mean of the following cycle or something different?

Bob, would you please stop repeating a comment which I made in relation to which I have already admitted a slip. I accepted in an earlier post that I had not realised how much higher the SSTs were in the years 1998 to 2005 as against the build up to the peak that occurred from 1979.
I have already pointed out that I should have referred to the average size of the SST anomalies between 1998 and 2005 as against the period 2005 to 2009.
On the basis of that comparison my initial assertion was correct. The latter period was clearly one of reduced rate of energy loss from the oceans as compared to the former period.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 4 11:26),
Thanks
longer cycles are warmer than shorter cycles.
I thought that the conclusion from the Hanover NH plot is that a longer cycle is a precursor for having a colder cycle next.
The only reason I am intrigued by this datum is that if the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis holds then this would be the expected result: a longer period with high albedo therefore a cooler next cycle.
6. In my opinion the whole thing is not substantiated. On top of that F-C&L used a 5-point smooth, so it is impossible to say what the value of the length of ‘cycle 23′ to use in their ‘relationship’ would be for cycles until after cycle 25, or for SC24 until after cycle 26. So to say that because SC23 was long, it follows that temps must be cool the past cycle or now is plain nonsense if it would be based on F-C&L.
I can see that the smoothing by F-C&L would obscure any issue.
Nevertheless, I would be interested to see a world temperature anomaly versus length of previous cycle, testing on the hypothesis that longer cycles mean higher albedo ( not necessarily only galactic, I have been intrigued by the plankton-UV-cloud connection too).

It’s still pretty warm though, even if the solar irradiance is low. This january is the hottest recorded, according to RSS, 0.64 degree celcius above the normal:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt

Stephen Wilde: Let’s drop back to your comment to Basil, in which you wrote about me, not to me. You wrote, “In my cautious opinion Bob appears to lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.”
I know I’ve provided these three links to you on at least one occasion, but let me try again:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
and
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects_26.html
and
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-detail-on-multiyear-aftereffects.html
If you were to read and comprehend what is written in those three posts, and in the papers and addition posts linked to them, you would find that I do not “lack a way of integrating his ENSO work into a more comprehensive global climate overview.” Much of the content of those posts and in my numerous posts about the multiyear aftereffects of ENSO events are discussions about the impacts of ENSO outside of the tropical Pacific.
In other words, your “cautious opinion” is contradicted by my writings.

tata (13:22:44) :
Where has it been the hottest to offset a very cold NH winter on land, to produce the warmest January ever??

Re: rbateman (Feb 4 19:02),
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Those southern waters, Green land waters and Alaska 🙂

I do not think there is a meaning in averaging the global temperature because it is the energy that is important, and the energy from temperature transformation is not linear, goes like c*T^4 where c depends on the material, has a spectrum dependence and can vary from the black body constant by as much as 25% . In addition the surfaces of the earth are fractal, so simple geometric integration is out.
Ditto for averaging anomalies and then deriving energy balances from these averages.
There is a meaning in local temperatures, if the gray constant does not change, because they can be translated to heat measures for that specific location.
I accept that Leif has shown that the correlation of sun cycle length with global temperature anomalies is non existent. Nevertheless there exist local plots that show some correlation.
It is easy to lose a correlation seen in localized data in averaging over the globe. Let me give a simple example, ( I am not pushing it as dogma 🙂 )
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. UV light also gives sunburn to humans.
The plankton try to protect themselves by producing a chemical compound called DMSP, which some scientists believe helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and changes into another substance called DMS.
DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it breaks down again to form tiny dust-like particles. These tiny particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean that less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.
Now if we average clouds over the year( when it is summer in the north it is winter in the south and vice versa) this effect will disappear in the multiplicity of factors that make clouds and will not be seen as an effect of plankton.
We do not have such a long and clear record of the albedo to be able to talk of correlations with sun cycles at the moment. What is more to the point is that the albedo generation system is also chaotic, a lot of interdependent factors add up to create the albedo so one should never really expect a one to one correlation for any input, and certainly not on values averaged over the globe.

Re: Leif Svalgaard (Feb 5 06:40),
We measure the albedo by looking at Earthshine on the Moon.
Yes, but for very few cycles.
Now if it doesn’t make sense to compute a global temperature or albedo, that will make the Svensmark cosmic ray theory non-falsifiable as it posits a connection chain like this: GCR=>clouds=>albedo=>temp
I am not saying that it makes no sense to compute a global energy flux per m^2. Energy is what is conserved and of course it can be averaged. So of course the GCR hypothesis can be falsified if there is no change in the albedo.
Albedo impacts on energy and if it is averaged over the globe by earthshine then that would be an ok global measure. I was thinking from the down side on cloud creation in general where many processes enter.
I will read the reference and see if I understand it :).

Stephen: You wrote, “You are analysing merely the filling in the sandwich namely from ocean surface to tropopause.”
Then apparently you’ve missed reading the numerous posts with the discussions about ENSO-induced variations in tropical Pacific cloud amount that cause changes in Downward Shortwave Radiation. You’ve missed the discussions of how La Nina events not only recharge the tropical Pacific OHC, but also redistribute the warm water released from the Pacific Warm Pool by El Nino events. You’ve missed the discussions of how ENSO-induced changes in Hadley Circulation, Walker Circulation, wind stress, etc., change surface temperatures remote to the tropical Pacific. Apparently you’ve missed a lot.

As a home project, I have plotted all post-1700 sunspot cycles together and aligning them all with the start of cycle-23. On this basis, the post-Dalton cycle-9 to cycle-10 transition in 1856 seems to match the current cycle-23 to cycle-24 transition data fairly well also.

Quote: Simon Filiatrault (04:02:12) :
“Nice info from NASA on the Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/05feb_sdo.htm?list26348
Yes, Simon, cold weather and snow have remarkably improved common sense at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), NASA Headquarters, NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, and the University of Colorado.
From NASA Headquarters: “The sun,” explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, “is a variable star.”
From NRL: “Understanding solar variability is crucial,” says space scientist Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. “Our modern way of life depends upon it.”
From NRL: “‘Solar constant’ is an oxymoron,” says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. “Satellite data show that the sun’s total irradiance rises an falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount.”
From NAS: According to a 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could cause twenty times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina.
From Boulder, CO: “If human eyes could see EUV wavelengths, no one would doubt that the sun is a variable star,” says Tom Woods of the University of Colorado in Boulder.
From Goddard Spaceflight Center: “Understanding the inner workings of the solar dynamo has long been a ‘holy grail’ of solar physics,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
Leif may be left alone defending the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
Now DOE (Department of Energy) scientists need to get involved and admit or deny that neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun and generates the cycles of solar magnetic activity that are empirically linked with changes in Earth’s climate.
I am grateful to the weather, to Anthony Watts and to everyone here for encouraging NAS, NASA, and NRL to re-examine old dogmas. It would be great if we could also get DOE scientists to reconsider their dogma about N-N interactions.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Good luck, Leif.
May you not be the last one on the sinking ship!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (15:51:56) :
“So from the safety of your floating boat, you can demonstrate your superior understanding by doing a little calculation for us.”
I have done already that in several papers, Leif:
1. “Earth’s heat source – The Sun”, Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
2. “”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
3. “Isotopes tell origin and operation of the Sun”, AIP Conference Proceedings 822 (2006) 206-225
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0510001
Or you are welcome to join the discussion group that Kirt Griffin formed and moderates, “”Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,” neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/neutron_repulsion/join
http://tinyurl.com/y8gr422
Or e-mail: mailto:neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Constant stars…do they have planets?

Bob,
All my works including most of my posts in this thread refer to the whole range of climate variability from ENSO events, through PDO phase shifts (or whatever you prefer to call them) to multicentury shifts from MWP to LIA et al and even the differences between ice ages and interglacials.
I have pointed out that any lack of correlation is mainly in the shorter time scales where chaotic variability has a larger effect proportionately.
The historic temperature record is grossly inadequate for understanding the entirety of the system. At the very least oone has to involve proxy records and preferably also verbal historical records from past civilisations.
As I say, my scenario if even only partly correct would explain a great deal.
Your expert analysis of short term ENSO phenomena does not entitle you to be so dismissive of my work.
I am puzzled by your determination to dismiss what I say because I do not see it as derogating significantly from your findings.

Bob Tisdale
I said this previously
“Well we have the Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum et al with lower levels of solar activity and colder temperatures and according to ships logs the mid latitude storm tracks were nearer the equator at those times which in my view is a ‘fingerprint’ of cooler ocean surfaces.
Then there is that source which said the ITCZ was nearer the equator during the LIA:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2009/07/06/itcz-moved-southward-from-the-medieval-warm-period-to-the-little-ice-age/
and now it has moved northward again:
It is well established that a warmer world is associated with more poleward tracks of weather systems so a cooler world would have more equatorward tracks.
Now if you could show me a period of time when the ocean surfaces warmed yet the jets moved equatorward then I might concede that you have a point.
Can you do that ?
The fact is that during the current interglacial all the evidence available is that cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity all occur at the same time.
That gives us the question as to whether or not that is circumnstantial or evidence of a direct causative correlation between all three variables or any two of them.
On the basis of what Leif says about the smallness of solar variability I suspect circumnstantial at the moment.
Perhaps your detailed knowledge is causing you to dismiss broader perspectives unwisely ?

Leif,
OK, I should say that on average for most of the time cooler temperatures, cooler ocean surfaces and lower levels of solar activity coincide.
As I have said before what matters is the interaction whereby there is a constantly shifting balance between the separate solar and oceanic cyclical influences and that does not preclude occasions where the pattern breaks for a while.
The Oort minimum is just a period when the solar cycle was out of phase with the oceanic cycles. Part of my submission is that the solar and oceanic cycles may well change their periodicities independently so the Oort minimum during a warm period would just be an example of that.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we are not getting a coherent climate overview is the failure to appreciate that in such a complex system there are countercyclical events that do not disprove the underlying relationships.
It’s like the PDO positive phase enhancing El Nino and suppressing La Nina on average over time. It’s still possible to get a whopping La Nina in a positive phase and vice versa. That would not disprove the otherwise clear 30 / 60 year phase shifts.

Leif Svalgaard (12:23:08)
No.
You just have to appreciate that in a complex system there will always be occasions when longer term correlations that are truly suggestive of the underlying relationships will fail to hold.
The answer is to take longer period averages. My suggestions would be falsified if certain events were seen to occur such as :
i) movement of air circulation systems equatorward at a time of warming ocean surfaces and an absence of a powerful Arctic Oscillation.
ii) warming of the troposphere at a time of cooling ocean surfaces and an active sun
iii) cooling of the troposphere at a time of warming ocean surfaces and a quiet sun.
iv) a failure of the upper atmosphere to respond to increased solar activity by ejecting more energy to space as per recent SABER observations
v) the interglacial climate swings becoming as severe as ice age climate swings without a change in the phasing of solar and oceanic cycles
There would be other ways to falsify my suggestions if one were to work through all the possibilities.
If you wish to do so please see if you can come up with such real world observations that do not fit the broader long term picture at all rather than just pointing to short term lack of correlation.
Just as spurious correlations are to be avoided so must one avoid being misled when a failure to see a correlation serves only to hide the underlying truth.

All this fighting seems rather pointless.The truth of the matter is it’s probably far too early to make any real statements about solar cycle 24, and comments are probably best left until September 2010 at the earliest. This post by Archibald seems lightweight and hollow, not up to scratch. Archibald is paid to find oil afaik, so it’s probably in his interest to claim against AGW.
All the people with their pet theory (and they are all pet theories until someone really understands what’s going on with the Sun and I’ve yet to be convinced they do) are starting to wear me down. “It’s the planets and their alignments’ ‘it’s orbit’ ‘it’s the sun spot cycle’
Solar cycle 24 may well be a slow starter and we may well be on the verge (or not) of a super minimum. Science just seems to have fallen to the level of mud slinging and insults, rather than solid arguments which can be demonstrated. Science is a testament to what we can know even though we are fallible.
We’ve forgotten that if we are wrong, that shows something as well, and that we progress. There is no fault in being wrong. We often are. Just learn from it.

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:27:21) :
“If the data does not support the idea, it is not science to cling to it.”
When will you start, Leif? Would you like to address the data that Professor Stig Friberg and I summarized on the composition of the solar interior at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology, Big Bear Lake, California [European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348]?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1
Just start with the data in Figure 1 [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101] and work your way to the data in Figure 6 [Journal of Radio-analytical & Nuclear
Chemistry 252 (2002) 3-7].
Don’t overlook the data in Table 1 [Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on Origin of Elements in the Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000) 279-287].
Good luck, Leif.
You will learn a lot if you actually start to practice what you preach!
Oliver K. Manuel

Quote: Leif Svalgaard (08:59:21) :
“To gain some credibility you can start with simply answering my questions.”
No, Leif, I will not waste my time spoon feeding your inflated ego!
You can read published, peer-reviewed papers like everyone else.
Or you can simply ignore the data and cling to your childish illusion of a Hydrogen-filled Sun!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo

Stephen Wilde (08:14:04) :
Oliver K. Manuel (08:49:56) :
Stand firm. I’m following both of you thoughts and are rather impressed with your thoughts. Every path in physics which can be followed, dead-end or not, is proper. As a system analyst for most of my working life I have always learned more by the dead-ends and mistakes.
Both of you, wish I could write with your clarity!
Stephen, have you read Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi’s paper? Might you accept a deeper and between the lines view of his paper which directly addresses the “correlations” themselves batted about above and how the correlations are damaging climate physics itself?
Just ask.