Archibald on stellar to climate linkage

The Warning in the Stars

By David Archibald

If climate is not a random walk, then we can predict climate if we understand what drives it.  The energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level and type of that energy does change.  So the Sun is a good place to start if we want to be able to predict climate.  To put that into context, let’s look at what the Sun has done recently.  This is a figure from “Century to millenial-scale temperature variations for the last two thousand years indicated from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska” G.C.Wiles, D.J.Barclay, P.E.Calkin and T.V.Lowell 2007:

https://i2.wp.com/icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald1sun.JPG

The red line is the C14 production rate, inverted.  C14 production is inversely related to solar activity, so we see more C14 production during solar minima.  The black line is the percentage of ice-rafted debris in seabed cores of the North Atlantic, also plotted inversely.  The higher the black line, the warmer the North Atlantic was.  The grey vertical stripes are solar minima. 

As the authors say, “Previous analyses of the glacial record showed a 200- year rhythm to glacial activity in Alaska and its possible link to the de Vries 208-year solar (Wiles et al., 2004). Similarly, high-resolution analyses of lake sediments in southwestern Alaska suggests that century-scale shifts in Holocene climate were modulated by solar activity (Hu et al., 2003).  It seems that the only period in the last two thousand years that missed a de Vries cycle cooling was the Medieval Warm Period.”

The same periodicity over the last 1,000 years is also evident in this graphic of the advance/retreat of the Great Aletsch Glacier in Switzerland:

https://i2.wp.com/icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald2sun.JPG

The solar control over climate is also shown in this graphic of Be10 in the Dye 3 ice core from central Greenland:

https://i0.wp.com/icecap.us/images/uploads/Archibald3sun.JPG

The modern retreat of the world’s glaciers, which started in 1860, correlates with a decrease in Be10, indicating a more active Sun that is pushing galactic cosmic rays out from the inner planets of the solar system.

The above graphs show a correlation between solar activity and climate in the broad, but we can achieve much finer detail, as shown in this graphic from a 1996 paper by Butler and Johnson (below enlarged here)::

Butler and Johnson applied Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory to one temperature record – the three hundred years of data from Armagh in Northern Ireland.  There isn’t much scatter around their line of best fit, so it can be used as a fairly accurate predictive tool.  The Solar Cycle 22/23 transition happened in the year of that paper’s publication, so I have added the lengths of Solar Cycles 22 and 23 to the figure to update it.  The result is a prediction that the average annual temperature at Armagh over Solar Cycle 24 will be 1.4C cooler than over Solar Cycle 23.  This is twice the assumed temperature rise of the 20th Century of 0.7 C, but in the opposite direction.

To sum up, let’s paraphrase Dante: The darkest recesses of Hell are reserved for those who deny the solar control of climate.

This essay is also available in PDF form: TheWarningintheStars

Advertisements

277 thoughts on “Archibald on stellar to climate linkage

  1. What did the temps do between cycle 1 and 2? 2 and 3? 3 and 4? As for the other graphs, what is the significance? How does C14 and other measures relate to temperature? Finally what were the climate mechanisms operative at the time? I mean all the mechanisms, not just solar mechanisms.

  2. In the first graph, it appears that C14 levels peak and trough in both greater levels, and over larger time scales over time. Is data available for further back, and could this indicate solar cycles on a larger scale? Could we perhaps have seen similar data and the end of previous interglacial periods?
    Thanks in advance.

  3. Since the earth is in the atmosphere of the sun it seems changes in the sun would make for changes on the earth.

    Has everyone yet seen this documentary and the sun and climate on earth? I know there are new readers since ClimateGate.

    in 5 parts in youtube

  4. Leif Svalgaard, a noted solar physicist, has written a lot about the Sun. But he does not seem to believe the Sun-climate link theory. Can someone provide a link to Leif’s paper why this is so? Leif also does not seem to believe that SC 24 will behave like SC 5 (start of Dalton Minimum). Thanks.

  5. OT, but has anyone else noticed the irony of the Google ads that appear here?
    They all seem to be for hyper-green organizations.

    I am all for conservation, but not for those who make wild, unscientific exaggerations to advance an anti-capitalist agenda. I know that I have never been tempted to click on one of these ads so thy are wasting their money.

  6. “a fairly accurate predictive tool.”

    “The result is a prediction that the average annual temperature at Armagh over Solar Cycle 24 will be 1.4C cooler than over Solar Cycle 23. ”
    =====
    Predictions?, the data is chaotic at best.
    There are 3-4 variables that could overwhelm the entire system depending on their intensity.
    I.E. volcanic activity, our variable star, galactic interactions and/or a combination of all of these.

    Predictions scare me, they got us into the AGW fiasco.

  7. I hope more research will be done about the sun, because the climate is clearly correlated with possibly a lot of complexity. The sun shines at different frequencies and different feedbacks could be discovered.

    Here is an hypothesis which is probably wrong but might be worth testing:

    1. A hot sun generates a lot of water vapor.

    2. Dust particles and aerosols accelerates the rate of water vapor condensing to clouds.

    3. When the sun is more powerful, the dust particles and aerosols get much warmer and cloud formation is lowered because the condensation on theses particles is lowered.

    4. When the sun is hot, you have:
    a. More water vapor in the air.(positive feedback)
    b. Reduced cloud cover during the day.(positive feedback)
    c. Cloud formation during the night because the dust particles and aerosols are colder and can condensate the high amount of humidity.(positive feedback)

    If anybody knows the results of a study of this hypothesis, feel free to share.

  8. This a pure Archibald, and also pure nonsense and cherry picking. You do not need to go any further than the very first Figure. The red curve is supposed to be solar activity [inverse 14C] and the gray bands solar minima. It is clear they don’t line up. Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000. The rest is as bad. I would be ashamed to post junk like this, but that is, of course, only my humble opinion and David has his loyal flock, so stay tuned to hear the hymn from them.

  9. It’s a pretty interesting article.

    It does seem like it’s hard to be conclusive about the solar insolation any time before 1978. Each approach gives a quite different result. Once you go back before observation of the sun with telescopes in the 1600s it’s even less certain. There are a few reconstructions with explanations in:

    Here Comes the Sun.

    In fact even picking up what might be significant changes after 1978 aren’t so clear as the changes are similar in magnitude to the errors in the on-board instruments!

    But before 1978 the solar reconstruction really depends on the theory that’s applied. Like sunspots for example. So we have very detailed daily observations of sunspots and faculae (“bright spots”) back to 1870. People like Solanski & Fligge have worked out correlations between satellite measurements and observations – then applied these backwards. But as they note, the reconstruction is dependent on the assumption that the measured relationships have been the same for more than a century. Is that assumption correct?

    Other measurements like Be10 seem to offer more – and have the advantage that we can measure back more than a millenium – but still there is more uncertainty than certainty.

  10. Nonoy Oplas (16:42:38) : “believe”

    “Believe” is the key to answer your own question. The sorts of things presented are intriguing but there are several suggested explanations as to why they are so. When you get down to one explanation that is supported by good science – check back.

  11. I agree with Leif. The presentation makes no sense. No lit review, or purpose of the study, no method or analysis, no discussion, no proposed mechanism, no suggestions for further research. Nothing. You said there is a correlation. Okay, if you did the calculations, what is it? And I don’t even want to discuss the cherry picked cycle and temperature plot. You have published? In peer reviewed journals? Are we that down low on your audience list that we rate this terrible piece of work?

  12. How many comments will be posted before we see Archibald and those who believe him get into a boxing match with Leif?

    Anyway regarding current happenings about the weather here and whether it’s been getting colder, we’ve had a generally below average January and February in Wichita at least, though it seems that lows above freezing and Spring arriving is just around the corner (the songbirds are returning and the daffodils are growing)

  13. I’m not as harsh, perhaps, as Leif, but I think, for the prediction of a 1.4C decline in temperature, it is reasonable to ask what the prediction interval is.

    Here is something written by Harrison Schmitt (link to follow) which I think states a basic reality:

    “Earth’s climate changes are extraordinarily complex phenomena. They represent decadal, to millennial, to epochal changes in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere and oceans.”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-what-we-should-be-doing-about-natural-climate-change/

    DId you catch that? Basically, all natural climate variation can be reduced to an interaction between (a) terrestrial atmospheric and oceanic processes and (b) and the sun (“solar heating imbalances”). I mean, how could it be otherwise? The great gulf between Archibald and Svalgaard only demonstrates how little we actually understand about the nature of this interaction.

  14. Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) : This a pure Archibald, and also pure nonsense and…

    Which releives me of the need to follow this thread further.
    Thanks for freeing up my time, Leif.

  15. The disjunction between the views of David Archibald and Leif Svalgaard has been exercising me for some time.

    Leif’s points about the smallness in the absolute level of variations in solar output are persuasive but I find it difficult to accept his complete dismissal of any correlation between cool spells and periods of reduced solar activity and also his complete dismissal of the possibility that other aspects of solar variability apart from raw power output could have a disproportionate effect on climate.

    David’s work takes due note of the apparent correlations and interprets them persuasively but fails to propose mechanisms to explain weaknesses in the correlation or exactly how such proportionately small solar changes could have what seem to be large climate responses.

    I have tried to square the circle by proposing that oceanic variations in the rate of energy release are the most direct climate driver with solar changes providing the longer term background trend with both oceanic and solar influences varying independently and capable of moving in and out of phase over millennia.

    That provides a mechanism to explain the failures of correlation from time to time and also accounts for the size of climate shifts in the face of small solar variability. Additionally it can explain why the size and speed of climate shifts seems to vary greatly between periods of glaciation and interglacials.

    As regards the scale of solar effects I have proposed that counterintuitively a more active sun increases the rate of energy loss to space more than the additional power output provided by the extra activity adds energy to the Earth system. When the active sun causes an expansion of the upper atmosphere we see an increased surface area of atmosphere exposed to space with a faster transfer of energy outward. An active sun also creates a more turbulent upper atmosphere which also increases total surface area at the interfaces between each layer of the upper atmosphere for a similar effect.

    That proposition helps to explain why climate shifts are smaller during interglacials than they are during glacial epochs because during interglacials the solar effects offset oceanic influences reducing climate variability but during glaciations the solar effects compound oceanic influences giving much larger climate variability.

    I am open to sensible arguement rebutting such propositions convincingly but I have yet to hear it.

  16. I read a non-scientific paper that argued that we crossed the galactic plane in 1998. Readers here would also note that that is an anonymously warm year. I figure that as we entered the plane, the galactic rays would increase. But the chart claims they decreasing. Is there a way I can resolve the chart with my hypothesis? Of course it could be that the1998 transit date is just wrong… But I was looking for a way that might explain why it was as warm as it was.

  17. The sun/climate issue is fraught with baggage.

    On the one hand, the sun obviously determines Earth’s climate. Why else would the Aztes have been carving out people’s beating hearts as to it offerings during droughts?

    On the other hand, the sun can’t possibly influence Earth’s climate because it’s too far away.

    In between those two views are other views.

    Be10 is useful because it stands out, but it is only a proxy for other atomic nuclei that we can’t measure because they’re ubiquitous, so it’s an imperfect measure of the state of the cosmic ray flux in a given era.

    What is very useful is that the sun has finally changed modes in an era when we have the instrumentation to actually measure what’s going on. I think the next decade will be pivotal in examine the link between the sun and climate.

  18. Hrm… I should’ve previewed but I was in the middle of a cat/wild bird war. A wild bird has taken up residence above my head due to the unusually cold weather, and I don’t have the heart to toss him out in the snow. The new kitty (rescued from the freezing woods of Eastern Kentucky) finds him fascinating and wants to play with him, but the bird is having none of it. Today I realized that the bird is ignoring all the bird feed and has been eating the cat’s food, which might explain the cat’s emotionally charged attitude regarding the bird. The bird seems to know that he’s overstepping his bounds regarding the cat because he has no qualms about landing on my bunnies.

    Anyway, the wild bird pooped on my keyboard, which somehow damaged not only the keyboard (which I’ve swapped out twice to no avail) but the motherboard’s keyboard interface. This has almost randomized my cursor and delete keys. Meanwhile the rescue kitty sits on my chest insisting that I don’t preview my comments, and the rabbits think its fun to hop across me and the damaged keyboard, rendering my attention to comment review wholly inadequate.

    It’s a cruel joke that mother nature has played on me, filling my house with refugees from the coming ice age even as I try to comment on global warming. The only thing that would make my life worse is a wooly mammoth in my living room.

  19. Leif,

    The “Flock” as you say would like for you to produce a graph of your heating bill, or the BTU’s needed to heat your home, or some “real” world representation of your home needs to heat in the winter. Better yet over the last 25 years.

    If you can’t produce this then maybe you can produce a graph of the worlds “grain” production over the last 40 years.

    Maybe you can show us in some way how all this climate is a random walk?

    Maybe you can tell us why the “Russians” and the “Chineese” are taking stronger global positions in energy production?

    How about giving the “Flock” some guidance on the elevated level of earthquake activity in the last 2 years.

    Hey Leif!, it took a “flock” to get to the moon.

    Who would best fit the “Flock” mentality? “Chaimberlain” or “Churchill”?

    When the gas runs low or the grain runs low it won’t be theory that saves your ass it’ll be the “Flock” that’s got sense enough to save the masses. Will the “Flock” be standing flat footed when the world is faced with trouble?

    It won’t be the Chaimberlains, it’ll be the Churchills.

    I bet that in the event someone has to dig you out of a snowbound disaster, it’ll be a “Flocker” 10-1 odds.

  20. I’m a bit confused.

    I’m wondering why c14 was used. Since the amount of c14 is based on the amount of cosmic rays, why not just use cosmic rays?

    But then cosmic rays are thrown in for a different comparison. And then sunspots.

    Like I said, I’m confused. I’m not seeing something that could be used to build a climate model. I’m seeing a collection of various correlations.

  21. Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44)
    “Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000.”

    I’ll draw on someone many don’t seem to like here, including David and yourself. Landscheidt said this was due to a phase change in the alignment of the planets where the barycentric tides cancel. He also predicted we would get another one in ~500 years (3*172) in one of his papers. Personally, I like the corrected (172y) Jose Cycle better … 2x the Gleissberg cycle. After that I’d bet we go into another glaciation during a Sporer Type Minimum … wager?

  22. I like the Gleissberg cycle and Jose cycle better than the deVries cycle. Matches events better and is linked to another effect that is apparently barred from discussion here. I know where to classify Lief’s criticism and sentiments but I am having trouble finding a high profile proponent of Pam’s sentiments.

  23. Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44)
    “Check for instance the dip of the red curve and the absence of a gray band and the high temperature around the year 1000.”

    OK, since I think I know what booted my original comment. A certain person thought the phenomena noted above was due to a phase change in the proposed driver of the cycles previously mentioned. The phase change will happen again in 3*Jose cycle.

    Did I miss something or not read WUWT when certain topics were flagged?

  24. Sorry for the string of comments, must be the old browser, updates etc. … and working nights makes me paranoid. :D

  25. len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.

  26. [quote]I hope more research will be done about the sun, because the climate is clearly correlated with possibly a lot of complexity. The sun shines at different frequencies and different feedbacks could be discovered.

    Here is an hypothesis which is probably wrong but might be worth testing:

    1. A hot sun generates a lot of water vapor.

    2. Dust particles and aerosols accelerates the rate of water vapor condensing to clouds.

    3. When the sun is more powerful, the dust particles and aerosols get much warmer and cloud formation is lowered because the condensation on theses particles is lowered.

    4. When the sun is hot, you have:
    a. More water vapor in the air.(positive feedback)
    b. Reduced cloud cover during the day.(positive feedback)
    c. Cloud formation during the night because the dust particles and aerosols are colder and can condensate the high amount of humidity.(positive feedback)

    If anybody knows the results of a study of this hypothesis, feel free to share.[/quote]

    Not to be mean, but it’s probably wrong, for several reasons.

    1) There’s been no trend in water vapor for 20 years. http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif

    2) This one is correct.

    3) Its the temperature of the water vapor that matters for cloud formation, not the temperature of the particles. The temperature of water vapor is lowered by having the water vapor rise into the air. The air pressure is lower up there, the water vapor expands, which causes it to cool.

    4) If by “sun” you mean total solar irradiance (TSI), there’s not much of a correlation between TSI and clouds.

  27. P.S. In a nutshell, you’re not going to get very far with the idea of “hotter/colder sun = hotter/colder earth”.

    My personal preference is to start with the clouds. Follow that trend and compare it to temperatures.

    If you’re happy with that correlation (I am), from there you can ask what causes the amount of clouds to change. Cosmic rays, extreme ultraviolet energy, and bacteria are all candidates. There may be others.

  28. Some of you, I think, mistake watchful waiting for mean-spiritedness. Mother said if the shoes don’t fit it’s best to do without. Good advice then. Good advice now.

  29. Hello David

    I am trying to understand all of the potential drivers of Earth’s climate system;
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
    and determine which ones are primarily responsible for recent and forthcoming changes in Earth’s climate system.

    There seems to be reasonable evidence of a significant ocean component based on the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation;
    http://icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm

    And there also seems to be reasonable evidence for a significant volcanic component based historical observation:
    http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991vci..nasa…..R

    How significant a factor do you consider solar variability as a driver of recent and forthcoming changes in Earth’s climate system as compared to the impact of ocean cycles, volcanic activity, natural variability and other factors?

  30. This looks mighty weak to me. Better explanation than CO2 driving climate perhaps; but better than totally baloney isn’t the same thing as good.

  31. I compare the clarity and logical progression of the above article by David Archibald to that of the Roy W. Spencer post on WUWT today “Spurious warming demonstrated in CRU surface data”.

    Given that there is a significantly increasing interest in all things solar as CO2 interest fades, I wish David Archibald’s piece was laid out in clear terms and with a logically progressing layout towards a summary. By the lack of a more clear scientific communication, I think Archibald misses a great opportunity here to shed some light of clarity for those riding the increasing wave of solar interest.

    ANECDOTAL NOTE: My training for technical sales presentations to customers was: Tell them what you are going to say, then say it, then tell them what you said, then verify by dinner discussion that they understood. I learned through experience (38 yrs) also, that you need to make sure that (well in advance of the presentation) they know clearly what you are going to say, to the extent that they don’t really need you to come and tell them. Then they could decide if they were really interested in hearing you say it. No sense in wasting your time telling them if they do not want to here it.

    My point, Mr. Archibald, is a lot of people here really do want to hear what you are saying about things solar, but please make it clear even if it makes you look very uncertain . . . .it all adds to knowledge and we will appreciate it.

    John

  32. Mike Clark (19:24:50) :
    I bet that in the event someone has to dig you out of a snowbound disaster, it’ll be a “Flocker” 10-1 odds.
    Archibald is an alarmist [we are all gonna freeze, we are all gonna starve, etc] but for the wrong reason.

    len (19:49:01) :
    Landscheidt said this was due to a phase change in the alignment of the planets where the barycentric tides cancel.
    With phase changes at suitable places you can explain anything and everything.
    He also predicted we would get another one in ~500 years […] wager?
    OK, I’ll collect in 500 years. You can put the money in escrow right now.

  33. Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) :

    David has his loyal flock, so stay tuned to hear the hymn from them.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………….

    One can always be certain of kindness from you, can’t they Leif.

    And, are you certain that it is David Archibald that has a loyal flock? That is not what I have observed.

  34. Prof. Emeritus Wil Alexander shows a 95% correlation between rainfall and a 21 year solar cycle in So. Africa See: A critical assessment of current climate change science
    See especially page 22

    Table 3. Comparison of sudden changes in the annual flows in the Vaal River with corresponding sudden changes in sunspot numbers

    and page 25

    Figure 2. Characteristics of the periodic sequences of river flow at representative dam sites. The double sunspot cycle is diagrammatically superimposed.

    Presumably there will be a corresponding correlation with clouds.

    Alexander has successfully predicted major droughts based on this 21 year periodicity.

  35. Correction – that should be 95% significance. See

    In the Vaal River, the periodicity approached the 95% level of statistical significance required in many engineering applications

  36. Pamela Gray (20:07:25) :

    len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    To be fair, Roy Spencer also has a post here on the front page. His methods and opinions did not go through this process before he was posted here either.

  37. ”””’Pamela Gray (20:07:25) : len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.”””’

    Pamela Gray,

    I did my “John Whitman (20:30:13)” comment before seeing yours.

    Your point is similar to what I was trying to say. Why isn’t Archibald more clear?

    John

  38. John Whitman,

    I’m just a climate hobbyist and I’m innundated with animal refugees from the current cold spell. I can’t imagine what the more active researchers are having to deal with at home. Probably shivering hippopotamuses and frostbitten giraffes.

    I’ll bet they want to punch out whoever wrote “I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas“.

  39. David L. Hagen (20:47:35) :
    Alexander has successfully predicted major droughts based on this 21 year periodicity.
    How many did he predict? If he discovered the correlation, say, 30 years ago, he could have predicted at most 2. If less than 21 years ago, at most 1. Not an impressive track record.

  40. Just The Facts (20:27:38) :

    Just The Facts (18:47:57) :

    “Retracted, posted on wrong thread, D’oh!”

    And retract my retraction on this thread, and I apologize for my sloppiness. I’ve got about 20 windows open, am working on two different laptops, doing about 10 different things and apparently doing this one quite poorly.

  41. Stephen Wilde: “I have tried to square the circle by proposing that oceanic variations in the rate of energy release are the most direct climate driver with solar changes providing the longer term background trend with both oceanic and solar influences varying independently and capable of moving in and out of phase over millennia.”

    You are on to something, Stephen. Keep up the good work.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  42. The Sun of late has been doing quite well producing a lot more white light faculae than sunspot by area.
    One has only to keep an eye on the SOHO MDI Continuum to see this.

    And over time, that relationship of sunspot area to white light facular area has not stood still.

    And that makes for a complication.
    Nobody was paying attention to how much sunspot area vs facular area prior to Greenwich Photoheliogram program.
    So we don’t really know for certain what was going on during the Maunder or the Dalton, by absence of aknowledgement, other than the lack of sunspots, as to visible activity.
    I don’t know of any proxy that can relate to lack of faculae.
    If facular factor is what is making the correlation hazy or erratic, we’ll have to wait until the next time the sun does that for an extended time period.

  43. Pamela Gray (20:07:25) :
    “len, it’s simple. There is a technical writing standard for hypothesis literature review, research proposal, methodology, results, and discussion. Archibald failed to follow it. I wonder why.”

    Again….the appeal to authority fallacy. It’s a smokescreen, no, Pamela?

    When are you going to let go of your ego long enough to admit that there is a some gray area in our understanding of the causes of climate variability?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  44. ””””’George Turner (21:33:54) : . . . . I can’t imagine what the more active researchers are having to deal with at home. Probably shivering hippopotamuses and frostbitten giraffes.”””””

    George,

    Thanks for lightening things up here.

    That was subtle . . . I had to do a mental reboot to get it. That was good.

    John

  45. rbateman (22:07:34) : ” So we don’t really know for certain what was going on during the Maunder or the Dalton, by absence of aknowledgement, other than the lack of sunspots, as to visible activity. I don’t know of any proxy that can relate to lack of faculae.”

    Fascinating. Is there any study on this recently…or one that is being commenced?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  46. When one is dealing with dynamical chaos, and climate has been one of the first examples of dynamical chaos, the variations of amplitude against the variables of the problem, though not random, are unpredictable by ordinary methods. Mathematical methods are being developed for chaotic systems, but they are not of the type:” this correlates, maybe it causes” .

    Unless a direct physical model calculation exists, all correlations, and particularly ones that need phases dragged in, may be called interesting but not explanatory.

    The Armagh plot is interesting, but I would not say there is a theory behind it. I will wait and see what has happened in ten years time.

  47. Some folks might link the solar conjuction Earth has this weekend with the
    Sun, Jupiter and a full moon with large quakes in Chile and off Japan.

    Wouldn’t they be silly ?

  48. John Whitman,

    Thanks! I’m trying to keep this thread from breaking out in a religious war over whose is the true sun god. :-)

    As for solar math, I would like to point out that our records are not quite adequate. We have sunspot numbers going back a few centuries, but obviously sunspots would be a symptom of solar variations, not a direct climate driver.

    I would liken our earlier solar data to a mix of tree rings (Be10) and records of when certain rivers froze over. If there is a solar measurement that would better correlate to climate cycles, we haven’t been measuring it long enough to produce an overwhelmingly compelling curve. What we have are side effects seen on the sun and other side effects seen on Earth. If there is a more directly demonstrable link then hopefully it will pop out at us in the coming decade, or if not then at least having the solar activity go rapidly down while CO2 goes up should let us better parameterize solar influence versus man-made effects.

    Instead of trying to convert people to a theory before its time, I would suggest that we describe what this new cycle might tell us, approximately when it will tell us, and describe the uncertainties in reading the sun’s message.

    Historically, this cycle is a bit like the first opportunity to time the transit of Venus. We know it will give us significant information and we know when it will tell us, but there’s no way to make it tell us sooner than the physics dictates. Until then we’re just placing bets.

  49. We are at the end of an unusually long and deep solar minimum. Yet every year in the last three was one of the ten warmest on record.

    The theory that the sun is causing the current warming has been killed by the facts.

  50. savethesharks (22:23:54) :

    If Leif doesn’t know of one, and SFO Observatory isn’t doing one, you got me.
    I asked Debrecen if they were ever planning on measuring visible WLF, but they said no. So, it’s all K-line network + White Light Faculae in one big lump or nothing.
    I imagine if, someday, we do find out there is a mechanism, it’ll end up being a Muphy’s Law thing, just when they decided it wasn’t something to pay attention to….
    So, I don’t mind it at all when people like David Archibald give us something to think about, even if they don’t have a working mechanism. Look at it this way: We cannot yet predict an earthquake, but that doesn’t stop folks from searching. We want to know how it works.

  51. Lief – variation in solar radiation is not the issue.

    Items worth debating include:
    1. variation in cloud cover & cycles in the same.
    2. variations in magnetic activity in the sun and between sun & earth plus
    trends & cycles in the same.
    3. variations in cosmic rays hitting the lower atmosphere.
    4. multi correlations between the above.
    5. Theoretical relationships between these factors.
    6. Progress in the CERN “Cloud” experiment.
    7. Trends and cycles in the global temperature.
    8. Errors in measurement (Manipulation?) in both the ground based
    and satelite based global temperature.

  52. When Mt St. Helens was actiing up, I noticed that many of the eruptions seemed to occur just after local peak high tide…

  53. Did not Prof Jones of the CRU say Global Warming had to be CO2 as they could not think of anything else ?. This article should be enough for any Jury to convict.

  54. Pamela Gray (18:13:31) :

    yes this is a pathetic piece. I really get annoyed at people’s lack of consistency. If this were an AGW paper people would ask for the data and the code and the full statistical report. they would point out that ON SIGHT the first chart is a falsification of the claims. they would argue that correlation is not causation.. , situational skepticism.

    Hint: just because some climate scientists do some things wrong is no license to do bad science yourself.

  55. Physics Major – regarding the ads at the top of each post – my understanding is that they only pay when someone clicks, and when someone clicks Anthony receives a contribution. So they are only wasting their money when someone who is completely uninterested in their products or services clicks and then immediately uses the back button on their browser. Not that I am suggesting everyone should, as a matter of habit, give a quick click on an ad when they come on the site.

  56. The main article here is very good as it seems to provide a rational explanation for the fine structure of climate variation. Other than the Milankovitch cycles, I know of no other accepted explanations for externally forced climate change.

    While solar influence by cosmic ray intensity modulation may seem far-fetched, this seems to be the only theory left on the field that explains the observed phenomena since all direct effects appear to be ruled out.

  57. Dr. Archibald
    There is no doubt that the cosmic rays impact onto the Earth’s atmosphere is affected by the GeoMagnetic Field (GMF). The GMF is made of two components; one due to interplanetary magnetic field, with solar effect incorporated (IMF) and the much, much stronger component of the Earth’s magnetic field itself.
    Therefore, it is possible to conclude that if there is a link between climate and the cosmic rays impact, the critical effect is related to the strength of the main component of GMF.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
    This is an unpredictable factor.
    However, on the less relevant scale IMF should not be ignored. I thing that IMF intensity is not only factor of solar activity, but there is additional modulation from the two major magnetospheres of the solar system. This is a factor which may be crudely estimated, with some periodicity related to J/S orbital parameters:

    The additional factor appears to be some apparent, but not explained reverse long term linkage between intensities of the solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    More graphs at: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  58. Physics Major (16:57:30) :

    “OT, but has anyone else noticed the irony of the Google ads that appear here?
    They all seem to be for hyper-green organizations.

    I am all for conservation, but not for those who make wild, unscientific exaggerations to advance an anti-capitalist agenda. I know that I have never been tempted to click on one of these ads so thy are wasting their money.”

    Physics Major
    Ever heard of the “pay per click” policy from Google? Google will make them pay the moment you click. So if you want to help them waste their money…click!

  59. Leif Svalgaard in a previous comment pointed out the poor correlation between solar minima and c14/Ice Raft debris which I see as well – but then he spoiled it by showing his blinkered perspective by dismissing all other comments because they come from “David’s loyal flock”.

    As one of David’s loyal flock I come for scientific discussion here rather than the mud slinging and almost pure dogma that seem to emanate from elsewhere.

  60. u.k.(us) says:
    February 27, 2010 at 5:38

    …”Predictions?, the data is chaotic at best.
    There are 3-4 variables that could overwhelm the entire system depending on their intensity.

    Predictions scare me, they got us into the AGW fiasco….”

    Do you know why these type of predictions scare you? Because they are correlations, not causation (just like AGW). As you point out there are a lot of other variables out there, as well as their interactions. Even AGW talks about the potential interaction of CO2 and water making warming that much worse. As I’ve said in previous posts, where is the multivariate statistcal analysis? Univariate analysis simply cannot predict anything as complex as the climate. Not only does it consider only one factor at a time, it ignores the complex interactions of other factors (factors like cloud cover, volcanism, solar flux, dust, etc.).

    This paper clearly shows other highly correlative factors to temperature that should clearly highlight the folly of building a predictive model of global temperature based solely on CO2 (the hockey stick). Include these other factors in a multivariate analysis and you’ll find CO2 is inconsequential.

  61. It’s always the sun. It’s always the sun. Always, always, always the sun. [Stranglers 1986]
    (reserving judgement… the Butler&Johnson grafic looks intriguing…)

  62. franks (02:58:38) :

    As one of David’s loyal flock I come for scientific discussion here rather than the mud slinging and almost pure dogma that seem to emanate from elsewhere.

    I agree. There is nothing wrong with compare by graph conjecture and less rigorous discussions here … I don’t think.

    Personally, I’ve been mapping historical events and matching them with phenomena suggested by the C14 and Be data et al. I actually created a one page climate model with predictions this way for a bit of fun. Interesting correlations. I like it the more I play with it.

    Some of this discussion disparaging Solar Forcing here and in other comments got me thinking about another phenomena … different categories of climate enthusiasts/scientists. In simple terms 1)AGW, 2)Paleo-static, 3)Oceans, 4)Solar. There are a couple sub categories as well given the drive to an outcome or ability to predict or create experimental corroboration.

    … thanks to moderator for deleting previous mess i made. Not sure what happened.

  63. “a prediction that the average annual temperature at Armagh over Solar Cycle 24 will be 1.4C cooler than over Solar Cycle 23. This is twice the assumed temperature rise of the 20th Century of 0.7 C, but in the opposite direction.”

    Predictions are good. Let’s see if it turns out to be as accurate as the famous prediction of the UAH temperature in May 2009. The second sentence I’ve quoted makes no sense; no temperature rise is “assumed”, and a comparison between global observations and a prediction for Armagh is completely meaningless. You might as well compare the global upward temperature trend with the temperature trend in my house when the heating goes off.

  64. Stephen Wilde (18:55:40) :

    The disjunction between the views of David Archibald and Leif Svalgaard has been exercising me for some time.

    Stephen,

    Your post appeared shortly after the one in which I quoted Harrison Schmitt. I think you are positing an hypothesis to explain what Schmitt observed — at least for climate variation on decadal to centennial scales (i.e. excluding millennial, and I’m not sure what Schmitt meant by “epochal”) — i.e. that all natural climate variation is a terrestrial response to solar heating imbalances. Now, as I think about it, that does leave out the not unimportant role of vulcanism in perturbing climate stasis, but for the most part, I think it has to be true that natural climate variation is primarily driven by how the earth interacts with solar variation (whatever that means, which I think we still poorly understand). I think you are on the right track.

  65. “As the authors say, “Previous analysis of the glacial record showed a 200- year rhythm to glacial activity in Alaska and its possible link to the de Vries 208-year solar (Wiles et al., 2004).”

    Its a fallacy to think that the Sun follows a regular pattern. There are no straight lines in nature, but there is an underlying trend that wont go away. These patterns are not good for the solar experts amongst us?

  66. For some inexplicable reason the article and comments force me to ask:

    What parts (wavelengths) of “solar radiation” heat the Water World (Earth) more than any other?

    We all know that a microwave oven does a great job of heating a cup of water quickly. When we open the door only the water and -to a very minimum degree- the cup are hot (I don’t wait for the cup to get hot). Sunlight, to most of us, is “white light”. Sunlight to a scientist, is a jumble of lots of waves.

    During a Solar Century (say 1901-2001) what happens to the Water World that causes progressive warming? Is it Solar Microwaves? Some other, better, water heating ‘wave’ or frequency range? Somethings doing it?

    To say, “It’s not the Sun!” doesn’t answer the mail.

  67. franks (02:58:38) :In these epochs of change, strangely coincidental with Solar Minimums, old churches and convents close along with confused friars who find themselves having lost their self-calming and self-indulging parameters.

  68. What is the radiative forcing associated with these changes in solar activity?

    From what I’ve read, even a Maunder Minimum represents only about 0.3 – 0.4W/m² compared to current anthropogenic forcing of around 1.6W/m².

    Whilst it is certainly true that the sun is by far the largest source of heat for the climate system (geothermal is tiny by comparison), other forcings such as aerosols and greenhouse gases can have a much larger influence on climate in the short term.

    We know that the substantial increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is changing the Earth’s radiative balance because of the observed decrease in longwave radiation to space at the wavelengths absorbed by those gases (mostly CO2 and CH4) (Harries 2001) and the observed increase in downward longwave radiation (Philipona 2004).

    Current solar activity should be producing a slight decline in global average temperatures if that was the only change in forcings, so on the face of it solar activity can’t account for the current warming of ~0.2C per decade, regardless of how much influence it may have had in other periods.

  69. AusieDan (23:19:13) :
    Items worth debating include:
    1. variation in cloud cover & cycles in the same.
    2. variations in magnetic activity in the sun and between sun & earth plus
    trends & cycles in the same.
    3. variations in cosmic rays hitting the lower atmosphere.
    4. multi correlations between the above.
    5. Theoretical relationships between these factors.

    All of these things are of great interest and are worth discussing as we are doing. But variations of solar irradiance [even if small] are also worth discussing because energy-wise they are MUCH, MUCH larger than any of the above.

    6. Progress in the CERN “Cloud” experiment.
    There hasn’t been any. The pilot experiment was inconclusive.

    7. Trends and cycles in the global temperature.
    8. Errors in measurement (Manipulation?) in both the ground based and satelite based global temperature.

    Again these things are worth discussing. The possible connection with solar events are also worth discussing, but all discussions must be conducted to a reasonable scientific standard, that Archibald did not reach.

  70. I hope that when climate “science” clears its act, the vocabulary of “forcing” should go the way of the phlogiston.

    Back to simple thermodynamics is the way, and clean energy balances.

  71. When David Archibald posts, I experience that careful science goes out the window and prefer to read about the wild bird flying in to safety and pooping on the keyboard after stealing frazzled kitty’s food. The picture of bunnies hopping across the keyboard also fascinates me. What does your “office” look like, George Turner? Can I have one like that, too?

    I think we shoud be careful of the “sky is falling”, uh, er, the “ice is hungry” state of mind. Yes, we are in a cooling period (down PDO, maybe down AMO) with with some new, fascinating unknowns opening themselves to us, and it seems that we might be overstaying our interglacial. However, I would prefer to spend my time reading “careful” science.

    Yes, I know, just bypass the posts I prefer not to read, but, dang, Anthony, you have become a habit with me. No one does “it” better.

    REPLY: I hear you, I had misgivings about the first graph myself. However I think that it is valuable to flesh these things out. The value to WUWT is that it gives instant peer review to ideas. In this case, the review says this essay is probably not valid. Weeding out good ideas from bad ideas is just as useful I think. – A

  72. Pamela Gray (20:07:25) : …and, last but not least, “Peer-review” by the superiors of the order of the agnostic church..:-)

  73. Darius (22:51:15) :

    We are at the end of an unusually long and deep solar minimum. Yet every year in the last three was one of the ten warmest on record.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Your science is sloppy.

    There has been cooling since 2005.

    It was much warmer on earth 1000 years ago than it is now.

  74. R. de Haan (01:21:09) :
    Physics Major (16:57:30) : about the ads

    There is the old saying about “knowing thy enemy.”

    But really, sometimes these things are interesting and informative. Sometimes they are funny. By doing a Ctrl-click on 3 or 4 and letting them all come up I can then check each out – and sometimes learn something, and then close them out. If Anthony gets rich, it does me no harm. In fact, I suspect in some stock fund we have a few Google shares and thus it is, in some miniscule way, beneficial to me.

  75. Icarus (06:16:51) :

    How are you holding up under the deceitfulness found in the scientists involved in ClimateGate?

  76. savethesharks (22:04:46)

    Basil (05:47:03)

    Thanks for your encouragement.

    Not only does Schmitt suggest something along similar lines but also the idea is cropping up in various places since I set it out thus:

    “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. The troposphere can best be regarded as a sandwich filling between the oceans below and the stratosphere above. The temperature of the troposphere is constantly being affected by variations in the rate of energy flow from the oceans driven by internal ocean variability, possibly caused by temperature fluctuations along the horizontal route of the thermohaline circulation and by variations in energy flow from the sun that affect the size of the atmosphere and the rate of energy loss to space.

    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 differentials above and below the troposphere back towards equilibrium (Wilde’s Law ?)

    Additionally my propositions provide the physical mechanisms accounting for the mathematics of Dr. F. Miskolczi (assuming his maths is correct).

  77. How significant a factor do you consider solar variability as a driver of recent and forthcoming changes in Earth’s climate system as compared to the impact of ocean cycles,

    Consider that the ONLY input you can have to Ocean heating is solar. Sorry, the air simply can’t do it.

    From what I’ve read, even a Maunder Minimum represents only about 0.3 – 0.4W/m² compared to current anthropogenic forcing of around 1.6W/m².

    Consider who you’ve read that from. The 1.6 W figure is unproven at best.

    Current solar activity should be producing a slight decline in global average temperatures if that was the only change in forcings, so on the face of it solar activity can’t account for the current warming of ~0.2C per decade,

    Keep a couple things in mind. Number 1, the surface station records are junk. Number 2, the satelite numbers are unverified, and we’ve only been measuring for around 30 years. We really don’t have any history here, so all the breathless “warmest in the record” is really pretty meaningless. Cheifio in this thread or another, gives a pretty good exposition on the Oceans radiating off more heat, which explains a lot about the current weather. If you consider the Oceans as a giant Climate Governor, then it makes sense the Oceans would be giving off more heat now, in a time of less Solar output, as they are trying to maintain a stable atmosphere. As cold as it’s been on the landmasses lately, we should be GLAD the Ocean temperatures may be showing some surface warming. We should hope, however, that the sun wakes up and recharges the system a little.

  78. pyromancer76 (06:53:08) :
    REPLY: […] In this case, the review says this essay is probably not valid. Weeding out good ideas from bad ideas is just as useful I think. – A
    The bad ideas are the weeds, not the good ones…

  79. hunter (05:39:24) :
    …a comparison between global observations and a prediction for Armagh is completely meaningless. You might as well compare the global upward temperature trend with the temperature trend in my house when the heating goes off.

    Actually in the original paper Butler and Johnson show temperatures for Armagh, CET (England) and Eastern US, although admit the correlation with the US is reduced in the earlier part of the series. The Armagh series is interesting because of its length and because Ireland’s climate is so affected by the Atlantic; it has been shown to be affected by/correlated with the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    Doug Keenan has rigorously chased tree ring data from Ireland for this reason also, as the series was a long one and therefore potentially valuable to climate research, but it has not been made available.

    anna v (06:46:12) :
    I hope that when climate “science” clears its act, the vocabulary of “forcing” should go the way of the phlogiston.

    I’m so glad you said that – I’ve always hated the term too. It seems so Post Normal Science.

  80. anna v (22:25:34) :

    When one is dealing with dynamical chaos, and climate has been one of the first examples of dynamical chaos, the variations of amplitude against the variables of the problem, though not random, are unpredictable by ordinary methods…………………………interesting…..
    I will wait and see what has happened in ten years time.

    Now THAT makes the most sense to me.

    I’m happy to see the increasingly obvious complexity exposed by conjecture even if we haven’t the yet tools to measure or even adequately think about it. Keep trying.

    I’d want to live for another ten/fifty/hundred years just to see what new questions we can ask. If we have misleading results from the latest “science”, we waste time and money pursuing blind alleys. Imagine how many people it takes, fanning out in every direction, for a few to stumble upon something truly worthy of consequential study.

    I envision the current state of “climate science”: A bunch of myopic white coated people jammed into a small closet at the end of a long hall in an abandoned building desperately trying to bolt shut a door no one wants to open anyway. ( Skype-ing each other on their iPhones as they slurp down their Starbucks.) I say, someone go chain it shut!

    “Low Prices on Morphic resonance
    Qualified orders over $25 ship free”
    A Google Giggle.

    .

  81. magicjava, Dr. Svalgaard, Pam,
    One slight point of contention in regards to warmer sun /= warmer earth.

    If you go out to http://www.climate.gov (what I consider to be a reliable IPCC “consensus” resource) and check their solar output/irradiance information there appears to be a slight long term upward trend. According to them (NOAA runs the site) that change in solar output accounts for “less than 10%” of observed warming – it does not say no relationship whatsoever.

    I think a big part of the problem we’re seeing here in this thread, and the debate on many other technical issues around “global warming” is that there is a big difference between not a major factor or can’t explain all of it, and has no bearing whatsoever.

    Just as with the assertion that UHI has no effect whatsoever on the surface temperature record, the idea that more solar output will not affect temperatures is, IMO, at its core illogical (not saying it’s not possible but I would categorize either as an extraordinary claim).

    Maybe I’m misreading here, but I believe the core of the disagreement here is around the choice and quality of proxies, and the assertion that the sun is highly variable with a high correlation to historical temperatures vs. a sun that is mostly constant with little correlation. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

    The one thing I might want to add to the conversation, is that when you look at the core issue (global warming trend expressed through the surface temperature records), and the complexity of the climate system you have to be careful not to fall into the trap of picking a favorite explanation. There are many contributory causes, and one thing is unlikely to explain everything. In no particular order: manipulation of the temperature records (homogenization, adjustments, etc), land use, UHI, cloud behavior, solar variations, cosmic rays, particulates, makeup of the air (water vapor, GHG’s, etc), just to name a few and I’m probably mising a bunch. The whole CAGW scare was, IMO, caused by an overemphasis on a single variable to the point where Lacis (co-author to Hansen) posits that it is the control knob for the climate. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the same trap.

    Just my 2 cents, feel free to shoot holes in it!

  82. Stephen Wilde (18:55:40) :
    “…I have tried to square the circle by proposing that oceanic variations in the rate of energy release are the most direct climate driver with solar changes providing the longer term background trend with both oceanic and solar influences varying independently and capable of moving in and out of phase over millennia.

    That provides a mechanism to explain the failures of correlation from time to time and also accounts for the size of climate shifts in the face of small solar variability. Additionally it can explain why the size and speed of climate shifts seems to vary greatly between periods of glaciation and interglacials.

    As regards the scale of solar effects I have proposed that counterintuitively a more active sun increases the rate of energy loss to space more than the additional power output provided by the extra activity adds energy to the Earth system. When the active sun causes an expansion of the upper atmosphere we see an increased surface area of atmosphere exposed to space with a faster transfer of energy outward. An active sun also creates a more turbulent upper atmosphere which also increases total surface area at the interfaces between each layer of the upper atmosphere for a similar effect.”…

    I think you’re on the right track with this Stephen, and it is the overlapping quasi-cyclical events, some triggered by changes to the suns output, which explain the hazy correlation seen. Throw in a dose of deterministic chaos and a few big volcanoes, and perhaps the Earth’s store of energy slowly dissipates into space.

    Below is a broad brush picture of past history/prediction which, due to our inability to get precise measurements of Earth’s energy budget, is probable as close as you can get.

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    This seems close to Vukcevic’s more detailed graph which he posted here:-

    Here’s a list of changes which happen during a solar cycle, other than TSI, compiled with the help of WUWT readers on a previous thread:-

    Triggers for cool-mode climate – happening now.
    Low latitude jet stream in the northern hemisphere.
    Low Ap index.
    Weak NH polar vortex.
    Less UV hitting Earth’s atmosphere.
    Low density/speed solar wind.
    Reduced depth of Earth atmosphere.
    Increase in cosmic rays.
    Enhanced cloud cover.
    PDO turning negative.
    El Nino conditions weak.
    Weak Gulf Stream.

    Additional potential triggers – yet to happen.

    Big volcanic eruptions.
    La Nina.
    Increased albedo from extra snow.

    Perhaps Rbateman’s changes to sunspot area vs facular area should also go on the list?

  83. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (07:19:41) :

    Darius (22:51:15) :

    We are at the end of an unusually long and deep solar minimum. Yet every year in the last three was one of the ten warmest on record.

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    Your science is sloppy.

    There has been cooling since 2005.

    You think a 5-year trend tells us anything about the climate? Let’s have a look at, say, the last 15 5-year trends:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:2005/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:2004/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1992/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1991/to:1996/trend

    What do you notice? The trends are all over the place – from -0.4C to nearly +1C per decade (look at the ‘raw data’ link). Which of those do you think is the ‘correct’ long-term trend? Obviously, you cannot tell. The solar cycle alone gives you an 11-year fluctuation, so it’s clearly nonsense to use 5-year trends to argue anything about long-term global climate change.

    How about 10-year trends? –

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1996/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1992/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:1996/trend

    Less variability than 5-year trends, but still a lot – from about 0 to +0.4C per decade. Do you think that gives us a handle on the longer term trend? Still not very well, but it’s clearly greater than zero.

    How about 15-year trends? –

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:1995/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1992/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1991/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1983/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1982/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1981/to:1996/trend

    Now we’re beginning to see more consistency. Clearly there is no cooling. The lowest of these trendlines gives warming of about 0.1C per decade, but it should be obvious that you can’t just choose the smallest (or largest) trend out of this bunch and say that that is representative of long-term change.

    Using 22-year trends smooths out most of the variability from the solar cycle –

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:1983/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1982/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1981/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2001/trend

    Now we can finally see that the warming trend is around 0.18C per decade, just as the climate scientists have been saying for many years.

  84. By the way, downward long-wave radiation is based on local parameter calculations (the calculation formulas are readily available on the web), not direct measure on a global scale. Both clear sky and cloudy sky conditions are used in its estimate. It is greatly affected by water vapor (as in humidity) and air temperature. The immediate affects of CO2 and other minor greenhouse gases have much less of an affect on variability and are probably buried in the high degree of variability caused by clouds, humidity, and air temperature. This dynamical piece of our weather has important ramifications for agriculture, so the estimates are sought after daily if not hourly in high risk conditions.

  85. David, I too would like to see more (all) data upon which you are basing your hypothesis. I think we need to be open to all considerations, since we don’t know what the hell is going on. I suspect it will boil down to the effect of a sum of variables, not anyone’s pet theory
    Darius (22:52:42) : Does it bother anybody that the recent solar minimum coincided with some of the warmest temps on record?
    You left out the qualifier, “warmest” adjusted“temps on record”.

  86. The first graph does appear to invalidate the claims of the author at first glance. However, complex systems with complex damping and forcing can have different modes. It is possible that in our present mode this correlation works. In another mode it does not. The author should have addressed this issue. However, one should not throw the baby out with the bath water. It is important to listen and strive to understand and perhaps learn, even from an incorrect hypothesis.

    Unfortunately science often degenerates into a contest of who is right rather than a search for understanding. I get a bit sick of the childish my brain is bigger than your brain drama. Frankly none of us including the “climate scientists” fully understand what is going on. The only people in this debate who know EXACTLY what they are doing are the politicians and the carbon traders.

    Monty

  87. Tenuc (08:23:51) :
    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    Your timings are incorrect, e.g. Maunder minimum 1645-1700, Spoerer [until 1530], etc. By shifting the times some decades abck and forth you can make anything fit.

    Monty (09:26:44) :
    The first graph does appear to invalidate the claims of the author at first glance. […] It is important to listen and strive to understand and perhaps learn, even from an incorrect hypothesis.
    but not from incorrect data…

  88. Leif Svalgaard (08:00:04) :
    And all other posters on here that agree that the Sun can’t be a contributor to the Climate changes, perhaps you can answer for us un-initiated, well this one at least :-
    1. Why is it cooler at the Poles than at the Equator?
    2. Why is it Winter in the NH and Summer in the SH?
    3. When you have answered why there can be 60 Degrees C difference between those areas in 1 & 2 perhaps you can then explain why a very minor change in the Sun can have no affect on a few degrees C change in “Climate”.
    I know I am not well educated, but I have trouble getting my head around it.
    There appears to be only 3 possible Heat sources, Sun, Cosmic or Earth Core.
    So if the Sun’s input is constant (as it can’t affect Climate Change) what drives El Nino and La Nina?

  89. A C Osborn (10:34:12) :
    1. Why is it cooler at the Poles than at the Equator?
    Because the sun shines at an angle [it is overhead at the equator and very low in the sky [or even below the horizon for months on end] at the poles, so the Sun’s heat has to be distributed over a much larger area, so each square foot gets less.

    2. Why is it Winter in the NH and Summer in the SH?
    Because the Earth’s axis is tilted by 23 degrees. When tilted towards the Sun a hemisphere gets more heat.

    3. When you have answered why there can be 60 Degrees C difference between those areas in 1 & 2 perhaps you can then explain why a very minor change in the Sun can have no affect on a few degrees C change in “Climate”.
    Because 1 & 2 are major changes in solar input [e.g. during the polar night when no sunlight reaches the pole.

  90. Gawd! I wish you guys and gals would get this right, it is Dark Matter that controls the amount of energy reaching the earth! More dark matter betwixt us and the sun, more rays bent out of the earth’s path. Less dark matter, more rays directly hitting the earth.

    Jeez, that is so simple to understand!

  91. Ref – DeNihilist (11:23:19) :
    “Gawd! I wish you guys and gals would get this right, it is Dark Matter that controls the amount of energy reaching the earth!..”
    ______________________

    And… it’s in Dark Matter “Clouds”. And we encounter these twice in a 240 million year “Year” as we move around the Milky Way, and these clouds have breaks and spaces and we encounter them on a regular basis too (now the interval is about 120k years -note ‘year’ here is an Earth year, not a Milky Way ‘Year’). Yep! It’s Dark Matter! Gotta be!

    PS: I’m beginning to think the Milky Way is like a beach, with tides and everything:-)

  92. So Leif, what you’re saying is that the parts of the earth that get less solar energy are cooler, and the parts that get more are warmer? OK, that makes sense. But then you want me to believe that variations in solar output, which reduce/increase the amount of solar energy recieved over every square foot of the planet, have no effect on our climate. Sorry, that just does does not compute.

  93. DeNihilist (11:23:19) :
    Less dark matter, more rays directly hitting the earth.
    Jeez, that is so simple to understand!

    just as easy as to understand that a candle does not give light, but rather sucks up the dark. Just look at the wick.

  94. Leif Svalgaard (17:42:44) “The red curve is supposed to be solar activity [inverse 14C] and the gray bands solar minima.”

    Incorrect on the latter point.

    From Wiles et al. (2008):
    “Shaded intervals are times of general glacier advance.”

  95. Leif Svalgaard (10:06:47) :
    Tenuc (08:23:51) :
    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)
    Your timings are incorrect, e.g. Maunder minimum 1645-1700, Spoerer [until 1530], etc. By shifting the times some decades abck and forth you can make anything fit.”

    These are quasi-cycles, Leif, and are the result of the deterministic chaos which drives our climate system.

    As I stated in my original a broad brush picture and timings within a few decades is the best you are going to get. Just like solar cycles, they do not have precise timings or magnitude, but just like solar quasi-cycles they are real nevertheless.

    BTW, the Sporer period was 1420 – 1530, which was quite a long cool spell. Be interesting to see how the 21st century pans out – cooler than the 20th I think.

  96. Stephen Wilde (18:55:40) : The disjunction between the views of David Archibald and Leif Svalgaard has been exercising me for some time.

    Or Leif and Geoff. At one point I took two different graphs related to the different material Leif and Geoff were each supporting and arguing about furiously, and found… they were actually in agreement but hadn’t spotted it. oops.

    I’m disappointed in David Archibald’s lack of rigour here, it is indeed a missed opportunity. He has done a lot better – eg his graph of correlation between sea level change and solar cycles. And for all Leif hisses, plus we don’t know what the driver is (as Leif rightly states, TSI variations are too small) there is significant correlation between solar cycles and various terrestrial phenomena. Svalgaard shows, in MagicJava’s video five, a very high correlation between solar activity and cloud cover up to 2007. And Prof Will Alexander, in the really firstrate paper quoted above, and with a lifetime of expertise, shows a 95% confidence (ie engineering quality, high) correlation between solar cycles and drought-broken-by-flood in S Africa The study was done because people were being affected – it was not an ivory tower project. That paper deserves a restatement here, I’d do it but am too busy right now.

  97. Re: A C Osborn (Feb 28 10:34),

    The following is a video of how metronomes get synchronized without any extra energy input, just because of momentum conservation .

    It is instructive as an analogue on how cycles like la Nina and el Nino might happen when the “metronome” of the seasons hits the oceans, (and not only).

    The following is instructive on how chaotic “order” can appear again with a constant energy input and small perturbations from outside. Particularly the fingers are amazing.

  98. Lief,

    I agree with you to lie about your data is inexcusable.

    Are you saying that the C14 numbers are incorrect? Personally I do not like the inversion of the data, but that is not the issue. Are the C14 data wrong and if so why? Or are you saying he moved the dates of the solar events around? That would be a misrepresentation to say the least.

    Monty

  99. Colin M (11:55:32) :
    reduce/increase the amount of solar energy recieved over every square foot of the planet, have no effect on our climate. Sorry, that just does does not compute.
    You are correct, it doesn’t compute. The variation of solar energy DOES have an effect on our climate, namely 0.05K, or about 1/10 degree F.

  100. Not sure if you have seen this, but here’s a link to a video on the status of the CLOUD experiment at CERN:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    No one….outside of the CO2 camp….would argue that any one factor is the primary driver of this complex system we call our climate.

    The mere potential that the results of this experiment could explain one of the climate drivers and it’s effect over geologic timescales is exciting.

  101. I believe the main value of this article is as an introduction to an interesting theory of solar influence on the Earth’s climate. There may be, as some have suggested here, something to be lacking in the technical completeness of the article.

    The interesting charts presented do appear to show our past climate going through a very definite series of warming and cooling episodes.

  102. The variation of solar energy DOES have an effect on our climate, namely 0.05K, or about 1/10 degree F.

    This would be correct if our Earth were a lifeless black body.

    Fortunately, it is a biosphere that reacts to changes in solar activity in many ways, amplifying the primary effect.

  103. Archibald: “let’s paraphrase Dante: The darkest recesses of Hell are reserved for those who deny the solar control of climate.”

    We have two extreme positions staked out, Dr Svalgaard instinctively rubbishing any claim of an effect of the sun on climate, while Dr Archibald consigns to the depths of Hades any who doubt “control” of climate by the sun.

    Dr Svalgaard’s knowledge of things solar is of course profound and his logical exactness impressive. However his apparent demand for rigid correlation of two factors in order to argue some sort of causal linkage, would seem inappropriately stringent for a system such as climate of high complexity and chaotic-nonlinear behaviour (as pointed out by posters conversant in chaotic dynamics e.g. Anna v, Tenuc). In Dr Svalgaard’s statistical scheme, an R^2 of less than 1.000 seems to be evidence of total independence of two variables. In regard to climate, I’m not sure we can afford the luxury of demanding such exactness.

    Chaotic and harmonic systems can have intermittent corellation and shift in and out of phase as nicely shown by Anna v. in the pendulum videos.

    It seems there is too much circumstantial evidence of correlations between solar cyclical behaviour and various historic climate proxies, for solar variability to be ruled out as a climate driver.

    However I would have to number myself among the denizens of the depths of Hell and question Archibald’s use of the word “control”. The incompleteness of the solar-climate correlations would suggest a word like “influence” to be more apt. Archibald himself points out that the MWP was “supposed” to have been cold according to the de Vries 208-year solar cycle. (Ironic that AGW skeptics use the MWP as a major argument – correctly – but also sometimes argue for a dominant solar role.)

    BTW is there any statistical significance to a C14 production / ice-rafted debris correlation from the first figure – the variability of the former and smoothness of the latter would make this seem doubtful. The solar minima effect on the Great Aletsch Glacier in Switzerland in the following figure, seems more convincing.

  104. Have to ask:

    If the Sun is pumping out the same level of energy at a near constant rate, what’s the significance of Sun Spots?

    If the Sun is pumping out the same level of energy at a near constant rate, what’s the significance of CMEs?

    If the Sun is pumping out the same level of energy at a near constant rate, what’s the significance of Chronal Holes?

    If the Sun is pumping out the same level of energy at a near constant rate, what’s the significance of Solar Winds?

    If the Sun is pumping out the same level of energy at a near constant rate, what’s the significance of Solar Magnetic Pulse?

    There has to be something “significant” about something relative to climate, and not just electronics and radio waves and radiation vis a vis humans in orbit or jumping around on the Moon or Mars.

    Leif? Anybody?

    PS: Where do 110K-120K glacial cycles come from? Where do glacial and non-glacial periods in our orbit of the galaxy come from?

    PPS: Is there really a Santa Claus? How about the Easter Bunny?

  105. Stephen Wilde

    Two aspects of your “system” have always seemed to me convincing – a major role for the ocean in “processing” variation in inputs such as solar, and mixing them up with various time delays to confuse the statisticians. Also the effect on atmospheric radiative heat balance of laminar versus turbulent boundary layers seems a persuasive insight. However I confess I have not read your proposed theory in detail (is there an available reference?) You have been arguing these points for some time – what do you see as the way forward? If (hypothetically) you were making a grant application, what new data would you propose to collect – either analysis of past proxies or new measurements going forward – in order to validate or falsify your ideas?

    It is indeed to be hoped that climate science will come to it senses, stop funding only the climate research starting from the (unquestioned but spurious) assumption of CO2 being the only significant climate driver – and take a step back and make a wide ranging search for what really are the climate drivers. Perhaps the null hypothesis should be that climate is chaotic-nonlinear and that all climate variation (showing as it does log-log power law nonlinear-like fluctuation) is random walk?

  106. anna v (13:04:15) :
    here is one with more metronomes

    I want to see this triple double pendulum on a metronome-like tripod set on the board over the coke cans, WITH the metronomes.

    Better yet let’s balance the board on some large raw goose eggs instead of empty cylinders. Or half fill the cylinders with wet corn starch. :)

  107. anna v.

    “Particularly the fingers are amazing.” [comment on cornstarch video]

    The “fingers” remind me of souls writhing in the lake of fire – i.e. (according to Archibald) the fate of those of us infidels who dont believe the sun “controls” climate.

  108. Notes on Piers Corbyn’s work:

    Overview:

    I recommend studying the following combo:
    Audio: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Tuesday/Piers_Corbyn.mp3
    Slides: http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Piers_Corbyn.ppt

    More:

    Solar Weather Technique (SWT):
    Intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYnLbz8ZoTE
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMQNrP1NhVM
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OKiVTSR0Z8&NR=1
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGosqhZ6gUM

    Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic (SLAM):

  109. Leif, I have something I want you to try. Howz about it? It goes like this.

    From the second graphic above:

    The same periodicity over the last 1,000 years is also evident in this graphic of the advance/retreat of the Great Aletsch Glacier in Switzerland:

    Open the image and zoom. Close your eyes and think the heliosphere in time. Heliosphere embedded in Local Cavity (chiminey) with tunnels, filaments, clouds, cellualar structures like a sponge surround you. Now open your eyes and look at the image. Given that the terrestrial timez will lag behind the heliospheric timez, are we seeing a re-construct of the inside of the interstellar local cavity in timez? eh just an exercise or thought. Sunday good day to relax and let your imagination go.

    Oh yeah, the new 3D Mapping project of the Local Interstellar Cavity affirms Linsky and Redfield on the heliosphere being in the transition zone between the warm local interstellar cloud LIC and the cooler denser G cloud. lol They did have to toss a Linsky, Redfield eh but not the GGGGGGG cloud. lol

  110. Global Water Vapor Denisty has been a pet observational project of mine. The density levels of the past few years has been chaotic and increasing.
    Current
    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/goes_nam_1070_100.jpg Look at the 123 punch on that thang.

    From the North Pole view:
    http://www.weather.com/maps/geography/polar/index_large.html

    From the South Pole view:
    http://www.weather.com/maps/geography/polar/southpolesatellite_large.html?clip=undefined&region=undefined&collection=localwxforecast&presname=undefined

    A polar vortex tech doc comes to mind here. hmm ah..

  111. Maybe it is just me but the calibrated eyeball MK III mod A4 does not detect a correlation.
    I hope that is not a Mannian inversion. Perhaps it was done for compactness?
    I generally have a profound distaste for inversions and an earnest desire to keep the polarity correct. But maybe that is just me.

  112. Vukcevic (00:52:15) :

    Hey Vuks have you read this? “Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides” (accepted 4 September 2009) Recomended by Dr. S. It is second up on my to do list. Still working on “New 3D gas density maps of NaI and CaII interstellar absorption within 300 pc *,**” Need to enlarge the maps and put them under a blacklight box, kinda like and X Ray image lol. And do some re reads with all images locked and loaded. Catch up wit cha later.

  113. Oh my. Some of those questions. Back in the day when I was sure the Sun could drive Earth’s temperature trends, I made the same assumptions. “Gee I feel hot when the Sun is beating straight down on my skin but get immediately cool when the Sun is about to set. It must be the Sun.” Then Leif suggested a few books and journal articles. Needless to say I sheepishly read all that was suggested and thought, “call me a dumbass”. It really does help to read a few books on this Sun.

    By the way, 5 years ago I had some of my lip removed. Why? The Sun caused my lip cancer, but the recent re-appearance of another suspicious spot on my lip in the same area, that was biopsied last week (ouch), turned out to be nothing but strange scaring from the initial removal of squamous cell carcinoma. I get to keep my lip.

    Moral: Though the Sun, IMO, does not cause the long-term trends we see in GISS or short term fluctuations we see in raw data, it can indeed cause skin cancer. But not this time.

  114. Landscheidt was also a great fan of the wide arrows “pointing” to coincidences ploy, which Lief comments on here. If you eliminate the gray bands which are directing your eye, there is not there there in Fig. 1. Svensmark is another one who shoots with wide arrows

  115. Lief – “just as easy as to understand that a candle does not give light, but rather sucks up the dark. Just look at the wick.”

    Funny Lief, that was a koan that my guru gave to me some 20 years ago. Thanks for solving it for me! :)

  116. I think that anything the Sun produces, in terms of its affect on Earth, needs to be measured here, from the top of the atmosphere to below the ocean skin. SSN is a Sun-surface measure. Who cares in terms of the AGW debate. So for me, what I care about, in terms of relevance to climate, is what we can measure, coming from the Sun, that reaches us here. Then we can correlate that with temp and see if there is a connection. Given the extent of the noise in the temperature data, good luck finding a solar signal in the tiny span of years that make up our chaotic sensor data set.

    On the other hand, I love learning about the Sun, but not in correlation to the Earth’s temperature concerns. I care about learning just about the Sun. It fascinates me beyond measure.

  117. ””’Pamela Gray (17:04:30) : . . . removal of squamous cell carcinoma. I get to keep my lip.”””

    Congratulations on your successful medical procedure.

    Maybe I need to reconsider my retirement idea of becoming a pagan sun worshiper? But I suspect it is too late for me to avoid consequences of sun damage to my skin given both my farming youth and also given decades of standing in the High Sierra sun flailing the rivers with my fly line. No regrets, whatever my skin does in the future.

    John

  118. HarryDinPT (14:15:11) :
    Not sure if you have seen this, but here’s a link to a video on the status of the CLOUD experiment at CERN:
    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    It does not report on the status, except saying that the experiment has not started yet.

    Alexander Feht (14:41:44) :
    “The variation of solar energy DOES have an effect on our climate, namely 0.05K, or about 1/10 degree F.”
    This would be correct if our Earth were a lifeless black body.
    Fortunately, it is a biosphere that reacts to changes in solar activity in many ways, amplifying the primary effect.

    This is not substantiated. In fact, it may be just the opposite: the Gaia hypothesis posits that the biosphere tires to keep the climate constant by damping changes. but I willing to wait for your proof of amplification, rather than just assertion.

    Pascvaks (15:42:57) :
    Have to ask:
    If the Sun is pumping out
    If the Sun is pumping out
    If the Sun is pumping out […]
    what’s the significance of …?
    There has to be something “significant” about something relative to climate,

    I suggest no significance [in the meaning of being significant] and also that your last statement is just wishful thinking.

    Carla (16:32:36) :
    The heliosphere is dominated by the supersonic solar wind that just blows all interstellar stuff away, unless it is neutral [dust] or highly energetic [cosmic rays], so there is very little [if any] influence inwards. It is like you exhale into a hurricane: that does not do much to the hurricane.

    Pamela Gray (17:04:30) :
    Oh my. Some of those questions….
    indeed.

  119. ””””Leif Svalgaard (18:24:19) : [responding to Carla (16:32:36)]

    The heliosphere is dominated by the supersonic solar wind that just blows all interstellar stuff away, unless it is neutral [dust] or highly energetic [cosmic rays], so there is very little [if any] influence inwards. It is like you exhale into a hurricane: that does not do much to the hurricane.””””

    Leif,

    Enjoy threads with you posting. Thanks for participating in what is sometimes a wild rodeo.

    Question:
    What do you think would be the general effect on the earth’s atmosphere if the earth was removed from the heliosphere.? In other words, as a thought experiment, what would be the basic atmospheric changes expected from removal of the earth from the existing heliosphere? Keeping everything else constant at what it is now.

    John

  120. Leif Svalgaard (18:24:19) :
    Carla (16:32:36) :
    Oh yeah, the new 3D Mapping project of the Local Interstellar Cavity affirms Linsky and Redfield on the heliosphere being in the transition zone between the warm local interstellar cloud LIC and the cooler denser G cloud. lol They did have to toss a Linsky, Redfield eh but not the GGGGGGG cloud. lol

    The heliosphere is dominated by the supersonic solar wind that just blows all interstellar stuff away, unless it is neutral [dust] or highly energetic [cosmic rays], so there is very little [if any] influence inwards. It is like you exhale into a hurricane: that does not do much to the hurricane.

    ~
    Not so fast with you. swt
    It will be interesting to see the solar cycle 24 maximum exhale and blow out the system newly revised density level. (some exhaust recycling though huh).
    Then to watch the downward trek into the next cycle inhale again. And the intake process ;begin again at the ahhh redesigned new starting point.

  121. Whoa, just 0.05K??? Then how come the temperature variation between summer and winter where I live is around 20C?? When the key difference between the two seasons is the amount of solar energy recieved per square foot per day? If the changes in recieved solar energy between the seasons can alter land/atmospheric temperature that much in the space of 6 months then surely it follows that any other factors causing a change in recieved solar energy, whether it is the Sun’s own internal mechanisms/cycles, orbital changes in Earths distance from the sun and/or variations in the earths tilt must have a much more significant impact on global temperature than a fraction of 1 farenheit?

  122. John Whitman (18:58:43) :
    What do you think would be the general effect on the earth’s atmosphere if the earth was removed from the heliosphere.
    You have to be specific about what you mean by ‘Earth’s atmosphere’. 100 km up where the density is 1/1000,000 that at the surface, there will be a less heating, but the change in heat content would be negligible because the air is so thin.

    Carla (19:15:47) :
    Then to watch the downward trek into the next cycle inhale again. And the intake process ;begin again at the ahhh redesigned new starting point.
    These changes take place very far from the Earth so will not make any difference.

    Colin M (19:41:38) :
    Whoa, just 0.05K??? Then how come the temperature variation between summer and winter where I live is around 20C??
    The difference between summer and winter is, say, 30% [depending on where you live]. Temperature goes with the fourth power of radiation, so a 30% change in radiation is approximately 30/4 = 7.5% change in temperature or 0.075*288K = 21.6K or 21.6C, close enough. That is why.

  123. Carla (19:15:47) :

    Leif Svalgaard (18:24:19) :
    Carla (16:32:36) :
    Oh yeah, the new 3D Mapping project of the Local Interstellar Cavity affirms Linsky and Redfield on the heliosphere being in the transition zone between the warm local interstellar cloud LIC and the cooler denser G cloud. lol They did have to toss a Linsky, Redfield eh but not the GGGGGGG cloud. lol

    OOOOH I love it! Don’t stop now!

    A rapidly spinning, weirdly tilted, ballish semi crusty thing with a seriously magnetic liquid center, screaming at unthinkable speeds around a massive largely unknown liquid/gaseous ball that explodes magnetic gases and flips magnetic poles in somewhat predictable cycles.
    Orbiting elliptically, with a fantastic but slowly (?) retreating, solid moon sloshing all the water, making new life in the mangroves, with random comet tails dumping unknown amounts of water into the atmosphere , massive chunks of limestone crust being subsumed into the dynamic liquid core quite randomly, oceans sloshing madly trying to catch up.
    Other massive gravitational bodies aligning themselves with the hot ball of gas yanking it into an unpredictable, chaotic orbit around the constant axis it would love to have but can’t quite. The Man Who Would be king.:)
    But the sun is screaming through an orbit of it’s own, a small player, locked in place within a tiny galaxy where the only thing a human can possibly ever hope to see outside of with naked eye is the faint Andromeda galaxy? Deep in the desert on a very dark night.

    Aw, c’mon. Have a bunch of little ones while you play with the math and physics. It’s all so chaotic and just so incredibly beautiful to behold in its complexity. The mystery is SO GREAT and life is so short. Never before have humans been able to expect their progeny would live to see even five years of age.
    If all the two year old humans on earth vanished, the world would just stop turning and life would come to a sudden and dismal end.
    Make hay while the sun still shines.

  124. Eli Rabett (17:11:44) :

    1. Svensmark is another one who shoots with wide arrows

    Broad brushes tend to smudge the detail of the portrait,lets examine what you said at Willys place,

    Oh yeah, if you look a little closer you see exactly how the pea is pulled out from under the shell. It’s the old Landscheidt wide arrow ploy. Look at the phases of increase, decrease and where the max/mins are. First of all, having to use a fourth order fit tells you that you need a lot of free parameters to fit a smoothed curve. Second, the big incease in cosmic ray flux is after 1970 when the temperature is flat.The increase in the temperature occurs when the cosmic ray flux is flat. Third, the curvature at ~1900 is an artifact of the fitting form which fools your eyes.

    So you are arguing that

    a) Temperatures in the sub polar and Antarctic regions are sparse and inhomogeneous ,I would suggest that arguments against that would be sparse.South of 55s prior to IGY,(1958) are essentially worthless.

    b) That GCR has a trend since 1970 ? as your statement is neither clear or succinct, one cannot assertain what you mean ,do you?

  125. Ignoring amplitude & other-timescale trends/oscillations, my interpretation of Piers Corbyn’s “60 year cycle”:

  126. Leif Svalgaard,

    I tend to believe my own eyes, not other people’s words. There were no significant orbital changes during the last 25 years, as there were no significant changes in Earth’s axial inclination.

    In the 1990s, the Sun was exceptionally active. In the second half of 1990s, Earth temperatures rose (any additional bias introduced by AGW promoters notwithstanding).

    During the last few years, the Sun has been very quiet, and now Earth temperatures are falling.

    I don’t know, how exactly to explain this. Maybe Dr. Svensmark is right. Maybe there are other factors and feed-backs at play.

    One thing is certain: using one simple formula to stipulate a complete lack of relationship between changes in solar activity and terrestrial climate is… How to say it in a way that wouldn’t offend your sensitive ego? Blear-eyed?

  127. Just The Facts (20:22:55) :
    The big picture view is that solar is more than 90% of changes in Earth’s climate, and the longer the period you use, the greater the solar portion. I don’t believe that climate is a random walk.

    John Whitman (20:30:13) :
    Yes indeed, there will be an increase in interest in matters solar. The AGW-focussed climate researchers realise that the funding will dry up soon. Expect some re-incarnations.

    aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (20:36:48) :
    I am not alone in predicting a crash in solar activity. Here’s Dr Svalgaard from a New Scientist article 16th September, 2006: “Sunspot numbers will be extremely small, and when the Sun crashes, it crashes hard.” Where Dr Svalgaard and I part company is that he thinks that the Sun can go to activity extremes without any effect on the Earth’s climate.

  128. Re: David Archibald (Mar 1 02:19),

    I don’t believe that climate is a random walk.

    Deterministic chaos is not a random walk. There are underlying deterministic non linear differential equations which nature solves by analogue . Correlations are not causations particularly in a chaotic system. Insolation depends on the sun, and possibly the accompanying changes in magnetic fields, but depends also on a multitude of other inputs that have to be studied with chaos mathematical tools, not ruler and compass. For example the work of Tsonis et al, discussed a while a go here, goes in this direction where with a neural net analogue of a chaotic system and inputs of the oceanic and atmospheric currents, they predicted the flattening in temperatures before it appeared. This has to be extended to include more inputs, but that is the way to go, imo.

  129. David Archibald (02:19:03) :
    The big picture view is that solar is more than 90% of changes in Earth’s climate, and the longer the period you use, the greater the solar portion.
    You mean that it will go up from 90% to maybe 94% or 95.21%?

    I don’t believe that climate is a random walk.
    Nobody believes that, so your statement is sort of void, like saying “I don’t have fourteen legs”.

  130. “wakeupmaggy (20:58:00) : ”

    A very creative description of our of very real and present reality. Thanks for posting that, I liked it a lot.

    Have you seen Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life?

  131. phlogiston (15:58:38)

    I don’t think we have enough past data to assess my ideas so I’ve been waiting to see how well or not ongoing climate events fit the proposed scenario and it’s going pretty well so far.

    I’d love to have an incentive to put together a shopping list of the data I’d need and to supervise a professional team in collating and interpreting it. I have made suggestions as to what would be necessary elsewhere.

    The basic idea is set out here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4433

    but one can see how it developed over time and how it fits into the wider climate scenario by browsing others of my articles at the same site.

    My presence here and elsewhere is part of an ongoing process of refining it and seeking out whether there is a simple rebuttal that has been missed.

    Interestingly it seems to provide a skeleton mechanism on which one can hang the findings of quite a few others.

  132. JonesII (05:10:15) “SLAM […] LOD […] ACI”

    Yes, ACI was the first thing of which I thought. Corbyn uses a curve that is shifted about 7 years left, which corresponds more with AMO. A curve shifted about 7 years right corresponds more with PDO. This is a simple matter of integrals & derivatives (1/4 cycle lag or lead). Be careful when considering Corbyn’s decadal-timescale forecasts – his view is Atlantic-centric.

    Here are the full references:

    Klyashtorin, L.B.; & Lyubushin, A.A. (2007). Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity. Government of The Russian Federation, State Committee For Fisheries of The Russian Federation, Federal State Unitary Enterprise (FSUE), Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO). Moscow, VNIRO Publishing.
    http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

    Klyashtorin, L.B. (2001). Climate change and long term fluctuations of commercial catches: the possibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 410, 98p., FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) of the United Nations, Rome.
    html – main index:
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/Y2787E00.HTM
    pdf – directory of chapter-pdf-files:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    Of particular interest:
    Chapter 2. Dynamics of Climatic and Geophysical Indices
    html:
    http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/Y2787E03.HTM
    pdf:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e01.pdf
    3 major climate indices:
    1) dT (global temperature anomaly)
    2) Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI)
    3) LOD

  133. Stephen Wilde (08:34:17) :
    My presence here and elsewhere is part of an ongoing process of refining it and seeking out whether there is a simple rebuttal that has been missed.
    Consider at least the possibility that after a certain point people don’t bother to rebut.

  134. Alexander – “I don’t know, how exactly to explain this. Maybe Dr. Svensmark is right. Maybe there are other factors and feed-backs at play.”

    The way I take Dr. Lief’s criticism of solar control of our climate, is exactly what you stated, “I don’t know”. There has not, as yet, been a proven causation of the sun being the “driver” of climate. So we can argue all day long about how many angels dance on a pin head, but this does not move the science forward. If a paper arrives that links some factor of the sun’s energy to the earth’s climate variability, then I think that the solar scientists, not only Dr. Lief, will be happy to tear into it.

  135. Pamela Gray (17:54:16) “Given the extent of the noise in the temperature data, good luck finding a […] signal in the tiny span of years that make up our chaotic sensor data set.”

    Noise isn’t always a problem and the data aren’t “uniformly bad” across all times & timescales. There’s the UHI (for land Ts) &/or/vs. CO2 &/or/vs. natural cycles controversy, but aside from that, signals can be isolated if the silly convention of working with “anomalies” (a goofy way to distort/complicate/obfuscate) is dropped and multi-timescale methods are applied.

    In a nutshell:
    Pattern is a function of spatiotemporal caliper setting – i.e. what we measure is a function of spatiotemporal sampling frequency and since we don’t have continuous sampling, we need to use DSP (digital signal processing):

    DSP = Digital Signal Processing
    http://www.dspguide.com/
    http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm
    (free online book – written with minimal math-formality so as to be accessible to a wider audience)

    Can climate scientists learn to think more as digital audio & video experts (& an increasing number of landscape ecologists & physical geographers) do?

    Perhaps a more pertinent question is:
    Are they willing to do anything other than sit comfortably & complacently, dreaming of ever more elaborate computer fantasies?

  136. Are they willing to do anything other than sit comfortably & complacently, dreaming of ever more elaborate computer fantasies?
    A WII version would be funny ☺

  137. Leif Svalgaard (12:31:25) :
    DeNihilist (11:23:19) :
    Less dark matter, more rays directly hitting the earth.
    Jeez, that is so simple to understand!
    just as easy as to understand that a candle does not give light, but rather sucks up the dark. Just look at the wick.
    **********************************************************************

    That was a joke, right?

    Please confirm, because some of your other comments certainly come across as jokes, particularly the explanation of seasonal temperature differences between northern and southern hemispheres.

    That explanation (perhaps better described as a statement of the bleeding obvious) certainly did not debunk the suggestion that solar output effects temperature on this planet.

    I am just wondering if you sincerely believe that variation in the sun’s output has anything but the most significant impact on the planet’s temperature.

    Why do I feel a huge difference in temperature as soon as cloud passes between me and the sun?

    And a remarkably patronising answer will probably not help.

  138. Leif Svalgaard (11:05:04)

    I constantly consider that possibility but am inclined to dismiss it until there is a sound rebuttal in the first place.

    I’m surprised that you raised that point since I have accepted and incorporated your solar work in preference to that of David.

    However, above I indicated why I had reservations about certain aspects of the work of both of you and those reservations have been picked up by other contributors to this thread.

    By the way, do you ever follow your own advice ?

  139. Tony B (number 2) (13:35:28) :
    “but rather sucks up the dark. Just look at the wick.”
    That was a joke, right?

    You be the judge. Read up on it: http://www.jtkdev.com/light.html

    That explanation (perhaps better described as a statement of the bleeding obvious)
    If it was so bleeding obvious, then perhaps the question was a joke…

    I am just wondering if you sincerely believe that variation in the sun’s output has anything but the most significant impact on the planet’s temperature.
    The statement makes little sense, either it is a joke or you meant ‘insignificant’

    Why do I feel a huge difference in temperature as soon as cloud passes between me and the sun?
    The amount of sunlight falling on you depends on the transmission of the atmosphere above you at the moment of ‘feeling’. This paper has more on that http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended_abs/takara_ee.pdf
    As I understand it the cloud absorbs about half of the light [Figure 2b]. So the temperature should drop by a factor of 2^0.25 = 1.19, but since you also receive radiation from other things, like the ground or structures near you, even the air, the temperature will be lees, perhaps only a third [although more research is needed on the exact number], or about 20C. Even this seems a bit high. Perhaps you should measure it and then we can go from there. Be sure to note what kind of cloud it is: some are thin, and some look almost black.

    And a remarkably patronising answer will probably not help.
    I hope my detailed answer was helpful.

    Stephen Wilde (15:06:36) :
    I constantly consider that possibility but am inclined to dismiss it until there is a sound rebuttal in the first place.
    “sound rebuttal” is very much in the eye of the beholder. The right way to do this [if you think you have something] is to submit your theory to an appropriate scientific journal and see what response you get.

    I’m surprised that you raised that point since I have accepted and incorporated your solar work in preference to that of David.
    I presume you have done this on basis of merit.

    By the way, do you ever follow your own advice ?
    I usually defer to other scientists to judge my work and reject as appropriate. My very first paper was indeed rejected.

  140. Re: Tony B (number 2) (Mar 1 13:35),

    We have to isolate the influence of the sun as a constant energy input to the planet, call it W, and the small changes in it dW/dt. Nobody refuses that W is responsible for everything on the planet, including climate. The question is whether the small dW/dt observed over historical times with the changing solar cycle has a direct effect on the climate.
    Leif excludes direct effects because of the small magnitude of the change and is skeptical of other solutions offered before they prove themselves.

    The cloud you quote is a secondary effect, and yes, cloud cover changes albedo and a change in albedo of 3% changes temperatures by 2 degrees in simple models of energy in and out as can be tested in http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html . So a mechanism exists here and now, and the connection to the sun is searched by various proposals that would help amplify the sun cycle changes into cloud cover changes and thus climate changes.

    I tend to favor the chaotic models, i.e. many inputs contributing to the observed cycles in climate, not direct one to one correspondence.

    Take a pot with water over a constant range source, say 2kw. The water boils at 100C. If you put a cover, the currents in the pot and the atmoshere above it behave differently. If it is a pressure cooker, temperatures go much higher. The change of the material and the distribution of the material changes the microcosm in the pot even though the source is constant.

  141. Leif Svalgaard (16:09:32) :
    “…………you also receive radiation from other things, like the ground or structures near you, even the air, the temperature will be lees, perhaps only a third [although more research is needed on the exact number], or about 20C.”

    Clouds have a bit of split personality, day times reduce temperature, nighttimes protect from significant temperature drop (case of Sahara or other cloudless desert is good demonstration point from +45 C down to 0 C degrees).
    However total solar eclipse is possibly more appropriate (have personally experienced two) since it cuts-out direct sunlight.
    Here what NASA’s expert has to say:
    “My guess would be that it would be equal to the typical daytime minus nighttime temperature difference at that time of the year and location on the Earth. It would be modified a bit by the fact that it only lasts a few minutes, which means the environment would not have had much time to thermally respond to its lowest temperature, so it would probably only be 3/4 or 1/2 the maximum day-night temperature difference. Because the patch of the shadow travels faster than the speed of sound, weather systems will only be affected very locally directly under the instantaneous foot print of the eclipse. The main effect is in the ‘radiant heating’ component which goes away suddenly at the moment of eclipse and produces a very fast temperature decrease. If the wind is blowing, your body probably exaggerates by evaporative cooling, just how large the actual temperature swing actually is. “

  142. Leif Svalgaard (16:09:32)

    It’s not yet complete enough or well enough verified to submit to a journal and I’d need experienced help to present it properly anyway.

    It will be verified or not by the passage of time and if verified in that way it will be so obvious that a paper would be unnecessary.

  143. Pamela Gray (17:04:30)

    “By the way, 5 years ago I had some of my lip removed.”

    I had half of the skin on the right side of my nose removed in 2006 for the same reason. I was lucky – pathology showed it was in mid-transition from nevus to malignant melanoma. Payback from too much sunburn in my teenage years. I still have to go in for checks every few months.

  144. Stephen Wilde (01:42:24) :
    I’d need experienced help to present it properly anyway
    I would be glad to help in that regard. It is not hard to observe the proper format. The hard part is to express the ideas concisely.

  145. Dr. Richard Gross of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said all earthquakes have some effect on Earth’s rotation. According to a report Gross is quoted to say that the Chile earthquake may have shorten Earth’s rotation by 1.26 microsec due to a shift of the Earth mass for about 8 cm.

  146. Leif Svalgaard (03:55:29)

    Thank you Leif, that’s a very kind offer and I may take you up on it when I’ve filled in more detail and compared the predictive ability of my ideas with more ongoing climate events. It might need to await my retirement when more time will be available.

    As you say, expressing the ideas concisely is the hard part and I’m only about half way there in view of the difficulties of explaining the various real world climate events that do not initially appear to fit the pattern that the underlying principles would predict.

    The Oort Minimum during the MWP is one such but given that solar and ocean cycles seem to vary independently I don’t see it as insuperable especially if as I suspect the rate of energy loss to space is reduced when the solar surface is less active. Thus the Oort minimum would simply have partly offset the attempts of the more active sun either side of it to offset the warming effect of a longer term positive oceanic phase. That won’t make sense unless one has read my work elsewhere but this is not the place to reprise it all.

    You haven’t actually commented on that issue of changing rates of energy loss to space other than to assert that the changes in the upper atmosphere do not transmit downward. I agree with that assertion but do not require transmission downward, merely the facilitating of a faster or slower upward flow of energy.

  147. Leif,

    It seems that the Oort Minimum isn’t much of a problem after all. It lasted some 40 years from 1010 to 1050 in the midst of a generally active spell for the sun during the MWP which ran from 800 to 1300 and the Oort Minimum was the shortest and least deep solar minimum in the past 1000 years.

    So, it doesn’t invalidate my general assertion that, on average, periods of high solar activity generally coincide with periods of warm climate (mainly ocean driven) at least over much of the current interglacial.

    One has to get back to the last glaciation to find a period when solar and oceanic cycles were not coinciding on average.

    Thus during glaciations the oceanic and solar cycles supplement one another in cooling or warming the troposphere resulting in large swings in climate (Bond Events) whereas during interglacials they generally offset one another resulting in a relatively stable and equable climate as now.

    They offset one another because warmer ocean cycles heat the troposphere whilst the more active sun facilitates loss of surplus energy to space and cooler ocean cycles cool the troposphere but the less active sun reduces the cooling potential by reducing the rate of energy loss to space.

    The opposite occurs when they supplement one another resulting in large climate swings with heavy northern hemisphere snows that do not all melt in the summers.

    This past winter is a small short term example of what happens when a warmer ocean surface coincides with a less active sun as I have explained in much more detail elsewhere. Both work towards a warming of the troposphere but emphasise the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations causing cold air to invade mid latitudes despite the overall net warming of the troposphere.

    If the sun had been active more of the energy from the El Nino would have been vented to space and the AO would have been less negative.

    If there had been a La Nina there would have been less energy from the oceans to pump into the upper troposphere and the AO would have been less negative.

    If the sun had been active with a La Nina there would have been a less negative AO allowing energy out to space faster and the lack of energy entering the troposphere from the oceans would have allowed a profound cooling.

  148. Stephen Wilde (07:01:36) :
    One has to get back to the last glaciation to find a period when solar and oceanic cycles were not coinciding on average.
    I have not seen any data substantiation this. And as long as ‘on average’ is not defined, one cannot judge anyway.

    Stephen Wilde (05:17:10) :
    You haven’t actually commented on that issue of changing rates of energy loss to space
    Since the upper atmosphere has a density a million times smaller than the lower, you have to demonstrate how that tiny tail can wag the Great Dane.

  149. “Radiation from the Sun ultimately provides the only energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere and changes in solar activity clearly have the potential to affect climate. There is statistical evidence for solar influence on various meteorological parameters on all timescales, although extracting the signal from the noise in a naturally highly variable system remains a key problem. Changes in total solar irradiance undoubtedly impact the Earth’s energy balance but uncertainties in the historical record of TSI mean that the magnitude of even this direct influence is not well known. Variations in solar UV radiation impact the thermal structure and composition of the middle atmosphere but details of the responses in both temperature and ozone concentrations are not well established. Various theories are now being developed for coupling mechanisms whereby direct solar impacts on the middle atmosphere might influence the troposphere but the influences are complex and non-linear and many questions remain concerning the detailed mechanisms which determine to what extent, where and when the solar influence is felt. Variations in cosmic radiation, modulated by solar activity, are manifest in changes in atmospheric ionisation but it is not yet clear whether these have the potential to significantly affect the atmosphere in a way that will impact climate.”

  150. A C Osborn (09:36:17) :
    you would like to comment on the work being done by Professor Joanna Haigh

    This is how she describes her own work:
    “Radiation from the Sun ultimately provides the only energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere and changes in solar activity clearly have the potential to affect climate. There is statistical evidence for solar influence on various meteorological parameters on all timescales, although extracting the signal from the noise in a naturally highly variable system remains a key problem. Changes in total solar irradiance undoubtedly impact the Earth’s energy balance but uncertainties in the historical record of TSI mean that the magnitude of even this direct influence is not well known. Variations in solar UV radiation impact the thermal structure and composition of the middle atmosphere but details of the responses in both temperature and ozone concentrations are not well established. Various theories are now being developed for coupling mechanisms whereby direct solar impacts on the middle atmosphere might influence the troposphere but the influences are complex and non-linear and many questions remain concerning the detailed mechanisms which determine to what extent, where and when the solar influence is felt. Variations in cosmic radiation, modulated by solar activity, are manifest in changes in atmospheric ionisation but it is not yet clear whether these have the potential to significantly affect the atmosphere in a way that will impact climate.”

  151. Leif Svalgaard (10:24:25) :
    But unlike you she does not say that it is Not Possible does she?
    Others appear to be looking for links, not denying it is possible.
    Or are you also looking?

  152. Leif,

    I would direct your attention to the graph of sunspot activity and temperature which is the last graphic in this article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

    If one accepts that the primary controller of air temperatures is ocean surface temperatures as I do then the temperature line in red serves as an adequate proxy for the warmth of the ocean surfaces back to 10,000 years ago.

    The yellow line is a sunspot reconstruction.

    One can see that 10,000 years ago the red and yellow lines were going in opposite directions even crossing over one another.

    From then until about 5000 years ago they were still going in opposite directions but no longer enough to actually cross each other.

    From 5000 years ago to date the lines run almost in parallel.

    This shows me that 10,000 years ago the oceanic and solar cycles were supplementing each other’s effects causing wild climate swings. From the start of the interglacial they were moving back into phase and thus supplementing one another less and less effectively with much reduced climate swings and since about 5000 years ago they have been offsetting each other’s effects for most of the time showing relative stability but a slow overall decline in temperatures.

    Then look at the Ice core temperature record for the past 20000 years on page 3 here:

    http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/harders/geo390/chapter15.pdf

    which shows how global temperatures stabilised 10000 years ago with larger numbers of changes but greater stability overall which I would say is typical of two cycles, oceanic and solar, offsetting one another’s extremes.

    When they go out of phase again and resume supplementing each other instead of offsetting each other then the interglacial will end.

  153. Mods,

    In my post of (10:53:14)
    could you make the two links clickable please, thanks.

    REPLY: Done. Don’t use tags, just paste URL’s directly into the comment form. WordPress will recognize it and automatically make a link from it. – Anthony

  154. A C Osborn (10:42:41) :
    But unlike you she does not say that it is Not Possible does she?
    It is also Possible that tomorrow I win the lottery, but I don’t count on it.

    Others appear to be looking for links, not denying it is possible.
    Or are you also looking?

    We are all looking for linkages [not links on the Internet].
    Here are some [Internet] links showing me looking:
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Sci…180..185W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ASSL…42..627S
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JAtS…31..581W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975scea.conf..294W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Natur.255..539W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975STIN…7624117W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976JAtS…33.1113W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Sci…204…60W
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979JATP…41..657W

  155. Stephen Wilde (10:53:14) :
    One can see that 10,000 years ago the red and yellow lines were going in opposite directions even crossing over one another.
    That they cross can be corrected by the draftsman …

    From 5000 years ago to date the lines run almost in parallel.
    Apart from questioning the data [especially the solar data], what the graph shows is that in the long run solar activity and climate are not correlated. Also, some of the temperature variation is due to orbital cycles, not the Sun.

  156. Leif Svalgaard (11:12:10)

    Of course the chart can be designed so that they don’t cross but that’s not the point. The point being that swings in opposite directions were much larger during the ice age than in the interglacial.

    That is characteristic of separate and independent solar and ocean cycles that have a different climate consequence depending on the scale and timing of the interaction between sun and oceans.

    I would say that the positions of the air circulation systems and the strength of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations are a climate consequence of the sun/ sea interaction at any particular moment.

    So no, you won’t see a long term correlation between climate and either sun or oceans because there is a constant shifting in their respective degrees of dominance with the oceans being by far the more powerful.

    Furthermore in ice ages they work together and in interglacials they work in opposition.

  157. Stephen Wilde (12:23:03) :
    That is characteristic of separate and independent solar and ocean cycles that have a different climate consequence depending on the scale and timing of the interaction between sun and oceans.

    Unless you have a theory [or physical reason] for when they are in phase and when they are out of phase, this means nothing.

  158. JonesII (12:35:30) :
    Vukcevic (05:14:52) :
    Two papers of indian geologists, who successfully forecasted the December 2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami
    “Prediction” after the fact is no prediction.

  159. Vukcevic (12:58:37) :
    However, have no access to the full article.
    I don’t think there is a paper; this looks to about a talk they will give. They say they “will” do this or that, but not what they found.

    This is something that rears its head from time to time. The U.S. Geological Survey has investigated such claims and finds no evidence. Here is a typical paper on this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039020.pdf
    I have discussed this on numerous occasions with Jeffrey Love [coauthor] and although it would be nice if there were such relationships [as well as thousands of other ones: nervous dogs, chicken not laying eggs, lunatics misbehaving, …] none have been found to be of any use.

  160. Vukcevic (05:14:52) :
    the Chile earthquake may have shorten Earth’s rotation by 1.26 microsec due to a shift of the Earth mass for about 8 cm
    That would make the dip of the LOD curve deeper…and colder.
    OT.-In the chilean capital, Santiago, several buildings which almost fell down, not everyone in the same part of the city, were built by the same company…

  161. Vukcevic (12:58:37) :Both are compatible, when considered forecast will increase from 75% to 100%.

  162. Vukcevic (12:58:37) During Santiago earthquake light flashes were seen in the sky. (shown at the national TV station there). Btw, I have witnessed those earthquake lights in another earthquake.

  163. Leif: The sun must control: All the planets circulate around it. The gravitational effect must be overwhelming? In fact the control would have to be very extremely precise otherwise all the planets would be going everywhere! This is very very simple. To say that the sun has no influence on most planetary activities especially spin, wobble and orbit, geomagnetic=tectonic plate movements, and indirectly climate does not make sense to me anyway. Question: if the sun was removed what would happen to our solar system? LOL Anyway I think so far from what we have been experiencing D Archibald and especially Svensmark (CR particle effects), seem to hit it almost everything on the nail. Have you recorded cloudiness and precipitation world wide lately???

  164. Leif Svalgaard (13:24:46) :
    Leif Svalgaard (13:30:21) :

    Thanks Dr. Svalgaard, I will read the Guam paper. On matter of pseudoscience I have considerable collection of ideas of my own. Only exception here is that my musings are for my own entertainment, made available to a wider audience for their pleasure and amusement.
    Now, to be serious, I know you have looked at this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    but studiously avoided any comment. You got all the data to check the accuracy if required.
    Just coincidence? It must be, either of two is too weak at place of the other to cause a relationship.

  165. Vukcevic (13:59:35) :
    Now, to be serious, I know you have looked at this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    but studiously avoided any comment. You got all the data…Just coincidence?

    This is not being serious. It is not even coincidence [and I do not studiously avoid anything – but somethings are just too silly to warrant comment], just selection. Here is some basic theory on spurious correlations: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p09b/p0966.pdf

  166. Vukcevic (13:59:35) :
    made available to a wider audience for their pleasure and amusement.
    I don’t think people come to this blog for amusement [although they will find lots of ridiculous posts – such is the nature of the Internet].

  167. Stephan (13:52:13) :
    To say that the sun has no influence on most planetary activities especially spin, wobble and orbit, geomagnetic=tectonic plate movements, and indirectly climate does not make sense to me anyway.
    The Sun has an influence on everything. It is just very small.

  168. Vukcevic (14:40:13) :
    Still no comment on…
    Here was my comment:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:18:29) :
    Vukcevic (13:59:35) :
    Now, to be serious, I know you have looked at this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    but studiously avoided any comment. You got all the data…Just coincidence?

    This is not being serious. It is not even coincidence [and I do not studiously avoid anything – but somethings are just too silly to warrant comment], just selection.

  169. Leif Svalgaard (12:45:56)

    Well you accept that the sun’s output varies but you don’t have a definitive physical reason and cannot predict it’s level of activity or the length of the solar cycles to any useful degree. You seem happy to do your work without a physical reason so you should not be demanding such of me.

    Likewise we see that the ocean surface temperatures vary yet ENSO on it’s own nor the PDO explain the longer term cycling from MWP to LIA and the Modern Warm Period and the obvious earlier cycling during the current interglacial for the past 10,000 years.

    So from simple observations of sun and ocean we see that there is cycling on multiple timescales.

    Now all I do is observe what happens and assert the obvious namely that there is a climate response to the interaction between those separate and independent solar and oceanic cycles. That climate response differs according to which is dominant and the absolute level of each component.

    I don’t need to sort out the physical reasons and indeed at present I cannot just as you cannot give a definitive explanation of solar variability.

    However the fact is that the climate at any given moment is a consequence of the sun/ocean interaction whatever the cause of the cycling in each or the timing of the cycling in each and every climate change ever recorded is adequately explicable in terms of that interaction with no need for CO2 ‘forcing’.

    Furthermore climate is nothing to do with actual temperature. Climate is simply the way the equilibrium process in the troposphere is distributed geographically by the positioning of the air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle.

    The patterns of air circulation in the troposphere will always remain broadly the same whatever the actual temperature. One just sees a shift in the positioning of the different air circulation systems and the speed of the hydrological cycle whether the dominating effect is sun, oceans, cosmic rays, CO2 or little green men.

    And at all times the equilibrium towards which the system will always move is set by the warming effect of the sun (however achieved – not just raw power output), the length of time it takes solar energy in the oceans to be released back to the air and the rate at which solar energy is released from the atmosphere to space.

    Of those factors by far the most influential in terms of the creation of internal system variability must be the length of time it takes solar energy in the oceans to be released back to the air.

    Nothing else comes close.

  170. Vukcevic (14:40:13) :

    Leif Svalgaard (14:22:23) :

    Still no comment on
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    ?
    Come on you can do better than that, or maybe a further consideration is required.
    If not a coincidence I have no idea.
    ~
    Vuks, like your new wrecking ball. Went looking for this “ULF energy transfer in the solar wind – magnetosphere
    – ionosphere – solid Earth system”
    R. Kessel, F. Freund, G. Duma
    before being sent away, and nada, couldn’t even make full title, maybe what Leif said.
    ~

    Leif Svalgaard (14:52:34) :

    Vukcevic (14:40:13) :
    Still no comment on…
    Here was my comment:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:18:29) :
    Vukcevic (13:59:35) :
    Now, to be serious, I know you have looked at this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    but studiously avoided any comment. You got all the data…Just coincidence?

    This is not being serious. It is not even coincidence [and I do not studiously avoid anything – but somethings are just too silly to warrant comment], just selection.
    ~
    I know we have been here before Leif, but silly? Are we being sent to the Group W bench?

    Arlo Guthrie, “Alices Restaurant”
    Alice’s Restaurant Group W Bench

  171. Stephen Wilde (15:39:00) :
    Well you accept that the sun’s output varies but you don’t have a definitive physical reason and cannot predict it’s level of activity or the length of the solar cycles to any useful degree.

    But we do know why it varies and we have rather successfully predicted recent solar cycles [ conclusion from http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-1/ “Predictions for the amplitude of a cycle based on the Sun’s polar field strength or on geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum are significantly better than using the climatological mean”]

    So from simple observations of sun and ocean we see that there is cycling on multiple timescales.
    except that there is little evidence that they anything to do with each other. The fact that they both vary does not mean that the are connected or related in any way.

    That climate response differs according to which is dominant and the absolute level of each component.
    You cannot use the climate to make that determination. You have to start with the components and from them determine what is dominant.

    I don’t need to sort out the physical reasons and indeed at present I cannot just as you cannot give a definitive explanation of solar variability.
    There is big difference between nothing at all and giving a reasonably successful explanation. “Definitive” is a big word.

    However the fact is that the climate at any given moment is a consequence of the sun/ocean interaction
    Is irrelevant as we are talking about variation of the Sun.

    Carla (16:57:21) :
    I know we have been here before Leif, but silly? Are we being sent to the Group W bench?
    Yes, silly.

  172. Leif Svalgaard (17:36:20) :
    Carla (16:57:21) :
    I know we have been here before Leif, but silly? Are we being sent to the Group W bench?
    Yes, silly.
    ~
    Vuks, how did we get sent to the Group W bench for this. “Our special crime, littering and creating a nuisance.” ?

    Or what’s up with this?
    ~

    Vukcevic (14:40:13) :
    Still no comment on…
    Here was my comment:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:18:29) :
    Vukcevic (13:59:35) :
    Now, to be serious, I know you have looked at this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    but studiously avoided any comment. You got all the data…Just coincidence?

  173. Carla (16:57:21) :

    Alice’s Restaurant?

    That was so sixties.

    I know this is hackneyed, but if you remembered that aspect of the sixties then you weren’t really there.

    John

  174. Carla (18:43:53) :

    There is a popular fallacious argument often made toward people who try to live highly rational lives. By rational I mean those who try to not accept anything on belief. Who try to apply thought to all things real. They are the reality huggers.

    The argument toward the rational person goes like this, you rational guys by your own principles must look at every single possibility or every theory or every single hypothesis by anybody . . . blah blah blah . . . because if you don’t then how can you say you are rational.

    One of the good answers [there are several] by a rational person is NUTS [thanks General Anthony McAuliffe]. It is appropriate for a rational person to say, I of my own volition choose what I focus my mind on. Only I choose that. My time is really valuable to me. Present your case to me that what you are saying has enough value to warrantee my focus, otherwise I will not focus on your stuff. If your sales job doesn’t meet the cut, you are cut out of my focus. : )

    John

  175. Leif Svalgaard (17:36:20)

    You keep missing the point.

    1) I am not suggesting that the solar and oceanic cycles are necessarily connected in any way. Hence my point that they seem to cycle independently. They probably are connected at some level but it does not appear clearly in the observed climate.

    2) I am not using the climate to make any determination. I am saying that observing the interaction of both solar and oceanic cycles gives us the climate. Other variables are involved but at a lower order of influence.

    3) My comments are relevant here because solar behaviour is and must always be involved in climate changes albeit heavily modulated by other internal system variables such as what seems to be an overwhelming oceanic variability.

    I appreciate your position and that of David and I see some merit in both. You have the edge because the observed variability in solar power is so small as a proportion of total solar output. David’s position has merit because solar variability does appear to affect the rate of energy flow to space as we see from the SABER observations.

    As to how the solar effect works your point is that the topmost layers of the atmosphere are so thin that they ‘cannot’ in your view have any effect at all or any effect is so small as to be negligible.

    However you seem to be evading the point about the possible effect of changing surface areas at the top of the atmosphere and at each layer interface within the atmosphere caused by variations in solar turbulence. It is intrinsically unlikely there should be such a strong effect in the thermosphere but a zero effect lower down.

    You point out that the variations in the sun are miniscule in terms of power output. Then how does the thermosphere temperature vary so much ? Apparently it can go from 500C to 1500C and back again. A miniscule variation in solar power seems unlikely to be responsible for all that.

    I’m inclined to think that the thermosphere temperature could just as well vary as a result of changes in the rate of energy flow from below as from solar changes above.

    You say that the thermosphere cannot affect the lower layers because it is so thin. That would be fine if we were considering a downward energy flow.

    However we are considering here an upward energy flow and so the lower layers would be in control of the thermosphere temperatures and being so much more dense they would have a powerful effect on the small number of molecules in the thermosphere above.

  176. Leif,

    I forgot to mention that my climate explanation is proving to be ‘reasonably successful’ as time goes by and it fits past climate behaviour pretty well too so I don’t accept a significant difference in quality or accuracy between your solar ‘explanations’ or my climate ‘explanations’.

  177. Stephen Wilde

    Perhaps a naive question – which oceanic cycles are you referring to in terms of phase relationship with solar cycles – ENSO, PDO, AMO ? There are several ocean cycles and they have different time timelines. How do you define a single oceanic cycle? Indeed, Tsonis has shown that the moving in and out of phase of the various oceanic cycles (PDO, AMO) relative to eachother itself switches climate between warming and cooling phases in context of chaotic harmonic dynamics.

    In general the ocean cycles are short – 8 years or so for ENSO, 20-30 years for PDO, AMO etc. The sunspot cycle is only 11 years. Its hard to believe a phase relation between such short cycles which both vary somewhat can be maintained for tens of thousands of years. Are you referring to longer term ocean and sun cycles, such as solar minima? (Maunder, Sporer etc.)

    BTW in the wikipedia solar cycles link you provided, it is notable that the interglacials over the last million years all occur at eccentricity maxima (although the magnitude of eccentricity and interglacial maxima don’t correlate).

  178. John Whitman (23:03:27) :
    Carla (18:43:53) :

    Dr. Svalgaard will consider only proper scientific analysis of the problem, however I suspect he is a bit intrigued by the ‘apparent relationship’.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    If the geographic North Pole’s magnetic field intensity is correlated to the integrated sunspot count for the period, then ‘R square’ is respectable 0.59 implying negative (reverse proportionality) correlation of 77%, which isn’t bad at all.
    More details available soon on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm

  179. phlogiston (02:26:40)

    I’ve always taken the view that one needs somehow to net out the effect of all the ocean cycles combined at any given moment.

    On that basis Tsonis may well be correct.

    The issue of eccentricity is one that I still need to look into in more detail. I see that as a component in whatever sets up the solar effects in the first place. I never said that it was only the level of solar surface activity that was involved.

    There are at least 3 timescales involved and possibly more.

    For the sun:

    i) variations within each solar cycle. Individual bursts of flares and sunspots.

    ii) variations over a series of cycles. Multiple cycles more active or less active than ‘normal’.

    iii) variations on the scale of Sporer, Maunder, Modern Maximum etc.

    Then one has to start bringing in orbital factors for longer term solar variability.

    For the oceans:

    i) Interannual ENSO events

    ii) PDO phase shifts (assuming they are independent of ENSO)

    iii) Probable 1000 year cycle from peak to peak since the sun doesn’t vary enough to do it and we see the ITCZ shift latitudinally which is an ocean cycle fingerprint in my view.

    Possible longer term variability not yet adequately recognised due to lack of historical detail but not relevant for current climate concerns.

    The critical issue though is that whatever happens and however those cycles interact over time the system response to retain equilibrium is always a shift in the positions and sizes of the air circulation systems and thus the speed of the hydrological cycle. The climate system will always react to changes in the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air and changes in the rate of energy transfer from stratosphere to space so as to retain equilibrium for the system as a whole.

    Climate is simply the geographical distribution of the equilibrium process.

    One can even deal with the ‘faint sun paradox’ by suggesting that when the sun is fainter the hydrological cycle is slower so that the surface temperature is little different.

    Underlying it all is a relatively stable density and pressure differential at the ocean surface that sets the system equilibrium temperature by dictating a relatively stable background rate of energy transfer from oceans to atmosphere.

  180. ””Vukcevic (02:51:30) : however I suspect he is a bit intrigued by the ‘apparent relationship’. ”””

    V,

    I do not think I would want to play poker against Dr Svalgaard.

    John

  181. John Whitman (04:29:56) :
    ””Vukcevic (02:51:30) : however I suspect he is a bit intrigued by the ‘apparent relationship’. ”””
    And I’m not intrigued. Vuk is diluting the discussion by nonsense [for his own amusement].

  182. Phlogiston 2:26:40

    It’s a bit of quibbling but the cycle of the PDO is over 60 years, each phase is around 30.

    I don’t think it’s necessary for the purported short cycles to forever stay locked; it’s easy to imagine a slippage, a cog missed. The cog is missed, but the clock ticks on.

    I’ve long been intrigued by the idea that there are around 6 solar cycles to each cycle of the PDO, and I even have a mechanism in which an alternating phenomenon in the solar cycle produces the cycle of the PDO by placing two solar cycles of one type and one of the other in each phase of the PDO, but Leif pooh-poohs it as a second order effect. It even involves cosmic rays.
    ===================

  183. Leif Svalgaard (04:44:46) :
    John Whitman (04:29:56) :

    re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    Declaring something nonsense is not a step forward in comprehending mystery of unknown. Here are the numbers: column 2 is integrated sunspot number , column 3 is Vertical Component of GMF at 90 degrees North (microTesla), for period 1610-2000. Excel’s calculated correlation function CORREL = – 0.76873.
    In no terms this number can be considered a ‘nonsense’.

    1610 47.1 63
    1620 27.1 63.9
    1630 19.1 64.5
    1640 21.2 65
    1650 2.9 65.2
    1660 0 65.2
    1670 0 64.9
    1680 0 64.4
    1690 0 63.7
    1700 0 62.9
    1710 2.9 62.1
    1720 15.9 61.4
    1730 26.5 60.7
    1740 33.5 60.1
    1750 44.1 59.6
    1760 45 59.2
    1770 58.8 58.9
    1780 67.6 58.5
    1790 58.8 58.2
    1800 32.4 57.7
    1810 20.6 57.3
    1820 23.5 56.9
    1830 42.6 56.7
    1840 59.7 56.5
    1850 57.4 56.4
    1860 52.4 56.5
    1870 52.6 56.6
    1880 39.4 56.7
    1890 37.4 56.8
    1900 34.1 57
    1910 35 56.7
    1920 42.1 56.2
    1930 45.3 55.9
    1940 61.2 55.8
    1950 77.1 55.8
    1960 81.5 56.1
    1970 68.5 56.5
    1980 75 56.7
    1990 80 56.3
    2000 67.6 56.6

  184. Vuk,

    I suspect your baggage with Dr Svalgaard [and I use his honorary title purposefully] on WUWT preceded my appearance here.

    I will not play catch-up.

    I remember my offspring telling me midway through junior undergraduate year that the precious gift of college was enlightenment. At that moment I could not have loved my offspring more.

    This is not a criticism of you, I seek enlighenment.

    John

  185. John Whitman (22:40:08) :

    Carla (16:57:21) :

    Alice’s Restaurant?

    That was so sixties.
    I know this is hackneyed, but if you remembered that aspect of the sixties then you weren’t really there.

    John
    ~

    Grew up in a household with 3 older brothers. (range9-5 yrs older) Was only 10 for the album release of Alices Restaurant, but was indeed looking and alwawys listening, so was there. Technically it was a song about the draft, but covered other aspects of society. ( like the segement on “blind Justice”)

    When these discussions get too heavy for me, (have you read some of these technical docs?) music becomes a diversion or escape time, to free up my brain from thinking about some of the topics discussed here.
    ~

    John Whitman (23:03:27) :
    ..One of the good answers [there are several] by a rational person is NUTS [thanks General Anthony McAuliffe]. It is appropriate for a rational person to say, I of my own volition choose what I focus my mind on. Only I choose that. My time is really valuable to me. Present your case to me that what you are saying has enough value to warrantee my focus, otherwise I will not focus on your stuff. If your sales job doesn’t meet the cut, you are cut out of my focus. : )

    John
    ~

    yeah ditto, we all do this, right? Geesh good thing my lively hood is not dependent upon my sales ability. Focus on what you will, John.

  186. John Whitman (05:33:56) :

    And I also seek to use a spellchecker more often and also to proof read the text after the dumb spellcheck.

    Good night dear WUWTers.

    John

  187. Vukcevic (05:33:02) :
    Declaring something nonsense is not a step forward in comprehending mystery of unknown.
    The nonsense comes in when ascribing significance to a correlation between those two particular variables, compounded by not understanding statistics: the integrated sunspot numbers are not independent data points, so the R^2 is nonsense.
    The magnetic field at the North Pole was 50% higher 2000 years ago than today. Applying your spurious ‘correlation’ gives an integrated sunspot number of some -50 back then, more nonsense.
    The nonsense lies in conjuring ‘mysteries’.
    And Vuk, this is my final word on this. I don’t know why I even bother. Read Shermer’s book: http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893

  188. John Whitman (05:33:56) :
    Agreed, both baggage and enlightenment. It is challenge of the unknown. Having said that, I have nothing but greatest respect for the knowledge, experience and reputation of Dr. Svalgaard. It is his ‘put-downs’ that have actually worked miracles, and kept me rather busy during last couple of years. This one for time being ‘ad acta’.

    • Paul;

      That graph of SAOT fascinating. If you want to writeup anything about it, I’ll turn it into a guest post. – Anthony

  189. Vukcevic (05:33:02) :

    Leif Svalgaard (04:44:46) :
    John Whitman (04:29:56) :

    re: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
    Declaring something nonsense is not a step forward in comprehending mystery of unknown. Here are the numbers: column 2 is integrated sunspot number , column 3 is Vertical Component of GMF at 90 degrees North (microTesla), for period 1610-2000. Excel’s calculated correlation function CORREL = – 0.76873.
    In no terms this number can be considered a ‘nonsense’.

    1610 47.1 63
    1620 27.1 63.9
    1630 19.1 64.5
    1640 21.2 65
    1650 2.9 65.2
    1660 0 65.2
    1670 0 64.9
    1680 0 64.4
    1690 0 63.7
    1700 0 62.9
    1710 2.9 62.1
    1720 15.9 61.4
    1730 26.5 60.7
    1740 33.5 60.1
    1750 44.1 59.6
    1760 45 59.2
    1770 58.8 58.9
    1780 67.6 58.5
    1790 58.8 58.2
    1800 32.4 57.7
    1810 20.6 57.3
    1820 23.5 56.9
    1830 42.6 56.7
    1840 59.7 56.5
    1850 57.4 56.4
    1860 52.4 56.5
    1870 52.6 56.6
    1880 39.4 56.7
    1890 37.4 56.8
    1900 34.1 57
    1910 35 56.7
    1920 42.1 56.2
    1930 45.3 55.9
    1940 61.2 55.8
    1950 77.1 55.8
    1960 81.5 56.1
    1970 68.5 56.5
    1980 75 56.7
    1990 80 56.3
    2000 67.6 56.6
    ~

    Maybe you’re not such a “bad boy” after all and we don’t belong on the “Group W” bench with the rest of the “bad boys.”

    For All you fathers that told your daughters not to go out with the “bad boys.” Did you provide them with the tools to be able to discern what a bad boy is? With 3 older male siblings, you not only learn what a “bad boy” is,.. but what a bad girl is too. You learn at an early age what constitutes a “bad girl,” good girl, and really goood girl. lol Rough job trying to land in the middle of that. Was Clinton a “bad boy?” Didn’t inhale or have sex with Monica.

    Keep on pushing on Vuks.

  190. Stephen Wilde (23:19:29) :
    You point out that the variations in the sun are miniscule in terms of power output. Then how does the thermosphere temperature vary so much ? Apparently it can go from 500C to 1500C and back again. A miniscule variation in solar power seems unlikely to be responsible for all that.
    The thermospheric density is a billionth to a trillionth of the tropospheric density, so it doesn’t take much to change its temperature.

  191. Re: Anthony Watts (07:09:35)

    Anthony, feel free to turn that comment [Paul Vaughan (06:52:31)] into a post – or quote me – or whatever. I’ve little doubt it might generate some discussion simply as-is. If you go that route, I might drop some notes in the thread as it evolves.

  192. Leif Svalgaard (06:56:46)

    So you accept that the warming of the thermosphere is caused by energy coming up from below rather than the solar output varying minutely and warming it from above ?

    Any warming of molecules in the thermosphere from solar variations would be proportionate to the change in solar power output so it couldn’t be the sun wot does it because the temperature swings up there are wholly disproportionate.

    If the warming in the thermosphere is caused by changes in the rate of energy flow from below and the thermosphere gets warmer when the sun is more active then that supports my description.

  193. Stephen Wilde (09:10:00) :
    So you accept that the warming of the thermosphere is caused by energy coming up from below rather than the solar output varying minutely and warming it from above ?
    No, that is not the way Nature works. The warming of the thermosphere is due to solar X-ray and EUV absorbed up there [with some heating due to electric currents in the polar regions]. The variation of the very short wave length radiation is very large in percentage terms, but very small in absolute terms [e.g. W/m2]. We only get significant heating because the thermosphere is so thin. And it is not hot in the usual sense. If you stuck your arm out the window of the space station it would freeze stiff instantly even though the temperature is 500 degrees.

  194. Leif Svalgaard (16:09:32) :
    Tony B (number 2) (13:35:28) :
    “but rather sucks up the dark. Just look at the wick.”
    That was a joke, right?
    You be the judge. Read up on it: http://www.jtkdev.com/light.html
    **********************************************************************
    Yes – I note the date (or month) of publication – April. Quite early in the month, I would guess.

    Amongst other things it says

    “The dark theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesman, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. ”
    “Actually when you turn on your flashlight it sucks in darkness and stores in the batteries. When the batteries are full of darkness they no longer work.”

    Very helpful – the effect of suckers is now so much clearer. And I feel foolish for having expended any time reading it.
    *******************************************************************************
    That explanation (perhaps better described as a statement of the bleeding obvious)
    If it was so bleeding obvious, then perhaps the question was a joke…
    *******************************************************************************
    To explain the difference in temperature between northern and southern hemispheres by stating – in effect – “it is the difference between summer and winter, dummy” is not terribly helpful, is it?

    ********************************************************************************
    I am just wondering if you sincerely believe that variation in the sun’s output has anything but the most significant impact on the planet’s temperature.
    The statement makes little sense, either it is a joke or you meant ‘insignificant’
    ********************************************************************************
    No, I did not mean insignificant, but perhaps I could have phrased more carefully. I will now.

    Do you have firm evidence that variations in the Sun’s output, and the transfer mechanisms of that output to this planet, have no impact on the climate of this planet?

    ********************************************************************************
    Why do I feel a huge difference in temperature as soon as cloud passes between me and the sun?
    The amount of sunlight falling on you depends on the transmission of the atmosphere above you at the moment of ‘feeling’. This paper has more on that http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended_abs/takara_ee.pdf
    As I understand it the cloud absorbs about half of the light [Figure 2b]. So the temperature should drop by a factor of 2^0.25 = 1.19, but since you also receive radiation from other things, like the ground or structures near you, even the air, the temperature will be lees, perhaps only a third [although more research is needed on the exact number], or about 20C. Even this seems a bit high. Perhaps you should measure it and then we can go from there. Be sure to note what kind of cloud it is: some are thin, and some look almost black.

    And a remarkably patronising answer will probably not help.
    I hope my detailed answer was helpful.
    *******************************************************************************

    Well, it was a little more helpful than some others, certainly. Until the comment about black clouds….

  195. anna v (00:35:56) :
    Re: Tony B (number 2) (Mar 1 13:35),

    We have to isolate the influence of the sun as a constant energy input to the planet, call it W, and the small changes in it dW/dt. Nobody refuses that W is responsible for everything on the planet, including climate. The question is whether the small dW/dt observed over historical times with the changing solar cycle has a direct effect on the climate.
    Leif excludes direct effects because of the small magnitude of the change and is skeptical of other solutions offered before they prove themselves.
    *********************************************************************************
    Agreed – and who am I to criticise skepticism.
    However, the small dW/dt observations need to be considered in the context of the entire system, not in isolation

    *********************************************************************************
    I tend to favor the chaotic models, i.e. many inputs contributing to the observed cycles in climate, not direct one to one correspondence.
    *********************************************************************************
    I agree again. But how many of the climate models even take into account the complexities of the transfer of solar output (whether constant or variable) to the Earth’s climate?

    Given a recent statement (quoted on WUWT) that GCMs have not even attempted to model the impact of the glacier/ocean interface, I would guess that the answer is probably “nil”.

    How many degrees of freedom are there, with respect to the Earth’s orbit, and its passage around the Sun? How variable is the Sun’s output, or the transfer of that output, spatially? Is the Earth’s capability to receive that output uniform at all points along its orbit, and for every completed orbit, around the Sun?

    The system is complex, but given the potential impact of flawed decision making, I cannot understand why the models are (apparently) not attempting
    to take into consideration all of the variables.

    Oh berger. I have just got it. The model makers aren’t interested in getting to the truth.

    What a sucker. Must wake up more often.

  196. Leif Svalgaard (09:19:39)

    Thanks, I can see that but I’m still trying to get at the issue as to whether or not the Earth’s rate of energy loss to space changes with the level of solar surface activity.

    The SABER observations suggest that it does.

    Furthermore even on your description there must be some portion of the heating of the molecules in the thermosphere that is attributable to energy flowing up from below, unless the radiated energy loss from below goes straight through the thermosphere without affecting any of it’s molecules and if that is so one just needs to remove the query to the next layer interface below and ask whether the upward radiation from that level (or even any level below that) is significantly affected by solar surface variability.

    Another contributor here suggested this (slightly paraphrased):

    “If the atmosphere warms then it expands.
    If it expands, the average space between molecules gets greater.
    If the average space between molecules gets greater, then the distance an IR photon travels upward before being absorbed increases.
    If the distance a photon travels upward before being absorbed increases, then the effective transparency of the atmosphere to upward travelling IR also increases. In other words, at any altitude, if the atmosphere becomes less dense due to solar induced expansion the chances of a particular photon escaping to space without being absorbed increase.”

    So we should see a warmer expanded atmosphere increasing the rate of energy loss to space and a cooler contracted atmosphere reducing it.

  197. Stephen Wilde (09:10:00) :
    I vaguely remember that at 80km height, air density is 10,000 times less than at the sea level. Consequently you need 10,000 more energy to increase temperature of a volume of air by 1 degree C at the sea level than it is necessary at 80km above.

  198. Tony B (another one) (09:33:02) :
    To explain the difference in temperature between northern and southern hemispheres by stating – in effect – “it is the difference between summer and winter, dummy” is not terribly helpful, is it?
    Yes, because that was the original question: “why is the summer warmer than the winter” IIRC
    Now, since the Earth is closer to the Sun in January than in July, there will be a difference in global temperature of 4.8C simply due to that.

    Do you have firm evidence that variations in the Sun’s output, and the transfer mechanisms of that output to this planet, have no impact on the climate of this planet?
    Is the wrong question. Since basic physics suggests that the influence is very small [of the order of 0.1C], the question should be: “what evidence do we have that the impact is substantially larger and why?” And to that i must answer that I don’t know of any such evidence.

    Well, it was a little more helpful than some others, certainly. Until the comment about black clouds….
    The cloud here http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/alfalfa.jpg qualifies as almost black and the amount of sunlight falling on under THAT cloud is very small as I explained.

    Tony B (another one) (10:09:27) :
    How many degrees of freedom are there, with respect to the Earth’s orbit, and its passage around the Sun? How variable is the Sun’s output, or the transfer of that output, spatially? Is the Earth’s capability to receive that output uniform at all points along its orbit, and for every completed orbit, around the Sun?
    To all of these questions we know the precise answers. What we don’t know is how the climate system responds to these [if at all]. In spite of centuries of observations and speculations we have not been able to pick a compelling solar signal out of the noise.

  199. Stephen Wilde (10:13:36) :
    The SABER observations suggest that it does.
    The SABER observations give us the heat budget of the thermosphere [and a bit of the mesosphere], not of the lower atmosphere.

    Furthermore even on your description there must be some portion of the heating of the molecules in the thermosphere that is attributable to energy flowing up from below, unless the radiated energy loss from below goes straight through the thermosphere
    The thermosphere is indeed basically transparent for infrared radiation, so it passes straight through. The effective height of where the infrared radiation escapes is about 5 km.

  200. Leif Svalgaard (05:53:03) :
    “…The magnetic field at the North Pole was 50% higher 2000 years ago than today. Applying your spurious ‘correlation’ gives an integrated sunspot number of some -50 back then, more nonsense.
    The nonsense lies in conjuring ‘mysteries’….”

    Your interpretation is far too simplistic. Integrating sunspot number is used only as a proxy for the intensity of the solar magnetic strength B. If L&P are correct

    than sunspot number may drop to zero but not below zero (for a longer period of time), however B could fall well below 1500G.
    If you have estimated numbers for B I shall look at it afresh.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

  201. Stephen Wilde

    “The climate system will always react to changes in the rate of energy transfer from oceans to air and changes in the rate of energy transfer from stratosphere to space so as to retain equilibrium for the system as a whole.

    Climate is simply the geographical distribution of the equilibrium process.”

    This is beginning to sound a little like Willis Eschenbach’s (Bejan’s) “Constructal Law” – although this “law” is in fact a reinvention and repackaging of already established nonlinear / nonequilibrium dynamical system theory (e.g. Mathias Bertram). Your last sentence is a nice one-liner!

  202. Vukcevic (11:40:17) :
    Integrating sunspot number is used only as a proxy for the intensity of the solar magnetic strength B.
    Two things wrong:
    1) integrating sunspot numbers or magnetic field does not make any difference, the data points are not independent and hence R^2 is meaningless.
    2) You have not defined the ‘solar magnetic field’. The 1500 G you quote leads me to believe that you think the field of a sunspot is the sun’s magnetic field. It isn’t.
    I don’t know why I keep this up. Perhaps for the same reason I was constantly admonishing my children way back then [and to similar no avail].
    And to compare that with the magnetic field at the North Pole that over time varies wildly [even changes sign] is the real folly.
    Read Shermer’s book.
    If L&P are correct

    than sunspot number may drop to zero but not below zero (for a longer period of time), however B could fall well below 1500G.
    If you have estimated numbers for B I shall look at it afresh.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

  203. Vukcevic (11:49:42) :
    Clarification That should be: however sunspot B could go well below 1500G.
    Does not make any more sense than your original statement. And we think that the 1500G is a lower limit, so you must physically justify why not.
    The lower limit comes from the magnetic field being strong enough to balance the pressure of the surrounding material [and that depends on the very little varying solar temperature].

    Apart from all of this, your basic folly is calculating correlation coefficient of integrated, summed, or smoothed data. This folly is independent of any physics or proxies. Don’t you think the amusement has gone far enough, after a certain point ridicule begins.

  204. Leif Svalgaard (11:57:18) :
    Vukcevic (11:40:17) :
    Integrating sunspot number is used only as a proxy for the intensity of the solar magnetic strength B.
    Two things wrong:
    1) integrating sunspot numbers or magnetic field does not make any difference, the data points are not independent and hence R^2 is meaningless.
    2) You have not defined the ’solar magnetic field’. The 1500 G you quote leads me to believe that you think the field of a sunspot is the sun’s magnetic field. It isn’t.
    I don’t know why I keep this up. Perhaps for the same reason I was constantly admonishing my children way back then [and to similar no avail].
    And to compare that with the magnetic field at the North Pole that over time varies wildly [even changes sign] is the real folly.
    Read Shermer’s book.

  205. Leif Svalgaard (12:07:08) :
    Two things wrong:
    1) integrating sunspot numbers or magnetic field does not make any difference, the data points are not independent and hence R^2 is meaningless.
    2) You have not defined the ’solar magnetic field’. The 1500 G you quote leads me to believe that you think the field of a sunspot is the sun’s magnetic field. It isn’t.
    ~
    Oh dear Vuks, been had.
    Back to the light box for cloud photos.

    Razorbacks documentary (work in progress) first movie.
    Picked out my bro at 7:26. Any Razorbacks should make contact.

    Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music. ~John Milton

  206. Paul Vaughan (06:52:31) : Solar-Lunar association with volcanic activity:

    That is something, like Anthony said. But the 1930’s are such a mystery… there were a lot of volcanoes then. Doesn’t really show much on the graph, puzzling.

    Seems there would be a pretty good rise, hmmm, well re-eruptions make a big difference as a for instance Mt. Redoubt in Alaska. The biggest exceeded 65,000 feet in height, March, 2009. More than a dozen eruptions as high as 60,000 followed.

    Put this stuff with Willis Eschenbach’s Thermostat Hypothesis and it bloody well seems to me that without dirty volcanoes making extra clouds the Earth would eventually really roast. The dust off the deserts maybe just not quite enough aid to cloud formation to keep the thermostat down.

    I didn’t really agree with Leif Svalgaard at first about his take on the solar – climate relationship, but I am now converted into a big fan of his.

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

    KLIUCHEVSKOI Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) 1931  Mar 25  4
    ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931  May 1  4
    ANIAKCHAK Alaska Peninsula 1931  May 11  4?
    FUEGO Guatemala 1932  Jan 21  4
    AZUL, CERRO Central Chile 1932  Apr 10  5+
    KHARIMKOTAN Kuril Islands 1933  Jan 8  5
    SUOH Sumatra (Indonesia) 1933  Jul 10  4
    KUCHINOERABU-JIMA Ryukyu Islands (Japan) 1933  Dec 24  4?
    RABAUL New Britain 1937  May 29  4?
    MICHOACAN-GUANAJUATO México 1943  Feb 20  4

  207. Ed Murphy (13:27:06) ”

    Paul Vaughan (06:52:31) : Solar-Lunar association with volcanic activity:

    That is something, like Anthony said. But the 1930’s are such a mystery… there were a lot of volcanoes then. Doesn’t really show much on the graph, puzzling.”

    I provide a link to the article that explains SAOT here:

    Vaughan, P.L. (2010). Volcanic Activity, the Sun, the Moon, & the Stratosphere.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VolcanoStratosphereSLAM.htm

    I’m now taking a look at other indices of volcanic activity. We need to keep in mind that SAOT is about THE STRATOSPHERE as well as about volcanoes. (Not all volcanic eruptions impact the stratosphere.)

    Anthony, feel welcome to mirror the post as long as there are no copyright/editorial/whatever reasons that doing so might be somehow problematic – (not interested in administrative headaches/nonsense).

    Best Regards,
    Paul.

  208. Oops, just having at this moment a moderate size earthquake in Taipei.

    Doesn’t appear to be damaging.

    John

  209. Stephen Wilde (10:13:36) :
    the thermosphere
    Here is an interesting comparison: there is more gas between you and the thermosphere than between the thermosphere and the edge of the observable universe 46.5 billion light-years away [imagine a column one centimeter square cross-section extending upwards from you]

  210. ”””’John Whitman (16:21:59) : Oops, just having at this moment a moderate size earthquake in Taipei. Doesn’t appear to be damaging.”””’

    Update

    The earthquake was a moderate “roller” as oppose to the hopping-jolters I have experienced here in the past. Seemed like it lasted ~1 min.

    I think no damage. Don’t know where the epicenter was.

    We’ve been having about one a week for the 5 weeks i’ve been here. I recall that as about normal.

    4 to 5 blocks from my apartment is Taipei 101 [until recently it was the tallest building in the world]. I have a clear view of it from the room my office is in.

    During this earthquake it was like a ballerina.

    John

  211. Tony B (another one) (10:09:27) :

    anna v (00:35:56) :
    Re: Tony B (number 2) (Mar 1 13:35),


    How many degrees of freedom are there, with respect to the Earth’s orbit, and its passage around the Sun? How variable is the Sun’s output, or the transfer of that output, spatially? Is the Earth’s capability to receive that output uniform at all points along its orbit, and for every completed orbit, around the Sun?

    The system is complex, but given the potential impact of flawed decision making, I cannot understand why the models are (apparently) not attempting
    to take into consideration all of the variables.

    The degrees of freedom from the orbit are known because the paths are known. What is not known is how this planet responds to these changes in energy input from the changing orbits. Grossly we know: we get summer and winter, etc. Summer and winter will happen and are a much larger effect than the puny change in energy output from the sun. And the beats of the large changes in energy between seasons and day/night and geography give rise to all the alphabets of PDO, ENSO etc that correlate well with temperature variations.

    It is not from a lack of will, that the models are not more complex, but from a lack of computer power. That is why modelers ask for larger and larger computer power. The sad thing is though that even if they do manage in the new supercomputer to program in all the extra complexities, they will still get wrong results for their “projections”. The basic premise that one can use linear approximations for a collective set of what are nonlinear functions is in error.

    Even two years ago I was proposing that analogue computers should be designed to solve these coupled differential equations. They are much faster, but it seems that the technique was lost or not developed when digitals took over. When I was a graduate student back in the early sixties analogue computers were competing with digital ones. I vaguely remember seeing an analogue HP in the lab at the time.
    The Tsonis et al paper is really a digital analogue of analogue computing.

  212. kim (05:20:07) :
    Phlogiston 2:26:40

    “It’s a bit of quibbling but the cycle of the PDO is over 60 years, each phase is around 30.

    I don’t think it’s necessary for the purported short cycles to forever stay locked; it’s easy to imagine a slippage, a cog missed. The cog is missed, but the clock ticks on.

    I’ve long been intrigued by the idea that there are around 6 solar cycles to each cycle of the PDO, and I even have a mechanism in which an alternating phenomenon in the solar cycle produces the cycle of the PDO by placing two solar cycles of one type and one of the other in each phase of the PDO, but Leif pooh-poohs it as a second order effect. It even involves cosmic rays.”

    Thanks for the correction, the time correlations (solar-PDO) you mention are interesting. I agree that it seems highly likely that the solar cycles via indirect effects (upper atmosphere ice, cosmic rays etc.) entrains oceanic cycles. I guess all the ocean cycles have different resonant frequencies thus the complexity. As I’ve mentioned before there are potentially so many resonant and harmonic effects influencing climate that some input from a sound engineer might be helpful.

    My own favorite perspective for climatic and oceanic oscillations is that of chaos and non-linear/nonequilibrium pattern formation. From the chaos-nonlinearity perspective positive feedbacks can be expected to act to impose regular monotonic oscillations while negative feedback (dissipation /friction / damping) would act to create emergent complex fractal like pattern. With both negative and positive feedbacks operating you have the resultant mess that the climate presents – intermittent and partial predictable oscillation mixed with chaotic pattern displaying fractal log-log power law fluctuations.

    Tiggering is what tiggers do best – Pooh-poohing is what Lief does best (adapted from A.A. Milne).

  213. Vuk etc. (04:50:59) :

    Hi Carla
    This may be of some interest

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/gamma-ray-dragons.html

    Leif Svalgaard (06:03:41) :

    phlogiston (02:01:26) :
    Pooh-poohing is what Leif does best
    Pooh should be poohed…
    ~

    Thanks Vuk, will take a lookey see. Pics are enlarged and we are now ready for a re-read of “New 3D gas density maps of NaI and CaII interstellar absorption within 300 pc,”
    B. Y. Welsh1, R. Lallement2, J.-L. Vergely3, and S. Raimond2
    Full pdf available at link:
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2010/02/aa13202-09.pdf
    Of particular interest are the Ca11 site line images (figures 15,16,17) around the solarsystem.
    Vuks, just do a browse of the Ca11 images, you will find it’s a little messier than previously thought. How many little? cloudlettes of high density have passed over and thru our solar system while we have been riding around in this warm low density cavity?
    I know, it’s my thing. cloudlettes, cloudlettes, cloudlettes there I said it. err

    Have a good day Leif, me thinks you’re pretty good at teaching the Layperson. Might even be that there are a number of things you are good at.

    Saw two Harleys on the road yesterday, that makes it official for me that Spring is around the corner for North, central WI. Temps in 40’s today is the unofficial confirmation.

  214. Hello again, Leif.

    The points you have been making are helpful to me so let’s just follow the logic where it leads.

    i) You have successfully dealt with my supposition that the large variations in temperature in the thermosphere could not be solar induced because the absolute variations in solar output are so small. You explained that there is a disproportionate change in the more active components of the solar signal which in turn have a disproportionate effect on the temperature of the thermosphere because there are so few molecules to share out the available extra solar energy.

    ii) It seems that that effect must travel down through the atmosphere until the atmospheric density increases to a point where that particular solar effect becomes insignificant. Let’s call that point the Solar Effect Boundary (SEB).

    iii) At every point around the Earth above the SEB the solar effect on temperature would be significant so that those upper regions would warm up and expand.

    iv) The area of atmosphere above the SEB would increase via expansion (so the surface area of the boundary with space would increase) and also from turbulence effects whenever the sun is more active. Remember, though that you also said that the upper atmosphere becomes more transparent to upward travelling IR as the density becomes lower.

    v) Thus, all of the atmosphere above the SEB would become larger in volume, less dense and so more transparent to outgoing IR whenever the activity level of the solar surface increases. At the same time the increased solar activity would cause the height of the SEB to fall.

    vi) That is an exact parallel to the tropopause but inverted. When oceanic effects alter the speed of the hydrological cycle the tropopause rises and falls,becomes more or less turbulent, changing it’s surface area so that the rate of energy flow into the stratosphere also changes. When solar effects alter the amount of energy reaching the upper atmosphere the SEB rises and falls, becomes more or less turbulent, changing the surface area of the atmosphere exposed to space so that the rate of energy flow out to space also changes.

    vii) Both processes operate in the same way but oppose one another and are independently generated. Exactly as required by my general climate description. The climate effects observed in the troposphere are the geographical distribution of the equilibrium process between those two opposing solar and oceanic influences on the rate of energy flow through the Earth system. The rate of energy flow into the stratosphere being a function of the speed of the hydrological cycle. The rate of energy flow upwards and out of the stratosphere being a function of the level of solar surface activity. Restrictions in the rate of outward energy flow at a time of quiet sun being a cause of an enhanced Arctic and Antarctic Oscillation as energy that cannot escape to space is redirected back downwards in tropospheric high pressure cells.

    viii) As I said before, counter intuitively an active sun leads to a faster flow of energy to space and an overall net cooling effect because the effect of the SEB on the rate of energy flow is greater than the absolute increase in solar power output.

    ix) Thus an active sun at a time of a positive oceanic cycle and a less active sun at a time of a negative ocean cycle means that they are offsetting each others net thermal effects to stabilise the interglacial climate. The recent winter shows the effect of a short period when a positive ocean cycle combined with a less active sun to reinforce each other’s effects giving us a warmer troposphere overall but an enhanced Arctic and Antarctic Oscillation.

    Who was it who said that a test of a sound theory is that it can be seen to explain phenomena that were not in one’s mind when it was formulated ?

  215. Stephen Wilde (00:31:26) :
    v) Thus, all of the atmosphere above the SEB would become larger in volume, less dense and so more transparent to outgoing IR
    I think this link in your chain is wrong. The transparency depends on the number of molecules encountered which would be constant. Consider a volume V with N molecules, therefore density D = N/V, or N = D*V. Now spread the N molecules to a new volume W = 2V; that halves the density to E = D/2, but N = E*W is still N.

  216. Leif Svalgaard (07:51:45) :
    Dr. S. I have copy of your Ap Index (png graph) 1844- and numerical file for AA (1868-), if there is anything earlier available on the web, I would appreciate a download link. Thanks.

  217. vukcevic (08:58:43) :
    Dr. S. I have copy of your Ap Index (png graph) 1844- and numerical file for AA (1868-), if there is anything earlier available on the web, I would appreciate a download link.
    There are various indices floating around. Some time ago I was asked by the modelers of space weather to estimate geomagnetic activity as far back a possible. ‘Harmonizing’ [fudging] the various data set [IHV, ap, aa (Mayaud), aa (Nevalinna), and am] I produced my best estimate [guess] of what Ap would have been since 1844. An Excel file with monthly values [updated until today] of my estimate of Ap [since the modelers were using Ap] can be found on my website http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-2010.xls I do not want any flak or complaints of any kind on this file. You are welcome to use [but try not to misuse] it for reasonable purposes.

  218. Leif Svalgaard (06:34:17)

    Yes, fair point. Would that preclude ANY solar induced change in the rate of energy loss to space from levels below the thermosphere though ?

    You accept that solar variability affects the temperature of the few molecules in the thermosphere a great deal. It must also affect the molecules in lower layers albeit to a lesser extent.

    Perhaps ‘transparency’ is not the right determinant ?

    How about the size of the surface area exposed to space ?

    Or ‘ripples’ induced by the sun in the boundaries between different layers of the atmosphere operating to increase upward energy transfer in a similar way to wind on water causing ripples that allow more evaporation and a faster upward energy transfer ?

    Would the effects of the sun on the thermosphere ALWAYS be cancelled out immediately without any consequential effect elsewhere ?

    One problem we have is that if the effect of irregularity in the flow of energy from the sun on the rate of energy flow coming up from the lower layers of the atmosphere above the tropopause is zero as you suggest then warming and cooling of the stratosphere and the ebb and flow of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations have to be fully explained without any influence from above.

  219. Stephen Wilde (09:36:02) :
    You accept that solar variability affects the temperature of the few molecules in the thermosphere a great deal. It must also affect the molecules in lower layers albeit to a lesser extent.
    It does. Solar variability induces a 0.07K solar cycle variation in temperature.

    I don’t know if you saw it, but there is an interesting comparison:
    If you look up towards the heavens, erect a column with cross-section, say, of 1 square meter from you to the edge of the observable universe [EOU], then in that column from you to the top of the Earth’s atmosphere [TOA] there is more gas than from the TOA to the EOU.

  220. Stephen Wilde (09:36:02) :
    then warming and cooling of the stratosphere and the ebb and flow of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations have to be fully explained without any influence from above.
    The stratosphere is warmed and cooled by UV from the Sun, but that does not propagate downwards in any large measure, again because the amount of heat involved is so small. The stratosphere where the absorption takes place is from 100 to 1000 times thinner than the troposphere.

  221. Leif Svalgaard (06:34:17)

    “Stephen Wilde (00:31:26) :
    v) Thus, all of the atmosphere above the SEB would become larger in volume, less dense and so more transparent to outgoing IR
    I think this link in your chain is wrong. The transparency depends on the number of molecules encountered which would be constant. Consider a volume V with N molecules, therefore density D = N/V, or N = D*V. Now spread the N molecules to a new volume W = 2V; that halves the density to E = D/2, but N = E*W is still N.”

    Actually. Leif, on reflection I think you might be wrong there.

    You are working in only two dimensions such as extending the length of a tube with parallel sides so that the source area and the target area remain the same size.

    As soon as one introduces a third dimension such that the area of the target expands whilst the source stays the same size your calculation no longer holds. Instead the molecules become more widely scattered in open space which reduces the number of times the outgoing IR photons will encounter a molecule so the speed of the outward flow will increase.

    As a reducto ad absurdum if one were to spread the molecules of the thermosphere throughout a sphere the size of the solar system then IR photons from the Earth would hardly ever encounter one and the rate of energy loss from Earth to space would be faster than if those molecules were concentrated closer to the Earth.

  222. Stephen Wilde (09:36:02) :
    then warming and cooling of the stratosphere and the ebb and flow of the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations have to be fully explained without any influence from above.

    Leif Svalgaard (10:22:00)
    The stratosphere is warmed and cooled by UV from the Sun, but that does not propagate downwards in any large measure, again because the amount of heat involved is so small. The stratosphere where the absorption takes place is from 100 to 1000 times thinner than the troposphere.

    Reply:

    The temperature inversion at the tropopause restricts upward convection.

    The cooler the stratosphere the higher the tropopause and the faster energy will flow upwards.

    A cooler stratosphere seems to accompany a more active sun as witness the period 1975 to 1995 or thereabouts. I have seen reports that with the less active sun the stratosphere has been warming.

    A cooler stratosphere with a more active sun supports my proposition that a more active sun increases the rate of energy flow upwards from the stratosphere.

    I have never proposed propagation downward. Only an alteration in the rate of propagation upward.

  223. Stephen Wilde (10:39:44) :
    As soon as one introduces a third dimension such that the area of the target expands whilst the source stays the same size your calculation no longer holds.
    The expansion is so minute in relation to the area that the third dimension doesn’t matter. The difference in area of the bottom of a layer 100 km thick and the top is only 3%. And the photons can’t zip between the molecules as their wavelength is larger than the distance between the molecules.

  224. Leif Svalgaard (10:52:54)

    Well it seems to be enough to alter the Earth’s energy balance over multidecadal periods of time.

    The photons don’t need to zip between the molecules, just encounter less of them on average.

    And remember that I said the oceans are by far the larger influence but it just tips the balance as to whether the solar effect is working with or against the oceanic effect.

    When they work together we get wild climate swings and glacial epochs. When they oppose one another we get the relative stability of an interglacial.

    The length of glaciations relative to interglacials being a function of the current land mass distribution.

    At least I’ve got you to accept the principle :)

  225. Stephen Wilde (10:46:39) :
    The cooler the stratosphere the higher the tropopause and the faster energy will flow upwards.
    Too imprecise. Radiation flows at the speed of light. Convection flows are determined by the amount to energy to be transported and that does not depend on the height of the tropopause, but on the surface temperature.
    As the report you referred to points out, the chemical composition [ozone destruction] is an important parameter, actually more important than variations of solar UV.

    I have never proposed propagation downward. Only an alteration in the rate of propagation upward.
    The Earth is heated by the Sun. The Earth needs to get rid of that energy, lest we all boil. Mother Nature provides for that: you heat something, it radiates. You heat it more, it radiates more. The radiation [upwards propagation of energy] takes place at an effective altitude of 5 km where the temperature is -19C. If you have a greenhouse effect heating the surface then the -19C level will move to a higher altitude [perhaps 5.1 km], but the amount radiated would be the same. If you have an increase of solar TSI, the level will no longer be at -19C, but at, say -18.93C and the effective altitude will move down [perhaps to 4.99 km] and the now higher energy radiated from there [higher because more comes in, so more will have to go out]. The thermosphere and stratosphere have nothing to do with this.

  226. Stephen Wilde (11:18:49) :
    The photons don’t need to zip between the molecules, just encounter less of them on average.
    They cannot encounter less because there is the same number of molecules.

    At least I’ve got you to accept the principle :)
    No, you are dead wrong on that.

  227. Leif Svalgaard:
    “They cannot encounter less because there is the same number of molecules.”

    Reply:
    Of course they can because there is more space between the molecules if the target area increases three dimensionally. We’ve dealt with that already.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    “Convection flows are determined by the amount to energy to be transported and that does not depend on the height of the tropopause, but on the surface temperature.”

    Reply:
    The amount of energy to be transported from surface to stratosphere depends on the temperature differential. A cooler stratosphere will increase that differential for the same surface temperature. A warmer stratosphere will reduce it.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    “As the report you referred to points out, the chemical composition [ozone destruction] is an important parameter, actually more important than variations of solar UV.”

    Reply:
    Quite so but the ozone destruction is a direct consequence of the solar variability in the UV wavelength which you admit is greater than in other wavelengths as a proportion of total variability. Yet you then deny any adequate amplification effect.

    Leif Svalgaard:
    “The Earth is heated by the Sun. The Earth needs to get rid of that energy, lest we all boil. Mother Nature provides for that: you heat something, it radiates. You heat it more, it radiates more.”

    Reply:
    Quite so but that applies to every level of the Earth system which includes multiple layers in oceans and atmosphere.
    The sun heats the thermosphere which appears then to expand and the rate of energy flow outward increases until the expansion stops. The more active sun seems to reduce the temperature of the stratosphere and not increase it so something is happening higher up to achieve that result. A cooling stratosphere encourages more convection and a warming stratosphere encourages less convection or rather it redirects excess convection back downward in the polar high pressure cells.

    You have accepted that an expansion of the upper atmosphere can increase the rate of energy loss but you have said that the effect of such expansion is miniscule. In support of that you refer to a 3% difference between the difference in area between the top and bottom of a layer 100km thick. I think that is disingenuous because within that 3% occurs 100% of the energy flow that we are concerned about. The 3% is merely a function of the size of the planet around which the 100km deep layer is wrapped. What matters is how much the atmosphere expands as a proportion of the existing depth of the atmosphere and that is not miniscule.

  228. Stephen Wilde (14:55:43) :
    […]
    I have to admit that I cannot follow any one of the points in your pot. None of them make any sense, so I’ll have to admit complete defeat.

  229. “You heat it more, it radiates more.”

    Obviously true overall but not necessarily in the short term if layering in the oceans and atmosphere introduces discontinuities in the rate of energy flow.

    Each of the layers seems to warm and cool at different rates over time.

    At it’s simplest the oceans warm up by increasing ocean heat content whilst the troposphere cools (La Nina etc.) and vice versa.

    The troposphere warms whilst the stratosphere cools and vice versa as witness the period of recent tropospheric warming.

    The warming of the thermosphere from a more active solar surface seems to occur whilst the stratosphere is cooling and vice versa. Again as witness the period of recent tropospheric warming and now while the sun is less active the thermosphere has cooled but the stratosphere is warming.

    Those features can only be explained by changes in the rate of energy flow through each layer. One layer warms or cools at the expense of another.

  230. The essential point being that both sun and oceans appear to be capable of inducing those discontinuities in the rate of energy flow through the Earth system. One working from below and the other from above and at different times supplementing or offsetting one another.

Comments are closed.