Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.

A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).
But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:

Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.
But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.
Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony
=================================
Climate Regime Shifts
The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”
[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.

The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.
[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]

(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,
see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.

Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.
[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]

The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.

From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]

The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.
[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]

The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.

Climate Regime Shifts
[last update: 2010/07/04]
|
“The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
|
|
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.” [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions” [http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998. [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift, see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
|
|
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
|
|
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area. [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even. [http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
|
|
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
|
OT but . . . [snip]
[reply] But me no buts, butter me no parsnips, take it to tips and notes please. Thanks, RT-Mod
Stephen Wilde says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:09 am (Edit)
We don’t have much data on SST (sea surface temperature) conditions that long ago but we do have data concerning the positions of the jets and the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) back then so we can use those positions as proxies for the SSTs
We do? Cool, where can I find them please.
phlogiston says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:08 am (Edit)
So an IR photon going downward in the atmosphere will encounter air at increasing concentration, while going up it will “find” more rarified air, and fewer scattering events. So, like the paramecium, the IR photon will on average diffuse upward. And eventually out into space.
Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.
vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:50 am
That would be fine if it is only possible solution….
____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation, or question whether we are measuring temperature correctly it is almost impossible to separate the one from the other at this point in time. Perhaps that is all we need in the end, another century of observation to truly understand the role of CO2. In the meantime we will just have to put up with people who are on the gravy train.
Innocentious says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:54 am (Edit)
The real problem is that ‘temperatures’ correlate with CO2 rise and no matter how much it is shown that there is not a constant correlation
Which of these correlates better?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/soon-arctic-tsi.jpg
RT-Mod,
I appreciate you directing OT’s to Tips and Notes.
🙂
tallbloke:
“Will the curvature of th Earth also increase the chance of a free path to space? If half the photons were to head downwards and half upwards, those going sideways would also encounter less dense air as they effectively gained altitude.”
Actually, given the curvature of the earth, you can make a simpler arguement yet.
At any point on a sphere the volume of the shell in the inch outside that point is greater than the volume of the shell inside that point. Given that radiation is totally random, it’s the radiation is more likely to move outward from the radiating atom than inward.
Given the huge curvature, it should be a minor increase to the odds, but multiply by HUGE numbers of interactions and it would start adding up I’d wager.
Anthony,
In your Glossary, CAGW is missing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:29 am (Edit)
Alexander Feht says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:12 am
I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate. And I would rather believe my own perception than anybody’s “credentials.”
Indeed, so you have observed [or at least perceived and now believe] how the climate has become considerably warmer while solar activity has decreased significantly.
Your own TSI reconstruction graph shows a ‘second peak’ in the eighties after the highest cycle ever in the 50’s. And although the amplitudes have diminished over cycles 21-23 they were short cycles with steep ramps which kept the average sunspot numbers high compared to the C20th average. Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
It almost beggars belief that someone with your expertise still uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
OT, but this should probably be in tips & notes. 😉
tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg
Basil says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:03 am
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:43 am
Easy. The average sunspot number over the period of record (1750-2010) is ~40.
The average sunspot number over the 2nd half of the C20th (1950-2000) is ~70
Have you allowed for Leif’s contention that modern counting is overstated relative to earlier counting (or vice versa)?
This article does NOT use sunspot counting. It uses sunspot area measurements.
You have 2 choices of measurements to consider:
1.) Uncorrected (as seen from Earth)
2.) Corrected for foreshortening (as occured on the Sun)
tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:24 am (Edit)
tallbloke: You wrote, “The mechanism of upward shift is El Nino, as you have shown us, and that ties back to solar cycle periodicity as you and I discussed in the thread on my blog.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/
But the graph you presented in your post shows little correlation between ENSO and the solar cycle.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ssn-nino3-4.jpg
I wouldn’t expect it to. Something closer to a phase shifted anti-correlation is what I would expect. I did do another graph on a different averaging period which seemed to make it more explicit. It’ll be somewhere on my backup disk. The surface record is noisy though, and winds, tides, currents and cloud comes into play. Do you really expect to find nice neat correlations?
Bob Tisdale says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:28 am
tallbloke: You replied, “I was talking about OHC (ocean heat content). Your reply concerned SST (sea surface temperature).”
Let me correct my reply: The variability of the North Atlantic OHC anomalies is a product of AMOC, Saharan dust, ENSO, NAO, etc. Not sure where you’re going with that one.
I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?
If so, what makes you so sure?
R.Gates:
The chaotic nature of the climate would preclude a smooth logarithmic effect from CO2,
I told you more than once that whenever you find something apparently “chaotic” we must see the chaos in ourselves=Ignorance about causes. God doesn’t play dice, little silly humans do. However, FORGET about CO2, the atmosphere CAN NOT HOLD ENOUGH HEAT AS YOU MAY DREAM OF (Air heat capacity=0.001297 jcm-3 K-1; Water=4.186, so 3,227 times) then IT’S THE SEA saving or spending SUN’s heat.
Alan of AppInSys,
Thanks for your article. Solar related discussions are always great. And, Anthony thanks always for the solar posts . . . . they are the greatest.
**************
Question to Alan and all: Leaving out the “regime” and “regime shift” terminology, is Alan describing a basis for a theory that during the changing (reversal ) of the Sun’s magnetic field polarity there is some cause for upward and sometimes downward shifts in the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly? I noticed on Alan’s chart of the HadCRUT3 data that from 1900 to 2008 there have be 7 upwards temps shifts and 2 downwards shifts which he tried to correlate to the process of the sun’s magnetic polarity changes. During that (1900 to 2008) period there were basically an equal number of odd & even solar cycles . . . . how to account that some temp shifts were negative? How to account for predominance of warming shifts? I am missing a consistent picture from Alan’s article.
John
This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source. the earth can be heated or cooled by adding power. don’t agree? well, this is to me the same indifference than the voodoo CO2 CAGW “science” going on. we need heat to live, with out heat we die, it is just that simple yet week after week “they say it is too hot” well it will be plenty hot where they are going to end up! after the lies and obfuscation they have perpetrated on all of us!
sorry for the truth full rant.
fluffy clouds
R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:06 am
The 30% or so increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, up to around 390 ppm now, after 10,000 years or more of being in the range of 270-280 ppm is no trivial change in this GH gas. The climate regime that existed under the 270-280 ppm was its own attractor, and despite changes in the sun, which certainly created periods of warmer or cooler climate (i.e. the Maunder minimum or MWP), the CO2 remained constant. Now that we’ve seen an such a relatively large increase in CO2 over such a short period, one would have to expect a chaotic climate system to seek a new attractor, and since CO2 continues to rise, there may be several attractors along the way to wherever the final leveling off point is for CO2.
Interesting idea. However I don’t think atmospheric concentration of one gas such as CO2 is a good candidate for a parameter displaying non-linear / non-equilibrium dynamics and thus having an attractor. A key characteristic of such systems is being far from equilibrium. In the case of gas concentrations this would be reflected in significant concentration gradients and spatial differences. However in other threads, the AGW side has argued (probably correctly) that CO2 concentration is close to uniform, the atmosphere can be considered well mixed. This points to equilibrium in terms of composition. (But not energy – energy is very much at disequilibrium, thus temperature gradients, differences, winds, clouds etc.) In fact, the energy disequilibrium probably ensures the composition equilibrium.
Gail Combs says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
____________________________________________________________
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables. If there was one dominant independent variable it would be very obvious. I am not including the ocean oscillations because they are dependent not independent variables.
Come to think of it the Sun/cosmic rays, the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, volcanoes and possibly the earth’s geomagnetic field are the only independent variables I can think of. CO2 is certainly not an independent variable. A point everyone seems to forget.
Gail Combs,
Perhaps there is a “one solution” which is a “unified forcings/feedbacks theory” I am paraphrasing Einstein’s “unified field theory” attempt in theoretical physics.
Do we know enough to say there cannot be a “one solution” composed of many components? I could not say that.
John
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
uses this tired and inaccurate argument about diminishing peak amplitudes of solar cycles when you know full well they are not the whole story.
1) they are the whole story
2) I was commenting on Feht: “I know it because I lived through about five of these cycles, and observed the climate.”
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels and low and behold, the planet cooled not long after.
We are indeed back to 1900 levels, but the TSI reconstructions we were discussing [e.g. your beloved Hoyt & Schatten] for 1900 are much lower [and therefore likely in error] and that is the point. The planet cooled? The past ten years have been the warmest recorded, but, of course, you can always hope the next ten years will drop to 1900 levels.
And there has not been a ‘steep’ drop. Just the expected drop from solar max to solar min. There is no firm evidence that TSI this minimum is any lower than previous minima, see e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/1.07_Dewitte_TSI.pdf
Gail Combs says: July 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
I think most of us agree there is not “one solution” but several independent and dependent variables that contribute to changes in the climate. You have identified one of those variables.
I hope so, have added some more details (as a lead up to a short article) you may be interested to see.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
… the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold?John
Tim L says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
This is very very good, you have to get past the old idea the the sun is a heat source, it is a power source, it powers up the earth. think this way, is your re fridge hot inside or cold? it is powered up by plugging it into a power source
Chemically pure common sense!, but the problem is nobody dares to say he/she is seeing the wire connecting to the power source, though magnetism is produced by electrical fields. That is forbidden by the Holy Inquisition of Post Normal Science.
☺
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:17 am
Then from C23 max there has been a steep drop back to 1900 TSI levels
The conclusions from the 2010 SORCE workshop might enlighten you:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session7/7.05_Woods_Summary.pdf e.g. slide 2. The 200 ppm lower comes from PMOD which likely is not calibrated correctly, see: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/posters/Poster%20Presentations/Poster_Svalgaard_PMOD_TSI.pdf
For perspective 200 ppm is 0.02%