NOAA: behind the curve

. . It now becomes obvious that the floods were not caused by Pacific sea surface temperatures (La Niña), but that the floods and La Niña were both caused by regular, and therefore predictable, changes in solar magnetic activity.
Whoa ! What the heck is wrong with me ?
We are perched on a crust separated from a big metal ball by a thin outer mantle area next to the crust that is the only thing that resembles the expanding magma that we see at eruptions.
So magnetics likely cause the eruptions. The big ball contracts after solar max, but the outer most outer mantle expands… Poof !
Then re-poof ! when the ball begins to expand again. All this is ever so slight but a big result in earthquakes and volcanism.

tallbloke says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:19 am
As the last couple of solar threads showed, the solar influence turns up in temp records decade later, …
Really. Some of the more recent solar threads included David Archibald’s ‘correlations’ between solar cycle length and temperature. The conclusion from these being that temperature responds to cycle length over the period of the following cycle. Admittedly it isn’t altogether clear that this is the conclusion because David keeps showing the Butler & Johnson Armagh plot which plots the 11 year means centred on the solar cycle max and min. However, either way, a temperature response is expected well within a decade.
Isn’t it also claimed that the cold during the Dalton and Maunder minimum periods was due to the weak solar cycles at that time.
so if we look at the trend of the sunspot number 1940-1990 compared to the long term average of ~40:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1940/to:1990/trend
There’s your global warming.
Are you saying that the warming which began in ~1975 was caused by a series of solar cycles which began in ~1940, i.e. there is ~35 year lag. Why didn’t the warming which was ongoing in 1940 continue?
I can certainly see the attraction of all these solar cycle theories. They can be – well – recycled. If the predicted temperature response fails in one theory – you can just pick another one with a longer lag time. Obviously you need to ignore that the whole basis for the orignal prediction was wrong but – not to worry – we simply move on.

Eddy Minimum
And the grinning Cheshire Sun
Both went out to play.
===========

Ref – David says:
July 16, 2010 at 9:58 am
“You folks really like to ridicule science in general, don’t you? What exactly is there to be gained by mocking the entire scientific enterprise? Do you really want the U.S. to be dominated by the illiterate? I truly don’t understand your apparent determination to tear down scientific literacy in the U.S. Do you want China, Japan, etc., to leave us in the dust?”
_____________________
I, for one, (and I doubt I’m alone) feel the ridicule of science -in general- is justified. The first defenders of science should be the scientists themselves, but where are they, the masses of PhD’s clamoring to defend their trade from Fat Albert & Co.; from the socialists who want to redistribute the world’s wealth so as to ‘level the playing field’; from the anarchists who want to ‘Stop Everything’ and ‘start all over again’, and maybe get it right after the chaos dies down in a few hundred years; from the Madoff’s who want to make a killing off ‘CO2 Credits’ (whatever they are); from the politicians who just want to stay in power and ‘help’ us all into poverty and chaos and to ‘burn baby burn’ this huge house of cards we call civilization into a pile of beautiful dust? No! I think they deserve everything we’re throwing at them; and so much more.
For some strange scarey reason I get the impression that –thanks to the AFL-CIO and the NEA, et al– we are the ‘GM’ of the world in primary education and already breathing mega-tons of dust. Our Soviet-style education is a cancer. It breeds failure and ignorance. It needs to go private. Close all the public K-12 schools. Give the parents the money and let them pick the school. ASAP!!
PS: I tend to boil on so called “American Un-Education” and “Fear in Science”. Let me count to ten, 1, 2, 3,….

Ed Murphy says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:32 am
Robert Bateman, please explain the eruptions part of your excellent looking graph to us, bud.
Why, certainly.
By going to the site http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
and plotting the volcanoes per year, the 1st one being a black dot, and any subsequent being blue dots, red triangles or a yellow dot. Each dot is raised or lowered according to intensity (VEI index).
It needs updating, and revising, as I did it about a year ago.
It does show that volcanoes can occur at any time, and do at the cat 4 VEI level, but there is an unmistakable tendency to have more volcanoes at (or near) solar minimum. There are also mutiple volcanoes at/near solar max.
There is room for further investigation & clarification.

Leif:
Do you have a latest L&P update?