The Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle and Implications for Friis-Christensen and Lassen Theory
Guest post by David Archibald
The Chairman of NOAA’s Solar Cycle 24 review panel, Douglas Biesecker, said back in March 2007 that the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet was one of the expected signatures of solar minimum (the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition). At times of weak solar activity, the month of transition can be relatively hard to pick, except for the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet, shown following:
This graph of the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle from 1976 shows sharp transitions from one solar cycle to the next. The data is from www.wso.stanford.edu
By comparison, Dr Svalgaard’s plot of four solar parameters from 2008, available at http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png , shows a lot of latitude in picking the month of transition:
On top of his graphic I have plotted December 2008 which is commonly accepted as the month of the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition and October 2009, which was Carrington rotation 2089 and the month of transition based on flattening of the heliospheric current sheet. The MF doesn’t change character until this later date.
The big question is,”What are the implications for Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory?” Friis-Christensen and Lassen based their theory on a couple of hundred years of sunspot data, but what if the true relationship between solar cycle length and the Earth’s temperature over the following solar cycle is based on solar cycle length as measured from the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet rather than the rather subjective choice of minimum sunspot number? We will need possibly another hundred years of tilt angle data to get a definitive result, but in the meantime we can calculate the consequences.
Plotting the heliospheric current sheet-based data onto Butler and Johnson’s 1996 graphic for Armagh, Northern Ireland results in having to plot outside their graphic. These solar cycle length conditions are unprecedented in recorded Armagh history. They result in the predicted temperature decline over Solar Cycle 24 at Armagh to be 2.4°C, a full one degree cooler than the result based on commonly accepted solar cycle length data.
Applying heliospheric current sheet-based data to the plot for Hanover, New Hampshire derives a 3.1°C temperature decline, about one degree more than previously calculated. This is more than four times the purported 0.7°C temperature rise of the 20th century.
There is one way to determine whether or not Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory should be based on solar cycle length based on flattening of the heliospheric current sheet. If the average temperature decline at Hanover, New Hampshire over Solar Cycle 24 is 3.1°C rather than the previously predicted 2.2°C, then that will be early confirmation that flattening of the heliospheric current sheet should be used. We will only have to wait until early next decade for that data.
David Archibald
August, 2010
Science: States the theory, describes what is expected, and sets the requirements for support of that theory. Refreshing.
Rsq = 0.53 is not particularly significant. In this correlation I have Rsq = 0.8933
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
dR. sVAALGARD WILL BE HEAR SOON TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE WORNG – FOR SOME REASON. hE AGREES WITH NOONE.
That said, this does look interesting…
Egads! HCS again. Last time I read posts on this and weakening magnetic poles my head hurt for days trying to understand it. I’ll lay in a supply of Tylenol and try and keep up.
I’ll wait for Dr Svalgaard’s comment 🙂
The flattening of the HCS is but one of the parameters that gives clues to the when the minimum is, and is a particular bad one for this reason: The flatness depends on the ratio between the polar fields and the magnetic field in low-latitude coronal holes. The polar fields ‘belongs’ to the new cycle and the low-latitude field ‘belong’ to the old cycle and have little in common. The top [purple] curve in the graph D.A. shows in his second slide is a measure of the low-latitude fields and it is clear that they peter out almost a year later than the ‘real’ minimum at the end of 2008, and therefore skew the time maximum flatness [least warp-angle, don’t call it ’tilt’ that is a misnomer as the HCS is not tilted, but warped]. You can clearly see the transition from SC23 to SC24 in this plot: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png that shows the number of active regions per month.
Using a single location in New Hampshire as a proxy for global [or even regional] temperature is just bad science.
This is interesting data. I don’t understand much of the terminology, though. If someone has a link for a good layman’s explanation, please post it. (wikipedia defines the heliospheric current sheet, but not in a way that explains its relevance to climate science)
Anyone know how the CLOUD experiment is progressing?
Brrrr!!
Gods above! What would a 3.1°C reduction do to our world?
David Archibald,
Do you have links to the “Butler and Johnson’s 1996 graphic for Armagh, Northern Ireland” that you mention? Also, do you have a link to “the plot for Hanover, New Hampshire” that you mention?
I do not understand what temperature on the vertical (y) axis is supposed to represent.
Thanks,
John
Negative global warming!
Apart from Svensmark’s idea that the solar wind (active sun) prevents neutrons from deep space from seeding cloud formation, are there any other explanations as to why cycle length could affect climate?
Thoughts:
1) If the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet provides an “abrupt” marker for the beginning of the new solar cycle, this would certainly make calculating the cycle length easier.
2) Having said that, I don’t think you can apply the most recent cycle length per the heliospheric current sheet to the curve based on sunspot number. If you had enough data for the cycle lengths based on heliospheric current sheet you could calculate a curve to make such a prediction, but the slope of that curve would no doubt be different from the sunspot slope…and therefore the prediction would be different. Perhaps significantly. You just can’t mix the apples and oranges like that.
3) So I’m not putting much credence in the “new” temperature prediction. It may get lucky, but it’s not…ah…uhm…”robust.”
4) And we need to be careful about the mixing of apples and oranges. This is a tactic AGW proponents often use when their facts are weak. Let us not weaken our argument by giving reason to dismiss out of hand what may be good evidence someday.
Mr. Archibald,
RE: The last figure (Hannover, NH),
Doesn’t the data to produce the point for the green lines already exist? If so, it would be informative to see where it falls on the plot.
wso.stanford.edu is correct, NOT www.wso……
agh..solar tilt….you mean the sun has it’s own precession (wobble)…I bet they never thought of that
While having an untrained eye, watching the shape of the sheet near the Sun gave late spring 2009 as an indication of minimum-when the shape had the ‘pushed-down skirt’ appearance. Along with the dual minimum in the SS sum, I agree a date later than 12/2008 seems more sensible.
Don’t expect too many comments if one doesn’t give a brief “heliospheric current sheet tilt angle for dummies” paragraph.
We won’t see anything like that fall in temperature, because the oceans are carrying a lot of extra energy accumulated since 1935 and particularly in the 47 years from 1955 to 2002. They will tide us through most of the forthcoming period of low solar activity, with a max drop in temperature globally of around 1.2C assuming a Dalton like minimum. The minimum drop I have calculated from my simple energy model would be around 0.65C over the next 20 years.
I hope to be able to tighten up the spread of this engineer’s estimate as time goes on.
If David Archibald is taking bets I’d like some of the action.
Love your pinball pic, Anthony
Look at the the falling temperatures during the Maunder minimum in the beginning of the CET record: some 1C during 30 years. Our planet has obviously tremendous heat capacity. Good news are, that as soon as the sun cycles went up, temperature quickly followed.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/armaghcetssn.jpg
well that looks like a solid method for determining the turnover for the solar cycle
it’s difficult to make a historical comparison, however
if the method rewrites the current cycle length, would it not also rewrite the historical cycle lengths from which the temperature correlation is derived?
Friis-Christensen and Lassen, based their idea on X measurements , it would be a stretch to use their conclusions to extrapolate a conclusion based on different measurements.
I always find these solar articles interesting, primarily because I know almost next-to-nothing about it.
But the graphic for this post is classic. “Leif-Archibald Edition”. Now *that’s* funny!
Incoming Lief!
Tallblike says: “We won’t see anything like that fall in temperature, because the oceans are carrying a lot of extra energy accumulated since 1935 and particularly in the 47 years from 1955 to 2002.”
Dr. Archibald’s prediction is based on historical records comparing temperature changes in specific areas with sunspot lengt/TILT issues. The state of the ocean energy is a part of whatever temperature change there was previously – perhaps explaining the spread in the data. The -3.1C* (or whatever) is the prediction based on a linear regression. The -0.65C* may be the actual number for Cycle 24, based on the actual conditions of this time. Like the candymint/breathmint, you could be both right.
Initial discussion of global cooling had 2008 as the start of the cooling. Clearly this is not the case. I plotted up a graph of what the temperature drop must look like to cover only -1.6C* drop from 2011 to 2021, plotted on a Cycle 23/24 Effective Sunspot Number (http:/www.nwra.com/spawx/ssno-cyc e23.gif). It is quite a ride if you expect temperature drops to have the same rates (with up-cycles) as regular cycles we experience. Of interest, however, is that a 0.5C* increase coincided with the rise from the beginning of Cycle 24, as if there were a two-variable input phase issue going on. If so, then a sudden drop from this point on might suggest that an in-phase situation is going to kick in (the out-of-phase part preventing both cooling and warming since 2008).
The melding of the temperature anomaly record (UAH rather than GISS) to the last few cycles is very interesting, but the requirement for the Archibald prediction is even more so. (I’m old school, using paper and pencil, so cannot attach a graph. I need an 11-year-old to help me here!)
http://www.wso.stanford is an improper link, try
http://wso.stanford.edu/
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html
HCS indicates Heliospheric Current Sheet
What is “the heliospheric current sheet”?
And how is it measured?
Full tilt 2 pinball, Leif-Archibald edition.
LOL!
That is truly funny. I laughed. Thank you Anthony Watts! 🙂
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Rsq = 0.53 is not particularly significant. In this correlation I have Rsq = 0.8933
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Neither one is significant. And yours even breaks down when you include more data back in time.
Schrodinger’s Cat says:
Apart from Svensmark’s idea that the solar wind (active sun) prevents neutrons from deep space from seeding cloud formation, are there any other explanations as to why cycle length could affect climate?
———-
I thought Svensmark’s idea was based on muons—Nigel Calder has an on-going debate with Prof Terry Sloan about that:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/do-clouds-disappear-3/
I would have made the periods on the tilt graph at 9.6yrs and 12.8yrs, we could then see how the two cycles relate directly to the 3.2yr `bashful ballerina`.
Within your article it mentions “graphic for Armagh, Northern Ireland” and “plot for Hanover, New Hampshire” along with temperature decreases. What are these references to specific locations and temperatures and how do they relate to the solar wind, i.e. assumed interrelation to the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle. I just don’t understand why these local geo references.
DA: The big question is,”What are the implications for Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory?”
The Friis-C and Lassen ‘theory’ has been debunked so many times that it is hardly worth the effort to do it again, but here is one more time: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I would have made the periods on the tilt graph at 9.6yrs and 12.8yrs, we could then see how the two cycles relate directly to the 3.2yr `bashful ballerina`.
The bashful ballerina is spurious. There is no such phenomenon, even if you bend the ‘data’.
Archibald;
” but what if the true relationship between solar cycle length and the Earth’s temperature over the following solar cycle is based on solar cycle length as measured from the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet rather than the rather subjective choice of minimum sunspot number? ”
Yes, long spotless day periods can be rather warm often, then there is the matter of all those cold winters cropping up at solar maximum, especially big cycles.
Gary Pearse says:
August 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Don’t expect too many comments if one doesn’t give a brief “heliospheric current sheet tilt angle for dummies” paragraph.
Here is an account of its discovery and effects:
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
Here’s how I (crudely) try to describe it to friends and colleagues….
Just think of it as an electric hot plate heating a large pot of soup. Gradually turn the hot plate down, but then crank it to full for a bit, then bring back the temperature down etc etc. and the overall temperature of the soup will be relatively constant – also allowing for lag time due to the latent heat storage of the soup (ie. earth).
But if you delay the return of the hot plate to ‘full’ for a bit longer and the soup will start to cool and it will alow cooler air to fall onto the soup as well (ie. cosmic radiation producing clouds)
This is why the proponents of the solar>global temp have merit, because the past century (barring the 1960s) the Sun has been as active as it has been for the past 1000 years with high sunspot numbers (amplititude) and short cycle durations (frequency), which in turn doesnt allow for the ‘turning down’ of the hot plate as it were.
Since cooling is also a possibility; that’s why they now allow for it with the term “Climate Change”.
Temps go up, temps go down. It just doesn’t matter.
It’s change we can believe in.
David A. implies that the “Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory” is a major pillar of climate science and goes on to suggest more cooling than previously thought if the HCS concept is used. Apparently, though, the “F-C & L” theory is not all that well thought of as indicated here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
Dr. Leif says the HCS idea won’t float and others say the F-C&L proposal is likewise of dubious value.
So now what?
I request Dr. Svalgaard’s professional opinion of the following claims:
“This is really exciting. […] improved the correlation in a big way […] has come up with this stunning result […] shows the planetary alignments relating to small changes such as secondary peaks on the downslope of the solar cycles put the link between the production of sunspots and the motion of the planets beyond doubt”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/roy-martin-venus-earth-jupiter-solar-cycle-analysis/
“[…] amazing new Venus Earth Jupiter – Solar cycle analysis” – (August 11, 2010)
Most enjoyable discussion, but I think the reputation for science goes to Leif.
I don’t know about sorting according to the HCS periods, but using the SIDC accounts of solar cycle lengths and years, my precipitation data back to 1870 sorts fairly well:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/WvPrecipSC.GIF
Perhaps I will find the times of the HCS periods and try another sort.
Leif Svalgaard,
FYI, linking to a document does not constitute a second debunking. It constitutes linking to a document. I know it is a lot of work to copy and paste a URL and I appreciate your noble efforts. But do please keep a sense of perspective.
The results of the 2009 CLOUD run is to be announced at the end of this month:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf
“@ Rhoda R says August 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm:
Science: States the theory, describes what is expected, and sets the requirements for support of that theory. Refreshing.”
Rhoda, about 20 years ago I read a sourced statement about C14 testing. I have long since lost trak of what book it was in, but I will never forget what it said:
85% of all C14 test results are discarded when the results fall outside of expected values. The rejected results – without specific basis – are said to have been contaminated.
This put a huge ? in my head about any published C14 dates. I have no idea whether those published dates are correct or if they were pre-selected from cherry picked C14 tests.
I DO recall writing down the source, but lost track of it before I ever had a reason to refer to it.
I can tell the magnetic field strength must be picking up around the Pacific Ocean. Certain individuals seem high on something!
Dr. Svalgaard presented this explanation of the helio current sheet:
Here is an account of its discovery and effects:
http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf
This is an excellent account of the solar magnetic fields.
In 1978, this was state of the art.
And, it is still very good in terms of presenting solar magnetic fields.
But today, 2010, Science can also observe & measure, in addition to magnetic fields, the flow of electrified particles, plasma, free electrons & ions, their configuration & structure, and any attendant electric fields and resultant electric currents:
The Wikipedia entry for Helio current sheet:
“The heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is the surface within the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun’s equatorial plane in the heliosphere. The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun’s rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind). A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km.
The underlying magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field, and the resulting electric current forms part of the heliospheric current circuit. The heliospheric current sheet is also sometimes called the interplanetary current sheet.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet
Paul Vaughan says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm
production of sunspots and the motion of the planets beyond doubt
“[…] amazing new Venus Earth Jupiter – Solar cycle analysis”
I’m in principle suspicious of claims that are ‘beyond doubt’. The phase differences shoots down the idea. since we have sunspot data back to ~1700 and planetary data much further back, one wonders why the analysis begins in the 1840s. The ‘analysis’ seems to be standard fare, nothing new there, move on 🙂 Introducing ever more planets and tweaking ever more knobs can help any purported correlation. One can even introduce an ‘anomaly’ formula that will take care of any differences and try to find some correlation with something to explain the errors. In the end, it is a question of energy. If the planets were 100 times more massive and 10 times closer, they would exert a strong tidal influence. We see that for other stars, but for today’s solar system there is not enough energy in the planetary influences to have any effect. To overcome that hurdle the correlation has to be MUCH better. Another stumbling block is that the Sun rotates and any planetary influence ‘sweeps’ over the surface [and interior] every 27 days.
OT but this could be quite big (if it is true)
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
Not OT re: sun activity so far
DA =1
Leif = 0
but hats off to Leif for having guts to rise to every occasion of dissent and responding artfully.
OT also, but the AGW is about to collapse totally as this is THE AGW jewel in the crown
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Any idea if magnetism affects wind? That is about the only thing the Sun can do that, to my knowledge has not been studied well.
So Far re sun activity and outcomes versus climate or weather
DA = 1
Leif = 0
Chapman = -1
LOL
Earle Williams says:
August 12, 2010 at 6:15 pm
FYI, linking to a document does not constitute a second debunking.
It does, when the documents shows that the correlation did not hold up. Replication is what it is all about.
James F. Evans says:
August 12, 2010 at 6:58 pm
The underlying magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field, and the resulting electric current forms part of the heliospheric current circuit.
This current was known from the beginning [e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/JA083iA02p00717.pdf ] as is a natural consequence of particles drifting along the polarity reversal. This local current is caused by the reversal of the magnetic field.
Our knowledge of the HCS has not changed since the 1970s, all later measurements simply solidly confirm the earlier ideas.
Stephan says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:45 pm
but hats off to Leif for having guts to rise to every occasion of dissent and responding artfully.
No guts required for simply telling it the way it is.
David, I am left with questions after reading. Could you please address for myself, as well as the other readers:
1) How do you have so many points on your cross-plots if we didn’t have the technology to measure the “tilt” beyond the last couple solar cycles (shouldn’t there just be a couple points?)
2) Also, why are New Hampshire & Armagh always used as correlation points with solar data? What about other long lived climatic data sites? Why are they not used?
3) What do you say about Leif’s comments at “August 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm” that this is not a good way to measure cycle length?
Looking forward to the answers
Best Regards
JL
Leif,
I always look forward to your insightful, and evidence based, critiques of the various solar theories espoused on this site.
Your cheerful countenance only serves to add to your credibility, a trait that many climate scientists would do well to emulate.
I don’t know much about these issues but I can recognize an actual evidence based argument when I hear one.
Keep up the good work.
Lance says:
August 12, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Leif,
I always look forward to your insightful, and evidence based, critiques of the various solar theories espoused on this site.
Your cheerful countenance only serves to add to your credibility, a trait that many climate scientists would do well to emulate.
I don’t know much about these issues but I can recognize an actual evidence based argument when I hear one.
Keep up the good work.
—–
I’d like to second that! My formal astronomy dates back to Lief’s excellent paper, published in 1978, regarding solar forces in three dimensions! It boggles my mind how much we’ve learned since then, with better observational tools, computers and knowledge of physics.
Thanks, Lief! I appreciate how you once set me straight on the purported tidal effects of the planets on the sun! Doesn’t make any sense when you look at the masses and distances involved.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:26 pm
DA: The big question is,”What are the implications for Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory?”
The Friis-C and Lassen ‘theory’ has been debunked so many times that it is hardly worth the effort to do it again, but here is one more time: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
My reservation on accepting that your plot has debunked the correlation between prior cycle and temperature is that you are using some kind of global temperature.
Localities have a lot of variations and it is possible that in a global average these are smoothed over into insignificance.
Let me illustrate: when average temperatures change from decade to decade, one can attribute it to motions of air systems,PDO, AO, Jet stream etc. This has the result, as we see graphically with the contrasts this year, to have very contrasting regional temperatures. In averaging over the globe this will be lost. 2010 may come out cold but Russia fried with respect to what it got in other years.
I think that the particular proposition would be laid to rest if there were a study of many more regions the world over. It might be that only temperate regions display this effect and tropical and arctic the opposite ( this would be interesting too) . Debunking needs a more detailed study than using the average temperatures.
“they would exert a strong tidal influence.”
Is that the only influence that they can exert, and the only influence which could create an outcome?
I think debunking is done based on lack of mechanism, not wriggle matching. For Solar influences to heat up or cool down our planet as demonstrated by trends, to the degree that we have found, we need to consider a mechanism that is plausible. And it needs to be somewhat exclusionary. In other words, it needs to be better than internal known drivers at explaining temperature trends. I would even suggest that it has to be strong enough to combat internal drivers.
David Archibald, I hope ‘n pray you are wrong!
Leif, you better be right or else all of us will suffer, well we will suffer, for the lack of common sense!
Thank you guys for the good read.
i’ll put five cents on Archibald. lol
pdo cold ao? too and amo heading there, sounds cold to me! sun we could use some extra heat now TX earthly Tim.
anna v says:
August 12, 2010 at 9:50 pm
My reservation on accepting that your plot has debunked the correlation between prior cycle and temperature is that you are using some kind of global temperature.
I’m using the same temperature as F&C.
Buffoon says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:16 pm
“they would exert a strong tidal influence.”
Is that the only influence that they can exert, and the only influence which could create an outcome?
What else would you suggest? The various suggestions that people have come up with are either unphysical or not operative. We have gone over this many times on this blog. Look back at some of the relevant threads.
But it doesn’t really matter because the correlations are not that good that they cry out for an explanation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I’m using the same temperature as F-C&L
Leif Svalgaard says: August 12, 2010 at 5:02 pm
vukcevic says: August 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Rsq = 0.53 is not particularly significant. In this correlation I have Rsq = 0.8933
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Neither one is significant. And yours even breaks down when you include more data back in time.
No it does not, it just gets reversed possibly due to bidirectional flow (excess cold saline reduces temperatures, excess warm saline increases temperatures) at the same coordinates.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
Perhaps you may whish to reinforce your previous remark as quoted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455237
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:07 pm
No it does not, it just gets reversed possibly due to bidirectional flow (excess cold saline reduces temperatures, excess warm saline increases temperatures) at the same coordinates.
Plot the stuff on the same graph and scale and don’t try to plot part of it upside-down.
Perhaps you may wish to reinforce your previous remark as quoted here:
My remark stands.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I request Dr. Svalgaard’s professional opinion of the following claims:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/roy-martin-venus-earth-jupiter-solar-cycle-analysis/
“[…] amazing new Venus Earth Jupiter – Solar cycle analysis” – (August 11, 2010)
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm
In the end, it is a question of energy. If the planets were 100 times more massive and 10 times closer, they would exert a strong tidal influence. We see that for other stars, but for today’s solar system there is not enough energy in the planetary influences to have any effect. To overcome that hurdle the correlation has to be MUCH better.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:32 pm
The various suggestions that people have come up with are either unphysical or not operative….
But it doesn’t really matter because the correlations are not that good that they cry out for an explanation.
I don’t want to hijack David Archibalds thread with yet another argument with Leif about this, so I’ll reproduce his opinion on my thread and we can discuss it there in context with the other contributions.
I’ll just point out that Leif’s certainty on the issue is unwarranted. We don’t even understand the circulations and interactions of the sodium ions and chlorine radicals of dissolved salts in the oceans on our own planet yet, let alone the energetic particles whizzing around in the interplanetary electromagnetic soup and the conducive (without a ‘t’) pathways they follow. Hence all the new and conflicting papers in the solar physics journals on flux ropes, reconnection with planetary magnetospheres, etc etc. As to the quality of the correlation, R^2 values aren’t everything, and I recommend people look carefully at the graph, read the discussion and form their own opinions bearing in mind we haven’t finished the work on this yet. A bit like Leif’s response to me when I pushed him on the progress solar physicists have made in understanding why the equatorial region of the sun circulates faster than the polar regions. “We’re working on it :-)” was his reply. Two to keep an eye on in my opinion.
Doug Proctor says:
August 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm (Edit)
Tallbloke says: “We won’t see anything like that fall in temperature, because the oceans are carrying a lot of extra energy accumulated since 1935 and particularly in the 47 years from 1955 to 2002.”
Dr. Archibald’s prediction is based on historical records comparing temperature changes in specific areas with sunspot lengt/TILT issues. The state of the ocean energy is a part of whatever temperature change there was previously – perhaps explaining the spread in the data.
Yes, and carrying that point further, the unusually high state of ocean heat content is probably why the Christiansen-Lassen correlation breaks down in the later C20th while it looked pretty good up until the 1960’s. So in my opinion, their theory is not ‘debunked’ as Leif claims, but needs modifying to take into account the non-linear response of Earth’s climate system to the Solar energy input. Getting the temperature record corrected would help get the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature back on track too.
look out Lief incoming. That was a Katucha of Liefs.
Thanks for coming Dr S. You are always more than welcome.
Though I struggle with the depth of the science that is used as both the hammer and the anvil of reason used by Doc Leif and the others, the merits of the what truths they convey are unerring.
A inquiry to the minds at large here..When we had the CME last week.. that caused Aurorae futher south than usual.. The distributer on my nephew’s car went kerplunct.. on a hunch I called all the garages.. auto repair shops and parts suupply stores I could in the area to inquire if any increase in electrical related parts or repair were in demand.
Through This I learned that many did report and significant increase in demand for same.
I also by way of sleuthing, found that many major department stores with the Magnetic theft protection devices(you know them as the klaxon that goes off when the cashier has not deactivated) reported many phantom alarms.. of constant failures in the system..during the event.
Any comments?..
Leif Svalgaard says: August 12, 2010 at 11:17 pm
……………………….
Perhaps you should do some secondary school maths:
Even at its simplest functions y1=M-f(t) and y2=M+f (t) are divergent, and have a natural discontinuity at point of change from y1 to y2 at time t=T. If you accusing someone of dishonesty (which is becoming a habit of yours, which I shall ignore) you should provide proof, not rattle off nonsense in an attempt to run away from what data is showing. Your knowledge of solar activity is respected, but this is a different matter, so any baseless remarks will be disregarded.
Following is for more courteous readers of WUWT:
Correlation for period of time is reversed possibly due to bidirectional flow at the same coordinates (the excess cold saline oceanic flow reduces temperatures, the excess of warm saline flow increases temperatures), see the second graph at:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
Effect of excessive cold flow (into North Atlantic) through the Denmark Strait would result in different proportion of the temperature change to the excess of warm water flow (into Arctic) in the opposite direction .
Here I shall quote the WHOI :
“The Irminger Sea is strategically located to play a critical role in the oceans’ global circulation and the Earth’s climate.”
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?id=100535&aid=66549
Paleomagnetic dating (intensity and actual dates) is just as uncertain as is the temperature reconstruction from proxies, so coincidence between them for the last two millennia is more than remarkable. Only point of contention is a time scale displacement 900-1100AD between two sets of data, but that could be result of inaccurate proxy dating of either or both sets of variables.
Leif is only a pancea for those who are weak of mind.
He claims that he uses evidence to direct his pronouncements on the Sun, however, he only gives credence to the pieces of evidence that back his current view of the Sun. Any piece of evidence that appears to contradict his wonderfully black and white picture of the Sun is summarily dismissed out-of-hand.
All hail Leif – the antithesis of a real natural philospher.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm
“Using a single location in New Hampshire as a proxy for global [or even regional] temperature is just bad science.”
Better warn Hansen/Schmidt/Mann, et al, they seem to be using one station in the Yukon as a proxy for the whole arctic circle.
However, I personally don’t give a fig about measuring the rest of the planet as much as my local climate. Hanover is only about 10 miles northwest of me, so as far as I’m concerned, 3.1C is something to be seriously concerned about.
Update that may contribute to understanding of the process described in my previous post:
See last graph on
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm or
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
Re: Leif Svalgaard
I submitted the following comment to the thread to which I linked:
“Looks like after a lot of work, Roy arrived where I did when I investigated these claims (using a different approach): Loose synchrony. The loose synchrony extends to J+N (not to be confused with J-N).”
Seeing such a benign comment blocked reminded me of Tamino (who banned me for making benign comments about El Nino).
After 1.5 years of pursuing these planetary synchronies I reached the conclusion that lunisolar tides, earth orientation parameters, stratospheric volcanism, and Southern Ocean & Southeast Pacific sea surface temperatures are far more fruitful territory.
I acknowledge the valuable contributions of Leif Svalgaard, Ian Wilson, anna v, & other physicists.
Realization of the confounding with the lunisolar tides was a sledge-hammer of a game-changer for me.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I’m using the same temperature as F-C&L
Do you have a link to the paper from which you took the temperature values? What I find on the web looks different.
Leif,
Nice to see you around these parts : )
OK, I see based on your analysis referenced in your above comment that the correlations of Friis-C and Lassen mentioned by David Archibald in the lead post have met some fundamental hurdles that they (F-C & L) do not overcome.
As a strictly personal comment I say that, still, I am struggling for the far view picture that all these solar/galactic/universe pieces (thank you for the pieces) should add up to. Integrating them into some summary of order-of-magnitude influence on earth system is both intriguing and difficult. Having fun though. But I would love to cheat and see some summary that someone else has done. [? recommendations ?]
Leif, I hope you were notified in advance of this post which featured your name in the Full Tilt 2 Pinball Icon.
– Thanks WUWT for setting up these solar journeys.
– David Archibald, thanks for posts that seem to always spark a lively (to say the least) comment stream during which I always learn things solar.
– Thanks Leif for volunteering as a mentor to some of us solar neophytes. You do it with good humor and extraordinary patience.
John
So Leif,
It looks like some of the SC 24 sunspots we are getting are already showing at a low latitude. Why is that?
John Whitman says:
August 13, 2010 at 5:53 am
..As a strictly personal comment I say that, still, I am struggling for the far view picture that all these solar/galactic/universe pieces (thank you for the pieces) should add up to. Integrating them into some summary of order-of-magnitude influence on earth system is both intriguing and difficult. Having fun though.
.. Thanks Leif for volunteering as a mentor ..You do it with good humor and extraordinary patience.
Aye, aye
And a happy Friday. Watch out for dragons though. haha
anna v says:
August 13, 2010 at 5:21 am
Do you have a link to the paper from which you took the temperature values? What I find on the web looks different.
They are just the standard HADCRU values. There is a little subtlety: You’ll note that there are two blue curves [cycle lengths] and two pink curves [dT]. You can define the cycle length is two ways: from minimum to minimum and from maximum to maximum. I plot both at the midpoint in time between the defining epochs. For dT, I compute the average over the cycle and plot that at the same midpoint. As there is no trend in the cycle lengths, I also show a detrended dT [the green curves] for the reason given.
tallbloke says:
August 12, 2010 at 11:57 pm
We don’t even understand the circulations and interactions of the sodium ions and chlorine radicals of dissolved salts in the oceans on our own planet yet,[…]
I don’t think that the sodiums ions in our oceans play any role in creating sunspots…
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2010 at 1:15 am
If you accusing someone of dishonesty (which is becoming a habit of yours, which I shall ignore) you should provide proof, not rattle off nonsense in an attempt to run away from what data is showing.
Too many instances to recount, so let me just do one to begin with. On your graphs at http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm the first graph has a value of 63.5 uT for the Z-component for the year 1000 AD. On the second graph the year 1000 AD shows 69 uT. Now, you do have a cryptic comment about ‘time scales displacement 900-1100 AD’. Perhaps you mean that if you plot Z upside-down and shifted 200 years you get some correlation. In earlier versions of the plot, you used a longitude of 30W, now you use 27W, but the values [as far as I can see] have not changed. In earlier discussion you claimed CALS7K was rubbish, now you claim it is golden, etc, etc. Blaming the data for any deficiency in the correlation is another example. To gain some credibility, plot the temperate and Z on the same plot, to the same scale, and no fiddling around with displacements or upside-down data. Your reluctance to do so is proof enough.
Ninderthana says:
August 13, 2010 at 2:58 am
Leif is only a pancea for those who are weak of mind.
Not only an attack on me, but on all other feeble-minded. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
What about the flattening, or rather less height of the earth’s atmosphere?
Tilo Reber says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:01 am
It looks like some of the SC 24 sunspots we are getting are already showing at a low latitude. Why is that?
This is quite normal when you are more than 1.5 years into a cycle as there is a large spread in latitudes. See e.g. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif and compare the current cycle with previous ones.
Ninderthana,
Leif can defend himself : )
So, we who openly show sincere respect for Dr. Svalgaard based on our own independent voluntary judgments of his professional life, are what by your implications? Weak? Minions under the thrall of a dark lord of “anti-natural philosophy”? Shall us minions start calling Leif “he who must not be named” out of fear his displeasure with our scientific statements? Shall the Muses save us? Shall you save us Ninderthana?
This minion of “he who shall not be named” will now butcher a great line from Star Trek, “These Droids, Ninderthana, aren’t the ones you are looking for, please move on.”
John
Carla,
Do you remember the “turtles all the way down” comment stream earlier this year (or late last year) in a WUWT solar post that featured many of the players commenting on this solar post?
Well, maybe this time it is “Dragons all the way down”.
John
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2010 at 1:15 am
If you accusing someone of dishonesty (which is becoming a habit of yours, which I shall ignore)
On another blog you hide under the name ‘radun’ http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=622&page=29
And praise your own graphs as ‘Vuk’s superior analysis’ and similar hyperbole throughout. Honesty? Perhaps we have different ideas about what it means.
Leif,
If we speak of interactions the planets have with the sun, you say, aside from tidal, what other forces could their be?
I associate the word tidal, hopefully correctly, with gravity.
Therefore at least electrical and magnetic forces remain for action-at-a-distance by which the planets could interact with the sun.
Considering the presense of a large sun magnetosphere (what we’re talking of in the original post, isn’t it?) which couples (in a physical sense) to the smaller magnetospheres of at least some planets quite capably, the movement of magnetic fields across each other certainly has both magnetic and electrical connotations, if not from first principles then those only slightly above.
As to how those forces change the sheet exactly, or cause phase disturbances of the solar dynamo, or other such matters, I would be foolish to say I knew, but the answer to the question “What else would you suggest?” is simple: magnetic and eletrical forces, if not tidal or gravitational. My apologies, in advance, for not having read other threads which debunk the leverage of those two.
If I could, probably undeservedly, comment on this silliness which is brewing: Personal perception of Dr. Svaalgard is immaterial to the ability to discuss, argue, refute, disagree or agree with him. His large knowledge of the sun is a reference, not a warrant for correctness. To assume otherwise stifles reasonable discussion, as does personal criticism. So.. Whats up with that, people?
Buffoon says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:54 am
but the answer to the question “What else would you suggest?” is simple: magnetic and eletrical forces, if not tidal or gravitational.
The problems with those are two-fold:
1) they involve even less energy that the tidal forces. The solar wind is exceedingly tenuous.
2) they cannot propagate upstream in the the supersonic solar wind, which expands 11 times faster than magnetic/electric forces can propagate.
You see, it is all a question about energy.
Buffoon says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:54 am
but the answer to the question “What else would you suggest?” is simple: magnetic and eletrical forces
If those forces can create, modulate, regulate, the mighty Sun where a single sunspot can be many times the size of the Earth [and some 3000 active regions are generated each solar cycle], think about the havoc these forces would bring upon the tiny Earth. There issue is energy and how you bring it to bear.
Buffoon says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:54 am
This takes us to:
http://milesmathis.com/tide2.html
What do you think of this proposition?
Sensitive people tend to be very touchy. They take slight at the slightest provocation. Let the commenter who is without comment throw the first stone. Everyone else should stick to the subject being discussed; or not. But, if NOT, should offer something of a related nature and similiar value. It takes old thick skin to be an adult in a world full of children under 50. If you like what someone said put it in your piggy bank; if you don’t then let it be. You don’t have to eat everything you see resting in a puddle on the floor. Hold your nose and walk around such temptations. Appreciate the world for what it truly is, a place to learn and teach. Learn what you do not know from others. Teach what you do know to others.
Re: Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:29 am
[This is quite normal when you are more than 1.5 years into a cycle as there is a large spread in latitudes. See e.g. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif and compare the current cycle with previous ones.]
As long as you’re talking about sunspots, help me out with something.
I learned from this website:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
that the passage of a sunspot (or group) across the sun causes a decline in TSI that can be substantial:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Oct2003.JPG
My question is, if sunspots cause a transient decline in TSI, why is the TSI greatest when the SSN the highest and average sunspot area the highest? That seems backwards. Or is the decline diagrammed in the above image an unusual event?
Pascvaks,
Perhaps for me a “mea maxima culpa” is sort of in order. OK.
John
Vukcevic:
Yes, modern physics has become a neo-scholasticism. It is the avoidance of real questions in the pursuit of trivial methodology. It is the memorization of an endless list of names and manipulations in lieu of understanding mechanics. It is the knee-jerk invocation of authority and the explicit squelching of dissent. It is the institutionalized acceptance of censorship and the creation of dogma. Grand Masters like Feynman say “shut up and calculate!”
http://milesmathis.com/death.html
Actually, the big planets do have an affect on our planetary tides as well as the continental tug; they just happen to be more affected by the moon/sun. Furthermore, the big gas bag planets have an affect on the sun’s position relative to if the the gas bag planets did not exist, so therefore the sun. The planets are all working within a system of continuous change…e.g. as does our climate change which over millions of years has been dramatic.
Stephan says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm
So Far re sun activity and outcomes versus climate or weather
DA = 1
Leif = 0
Chapman = -1
you forgot:
Hathaway = not even wrong
for interested folks, some back matter:
the originla f-c and l
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
leifs analysis does apparently use the same temperature record, although f-c&l is from 1991, who knows how much that record has “evolved” since then. there is also a phase shift to obtain the correlation, which i am not sure leif’s analysis takes into account.
here is archibald, with armagh etc actual temp records, which IMHO is much more efficacious than using the dubious crutem etc manufactured records anyway
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
leif has said (paraphrasing) the dubious correlation arises because f-c&l (and by corollary archibald) do not analyze the data correctly.
maybe leif is correct, but i would like to see the faulty temperature record and phase shift issues addressed before i am convinced.
also, i would like to know if leif, archibald, and f-c&l use the same solar cycle length record
just some thoughts 😉
stephen richards says:
August 13, 2010 at 12:53 am
Leif’d lief as not, it were Leif not Lief. (Lief (archaic) Readily, willingly.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher
I found this reference :
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
Could you please point out to me if the data in the scatter plot in the debunking plot you referenced above is the same as fig 7, bottom ? They do not look the same.
They reference a paper by Jones for the temperatures. Is that the same as HADCRU temperatures?
Sorry, my last is for
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:23 am
Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2010 at 7:48 am
……………………………..
talking trough your hat again. You managed to ban me from that SC24 a year ago. It was obvious from day no.1 (as Geoff S. immediately realised) I was posting under pseudonym, as here lot of people are doing the same, eg. Dr. Bill, Dave etc, would you have any idea who they might be?
You even suggested I was ‘danger to society’ not to mention countless insults, which a wise man usually ignores.
I shall not bother with your deliberate distortion of my ideas and all other nonsense you come up with.
The rest of this post is for those 450+ readers (including University Of Exeter, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Usaisc Headquarters, Leeds University, Universitaet Bonn, National Center For Atmospheric Research Lafayette, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, University Of Washington, The Boeing Company, The Aerospace Corporation Torrance, and many others) who during the last 24 hours have found it of sufficient interest to look at graphs.
I think paleomagnetic dating (intensity and actual dates) is just as uncertain as is the temperature reconstruction from various proxies, so the coincidence between them for the last two millennia is more than remarkable.
This time whole period 100-1700AD is a single graph, while 1600-2000 is plotted separately since it is from different and a higher resolution geomagnetic data base.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
To understand what is suggested, the insets should be considered in detail.
I assume that warm currents flowing into the Arctic do not have the same temperature transfer factor as the cold currents flowing out of it (hence discontinuity in the graph around 1100AD). There is also about 30+ year time shift between the temperature and geomagnetic data for period 100 -1100AD.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:23 am
I don’t think that the sodiums ions in our oceans play any role in creating sunspots…
It was a simple metaphor. Not simple enough apparently. 😉
How about getting back on topic and discussing what I said about the Christiansen-Lassen correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature?
Do you agree it was working quite well up until the 1950’s?
Ref – John Whitman says:
August 13, 2010 at 10:17 am
Me too. Only us real sinners know what real sin is, and is not. Sometimes it feels good to not, sometimes it feels better to not not and to just ‘let ‘er rip’ as the saying goes.
I fear no dragons or turtles?
I think that the broader theme of this post is something like: energy sources external to the earth and potential impact on earth system.
Therefore, I offer the following two categories, that once reviewed and refined, we can start to populate. It could evolve to more than two categories, perhaps.
A) Phenomena external to the earth system that are established to have a physical mechanism(s) which add energy to the earth system and that energy is being measured currently, regardless of the magnitude of the energy.
B) Phenomena external to the earth system which could potentially add energy to the earth system but for which a physical mechanism has not yet been widely established.
John
“peterhodges says:
August 13, 2010 at 11:48 am
here is archibald, with armagh etc actual temp records, which IMHO is much more efficacious than using the dubious crutem etc manufactured records anyway”
Huh!!!!
( http://) star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/445.pdf
Series IV, twicedaily temperatures from inside an unheated room from a thermometer attached to the barometer (1795 to circa 1950), (not sure this series was used)
“gap from June 1825 to December 1833 in the Series I… early 19th century, Dunsink Observatory near Dublin maintained a climate series. However, though the readings were often made twice daily, as required for our exercise, they are sporadic with occasional gaps of several months. Irregular timing would normally have made the observations useless, but in this case, as the time of each individual observation was recorded, we can make an appropriate correction.”
“namely Series I, II and III, we have investigated the various instrumental and exposure effects and, where necessary, we have made corrections.”
“(1) instrumental corrections relating to the particular thermometer in use at any one time; (2) corrections which relate to the time of observation; (3) corrections relating to the exposure of the thermometers”
“The bright metal casing referred to by Robinson was supported by brackets fixed to the window frame so that the thermometer could be viewed from inside the building through a central pane of glass which was hinged so that it could be opened when required. The height of the thermometer casing is 3.35 m above current ground level”
Fig 4 is worth a look!!!!
“1846 and 1865, we can surmise that the maximum and minimum thermometers in use at those times were fixed in a horizontal position close to, or possibly on the sill of, the north window of the East (1827) Tower”
etc!
This must be a better record that cru’s !!!!!! You’re kidding
/harry
Brego says:
August 13, 2010 at 9:32 am
My question is, if sunspots cause a transient decline in TSI, why is the TSI greatest when the SSN the highest and average sunspot area the highest? That seems backwards. Or is the decline diagrammed in the above image an unusual event?
A sunspot is surrounded by bright ‘faculae’. These are more visible near the limb while the spot is most visible near the center of the disk. So when a large sunspot with attendant faculae crosses the disk, you first see the increases TSI from the faculae, then the dip caused by the spot, and finally the increased radiation from the faculae again. Overall the faculae are twice as bright as the sunspot, so the net effect is a brightening, hence an increase of TSI when there are many spots [with their brighter faculae].
peterhodges says:
August 13, 2010 at 11:49 am
also, i would like to know if leif, archibald, and f-c&l use the same solar cycle length record
There is no ‘official’ cycle length record, but it is trivial to take the [smoothed] official sunspot number and determine the times from minimum to minimum and from maximum to maximum. In the few cases of double minima or double maxima, you use both and just take the average.
anna v says:
August 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm
you referenced above is the same as fig 7, bottom ? They do not look the same.
Upon close reading you’ll discover that Lassen’s curve an eleven-year running mean of the Northern Hemisphere anomalies. Lassen [who was my advisor at the University of Copenhagen way back when] does not clearly identify the source, but with Jones mentioned, one might surmise HADCRU or something close.
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2010 at 12:57 pm
You managed to ban me from that SC24 a year ago.
People get banished for bad behaviour.
I was posting under pseudonym, as here lot of people are doing the same
The difference is that they do not games, such as refer to their own glorified work as ‘superior work’, ‘convincing analysis’, etc.
You even suggested I was ‘danger to society’
People that peddle pseudo-science are a danger [you can rest comfortably in the fact that you are not the only one] in this age where it is important that the public understand [or at least are aware of] the real science.
who during the last 24 hours have found it of sufficient interest to look at graphs.
You forgot me. I looked too. I’m sure they all shook their head in disbelief or sadness.
This time whole period 100-1700AD is a single graph, while 1600-2000 is plotted separately since it is from different and a higher resolution geomagnetic data base.
You still plot data upside-down.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Do you agree it was working quite well up until the 1950′s?
Not at all, just look at: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
How you can entertain such a silly thing is beyond comprehension.
Here is the comparison back to 1750: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
There is no correlation to speak of.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Here is the comparison back to 1750: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
There is no correlation to speak of.
Did anyone try the diurnal as a proxy for humidity?
rbateman says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Did anyone try the diurnal as a proxy for humidity?
Don’t know [don’t think so]. There is always a danger that if one keeps fishing around, sooner or later one will chance upon a spurious correlation. The standard problem: “this is significant at the 95% level”, meaning that one in twenty such correlations could happen by chance. A student of mine once claimed to have looked at a hundred different ‘tries’ of various things and found one that was significant. She couldn’t understand why I was surprised she only found one, I would have expected about 5.
You may be right, Leif, about this Lassen plot.
I would like to see 100 graphs of the Buttler and Johnson type, i.e following cycle temperature versus local temperatures before I dismiss it as statistically insignificant.
I have seen a number of others from other people and they show similar correlations.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:54 pm
You do know that curiosity killed the cat. In this case, there may be two significants (annual precip. & annual diurnal).
I do see your point, and it’s good advice. Thank you.
anna v says:
August 13, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I would like to see 100 graphs of the Buttler and Johnson type, i.e following cycle temperature versus local temperatures before I dismiss it as statistically insignificant.
I have seen a number of others from other people and they show similar correlations.
Beware of confirmation bias. Would the other people show their graphs if there was no correlation. Also, on decadal and longer time scales local temperatures tend to be similar to global ones.
See also my response to robert: Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:54 pm rbateman says
Leif Svalgaard says: August 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm
———————
For the scientist of high calibre occasionally you display high degree of ignorance, but I shall explain:
The Denmark strait has bidirectional flow. If we assume that the flow from the Arctic is predominant than there is resultant flow of +V into Atlantic having effect on temperature by –T. If for some reason there is excess flow in the opposite direction than flow in the Atlantic can be denoted as –V, this would mean temps there are going up (less cold water) by +T.
+V&-V and -T & +T are not ‘upside down’ as you would have it, but simplest expressions of maths or physics.
Of course you know that, but to you it is far more important to suppress my idea than the reality of events. And my analysis if you whish is ‘superior’ since through correlation is pointing to possible (not proven) causation.
As pseudonyms are concerned you and I know, and many others know who are radun, Dr Bill , and was it Dave?
I am danger to society for writing about natural events?
Perhaps you forgot the prime covenant of the founding fathers of your adopted country:
free speech , you probably would ban that as well.
Truth is, if you can comprehend it: I was banned from SC24 due to YOUR ‘bad behaviour’ and hips of insults, since they could not ban you (that blog hangs on your solar expertise) but moderator gave you this warning:
Leif…..You are not to address anything that Vukcevic says. If he attempts to engage you you are to inform one of the Mods or the Administrator immediately.
Correlation may point to possible (not as yet proven) causation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Here is the comparison back to 1750: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
There is no correlation to speak of.
Blimey Leif, the vertical scale on the temperature data is worthy of Michael Mann!
If you made a more appropriate scaling, and subtracted out the effect of the oceanic cycles, you find the match is actually pretty good.
But of course, that’s not what you’d want to find.
tallbloke says: August 14, 2010 at 1:41 am
……………..
I am not up to speed on this one , but I suggest the graphics you just referred to
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
is a bit of a joke.
Dr. S. normally uses the Loehle’s reconstruction http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/LoehleE&E2007.csv
You could use 1750 – 1980 to avoid most recent fiddling of data.
peterhodges says:
August 13, 2010 at 11:48 am
here is archibald, with armagh etc actual temp records, which IMHO is much more efficacious than using the dubious crutem etc manufactured records anyway
Fair enough- let’s use the Armagh record. Be warned, though, that the recent (~30 year) warming trend at Armagh is more than twice the Crutem/GISS trends.
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2010 at 1:41 am
If you made a more appropriate scaling, and subtracted out the effect of the oceanic cycles, you find the match is actually pretty good.
But of course, that’s not what you’d want to find.
I don’t know what the ‘oceanic cycles’ are, so cannot subtract anything. If you mean the linear trend [not cycles?], then I did that in http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf and did obtain an R^2 of 0.2, or correlation coefficient R=0.45. If you consider that ‘pretty good’ [I do not], then note that it is positive, i.e. in the opposite direction of F-C&L.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2010 at 1:36 am
Correlation may point to possible (not as yet proven) causation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
You play loose and fast with the data. There are no measurements of the magnetic field in the Arctic before 1882. The GUFM1 curve from 1600 to 1882 is based on paleomagnetic data as is CALS7K, except that the latter is based on much more such data and therefore should be used throughout. Here is how the two geomagnetic records match: http://www.leif.org/research/GEO-F-CALS7K.png . So, plot all the data from the same source and on the same scale [no upside-downs]. Inverting scales, using different datasets, etc all for the sake of obtaining what you [or radun] called a ‘full correlation’ is deceptive. Now, you can claim what you want [free speech and all]. I just point out that in my humble opinion, it is junk [free speech again].
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2010 at 1:36 am
I am danger to society for writing about natural events?
Al Gore is too….
I will try to update this category listing with each new solar/galactic post.
With this Archibald post I have made the first entry in populating the below categories:
A) Phenomena external to the earth system that are established to have a physical mechanism(s) which add energy to the earth system and that energy is being measured currently, regardless of the magnitude of the energy.
B) Phenomena external to the earth system which could potentially add energy to the earth system but for which a physical mechanism has not yet been widely established.
1) 1st entry – Friis-Christensen and Lassen published correlation between solar cycle length and earth atmospheric temps
John
Leif Svalgaard says: August 14, 2010 at 4:33 am
vukcevic…You play loose and fast with the data
Hmmm, playing loose and fast, your manners are improving or is this an aberration, last time you accused me of a deception.
I use data as they are available, no resources of big establishments, no financiers, just a keyboard and an out of date pc, with a good progress up to now.
Sun’s polar field – planetary resonance correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Arctic GMF – Atlantic Oscillation correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Pacific GMF – Pacific Oscilation correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO.htm
Dnmk St GMF – Loehle reconstruction correlation
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
and one or two more I have not completed yet.
I am pickin good correlations
They’re giving me excitations
Good good good good correlations
(or you are too young to remember beach boys ?)
You are oddly absent onany of the Lord Monckton’s threads, plenty of data there, I am sure you can find something there to tackle, or you are afraid to take on a big boy?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2010 at 4:33 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2010 at 1:41 am
If you made a more appropriate scaling, and subtracted out the effect of the oceanic cycles, you find the match is actually pretty good.
But of course, that’s not what you’d want to find.
I don’t know what the ‘oceanic cycles’ are, so cannot subtract anything.
Hi Leif, your analysis is correctly done. Bob Tisdale had a go at removing the AMO from the temperature data, so I think it can be done, though not with absolute certainty. The big dip at 1900, the big spike at 1940, dip at 1970 and the modern spike at 2000 coincident with the negative and positive phases of the big oceanic oscillations over the C20th skew the picture. The correlation would look a lot better if we allowed for them. Exactly how we would quantify them so we could attach a ‘robust significance’ to the result I’m not sure.
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:03 am
Hi Leif, your analysis is correctly done. Bob Tisdale had a go at removing the AMO from the temperature data, so I think it can be done, though not with absolute certainty. The big dip at 1900, the big spike at 1940, dip at 1970
But it was those dips and spikes that F-C&L claimed constituted the ‘correlation’ . Take these away and the graph is flat [as it the solar cycle lengths]. They can’t have it both ways.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:01 am
Hmmm, playing loose and fast, your manners are improving or is this an aberration, last time you accused me of a deception.
In my book there is no distinction. You might find some discussion on using upside-down data on http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/27/yet-another-upside-down-mann-out/
They’re giving me excitations<
You antics certainly have entertainment value, science they ain't. That is all..
You are oddly absent onany of the Lord Monckton’s threads, plenty of data there, I am sure you can find something there to tackle, or you are afraid to take on a big boy?
Monckton can take care of himself.
Talkbloke said: “Blimey Leif, the vertical scale on the temperature data is worthy of Michael Mann! If you made a more appropriate scaling, and subtracted out the effect of the oceanic cycles, you find the match is actually pretty good.”
Now that he points it out, the cycle length and temperature change do appear to correlate, with some non-linear, time-shifted relationship. You guys have the programs to show what it is (Tallbloke?). Previously I had wondered if there were some paired relationship going on, an in-phase/out-of-phase thing, to account for the lack of cooling since (as predicted) 2008.
I agree with Leif. If the Earth’s internal oscillations are thought to be associated with solar influences (and that has been posited several times by those that believe ol’ sole is the driver of the variations), you cannot remove them from the temperature data in order to find a solar correlation. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Doug Proctor says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:54 am
Now that he points it out, the cycle length and temperature change do appear to correlate
F-C&L have them anti-correlate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 9:54 pm
anna v had said:
August 13, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I would like to see 100 graphs of the Buttler and Johnson type, i.e following cycle temperature versus local temperatures before I dismiss it as statistically insignificant.
I have seen a number of others from other people and they show similar correlations.
and Leif replied:
Beware of confirmation bias. Would the other people show their graphs if there was no correlation. Also, on decadal and longer time scales local temperatures tend to be similar to global ones.
See also my response to robert: Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2010 at 8:54 pm rbateman says
I am well aware of confirmation bias and of the misuse of statistics.
If I were in the field, I would check for long local temperature records, ideally the world over, recording latitude and longitude, and plot next cycle temperatures against length of the cycle for each location . It may be that the five or so locations that I have seen plotted have been cherry picked to confirm the statement “long cycles are followed by colder temperatures”. This would become clear by such an analysis.
Dr. Svalgaard, I would like to reproduce the middle panel of Mursula & Zieger’s Figure 3 (filtered annual variation of aa index):
Mursula, K.; & Zieger, B. (2001). Long-term north-south asymmetry in solar wind speed inferred from geomagnetic activity: A new type of century-scale solar oscillation? Geophysical Research Letters 28(1), 95-98.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/MursulaAndZieger2001.pdf
Can you outline the necessary calculations?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:06 am
But it was those dips and spikes that F-C&L claimed constituted the ‘correlation’ . Take these away and the graph is flat [as it the solar cycle lengths]. They can’t have it both ways.
Not flat, less spiky. The trend line would still wave around a bit. Up to 1880, down to 1935, up to 1965, down to 1980, up to 2003, down after that.
anna v says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:26 am
It may be that the five or so locations that I have seen plotted have been cherry picked to confirm the statement “long cycles are followed by colder temperatures”. This would become clear by such an analysis.
Maybe, on the other hand the F-C&L ‘correlation’ was based on hemispheric data, not local data. On the basis of that [non-existing] correlation people consider it for established that there is such a correlation, even to the point that they would be willing to go look for it locally. This is kind of backwards. In the normal course of science, if a correlation has been shown to be spurious, one doesn’t dig much further [except the die-hard believers].
Paul Vaughan says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:45 am
Dr. Svalgaard, I would like to reproduce the middle panel of Mursula & Zieger’s Figure 3 (filtered annual variation of aa index): … Can you outline the necessary calculations?
I have no idea what they are doing. They refer to a paper 1 where they give the method. I routinely dismiss papers out of hand that are based on filtered, bandpassed data [unless they agree with my views, of course 🙂 ].
That there is a variation of the kind they are showing has been known for along time, e.g. see http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf [section 9, ~page 50].
The abstract of paper 1 says:
“Annual variation has maximum amplitude around sunspot minima. The phase of annual variation reverses soon after solar maxima”
But the conclusion states:
“The phase of annual variation changes from one solar minimum to another”
This tends to turn me off. If you can convince me that there is something to it, I might change my mind. If memory serves, data since ~2000 does not support their pattern. But strong convictions die hard and slow.
tallbloke says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:56 am
The trend line would still wave around a bit. Up to 1880, down to 1935, up to 1965, down to 1980, up to 2003, down after that.
I guess the faithful cannot be rocked in their belief, but make it quantitative and show us. I did that in my analysis. I’m not given to hand waving. And what trend line?
Paul Vaughan says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:45 am
“The phase of annual variation changes from one solar minimum to another”
Perhaps, they just expressed that clumsily [but I’m not happy with having to play guessing games], and that they mean that it is opposite at successive minima. In any event during the past minimum, solar wind speed was high in the spring, when it should have been the fall.
For what it might be worth, I filtered the data referenced by David Archibald from the Mt. Wilson Observatory with 25-term Chebyshev equivalent recursive series approximations using:
x= -Cos(pi()*(date-date_strt)/(date_end-date_strt))
The filtered data for solar cycle 23 seems to show that the sun, after a normal maximum around Y2000, might have ‘slipped a gear’ and produced a secondary maximum sometime around Y2003 that was, perhaps, 16 to 33 percent of the strength of a normal max.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 14, 2010 at 10:45 am
That there is a variation of the kind they are showing has been known for along time, e.g. see http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf [section 9, ~page 50].
this is for geomagnetic activity.Solar wind speed is another matter.
Sunspots may be wasting your time. This is the real villain:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Driver.htm
Re: Leif Svalgaard
I agree that Mursula & Zieger haven’t got it right.
I credit them for starting an interesting investigation, but it isn’t finished. I suspect 2 other factors (contributing to the pattern in the middle panel of their figure 3). I have some work to do…
*******
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm
In the end, it is a question of energy. If the planets were 100 times more massive and 10 times closer, they would exert a strong tidal influence. We see that for other stars, but for today’s solar system there is not enough energy in the planetary influences to have any effect.
*******
This should be the first and only answer necessary to the “planetary alignment” or “solar torque” questions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2010 at 11:23 am
Maybe, on the other hand the F-C&L ‘correlation’ was based on hemispheric data, not local data. On the basis of that [non-existing] correlation people consider it for established that there is such a correlation, even to the point that they would be willing to go look for it locally. This is kind of backwards. In the normal course of science, if a correlation has been shown to be spurious, one doesn’t dig much further [except the die-hard believers].
You seem to be ignoring the microscope effect.
In the middle ages there was no correlation between dirt and diseases, (except the instinctive one built on our DNA). Then the microscope was invented and doctors started washing their hands and and demand boiling of the rags used in births, and women started surviving birthing.
In this particular case , that there is no global correlation does not exclude local ones that will be averaged out in globalizing. And it does not matter if people started from a wrong paper. Columbus thought he found India.
anna v says:
August 14, 2010 at 9:33 pm
And it does not matter if people started from a wrong paper. Columbus thought he found India.
so one should seek out all correlations that have failed and vigorously pursue them in further detail… The day does not enough hours for that. The funding agencies [and taxpayers] rightly mostly take a dim view of such proposals.
Leif, I am not seeking a long sophist argument.
I am saying that the Butler and Johnson plot is intriguing, even if it started from a wrong premise, and as such it would be interesting to see if it is a fortuitous correlation, or cherry picking , or what.
Scientific literature is full of such chases that most of the time end in “the treasure was coals”.
Fom another thread I was reminded of cold fusion, all the physicists I knew were intrigued, and many solid state ones tried to reproduce the results.
Nevertheless, looking for the pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow is the impetus for scientific research, that is how discoveries are made .
RE: Spector: (August 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm)
Correction: I see I misidendified the source of the information in my previous post.
The correct source that I should have cited is the Wilcox Solar Observatory. “The observatory is located in the foothills just west of the Stanford University campus.”
The www link in the main article above does not appear to be functional. The current working link appears to be:
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Leif,
This Archibald post caused me to reflect on where we have wandered in the past year here at WUWT on the subject of solar variation effects [as opposed to the “solar constant] on the earth system energy.
So, I went back over some WUWT solar posts for last year.
Of all the candidates discussed, it appears to me that there is one candidate that stands out for more focus on. It is the difference in the energy distribution of TSI during solar cycle minima as compared to maxima. That is, if I recall correctly, it has been observed that the TSI associated with solar cycle minima have an increased energy in the IR region and lowered energy in the UV region. Note, I am not focusing here on the very small delta TSI variation between minima and maxima, but focusing on how the TSI is delivered during minima versus maxima.
Question: Any recent studies of this that you can point me to that would shed light on the possibility of the above having a significant impact on earth system?
John
Moderators,
If this post goes ballistic, as it has started . . . . . you guys better cancel some dates and stock up on Red Bull and popcorn.
Good moderating to ya . . .
John
Moderators,
Ooops, wrong WUWT post!!!! I meant to post at the “BREAKING: New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08” post.
Tooooo eager on the ENTER key, again. Sorry about that.
John
John Whitman says:
August 15, 2010 at 7:55 am
if I recall correctly, it has been observed that the TSI associated with solar cycle minima have an increased energy in the IR region and lowered energy in the UV region. Note, I am not focusing here on the very small delta TSI variation between minima and maxima, but focusing on how the TSI is delivered during minima versus maxima.
The IR reaches the ground and heats it. The UV does not.
Question: Any recent studies of this that you can point me to that would shed light on the possibility of the above having a significant impact on earth system?
Yes, this was discussed at length at the recent SORCE meeting: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html
See that papers by Harder: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.02_Harder_SSI.pdf
and by Calahan: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
John
Jeff L says:
August 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I apologise for the delayed response. I am currently en route to Houston for an oil exploration conference. On the subject of plots of other sites, I have done plenty. There are good correlations for de Bilt, Archangel, the CET. Generally, the more northerly in Europe, the better the correlation. There is no correlation for Milan, Athens etc. A month or so ago, I put up a post on a report by a Norwegian solar physicist who showed very good correlations for most of Norway. In the US, I found good correlations in four sites in the northeast, including Providence, Rhode Island, West Chester PA.
It is my duty to warn of the cooling underway.
Leif,
Appreciate the references. Homework . . . . oh boy.
Now maybe I will retire just to try keep up with all this.
Also, I apologize for any incidental embarrassment to you caused by my emotional blow-up at Ninderthana on this thread the other day.
John
David Archibald says: August 15, 2010 at 10:03 am
I would agree with two of points:
– Generally, the more northerly in Europe, the better the correlation (magnetic field gets stronger).
– to warn of the cooling underway
I would suggest, when you do have some time to spare, to take a good look at
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC1.htm
The CET driver I have identified has a written and unquestionable record going back to 1600AD, but it is most unlikely to be directly linked to the solar activity.
Here’s a paper some may find of interest:
Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides
Steinhilber, F., J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, and K. G. McCracken (2010), Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A01104, doi:10.1029/2009JA014193.
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2010_steinhilber.pdf
Abstract: [1] We have reconstructed the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), its radial component, and the open solar magnetic flux using the solar modulation potential derived from cosmogenic 10Be radionuclide data for a period covering the past 9300 years. Reconstructions using the assumption of both constant and variable solar wind speeds yielded closely similar results. During the Maunder Minimum, the strength of the IMF was approximately 2 nT compared to a mean value of 6.6 nT for the past 40 years, corresponding to an increase of the open solar magnetic flux of about 350%. We examine four cycles of the Hallstatt periodicity in the IMF with a mean period of 2250 years and an amplitude of 0.75 nT. Grand solar minima have largely occurred in clusters during the Hallstatt cycle minima around the years 5300, 3400, 1100, and +1500 A.D. The last cluster includes the Dalton, Maunder, and Sporer minima. We predict that the next such cluster will occur in about 1500 years. The long-term IMF has varied between 2 nT and 8 nT and does not confirm a proposed floor (lower limit). There is a slowly changing long-term trend of amplitude 1.5 nT, with a minimum around the year 4600 and a maximum around 0 A.D. that may be of solar origin but which also may be due to unknown long-term changes in the atmospheric effects or geomagnetic field intensity.
Note: para – [68] Further, our reconstructions do not confirm the existence of a magnetic floor at 4.6 nT as proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver [2007]. During the past 9300 years our reconstructions of 40 year averaged IMF have not exceeded values of about 8 nT, which points to an upper limit of the IMF.
Suzanne says:
August 16, 2010 at 4:00 am
Here’s a paper some may find of interest:
Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides
Steinhilber, F., J. A. Abreu, J. Beer, and K. G. McCracken (2010), Interplanetary magnetic field during the past 9300 years inferred from cosmogenic radionuclides, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A01104, doi:10.1029/2009JA014193.
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2010_steinhilber.pdf
…………………………………
Thanks for the link.
Leif, you’re on top of this? Just making sure.
Need to get back to the confounding ribbon config., which seems to be obscuring this bigger picture.
Lebedev Physics Institute, Soalr Maximum may be postponed again.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/16/lebedev-physics-institute-solar-maximum-may-be-postponed-again-says/#more-3008
Suzanne says:
August 16, 2010 at 4:00 am
Note: para – [68] Further, our reconstructions do not confirm the existence of a magnetic floor at 4.6 nT as proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver [2007].
Steinhilber et al have a problem with the extrapolation to low HMF B-values. It shows most clearly in their Figure 9, where most of the dips reach [meaningless] negative values.
In our http://www.leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf we address this problem specifically with the latest dip where we have good data. See the discussion of Figures 14 and 15.
There are indications that these dips to not really reflect a change in the HMF, but result from other [terrestrial] effect, volcanoes, climate, etc. See
“this implies that more than 50% of the 10Be flux increase around, e.g., 1700 A.D., 1810 A.D. and 1895 A.D. is due to non-production related increases!”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
A COMPARISON OF NEW CALCULATIONS OF THE YEARLY 10Be PRODUCTION IN THE EARTH’S POLAR ATMOSPHERE BY COSMIC RAYS WITH YEARLY 10Be MEASUREMENTS IN MULTIPLE GREENLAND ICE CORES BETWEEN 1939 AND 1994 – A TROUBLING LACK OF CONCORDANCE, PAPER #2; W.R. Webber, P.R. Higbie, and C.W. Webber
Remember that a 10Be increase is a decrease of HMF B.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:48 am
The IR reaches the ground and heats it. The UV does not.
Yes, this was discussed at length at the recent SORCE meeting: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/agendas.html
See that papers by Harder: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.02_Harder_SSI.pdf
and by Calahan: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf
———————-
Having looked over the material Leif provided above, I note the short times series of satellite measurement of SSI stated in Cahalan et al (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdf )
-TSI28 year history –continuous observations over ~ 3 solar cycles
-SSI 6 year history commenced with SORCE SIM
-Half a single solar cycle observed thus far
-Until SORCE, comparisons have previously been made between individual
reference spectra, not full time series at UV, VIS and IR wavelengths.
I note the overall picture of SSI magnitude is shown on Page 4 of the presentation of the paper by Harder et al (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session3/3.02_Harder_SSI.pdf )
I take from Harder:
1) They use SSI data from SIM for period of 4 years , mid 2004 to mid 2009
2) The 4 yr period corresponds solely to the a declining portion of SC 23 as follows:
a.Begins at almost midpoint in the decline of SC 23 from maxima
b.Ends at about 1 yr before the minima between SC 23 and SC 24
3) My take over this period is the delta SSI for various solar wavelength bands are:
a. Delta SSI due to UV is approximately: -1.0 Watts per m squared
b. Delta SSI due to VIS is approximately: +0.7 “ “ “ “
c. Delta SSI due to NIR is approximately: +0.3 “ “ “ “
d. Approximate Total delta SSI: 0.0
My thoughts:
1) Overall, need several solar cycles more SIM data, we currently have only approximately half of a solar cycle of satellite measurements of SSI by SIM.
2) Delta SSI observed data by SIM for 4 months is . . . interesting enough to seek more knowledge
3) To me of interest is the implication of positive NIR delta SSI during periods lower solar activity as compared to higher periods. (Not that VIS or UV are considered less important, one thing at a time)
a. It interesting to me because NIR can directly reach the earth surface with some potentially interesting interactions with atmospheric gases on the way to the surface.
b. Can we infer that for longer cycles with lower solar activities versus shorter cycles with higher activities that the NIR SSI increases enough to have measureable impact on the earth energy balance? Especially impact on temperature at the lower troposphere and land/ocean surfaces? I don’t know the answer, thinking about it. Probably not enough info above to only be interesting.
John
John Whitman says:
August 16, 2010 at 12:28 pm
-Half a single solar cycle observed thus far
For this kind of thing that is probably enough indication of the general situation.
I think this is relevant to the variations we are talking.
There is some tentative evidence that the sun may be involved. Earlier this year astrophysicist Mike Lockwood of the University of Reading, UK, showed that winter blocking events were more likely to happen over Europe when solar activity is low – triggering freezing winters (New Scientist, 17 April, p 6).
Now he says he has evidence from 350 years of historical records to show that low solar activity is also associated with summer blocking events (Environmental Research Letters, in press). “There’s enough evidence to suspect that the jet stream behaviour is being modulated by the sun,” he says.
found it in http://www.icecap.us/
it is from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-leads-to-flood-fire-and-famine.html as far as I can see.
Now the jet stream is a formation that affects the northern hemisphere and its fine structure is lost when temperatures are averaged over the globe or hemisphere. Nevertheless its effect is strong. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the variations seen in the Butler and Johnson plots are a function of the jet stream behavior a function of the length of the cycle, which will appear in the next cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm
For this kind of thing that is probably enough indication of the general situation.
————-
Leif,
I take your words as encouragement. : )
My next task is to look at the NIR delta SSI observed in comparison to the earth/ocean emitted IR dynamics. Fancy words, but perhaps you get my unformed drift.
John