Solar and climate- no longer taboo

Geoff Sharp says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The cycles may have been declining slowly in that timeframe but they are still amongst some of the highest cycles recorded in the last 100 years. The key point of course is to factor in the positive PDO which needs to be added to other effects such as UHI and high EUV readings (the UHI providing a false rise).
_____
The PDO is certainly something to consider. With La Nina conditions dominating this phase of the PDO we certainly are getting less heat moving from ocean to atmosphere. I do disagree with your “false rise” statement based on UHI. Satellite readings over the past 30 years are not corrupted by UHI effects. Global temps increased during this period…the only issue is cause or causes.

R Gates
It seems you haven’t looked at the UHI refs I gave you. Please show you have. One reason the correlation holds that Smokey gave from the Arctic, is because thermometers there were relatively free of UHI bias (and had ultra-long records too since they needed to know). See here Unfortunately over the last decade, UHI corruption may have crept in here too.
Leif you’re no doubt correct… as far as you go. Geoff is no doubt correct as well. Personally, from this ref I’ve already given here, I think there’s no doubt the Sun has been on a long extended high, that was still continuing its effect to 2000 even though the gas may have been turned down somewhat since 1980. Like slowly boiling a pan of water.

Leif Svalgaard says:
October 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm
They are very good as the physics is straightforward. The EUV data has calibration uncertainties.
Thanks for your links but I am struggling to see how your references change anything. I can’t see where the SEM EUV values are challenged, which is the major issue as TSI is not important. Do you have EUV proxy data that is reliable that can dispute the much lower baseline EUV floor during SC23/24 min shown in the SEM data?
It is now established [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Workshop1-Weighting.pdf ] that the sunspot number since 1945 is 20% too high, so your statement may be a bit misleading.
Not misleading at all. Even with the 20-22% discount SC 21/22/23 cycles are amongst the highest measured in the last 100 years. You don’t need to sell me the Waldmeier factor, the LSC is born partly on his indulgence.

R Gates
I’m delighted you’re inviting WUWT readership to Boulder Co.
WRT science here, I’m falling behind with other things and probably you’ve also left this thread behind. So I’ll only say outline things, and then drop this thread.
First, I hear your comments re satellite temps over the last 30 years. I still say, again, look at my UHI work. This demonstrates, to me, that there are still very serious questions to answer – and I wonder if the calibration of satellites has itself been influenced by UHI. You have to remember that satellite measurement, for all it is a brilliant idea, is still not a direct measurement but a proxy that has to be calibrated.
Second, I’ll just note that there are serious questions that have been swept under the carpet, concerning the use of ice core proxy measurement of CO2 pre-1959.
Third, I repeat that the annual turnover of CO2 in both oceans and vegetation is an order of magnitude higher than our CO2 turnover. Again I don’t get the feeling that you’ve even examined this. I have examined in close detail the close correspondence between CO2 emissions and CO2 rise: and if one looks VERY closely, the correlation breaks down and reveals itself to be sheer coincidence for a limited period – which observation is backed up by the commonsense notion that natural cycles can easily absorb our emissions.
Fourth, I see that Leif’s solar arguments re the sun seem to support you. I hope to research these further. So far, every time I’ve looked again, I came to the conclusion that there WAS significant increase in solar activity over the last century overall. And even if, at this late hour, I am persuaded by Leif, it still does not take away the UHI problem noted above.
Fifth, of course, is the vilification of those who argue as I do, cogently with lots of clear science and years of experience, Professors Segalstad and Jaworowski being two of them.

Brian H says:
October 19, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Have you seen this post? (What Drives Global Warming?)
„. The self-organized model builds a dynamic system model – a system of nonlinear difference equations. The model shows a high accuracy of 77% given the fact that there is noise and uncertainty in the observational data. Figure 1 plots the observed vs predicted global temperature anomalies of this model retrospectively for the past 23 years and predictively for the next 6 years till October 2017. It is supplemented by the uncertainty of the predictions as a range where actual temperatures will most likely be observed in. Concluding from that graph, no significant further global warming is expected in the coming 6 years. Temperatures rather remain at the current level of warming.
(Frank Lemke)
[Bold Character by Volker]
Hi Brian,
I do not really know what the climate prediction model of Frank Lembke includes, but the point here is that it is a mathematical extrapolation for 6 years until October 2017 analysing the global temperature frequency spectra of the past 23 years. That means that the cause of the single temperature frequencies of this time interval of 23 years remains in the dark. I think there is no doubt that in general this model can be used taking the data from last 2 or 3 millennium to predict the global temperatures maybe for a longer time interval. Now, the question ‘What drives global warming?’ suggests that a heat driver is found. But no mechanism is shown; still mathematical gymnastic with recent global temperature proxies.
I have choosen a different scientific method to predict the global temperatures for about 1000 years, and have analysed simple all heliocentric synodic pattern of celestial objects in the solar system back for 50 years, 2000 years and 5000 years, which are well known from NASA ephemeris for this 6000 years. From this I have fitted the strength of each celestial couple empirical in a summation index called Geometric Harmonic Index (GHI).
There are some GHI x calculated with different time steps of i.) 1 year, ii.) 1 month, and iii.) 1 day for the time intervals of i.) 6000 years, ii.) 2000 years and iii.) -60 +30 years.
You can lokk fo a comparison of the results with some 4 plots A, B, C, D, with well known reconstructed temperature proxies from the literature.
Because of the origin of the terrestrial temperature frequencies, also of the past 23 years, it takes no wonder that a summation of some high frequency synodic pattern of the celestial objects shows a remarkable correlation with the pattern extrapolated out of known global temperature spectra done by Frank Lembke:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/2017_comp_ghi12.gif
I think the very important point here is that my temperature spectra have a basis in the motion of real celestial bodies, its heliocentric frequencies, and positions on the length of ecliptic. I have no idea, which mechanism drives the terrestrial global temperature, but however, that makes the matching geometry pattern not untrue, rather it suggests that the main global temperature pattern has its ‘origin’ in the periodic motions of couples in the solar system including the Sun.
Clearly this pattern is superimposed by the impedances of the earth and its frequencies of: 1/1.186 years ^-1, (Chandler wobble), 1/2.371 years ^-1 (QBO), and 1/11.862 years^-1, (Jupiter). The QBO frequency is twice the ENSO frequency of 1/4.742 years^-1.
More here.
V.