Do Latest Solar Studies Confirm Upcoming Global Cooling?

” It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic. ”
Is the extra solar radiation referred to in this quote primarily due to the sun putting out more solar energy during the solar maximum or is it due to the sun’s increased magnetic fields more efficiently shielding earth from cosmic rays during the solar maximum, leading to fewer clouds reflecting sunshine back into space? [Svensmark has theorized that cosmic-ray muons create charged electrons in the atmosphere that promote the formation of molecular clusters. These clusters lead to the formation of more cloud nuclei, and thus more clouds, than would be the case if the muons were absent.]

It would appear that the extra solar radiation around solar maximums, heats the surface waters of the major oceans especially the Pacific and Atlantic.
Do you have evidence to support this?
I couldn’t find any.
I did find a paper that is relevant to the ARGO discussion. The intensity of the hydrological cycle in the tropics increases at solar maximum – more clouds and rain. Which indicates that surface water heating doesn’t occur (in response to increased solar radiation).
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/vanloon_solar.pdf

Once you realise that the Sun can heat the Earth to much higher temperatures than the supposed minus 18 C and that the solar insolation is not the miserable 170 W/sqm average 24/7 then you realise the obvious truth – the atmosphere and oceans keep the Earth’s surface cooler than it would otherwise be because air heated by contact with the surface convects to the upper atmosphere and is replaced by cooler air and so on till the Sun sets.
The “greenhouse effect” as postulated does not exist and backradiation cannot heat the Earth’s surface as described – the turbulent convecting air and water evaporation act to reduce the surface temperature.
Anyone who has not been hoodwinked can see the simple truth of this and evidence exists to support the explanation. This evidence is the fact the Sun can heat the Moon’s surface to well over 107 C – even sans “greenhouse gases”. If the radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface is say half that of the Solar constant – a figure the IPCC regularly quote – there is no possibility of “backradiation” increasing the Earth’s surface temperature or atmospheric temperature also – the atmosphere acts to reduce the heating during the day – therefore no “greenhouse effect” as postulated.
At night there is no solar insolation but there is residual heat from the daytime stored in the land mass, the oceans and atmosphere. As convection slows down so does the rate of heat loss and as it radiates out to space the Earth spins and the cycle begins again.
The greenhouse effect does not exist and is an unnecessary complication to explain an incorrect way of viewing the so called energy balance.
Simple physics satisfactorily explains the surface temperature of Earth without any need for magical properties associated with trace gases.

For any one who doubts the impact of solar insolation on climate a student of mine undertook her doctoral work examining the historical evidence for the Kondratief cycle. She collected a number of proxies for economic activity including tin output from the Cornish tin mines from the early medieval period, battle fatalities from the 15th century and bread output from the manors of central England for the same period. There was no evidence of the 60-70 year cycle that kondratief proposed but there was a clear, medium strength cycle centered, if memory serves me correctly, around 11.4 years. The study demonstrated a close correlation with the sunspot cycle both to my satisfaction and to those of her external examiners. For a variety of reasons the research, whilst of the highest quality, was never followed up. However, those results collected some 20 years ago convinced me that although the variability in solar radiation as measured at the TOA might be small its impact upon climate, agricultural yields and the substitution of labour effort in the economy is very significant. Given this, we should be very worried about the consequences of a quiet sun on the climate and the potential loss of agricultural capacity.
Ref: Davies, G.M., (1995) Long cycles: with particular reference to Kondratfiefs, unpublished PhD, Hartley library, Southampton, UK.

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Matti Vooro
The abstract reads: “Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle.”
The relevant dimension here is a frequency [1/s = Hz], not ‘a cycle in (Earth) years’. For the purposes of lower frequencies we can make use of the frequency dimension [1/year = 1 Kp *)] which is a factor of 3.155569088.8 * 10^7 smaller than 1 [Hz].
*) Kp stands for Kepler.
It is well known from literature that the main frequency of the sun spots is 11.196 years^-1 or 0.0893176 Kp. This frequency is not involved in the spectrum of the global climate frequencies.
But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sun_shift_buent.gif
Science and logic include a conclusion of the premises, here a correlation of a solar function and the reconstructed global Earth temperature. I do not see any scientific conclusion in the paper but an ad hoc prediction tool of low quality, avoiding the correlation of frequency shift and temperature since 1600 AD.
Science is always looking for the truth. If it is evident that there is a connection between a solar function and the terrestrial climate, then the geometry and/or mechanism are the point of interest in climate science. Prediction tools may have its consumers, but I think the questions in climate science are more important then prophesy.
V.

> This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦C from solar cycle 23 to 24
Nice words. DA wrote the same, but wasn’t prepared to risk a bet on it. Are you?
Note: the pic you took from wiki is obsolete (I’ve removed it from there). The current prediction (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml) is for a smoothed max of 96.

Where does one start. This post is not worthy.

I write about solar science in my book:
As U.S. and Russian space-program physicists took part in a tacit competition to anticipate what the Sun would do in the coming decades, the Space Race of the 1950s and ’60s was arguably being played out anew. Unlike the first time, the competition was being held out of public view, with the countries’ best physicists, Hathaway, Hansen, and Abdussamatov among them, trading blows in academic journals. This time around, the terms of the debate were not rocket-booster fuel formulae, re-entry material construction, and orbital equations, but, rather, where the planet was headed climatologically.
Jack Eddy, at the end of his life, was paying attention to the Sun’s doings. “We’re at a prolonged minimum now, of which there have been precedents,” he said in 2008, months before his passing. “Whether we’re going to go into one of these profound minima or not, we won’t know until we get there. It might make me famous if it happens, but I don’t see that we know that it will happen.” Eddy’s work has been cited by Abdussamatov, and indeed calls have been issued for the naming of the forthcoming minimum, should it be as prolonged as some anticipate, as the Eddy Minimum. It is a matter of some irony that a Russian scientist following his research to its logical conclusion appears to have greater intellectual freedom than most of his American counterparts, with the notable exception of Jack Eddy.
More here: http://amzn.to/yLN0Zm

Bloke down the pub says:
February 13, 2012 at 3:12 am
Whether this theory is right or not, no-one can say.
That there is a weak correlation between the oscillating frequency shift of the sun spot frequency and the reconstructed global temeperatures is a fact, not a theory.
If one claims that no-one can say, he or she must know it, but that’s impossible because he or she cannot know all saying persons and their sayings in this world.
One thing that is for certain, time will tell
No one ever has given a proof for time. Time is a social convention, and has no reality in physics. Time cannot tell.
What is possible that a person argue on scientific recognitions on a heliocentric climate world view instead of a geocentric climate world view.
V.

The Sun riseth and the Sun falls. The only problem is that the Sun stays where it is (almost) It is the Earth that is moving.
It took many thousands of years for Scientists and the worlds population to realise that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Watermelons were trying to take over the world then. Not much has changed.
Watermelons claim the Sun and Cloud has no effect.
How many of you have spent a night out in a desert.
On a clear Summers Day. 0 Deg C at Dawn and 50 Deg C at 2 pm.
Add a bit of Cloud. 20 Deg C at Dawn and 30 Deg at 2 pm.
Must be CO2 that is the culprit. Lets introduce a Carbon Tax. That will stop Global Warming.
Oh!! It has worked. Just talking about a Carbon Tax has caused world temps to fall. “Hail to Julia”
Now out in the Desert it is just :-
“On a clear Summers Day. 0 Deg C at Dawn and 50 Deg C at 2 pm.
Add a bit of Cloud. 20 Deg C at Dawn and 30 Deg at 2 pm.”
It has just cost every Man,Women and Child $1000 each.Where has the money gone? Maybe to Greece. Or maybe Germany to help them re-commission their shut down Nuclear Reactors so the people can turn their Heaters on again. Watermelons RULE.
Just a comment.
Who ever designed this plant did a bloody good job.
Ocean temps limited to 30 deg C.
Life is in abundance. Watermelons trying to take over the world!
Ever seen a Watermelon dropped from a 1st floor window onto concrete!

There is a decidedly bad smell in here, now that the noted propagandist and socialist lickspittle “William M Connelly” has deigned to grace us with his malodorous presence. It would be fun though to see a few of his remarks arbitrarily snipped for no reason other than to enrage him or make his arguments look silly. But that would be reducing ourselves to his level of discourse wouldn’t it? This should be fun to watch.

Prof . William Gray proposed a 5-10 year lag between the MOC [MERIDIONALOVERTURNING CIRCULATION becoming stronger and global cooling . I recently noted that the Met Office uses a e-folding time of 4 years to account for solar effcts in their latest interannual predictions . I like the authors Jan -Erik Solheim et al noted above found little evidence that the solar effect and global temperature chnages happened in the same cycle . So I welcome their new approach. No where was this more evident than the period 1956-1960 when we had the highest sunspot numbers solar cycle but there was no significant global temperature rise . I would be the first to admit that my hypothesis may have some errors . It is but a brief analysis together with some personal comments . We all feel that the sun is the main climate driver but there is a lack of scientific papers to explain the exact mechanism of how this happens . I welcome the idea of more focus on this topic because the entire Co2 issue has gotten us all off the track and we now see global temperatures decling while Co2 contiunes to go up totally opposite to the predictions . Evidence of cooling is now clear even in Europe and Asia where the winter temperatures were supposed to go up and they have now had 3- 4 record cold winters in a row. There are even some recent studies that suggest that winters in Northern Europe and ASIA have been cooling for several decades . I have found that they have been decling since 1998 like in North America.

This is just an awful, awful post. It should have never seen the light of day. Even as an 8th grade science report, I would have marked it up with so much red ink you could not have seen the black ink. Maybe it needs to be done. I don’t think the author realizes how poorly it was thought out and penned. Finally, I think this post is a grave embarrassment for it to appear at WUWT.

William Connoley writes: Notice how cunningly they hid “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system” in plain sight?
That is so incredibly hypocritical. There is ZERO expression of doubt in the public pronouncements of the IPCC. You guys think you know it all, you tell the world that climate science is settled and you come here, trying to destroy ànything that may cast doubt on your little religion.
Don’t you understand that we’re trying to do the job that you guys won’t or can’t do, either because of your incompetence or ideology.

When thinking that the Sun might sustain the climate on Earth, it helps to have at hand precise figures of Total Solar Irradiance. A ‘constant’ according to the IPCC that varies from > 1,366.5 to < 1,365.0 Wm2 from 1981 to 2009.
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
"The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease."
See http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
"The Sun Defines the Climate", Abdussamatov 2009, is also available at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
See also "SL-200 Solar Limbograph" (permanently mounted onboard the International Space Station), at http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/1_eng.html
This is the instrument used by Abdussamatov to measure TSI.

Volker Doormann (February 13, 2012 at 1:56 am) wrote:
“But if we take the shift of the sun spots as a frequency shift from the main frequency, then we can see a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature.”
As I have explained to you before, Earth has no stationary internal ~11 year cycle. You’re making the same mistake the solar scientists make when they study differential solar rotation. More fundamental care (in the mathematical sense) needs to be exercised in selecting markers & metrics. Rather than phase-deviations from such an ARTIFICIAL clock, consider the simple time rate of change of cycle length; harmonics & beats with Earth’s internal cycles, whatever those internal cycles may be (including dominants like the day & year), are then easily generalized. Mother Earth has her own cycles; she’s not always equally receptive to father sun’s advances.

Rosco says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:39 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
One can see a strong case that in broad terms that should be the null hypothesis position as to how the climate (in broad terms) functions.
It appears that in sufficient note is taken of the fact that the Earth is a water world and the unique qualities of water in relation to phase change and latent heat.

Here’s where a very large proportion of the WUWT community can easily & dramatically improve conception…
“The warm water is then transported by the ocean conveyor belt deeper into the ocean waters and down swelled and conveyed around the globe.”
Just as with PDO, deeply rooted misconceptions have 99 lives.
To develop a better handle on ocean surface currents, watch the animations here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/a-japanese-puzzle/#comment-882297

–
Regards.

Pamela Gray says:
February 13, 2012 at 6:59 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have not yet read the article so make no comment upon its quality.
However, I am tempted to disagree with what you say about its publication on WUWT.
In my experience, it is often the case that an article that I am not particularly impressed with (and I would not claim to be the all authorative judge) elicits the most interesting set of comments. Very often it is the debate that ensues in the comments provoked by the article, that are of interest and significance.
Accordingly I am all for open debate and do not seek to stiffle any one not even those who are regarded as trolls. I want to see and consider the full spectrum of views and articles.

> Yet, with all that they stated a 90% probability that they know exactly what is going to happen in the future
I think you’re making that up. Provide a quote with a URL, and I’ll answer.
> why you haven’t been giving people 10-1 odds
Well, people are certainly welcome to come back and suggest “I accept the bet, but only if given 10-1 odds”. But so far no-one seems very interested in taking up the bet under any conditions, which suggests they don’t really believe any of these “predictions” at all. Putting up actually money is a useful way of distinguishing people who are just mouth, from those who have substance.
> The IPCC’s problem is that they have so dishonest and so utterly unscientific
Not as far as I know; I notice that you give no specifics. I’m happy to defend them, though I suspect that doing so would derail this topic even further. Notice how Lindzen gives no specifics either.
> I never read wiki on climate issues
Be careful never to leave your walled garden or you might read things that upset your preconceptions.

Pamela Gray
If you are so much wiser than the various authors noted in the article , why don’t you post your ideas on line in an article and let others also take a kick at it . It is easy to constantly post negative comments about others work and offer no better alternative ideas of their own . At least most bloggers offeralternative ideas of their own if they happen to disagree with the article .

Paul Vaughan
Good question .
I used the hadcrut3 MAAT Global annual and 3 yr running average temperature chart for my analysis and comparisons and hence for my conclusuions . With respect to the PDO , I understand what it means . Surely if there is a spatial pattern of more colder water in the Pacific north east than in the Pacific north west and central Pacific it is going to have an impact on the temperatures in North America . PDO is an after effect of the Enso cycle which in turn may be a delayed effect of the previous solar cycle . North American climate impacts Europe as the atmosphere moves from west to east over the Atlantic . All these form part of the global bigger picture

The distinguished sun researcher Judith Lean forecasts a 0.14 C higher GMT in 2014
compared to 2011…. She took every cycle quoted above into account……
……Lets see then in 2014, which of all mentioned forecasters is the real distinguished
forecaster and better solar observer and solar expert……
JS

To those responding to troll(s) on this thread. Please remember that Climate Science(tm) is a billion dollar a year industry, and the recipients of this largess are simply defending their stash. So don’t be too harsh… Also remember, “Green greed is good”…

By the way, who said the following just last month (that’s right, 2012)?
“Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today’s young people and future generations.“
“The science is clear. Unless we restore the planet’s energy balance and stabilize climate, by rapidly reducing fossil fuel emissions, we will leave today’s young people a rapidly deteriorating climate system with consequences that will out of their control.”
The answer here.
(Mr. Connolley may wish to update the wikipedia climate page to include this statement, preferably at the top of the article).

> who said
Sounds like Hansen to me. I know he is your favourite demon, but wiki tends to prefer to report the scientific consensus, rather than one person’s view. If you’re interested in what that larger view is, someone has already helpfully provided a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:02 am
“Errrm, that is wikipedia, not IPCC…”
Do you mean “Errrm, that is Me, not IPCC…” ??

STEVE MOSHER
Valid Observation
The evidence in my opinion has been staring us in the face for the last decade. The CO2 levels are rising and at their highest level in modern times and global temperatures have been flat and declining for now 10-14 years .The reduced sun activity , SST’S, AMO, PDO ,AO are in their mode indicating cooling . So who is dwarfing who? What more evidence are we looking for? maybe my use of the term ‘have always ‘ is stretching things a bit Steve, but currently I think it is true and even some of the AGW scientists have accepted this. M. LATIF, a German climate modeler even wrote about it as far back as 2008 that natural variabilty would prevail for the next decade . He even admitted that you could have two such decades.

I’ve studied this extensively, and I feel you are on the right track but have the wrong mechanism in mind…magnetic activity, from the AA/AP Index values, to the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field). Cosmic Rays correlate to the mechanism that alters the atmospheric state but their effect is overstated based on that correlation.
There are many various atmospheric circulation cells over numerous ocean basins (example, the Hadley Cell) that basically act as heat pumps/distributors, but are also affected by upper atmospheric processes such as the QBO, and the Solar Wind. These “cells” modulate the tropical/global configuration of cloud cover, much of the GLAAM/tropical wind budget, and in turn, ENSO. But that is not all.
The AO/AAO indices also are driven by the same mechanisms that alter atmospheric circulation…(Sun and QBO). The -AO allows sustainable tropical convection via a cooler upper atmosphere over the tropics, more cloud cover over the tropics/mid latitudes, less clouds/wind over the arctic. The -AO that developed in JAN allowed the current MJO wave to sustain, and cooled the globe via these mechanisms.
It all ties back to the magnetic sun and IMF. In looking at the AP index one can see the correlation to the PDO, AMO, and AO/NAO. It is because large scale atmospheric circulation is modulated by this aspect of solar activity.
The IMF directional value dominates the PDO and AMO. Whenever it flips south, the PDO changes phase, whenever it flips north, the AMO changes phase…the Hale cycle.
ENSO is also driven by the Sun, and lags the AP index by 6.5 years. The El Nino of 2009-10 looks just like the AP index spike in 2003, the AP index plummeted in 2006.
The year 2013 or 2014 will see the drop on global temps truly begin by this mechanism. The Sun’s poles will also flip in 2013, and our Sun’s “wobble” as noted in SIM theory will end in 2013. The AMO will flip in 2013. It is all coming together.

Smokey wrote, “Isn’t it nice for Connolley that Anthony runs a censorship-free site?”
That’s certainly not true — I’m one of those banned, & of course there are others.
REPLY: I count 214 comments (including this one) that come under your various alter egos of “Eric Blair”, “Erinome”, and “JeffG” Since September 2011 at your originating IP address in the Pacific Northwest.
How you count that as “banned” must only be in your mind, whoever you are today. But do take note, our site policy specifically says that shape shifting is a no-no. So please explain why you deserve continued access when you go to great lengths to post under a series of fake names. Or would it be simpler to say your last name ryhmes with apple? – Anthony

john F. hultquist
Thank you for your helpful comments . I was thinking of the ocean conveyor belt and upwelling areas shown in Prof Gray’s paper called CLIMATE CHANGE : DRIVEN BY THE OCEANS NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY [fig 20 and 14] . If the upwelling in the lower PACIFIC is warmer or cooler due to chnging input of water into the coveyor could this not affect ENSO that develops later at the equator ? maybe my words are not that clear . I will have to work at that.
I dont know what your question is about the PDO . PDO is a spatial pattern and an after effect of the ENSO cycle as I explained earlier .

Allan MacRae says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
“This post, by inference, suggests we should be looking for a CO2-after-T lag of about 11 years, similar to the period of one sunspot cycle. We have adequate CO2 data at Mauna Loa back to ~1958, so perhaps someone has the time to look for this postulated lag.”
I dont understand when you mention “This post” like that?
Where does “this post” suggest we should be “looking for a CO2 lag” ?
William M. Connolley says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:14 am
“Why don’t you check before you snark?”
Regarding Wikipedia; I would never, EVER read ANYTHING regarding climate there.

HenryP says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:19 am
He postulated it, and wrote numerous papers,
all of which I have found wanting. (lack of scientific proof)
better read me
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
and leave the rest behind.
Your discussing absorption of incoming LWR. This is done at high altitude and is not a big player in warming of the lower troposphere due to transportation via convection. It would be like trying to boil water from the top down using a electric bar heater.
You would get a different outcome if you used the heater to warm the water from the bottom up.
Heating the water from the bottom up means the energy must travel through the body of water before surface convection and evaporation can dissipate the energy.
Radiative reflux is a part of the process, as I indicated to Rosco.

matt v. says:
February 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Thanks Matt, if you plot the two series it is also obvious that one can lead the other, but none can be said to be dominate.
I think there are times when the PDO is an after effect of ENSO, but I also think there are times when the reverse is true. The PDO has been leading ENSO recently and I think is responsible for the current back to back La Nina. The warm water in the NW pacific (KOE) is available for ENSO to use, during that time (cool PDO) the warm water which can be transported south encourages more and stronger La Nina and fewer and weaker El Nino.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/pdo_enso.png

Ulric Lyons says:
February 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm
There is no need to get upset, I have merely provided the data, which does not lie. If you wish to draw your own conclusions you are free to do so, likewise are others now that the data is finally presented.
UV IS on a roller coaster, but there are times when it doesn’t make it up the slope, which is the important consideration. It is also important to consider that UV is one part of a proposed mechanism that breaks up the polar vortex and induces contorted jet streams (which is just about to hit Europe again). It is not the sole driver and relies on other components like the QBO and planetary waves, so one would not expect to see a clear correlation. I have provided a table of metrics captured during the so called “great winter freeze of 2012”, check it out you may learn something. Its at the end of the following article.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236

jaypan (February 13, 2012 at 7:43 am) wrote:
“Judith Curry’s conclusion about latest sun-related developments is this:
“The IPCC has framed the climate change problem in the context of anthropogenic forcing, and national funding has followed suit. There has been far too little emphasis on understanding the sun and solar-climate interactions, I see a few signs that this situation is improving.””
There are no signs whatsoever that the situation is improving. Quite the opposite. Whether by naive ignorance or malicious deception, central agencies currently appear to be dictating to the public that the abstract theoretical truth about solar-terrestrial-climate relations is a purely elastic commodity that need not accommodate the reality of geophysical data. For example, see the following 2 articles:
1. http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/
The “uniform 0.1K” solar-terrestrial-climate narrative, strictly inadmissible under geophysical data on the basis of absolute logic, is beyond creepy. Trust obliterated. If Dr. Curry cannot see this with ease, I would suggest (very cordially) that she strive to improve her functional numeracy.
Regards.

Are there some references that I can better understand how CME events (x-ray, solar wind) affects the energy balance on the earth? How does this energy get converted to electromagnetic energy, then eventually to heat?

> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
That post is broken, as I’ve explained before. The clue is in the edit summary linked to: “happily, all that has to go – el rego isn’t an RS”. If you’re interested in the details, see the talk page.

So, How many people are you prepared to kill because you are not prepared to supply a clean form of energy.
HenryP
“I hope they don’t do that.
Not a good idea, nuclear energy.”

mddwave says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm
How does this energy get converted to electromagnetic energy, then eventually to heat?
There is nothing wrong with the Wiki to give you an overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29

Ulric Lyons says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:52 am
Now can you show me any meaningful change in UV from mid to late Jan 2012 that correlates to the change in Arctic pressure ?
I gave you real world measurements (not based on Ceres) of QBO, zonal winds, strat temps, strat ozone, polar vortex heights and jet stream positions for late Jan early Feb, did you not go to my last referenced link.
As far as ozone is concerned it is not as simple as you imply. As per Haigh the ozone levels above 45km increase during low solar and decrease below 45km. There is a steady state of this position but is subject to mixing from below via planetary waves that ultimately disturb the vortex in the north (not south) once the waves are allowed to flow. This mixing shows up at the pole after transport which is seen in the ozone levels I referenced. The QBO was in westerly mode since Jan last year and persisted to about Jan this year, this is what maintained the positive AO for that period. What precise mechanism did you use for your Jan prediction?

@ Matti Vooro = matt v.
Thanks for the article. While some sour commenters regularly push for intellectual sterility, you’re a beacon of awareness that natural recombination’s key to survival. All the best.

JOHN FINN
Good observation. I think the sun actually does add energy to the planet and probably more than we currently recognize even . There is no better example than the biggest El NINO on record 1n 1878. The starting point was the solar cycle # 11 which ran from 1867- 1878. the most active period was from 1869-to 1972 with the max in 1870. Aproximately 9 years later in 1878 you have one of the bigest atmosphere temperature spikes in a very short period. The temperature anomaly [hadcrut 3gl]in 1876 was -0.471 and by 1878/1879 it was around -0.148 C. By 1887 it was down to again to -.461C. The Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures started to go up in1874 and also peaked in 1878 and then went down . So clearly the solar cycle #11 put energy into the Pacific ocean between1869 and 1873 which started to raise the tempearture of the Southern Pacific Ocean and the ocean around the equator region starting in 1975 and atmosphere temperature peaked by 1978 through the release of the heat from the largest El NINO one record . The globaltemperature anomalies were at the lowest during the lagged minimums at the start and end of the cycle and the highest near the maximum ,In my mind the sun is not what moves the enrgy around but is the source of the enrgy. The oceans act as a heat sink and move this heat around and release it to the atmosphere through the El Nino events [ Iam talking about major climate events ] .It takes 4- 6 months for atmosphere to move this heat around the globe after the El Nino.

JOHN FINN
Here is another bit of information about the 1877/1878 super El Nino that I found on WUWT.
” The 1877-1878 EL Nino was the biggest event on record. The [temperature ]anomaly peaked at + 3.4 C in November 1877 and by February 1878, global temperatures had peaked to 0.364 C or 0.7 C above the background temperature of the time .”
The only source of so much heat into the Pacific Ocean , in my judgement was the sun during the previous solar max period of 1869-1872 The issue of Co2 was not an issue then nor is it now , to me at least .

Ulric Lyons says:
February 15, 2012 at 11:43 am
The AO was negative all summer, and can go negative any winter regardless of QBO and ENSO phase. I used the same method as I did for last winter of course, and I got the timing bang on then too.
How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?
Do you have a website that logs all your predictions so we can check, date stamped blog or similar? In the past all you have provided is words, like now when asked what mechanism you used for the forecast (Ceres?)

Ulric Lyons says:
February 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 15, 2012 at 2:01 pm
“How often did the AO go negative from 1980 -2000?”
————————
You should concede that it did go negative last summer rather than throw a pointless question at me. Spot the trends: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25973.gif
Summer is not important as the polar vortex is only mainly affected in winter. The following NAO winter graph (very similar to AO) tells the story.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/winter_nao.png
UV was comparatively high during 1980-2000 so the polar vortex was mainly undisturbed. Solar wind went all over the place during this period.
What we have in common is that we both agree on solar solar forcing. You subscribe purely to UV variation and completely disregard the solar wind, and I subscribe to the solar wind but do not completely dismiss effects of UV but do not see it as at all dominant.
I do not purely subscribe to UV forcing, it is one factor involved IMHO. The PDO being the largest factor. The solar wind (total) is involved in UV forcing but only plays a small role during times of auroral activity. You have not shown a correlation or mechanism between the solar wind speed and ENSO/AO etc, and by using speed only, miss many of the other functions available (density, Bz etc). You might be better off looking at the Kp index or Ap index if looking for atmospheric connections. If so proper documentation of the results is required rather than suggesting eye balling. If you need help to plot the data, just send it to me.
Your weather predictions are meaningless unless they are documented. Start a free wordpress account and start logging them, so you can be tested.

Ulric Lyons says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Its a comedy of errors.
There is no point procrastinating because the data refuses to back up your statements. Whether you use actual HadSST ENSO 4.3 temperature or anomaly data sets the solar wind speed will not correlate. Get over it and move on or produce your own comparison graph proving me wrong.

Ulric Lyons says:
February 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
You have not proved me wrong with the graphs you have provided, but I have proved that your graphs are junk.
My graph is std HadSST ENSO 4.3 temp data and OMNI solar wind speed. You will need to put up or shut on this issue.
I will await your comparison graph. Failure to do so will display your normal tactics…all rhetoric and wild hand waving without a shred of evidence.
We are still waiting for your wordpress type website where your predictions can be logged and measured, or are you going to continue with your snake oil statements?

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 6:38 am
Yes it does, the fall and rise of the solar wind speed is a remarkable fit for the stronger El Nino`s in 97/98 and 09/10: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_25572.gif
and is in anti-phase trends with ENSO for most of the record.
Cherry picking at best. Most of the record shows no correlation.
Sadly it is running well out of sync again with ENSO shifted well ahead of the SW plot, and I really don`t know what to make of the year numbering at the top. You have 1982, 1990, 1997 and 2005 indicated twice. I am beginning to think you have lost the plot.
The data is solid and beyond question. It is also your referenced data. The double dates are just a function of excel because of the 27 day data. You will have to accept the data is correct and shows no correlation, or be judged a fool.
I have email evidence of my winter forecast from at least 8 months back, I told you earlier I can back it up.
Not nearly good enough, a proper record of all predictions is required. Build a website or be subject to future ridicule.

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm
As I said to Phil above “A falling solar wind speed trend can be seen at El Nino episodes in 1965, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 86, 91, 94, 97, 04, 06*, and 09, that is a very large majority.” I was taking you through slowly event by event as you seem to be a bit slow to catch on.
You have already said you dont like the HadSST NINO3.4 raw temperature data so we will need to start with 1982 and the NINO3.4 anomaly data. There is no falling solar wind trend (rising on the inverted data) in 86, 94, 04, 06. Just wishful thinking I think. There is also no falling trend before the 1983, 2003, 2005 and 2007 El Nino’s.
The is also no rising solar wind trend (falling on the inverted data) before the 83-86, 88-90, 95-97, 98-02, 05, 07-09 and 10-11 La Nina periods. All La Nina periods do not show a rising solar wind beforehand. There is also complete disconnects around 94 and 03 showing large spikes in the solar wind without any noticeable change in the ENSO state.
So you can only cherry pick the 98 and 2010 El Nino and at a stretch 92, the rest is just wishful thinking. I have circled some of the dubious areas in the following diagram.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw2.png

Ulric Lyons says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Complete rubbish, you have not provided one graph with the two plots aligned correctly.
Put up or shut up. Show me where I am wrong. All you have displayed is an ignorance of excel and a desperation to falsify the data because it proves your statements incorrect.
You have the data, plot it your way.

URL typo in the previous post.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/nino3.4_anom_sw1.png

Ulric Lyons says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:35 am
You can check the alignment easiest at the peak of the `97/98 El Nino. As said earlier, the peak is late `97, exactly when the SW speed is lowest.
I am clearly talking to a complete idiot and refuse to continue this discussion:

You have obviously not worked with Microsoft excel and experienced some of the inherent downfalls that exist with this product. The Reynolds data I used has been corrupted when performing a zero decimal function on the date column, which looks to have rounded upward instead of removing the decimals, thus explaining the small time shift error with the NINO3.4 data. Once corrected it returns the data back to the original point of 24 hours ago.
You can spit the dummy and take your bat, but in essence nothing has changed, you are disputing fractions as the overall picture is not changed. But I expect you to take this opportunity to point score instead of resolving the scientific method. I will prepare the amended graphs which will be little changed that continue to show solar wind speed has no correlation with ENSO.

Ulric Lyons says:
February 21, 2012 at 6:55 am
Some 8 months out of sync is not a fraction
I apologize for being caught out by an inconsistency with excel. As stated the decimal function rounded up the values in the NINO3.4 date column. The data I was cross checking was corrupted.
The amended graph continues to show a non correlation between NINO3.4 anom and OMNI solar wind speed and is practically the same as the previous comparisons. You have shown no ability or willingness to provide a proper comparison between the 2 data sets which I have attempted to do in good faith, albeit it with a few hiccups along the way. I believe the latest version is accurate and I provide the spreadsheet and graph for anyone that might like to use or check, in the interest of furthering our climate knowledge.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_swind.xls
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/nino3.4_anom_sw3.png

Ulric Lyons says:
February 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
February 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Considering that you are convinced that there is correlation between the size of solar cycles and your power wave: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
I would seek a range of alternative appraisals.
So I will take it by your lack of criticism and refusal to supply your own data, that the amended solar wind speed vs NINO3.4 graph is correct. This should finish any claims on correlation.
I can see you, like Leif has no understanding of the two basic principles of the powerwave. We are not permitted to discuss this theory on WUWT. Have a read of the following article which may help you understand the theory (not holding too many hopes).
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218