Guest post by David Archibald
A number of solar parameters are weak, and none is weaker than the Ap Index:
Figure 1: Ap Index 1932 to 2026
Figure 1 shows the Ap Index from 1932 with a projection to the end of Solar Cycle 24 in 2026. The Ap Index has not risen much above the previous floor of activity in the second half of the 20th Century. It is also now far less volatile. With now less than a year to solar maximum in 2013, the Ap Index is now projected to trail off to a new low next decade.
Figure 2: Mean Field, TSI, F10.7 Flux and Sunspot Count from 2008
This figure is from: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
What is evident from Figure 2 is that the spikes down in the F10.7 flux and sunspot count are almost to absolute minimum levels. The underlying level of activity is only a little above that of solar minimum.
Figure 3: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2026
Similar to the Ap Index, activity is only slightly above levels of previous solar minima. The figure includes a projection to the end of Solar Cycle 24 in 2026 which assumes that the neutron count in the next minimum will be similar to that of the 23/24 minimum. Previous cold periods have been associated with significant spikes in Be10 and C14. Perhaps the neutron count might get much higher yet into the 24/25 minimum.
Figure 4: UAH Monthly Temperature versus Low Global Cloud Cover
The cloud cover data for this figure was provided by Professor Ole Humlum. There is a significant relationship between low global cloud cover and global temperature. Assuming that the relationship is linear and remains linear at higher cloud cover percentages, this figure attempts to derive what cloud cover percentage is required to get the temperature decline of 0.9°C predicted by Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum in their paper entitled “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf
Figure 4 suggests that the predicted result will be associated with a significant increase in cloudiness.
Figure 5: Low Level Cloud Cover plotted against Oulu Neutron Count
This figure, most likely repeating other people’s work, suggests that there is little correlation between neutron count and cloud cover. Higher neutron counts may be a coincident with colder climate than a significant causative factor. Perhaps EUV, the Ap Index and other factors are more significant in climate change. Also, on a planet with a bistable climate of either ice age or interglacial, it may be that accidents of survival of snowpack over the northern summer are also important.
Perth-based scientist David Archibald is a Visiting Fellow of the Institute of World Politics in Washington where he teaches a course in Strategic Energy Policy.
HenryP says:
July 6, 2012 at 10:46 pm
From my experience I would say that in all cases, whether gas, liquid or solid, re-radiation works spherical in every direction, from each molecule, that re-radiates.
But, you still have not told me if my description of what I think you are saying is correct.
To make it easy for you, I’ll break up the description in single points:
1: you say that GHGs reflect [‘deflect’] the radiation back where it came from [hence UV does not reach the ground].
2: Now, the Sun warms the ground [try to walk barefoot on asphalt on a sunny day to verify that]
3: and the hot ground via conduction, convection, and radiation heats the air above it [you can feel the IR radiation from the asphalt by holding your hand a few inches above the ground, and any hot object radiates].
4: Now, according to you, the upwards radiation is ‘deflected’ back to where it came from [the ground],
5: so according to the re-radiation principle, CO2 [and H2O] works its magic by preventing IR from escaping to space [as it is ‘deflected’ back to earth when trying to escape].
6: See, without any textbooks or papers, you have a good explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming,
7: fully in line with the most rabid AGW position.
Now you just have to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to each point for starters. If there be any “Nos” we can discuss these afterwards.
– I have given you all the clues. UV-O2-03 has another chemistry. I am on BB now.
HenryP says:
July 7, 2012 at 3:15 am
– I have given you all the clues. UV-O2-03 has another chemistry. I am on BB now.
But no answers.
I am still on bb. But you must do the tests yourself otherwise you will forget the resullts and next time we argue same points again. Hope that helps. H
HenryP says:
July 7, 2012 at 9:18 am
I am still on bb. But you must do the tests yourself otherwise you will forget the resullts and next time we argue same points again. Hope that helps. H
No, it doesn’t help.
To make it easy for you, I’ll break up the description in single points:
1: you say that GHGs reflect [‘deflect’] the radiation back where it came from [hence UV does not reach the ground].
2: Now, the Sun warms the ground [try to walk barefoot on asphalt on a sunny day to verify that]
3: and the hot ground via conduction, convection, and radiation heats the air above it [you can feel the IR radiation from the asphalt by holding your hand a few inches above the ground, and any hot object radiates].
4: Now, according to you, the upwards radiation is ‘deflected’ back to where it came from [the ground],
5: so according to the re-radiation principle, CO2 [and H2O] works its magic by preventing IR from escaping to space [as it is ‘deflected’ back to earth when trying to escape].
6: See, without any textbooks or papers, you have a good explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming,
7: fully in line with the most rabid AGW position.
Now you just have to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to each point for starters. If there be any “Nos” we can discuss these afterwards.
Bb battery now on red. Go back to previous and get link to my blog on GH effect and re-radiation.
HenryP says:
July 7, 2012 at 9:56 am
Bb battery now on red. Go back to previous and get link to my blog on GH effect and re-radiation.
Your answers would be seven words only. BB can handle that if you can.
Solar-Ozone Graph:
http://i48.tinypic.com/349fbs2.png
Ozone (from KNMI Climate Explorer) hits extrema on odd 1/4-cycles.
__
Related reading:
Coughlin, K.T.; & Tung, K.K. (2005). Empirical mode decomposition of climate variability.
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/coughlin-tungHHT05.pdf
Coughlin, K.T.; & Tung, K.K. (2004). 11-year solar cycle in the stratosphere extracted by the empirical mode decomposition method. Advances in Space Research 34, 323-329.
http://spl.mt.ntnu.edu.tw/courses_data/%E7%A2%A9%E5%A3%AB%E7%8F%AD/99/%E6%9E%97%E5%AE%B6%E9%BD%8A/EMD%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87/EMD/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96/%E7%A0%94%E8%A8%8E%E6%9C%83/11-year%20solar%20cycle%20in%20the%20stratosphere%20extracted%20by%20the%20empirical%20mode%20decomposition%20method.pdf
Coughlin, K.T.; & Tung, K.K. (2004). Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal Of Geophysical Research 109, D21105. doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/coughlin-tung04solar.pdf
( draft version: http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/coughlin04b.pdf )
Paul Vaughan says:
July 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Coughlin, K.T.; & Tung, K.K. (2004). Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal Of Geophysical Research 109, D21105. doi:10.1029/2004JD004873.
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/coughlin-tung04solar.pdf
This almost a decade old. Since the latest minimum was some years later than just extrapolation from previous cycles, a strong test would be if the 4th IMF mode also had its minimum displaced by the same amount. Come back when you have found a reference to a modern paper that shows just that. There is already a beginning problem at the minimum in 1996, as the IMF-4 seems to precede the solar flux, but 2009 would be the real test.
Leif Svalgaard (July 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm) wrote:
“There is already a beginning problem at the minimum in 1996, as the IMF-4 seems to precede the solar flux, but 2009 would be the real test.”
That’s a misinterpretation.
Once again we see you not differentiating between data & stats (which differ fundamentally).
IMF4 is a string of stats (based on a sliding window). Accurate interpretation of stats requires awareness of what goes into them (in this case they centrally summarize a series of events contained in a sliding window, so they do NOT represent something about single, specific events, as do data).
Also keep in mind that we are looking at spatial averages, so our “data” aren’t even data. Almost no one involved in the climate discussion pays sufficient attention to aggregation fundamentals. This is THE main reason why the discussion is such a mess.
The aggregate peaks will vary +/- QBO to LF ENSO. Someone of your rank should be lucidly aware of this.
Solar-Ozone/Wind Graph
http://i48.tinypic.com/349fbs2.png
Ozone’s rate of change is coherent with the solar cycle.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 7, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Once again we see you not differentiating between data & stats (which differ fundamentally).
Data are real, ‘stats’ are fictional. If they are fundamentally different, it is meaningless to plot them on the same graph. Now, will you disagree that if the data and the stats that were roughly in phase for the period until 2004, but go out of phase for the next cycle and thereafter then there is no causal relationship, or will you maintain that a breakdown the phase relationship [breakdown of coherence] does not matter.
The spatial average issue is just irrelevant spatial-temporal mumbo-jumbo. The F10.7 flux is also a spatial average [over the solar disk]. Almost everything you will care to mention is a spatial average [sunspot numbers, geomagnetic activity, cosmic rays, TSI, global temperature, etc]. The ‘aggregation fundamentals’ you rant about are not important conceptual [or even computational] issues.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 7, 2012 at 8:42 pm
IMF4 is a string of stats (based on a sliding window). Accurate interpretation of stats requires awareness of what goes into them (in this case they centrally summarize a series of events contained in a sliding window, so they do NOT represent something about single, specific events, as do data).
If that summary of events go out of phase with the solar flux while they were in phase before, then the supposition that they are causally related break down. As simple as that. The summary is then also ‘data’. Not fundamentally different from a simple running mean.
Henry@Paul
Thx, that looks interesting. I am still on bb, I will study this when I get time. H
@Leif Svalgaard
You’re either missing fundamentals or engaged in deep deception.
Either way, it isn’t sensible to continue dealing with you.
Paul Vaughan says
Ozone’s rate of change is coherent with the solar cycle.
Henry says
I would agree with you on that. I have also noticed that the increase in ozone since 1994 and the rate of increase in ozone since then would explain – to me, and, at this stage, probably to me only – why at around the same time, global cooling has started.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
My mathematics reveals that the parabolic nature of the global warming/cooling shows that some kind of natural process happens on the sun that drives the UV-O2-O3 cycle.\
Obviously the actual “global” cooling is still so little as to go largely unnoticed
it is only about 0.2 degees C since 2000
which falls even within the modern error of thermometers
(I suspect the error on what we get from the satellites might be even worse than 0.2 degrees C)
What puzzles me is why ozone continues to creep up now? I think we have to exclude man-made CFC’s as a cause,
as I said,
because of the nature of the global warming – cooling as discovered by myself.
HenryP says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:48 am
My mathematics reveals that the parabolic nature of the global warming/cooling shows that some kind of natural process happens on the sun that drives the UV-…
You seem to be in good shape to answer my seven questions:
1: you say that GHGs reflect [‘deflect’] the radiation back where it came from [hence UV does not reach the ground].
2: Now, the Sun warms the ground [try to walk barefoot on asphalt on a sunny day to verify that]
3: and the hot ground via conduction, convection, and radiation heats the air above it [you can feel the IR radiation from the asphalt by holding your hand a few inches above the ground, and any hot object radiates].
4: Now, according to you, the upwards radiation is ‘deflected’ back to where it came from [the ground],
5: so according to the re-radiation principle, CO2 [and H2O] works its magic by preventing IR from escaping to space [as it is ‘deflected’ back to earth when trying to escape].
6: See, without any textbooks or papers, you have a good explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming,
7: fully in line with the most rabid AGW position.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 8, 2012 at 12:49 am
You’re either missing fundamentals or engaged in deep deception.
and
IMF4 is a string of stats (based on a sliding window). Accurate interpretation of stats requires awareness of what goes into them (in this case they centrally summarize a series of events contained in a sliding window, so they do NOT represent something about single, specific events, as do data).
The solar flux is then also a string of stats [based on a sliding wind of half a solar rotation on a spatial average over the disk] centrally summarizing the series of microwave emission events within the window]. The purpose of Tung’s Figure was surely to show the phase coincidence [coherence of the signals, if you understand that better] between the two stats, solar flux and IMF-4. Since the latest minimum in the flux stat [2009] is several years later that the extrapolation of the of the 10-yr cycle would give, the minimum of the IMF-4 stat would also expected to be similarly delayed, if there is a physical causal relationship. If so, that would be strong support for causality. If not, causality can be excluded. It is perhaps telling that Tung has not published [AFAIK] on this using up-to-date data.
Henry@leif
Nope. Back on bb now. I’ve given u all clues to find the treasure. Obviously you did not get that I am here to pick brains of people who thought abt what I had been thinking about.
HenryP says:
July 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Obviously you did not get that I am here to pick brains of people who thought abt what I had been thinking about.
In a previous post you said you were here to teach us all about it. One can only comment on something you have have expressed clearly, so, here is another chance:
1: you say that GHGs reflect [‘deflect’] the radiation back where it came from [hence UV does not reach the ground].
2: Now, the Sun warms the ground [try to walk barefoot on asphalt on a sunny day to verify that]
3: and the hot ground via conduction, convection, and radiation heats the air above it [you can feel the IR radiation from the asphalt by holding your hand a few inches above the ground, and any hot object radiates].
4: Now, according to you, the upwards radiation is ‘deflected’ back to where it came from [the ground],
5: so according to the re-radiation principle, CO2 [and H2O] works its magic by preventing IR from escaping to space [as it is ‘deflected’ back to earth when trying to escape].
6: See, without any textbooks or papers, you have a good explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming,
7: fully in line with the most rabid AGW position.
Now, it is OK if you give up and confess that you are not up to answering.
HenryP (July 8, 2012 at 10:48 am) wrote:
“[,,,] increase in ozone since 1994 […]”
The changepoint is ~1997.
If you’re seeing 1994, that’s distorted by QBO & solar.
Regards.
@Leif Svalgaard
Your interpretation of the window summaries is not sound.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:43 am
@Leif Svalgaard
Your interpretation of the window summaries is not sound.
Nonsense. but you are ducking the issue: Do you disagree that Tung was trying to show phase coherence between IMF-4 and F10.7 and that if such coherence fails for the 2009 [and later] minima, causality is weakened?
Leif says:
One can only comment on something you have have expressed clearly, so, here is another chance:
Henry says: I WILL try again, in capitals, PERHAPS THAT HELPS.
1: you say that GHGs reflect [‘deflect’] the radiation back where it came from [hence UV does not reach the ground].
I REFERRED TO THIS IN MY REPORT, SEE LINK BELOW, WHERE IT EVEN STARTS WITH A POPULAR DEFINITION OF THE GH EFFECT.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
NOTE: THERE IS ADDITIONAL CHEMISTRY GOING ON, ON TOP, NAMELY
UV (THIS INCLUDES THE UV RE-RADIATED BY O3!!!) + 3O2 => 2O3
2: Now, the Sun warms the ground [try to walk barefoot on asphalt on a sunny day to verify that]
I GAVE YOU A WHOLE EXPERIMENT TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT HAPPENS
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/the-sun-has-changed-its-character/#comment-1025746
3: and the hot ground via conduction, convection, and radiation heats the air above it [you can feel the IR radiation from the asphalt by holding your hand a few inches above the ground, and any hot object radiates]. CONDUCTION BY ASPHALT: NOT MUCH. CONVECTION IN THE STREET: DON’T THINK SO.
RE-RADIATION (= RE-EMISSION = DEFLECTION) : YES
4: Now, according to you, the upwards radiation is ‘deflected’ back to where it came from [the ground],
YES, IF, ON THE WAY UP, IT (=THE IR RADIATION 5-15 UM FROM THE STREET ) HITS ON CLOUDS OR WATER VAPOR OR OTHER GHG’S IT COMES BACK TO THE GROUND.
5: so according to the re-radiation principle, CO2 [and H2O] works its magic by preventing IR from escaping to space [as it is ‘deflected’ back to earth when trying to escape].
H2O VAPOR IS MAJOR COMPONENT, CA. 0.5% ON AVERAGE, EXCLUDING CLOUDS!!!), CO2 IS MINOR COMPONENT, 0.04%.
FROM 1960 TO 2012 CO2 INCREASED FROM 0.03 TO 0.04%
BOTH CO2 AND H2O ALSO HAVE ABSORPTIONS IN THE SUN’S EMISSION SPECTRUM REGION 0.0-5.0 UM, MEANING THEY ALSO DEFLECT SUNLIGHT BY RE-RADIATION
6: See, without any textbooks or papers, you have a good explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming,
MY LATEST RESULTS SHOW THAT EARTH IS COOLING!
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
AND IT FOLLOWS A NATURAL LOOKING CURVE……
7: fully in line with the most rabid AGW position.
YOU (OR ANYONE BELIEVING IN AGW ) MUST FIRST PROVE (TO ME) THAT THE NET EFFECT OF MORE OF A PARTICULAR GHG IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS ONE OF WARMING OR COOLING
WHERE ARE THE TEST RESULTS WITH THE BALANCE SHEETS ON THE WARMING AND COOLING OF EACH GHG?
LOOKING AT ALL MY RESULTS I SAY THERE IS NO AGW, THERE NEVER WAS.
THERE IS ONLY NATURAL GW AND NATURAL GC.
THE ONLY AGW THERE IS YOU REMOVING A LOT MORE SNOW NEXT WINTER.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
HOPE THIS HELPS.
HenryP says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:07 am
Henry says: I WILL try again, in capitals, PERHAPS THAT HELPS.
Instead of seven ‘yes’ or ‘no’ you go off on tangents, so, no, it didn’t help. Now, try again. You may even capitalize the YES and NOs.
Henry@Leif
Clearly you know it all. I will leave it as stands for others to learn something from it.
HenryP says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:52 am
Clearly you know it all. I will leave it as stands for others to learn something from it.
We want to learn how much YOU know, so please answer with seven YES or NOs.