When will it start cooling?

So you are saying any time now? Does this mean likley weasily seen lower values in 2013 or are we looking at 2015+ before the global averages befgin to drop? Waht are teh oveans doing? Last I heard to total heat content of the Pacific was significantly down and could be linked to the drought conditions in much of North America.

The ocean page is showing that the oceans are not hot. The only warm water is gathered around very northern climes, much of it impinging on the arctic.
This is not a good place for warm water to expect a long life. The temperature of the ocean off the West Coast of USA is cool to say the least. Australia is suffering a very cold winter even in tropical and sub tropical areas. I think the cooling has already started and it is only fudged thermometers that is saying different.

”Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.” — David Archibald – March, 2008

(International Conference on Climate Change – Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States)

So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5
Solar cycle 5 is VERY uncertain http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-1785-1810.png so ‘almost exactly’ is not really applicable [and SC5 was not 17 years long]. SC24 may look more like cycle 14 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png

The solar polar field strength
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
shows that the last 3 reversals occurred on approx. 1980, 1990 and 2000, with a periodicity of ~ 10 years between them, and the inclination of the curve of the polar field with time pretty much defined the rate at which the field would evolve (up or down) into the next period- it’s a straight line at the point of reversal.
The reversal of cycle-24 has not occurred yet and we are nearly 13 years after the last one and the rate of change of the polar field is decreasing (on the average) with time, while in the previous cycles it showed a tendency to increase when approaching the point of reversal.
This seems to suggest that we could have to wait a lot more for the reversal to occur (if it occurs) and, similarly to what happened in the previous cycles, we would be entering a period when the polar field would stay for a long time close to zero after the reversal.
This sounds like a grand minimum of Maunder type to me, which would also be in agreement with the initial predictions/suggestions of the original Livingston-Penn paper, which put a deadline, so to speak, in 2015 after which the sunspots would not be observed for some time.

Thanks, very interesting!
Habibullo Abdussamatov has predicted the temperature fall for around 2014.

@climatereason says:August 13, 2012 at 4:35 am
“According to the Met Office the UK has been cooling since the year 2000. Our temperature anomaly is now the same as during the 1730′s”
The analysis of Artic seaice extent of the Met Office seems more reliable than the NOAA analysis in my opinion:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
It shows a coherent prompt response of the ice extent to solar radiation in the last 30 years, which is also coherent with the increased snowfall in Alaska since 2008. The graph of NOAA simply shows nothing. (or, possibly, some political bias mixed with the data… )

A friend of mine bought a snow blower a year and a half ago, after the brutal winter. I don’t think he got to use it this last winter.
I just bought a new air conditioner for my house, so the cooling should start in 3 … 2 … 1 …

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:29 am
It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.
Or rather, that the prediction is already rapidly proving wrong.
However, we keep getting the word that UHI temps have polluted the average temperature change, and are not a measurement to which we depend to make. In the last century having had a more active sun followed by an increase in global temp, would we not expect that if Mr. sunshine takes a nap that there would follow over time less warming/more cooling?
Furthermore, in reading news from outside the US mainstream media that ignores anything like what happen last winter in SE Europe etc. And as another mentioned happening in Australia, S. Africa, etc. Maybe the old timers in Alaska fishing industry who claim last winter Bering Sea ice was more than they had ever seen should be a consideration as well. Just these little examples that are outside the “lab” that have real time effects on life.
All the “experts” have a scattering of reasons for their “but” arguing. BUT … so do the folks who experience changes in weather where they live a life time. Do the local lakes freeze over in winter? Nope… did they 60 years ago yep. Simple real life observations. BUT… 🙂

It wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t cool, or cools very little and for a short period of time. If the amount of warming we get from CO2, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and methane is toward the low end of projections — perhaps even close to Richard Lindzen’s projections — we are still in a warming world. Unless the solar influence is quite a bit larger than most of the solar community think, then to me it would make sense that cooling due to the current solar cycle might not be enough to cool the earth, but might be enough to cancel warming for a few years, everything else equal. That may be what we have been seeing the last few years.
Everything else may not be equal. Real data is the only thing that matters to me at this point. We haven’t seen warming for about 15 years. Arctic sea ice is now lower than during the previous low period, 2007. Chinese sulfate emissions have been steadily increasing. The PDO switched modes about 15 years go. Lots of moving parts. I don’t want to prejudge, let’s just see what happens going forward.

David Archibald, HenryP & Leif Svalgaard:
Thanks. I always enjoy these reasoned discussions. You all provide some food for thought.
Cheers and may it be the temp you want where you are for water or snow skiing.

Let’s hope it doesn’t start cooling soon as it would be devastating for the poor frogs whose decline was previously blamed on global warming.

BBC, Roger Black, 12 August 2012
More changeable temperatures, a consequence of global warming, may be helping to abet the threat that a lethal fungal disease poses to frogs……………..
On its own, the fungus fared better in cooler conditions, and when the temperature changes were regular.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19199197

When will we have the data to test this hypothesis? Do we have to wait until 2050?

The warmist crowd can move back into their caves.

DaveBurton, Clouds will complicate the feedbacks for the Arctic just as they do elsewhere. More open water means more evaporation which means potentially more clouds which means less sunlight reaching the ocean surface. Or more open water means more evaporation which means more rain in the summer and more snow in early winter which means less overall clouds and more sunlight reaching the ocean surface. This kind of handwaving has already been used to justify greater NH snowfall in the recent past. However, I believe that the reality is complex enough that I don’t think one can simply stare at the ceiling and say exactly what will happen. We need to know a lot more than we already do.

Lawrence beatty says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:04 am
All good points but I think the answer is as follows:
i) A quieter sun seems to cause more meridional jets in the mid latitudes with larger polar air masses developing at the expense of smaller equatorial air masses. In the process I suspect that the net latitudinal position of the jets and all the climate zones shift equatorward. I have proposed a possible mechanism previously. Svensmark’s cosmic rays are unlikely to be the cause, I think they are just a coincidental proxy for other mechanisms but there may be a small contribution. More likely is differential effects on ozone concentrations at different heights in the atmosphere which alter the vertical temperature profile.The gradient of the tropopause height changes between equator and pole to allow latitudinal sliding of the climate zones beneath the tropopause.That alters the rate of energy flow from surface to space.An entirely negative system response which serves to ensure long term system stability whatever the forcing mechanism. The baseline is set by atmospheric pressure at the surface but that is for another day.
ii) Either way, the effect is to increase the length of the lines of air mass mixing to produce more clouds globally. There is evidence that there have been more meridional jets and increased global cloudiness with higher global albedo since around 2000.
iii) As you say, clouds both insulate and reflect but insulation only slows the rate at which energy is lost from the system (primarily the oceans) whereas reflection denies energy to the system altogether so over enough time the cumulative effect is net system cooling.
iv) That solar effect on albedo skews the net thermal effect of the ENSO process towards warming El Ninos if the sun is active and towards cooling La Ninas if the sun is inactive. Changes in albedo have most effect either side of the equator where the ENSO phenomenon is generated.
iv) The logical implication is that a quiet sun encourages net system cooling by increasing global albedo for less energy into the oceans. An active sun does the opposite.The only remaining issue is as to the length of the lag times. On the basis of the 1997/8 El Nino having caused the 2007 Arctic ice loss about ten years seem right.I expect the effect of trhe recent solar minimum with the record negative Arctic Oscillation to show its full effect in about 8 years time.
I think David is correct in general terms but the precise values need to be ascertained from future observations. I would be surprised if he is exactly correct but he is surely on the right track.

HenryP says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:01 am
cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.
_________________________
Beat me to it. The record snowfall is not melting out: Accuweather.com: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year

… The all-time record snowfall of 133.6 inches last winter – just over 11 feet – could give Anchorage an endless winter….The combination of heavy snowfall and a cool spring caused the lingering snow, said United States Department of Agriculture Snow Survey Supervisor Rick McClure. He said that it’s unusual to see snow still remaining in some of the mountains that surround Anchorage…

Given the oceans act as a giant hot watter bottle, I would not expect to see cooling temperatures from a quiet sun to be evident short term.
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere….

The Graphs in the article of the “Energy emitted by the upper atmosphere as infrared (IR) radiation in 2002 (top) and 2008 (bottom)” are interesting since they show a decrease with Nitric Oxide (NO) as the IR emitter in one set of graphs and CO2 as the IR emitter in the other set of graphs.

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
Abstract
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. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least 1.0 ◦ C from solar cycle 23 to 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal…..

Here is one for Vukcevic if he has not seen it already: NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered

…”At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
The magnetosphere is a bubble of magnetism that surrounds Earth and protects us from solar wind. Exploring the bubble is a key goal of the THEMIS mission, launched in February 2007. The big discovery came on June 3, 2007, when the five probes serendipitously flew through the breach just as it was opening. Onboard sensors recorded a torrent of solar wind particles streaming into the magnetosphere, signaling an event of unexpected size and importance…..

HenryP says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:44 am
Henry@jose
Now, can you bring me the calibration certificate of the thermometer that they used in 1730?
_______________________
Spoken like a true chemist.

MiCro
I have been trying to tell AGW proponents for some years that warm water surfaces at the North Pole where the sun is weakest are going to accelerate system cooling rather than warming.
The extra sunlight into the water in high summer will be more than offset by more heat loss to the air in spring and autumn. Indeed even in high summer the heat loss from the exposed water might exceed the extra energy in from sunlight.
My favourite analogy is the speed at which a bald man can lose body heat when going without a hat in cold weather.Any extra light on his head will count for nothing.
I see the current low levels of Arctic ice as draining energy from the currently warm north atlantic more quickly whilst at the same time the available replacement energy from equatorial regions is being depleted by increased global cloudiness skewing ENSO in favour of cooling La Ninas.
I expect a drop in global air temperatures as soon as the cooling of the north atlantic combines with the cooling observed in parts of the equatorial oceans.
Many are suggesting a noticeable impact within 2 years and I think that is a reasonable estimate but the oceans are a big energy store so it could be up to another 8 years for the main event. That is just a guess though, it might well be sooner.

“If there is anything to read so quickly into the lack of cooling, I would say it provides a modicum of support for Nir Shaviv’s estimate that solar variation and CO2 have similarly sized effects on climate.”
I’m doubtful that they are anywhere close to similar.
If one looks at the size of the climate zone and jetstream shifts from MWP to LIA and LIA to date they appear to be in the region of 1000 miles latitudinally.
I accept that in principle more CO2 from human emissions should cause a system response but on what scale ?
The climate zones moved poleward when the sun was active and seem now to be moving back equatorward with the less active sun.
Our CO2 emissions seems to have made no difference to the change in trend since around 2000.
If forced to guess I’d say that our emissions might shift the system up to a mile as compared to the 1000 mile shifts from sun and oceans.
During ice age / interglacial transitions I suspect shifts of well over 1000 miles latitudinally.

Gail Combs says:
August 13, 2012 at 11:15 am
NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
…”At first I didn’t believe it,” says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction.”
This is just the usual NASA hype. No alteration is needed. That the magnetosphere opens up when the magnetic field in the solar wind turns southwards was predicted by Dungey in 1961 and proven by in-situ measurements in 1968.

Henry@lawrence beatty
Nothing “daft” if you come here to find out something.
I have come to believe that the effect of more or less clouds and cloudiness may sort of cancel each other out, if there is more or less of it. During the day, when there is “more” clouds you do get more deflection of sunlight. But during the night, it traps more heat. So which effect is more?
Studying my own results,
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I think the effect of more or less clouds is minor.
There is a clear natural relationship, parabolic, nogal, when you plot the change in maxima in degrees C per annum against time. Checking my current zero point on the x-axis I find that earth has started getting less energy from the sun around 1995 and checking my zero point on the y-axis (2012) I find that it is currently cooling by about -0.08 degree C per annum on the maxima. The nature of the graph for means is one that lags a bit on the graph for maxima: earth has a store where it keeps its energy and a lot of that energy only comes out a bit later. I would generally agree with the available datasets like RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 that maximum energy output by earth must have been a few years after 1995. But it will soon pick up on that fall in the maxima. In fact, I think it is happening already. There is simply less energy coming through. I am surprised that nobody has picked it up yet. I am still studying the reasons, but the Sun-UV-ozone cycle and/or the shrinking of the atmosphere, either way, creating (relatively) more ozone in the upper atmosphere, is the most likely cause for the cooling.
My results also seem to indicate that it is not one single sun cycle that brought us here, in a cooling zone. We were warming from about 1944 to 1995. We are now cycling back and (I gather) around 2045 we will be back where we were in 1945. Those old enough will remember that the winter of 1944 was bitterly cold. In Europe they called it the “hunger” winter. Many people lost their lives, not (only)because of the war, but because of the cold and the lack of food….

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 11:36 am
Our definition of a solar cycle is based on past experience. But as any investment company will tell you, past performance is no guarantee of future trends.
Tell that to Archibald. I count four ‘may be’s in your comment. Too many weasel words for my taste.
Your example is flawed, as solar cycles are based on physics while investments are not.
I would expect the split to be more even this time….Expect the unexpected.
So your expectation is not based on anything.

HenryP says:
August 13, 2012 at 11:45 am
“During the day, when there is “more” clouds you do get more deflection of sunlight. But during the night, it traps more heat. So which effect is more?”
My studies of the difference in Daily Rising temps minus Daily Falling temps (follow the link in my name) shows very little difference between the two.
In fact if anything, periods where there’s a little more cooling, temperatures seem to go up.

Gail Combs says
HenryP says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:01 am
cooling in Alaska, Anchorage, is worrying. Check my tables.
_________________________
Beat me to it. The record snowfall is not melting out: Accuweather.com: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year
Henry says
Hi Gail, I think they are still very optimistic if they think that it (the heavy snow cover on Anchorage mountains) is only for one year. My results show a clear continuous cooling trend there. If I were living there, I would seriously consider packing my bags. Because we have not even seen the worst yet, not for a long, long, time….I reckon only in 2045 will we see warming coming back again.
(On the Norwegian arctic the trend is different because -I suspect- they pick up some heat from the increased condensation due to the cooling of earth, going in that direction, in general; that also seems to apply to the USA east coast)

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Which is why there are as many opinions about the Sun’s physics as there are solar physicists.
Obviously not true.
I was referring to your assumption that cycle 24 will be short because there has been a lull in activity after mid 2011 which you believe to be ‘solar maximum’.
SC24 will not be ‘short’. It will be what small cycles are: longish, but not 17 years, thus shorter than Archibald’s claim. The polar fields reverse at maximum and are reversing in the North right now, so the North has maximum. The South is likely a year away.
My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
the solar-planetary ‘theory’ is nonsense and has no predictive power.

I don’t normally participate in these solar discussions, but I’ll point out one thing.
Annual average temperature is a meaningless metric for whether the climate is warming or cooling. You need to look at winter averages, because any warming in the rest of the year not retained in the winter is ‘heat’ that isn’t retained in the climate system for more than a year, and thus irrelevant to whether the climate is warming/cooling over longer timescales.
And I think you will find winter averages have indeed cooled markedly in recent years.

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
My own expectations are based on the solar-planetary theory, which has proven itself better able to make predictions of solar activity than the dynamologists can.
The dynamo theory prediction of SC24 is borne out quite well. So, if your expectations do not come to pass you will claim that solar-planetary theory has been falsified.

matt v. says:
August 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm
The global SST is again rising this year but was dropping between 2002 and 2011.
‘Rising’ compared to what? Here is how I see the overall picture. With the sea surface anomaly for June at 0.351, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.242 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351)/6 = 0.276. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.63. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. Sea surface temperatures are flat since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June). (I realize the last 3 months are not on WFT, but knowing their values, I know the slope would be flat to June had they been present.) See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
My “feeling” is that the Sun orbiting around the CoG of the Solar System would have an impact on both it’s fusion engine, as well as it’s circulatory patterns, and graphs of solar activity seem to follow planetary configurations. Why should I believe it’s nonsense?
Because the Sun is in free fall and feel no forces [except extremely small tidal forces]. Also, any changes in the core of sun would take hundreds of thousands of years to make their way to the surface.

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm
It would help if you could remember what you wrote.
Anybody can just check the comments to see your misrepresentations for themselves.
“SC24 will be about 12 years as small cycles usually are.”
I’ll nail that to the predictions page on the blog, thanks.
Remember to give me due credit as the predication comes to pass.

Thank goodness for the current, weak El Nino. If not for that, we’d be screwed.

“My papers and those of Jan-Erik Solheim et al predict a significant cooling over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. Solheim’s model predicts that Solar Cycle 24, for the northern hemisphere, will be 0.9º C cooler than Solar Cycle 23. It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”
0.9 C ? That would take the northern hemisphere back to the mean seen about a century ago
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif
We have just been through a prolonged solar minimum and there was no/very slight cooling. The solar min was more likely a factor in the temperature standstill seen since 2003, countering the rise in CO2 concentration.
Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf
found a global warming signal of 0.18 C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle with larger changes near the poles, but nowhere near 0.9 C over a whole hemisphere.
This rather gives the game away:-
“It hasn’t cooled yet and we are three and a half years into the current cycle. The longer the temperature stays where it is, the more cooling has to come over the rest of the cycle for the predicted average reduction to occur.”
Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:48 pm
my blog covering peer reviewed papers from people better qualified to elucidate the possible physical mechanisms than Leif.
What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Gough-Comment-on-Wolff-Patrone.doc
“I have no advice to offer the authors that I believe they might take. What they should do is go back to the original publications of Rayleigh and Chandrasekhar and try to understand them. If they succeed, and if they are honest, they would then withdraw the paper.”
I have not seen the retraction. Perhaps you could provide a link…

MiCro says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:05 pm
It’s in free fall until it has to change direction since the CoG is moving.
Not at all. an astronaut is weightless because he is in free fall. The CoG of him and the Earth is moving too as the astronaut circles the Earth.

James Abbott says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Or the prediction was completely wrong and is really speculation/wishful thinking.
Indeed. Now, this is, of course, testable. In a few years we shall know. Note, however that by postulating longer and longer cycles, the moment of reckoning is pushed further and further out.

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Equating a two body problem with constant accelerations with the Sun’s situation caught betwixt nine large planets all moving at different velocities is a problematic oversimplification.
Make the astronaut’s orbit non-circular. It makes no difference. And there are not nine large planets, they are a thousandth or less the solar mass and are far away. And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].

As can be seen, for example, at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=2008&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on in this year so far 2% more cosmic rays have been deflected on average than in 2011, and solar activity is still rising at the moment. Perhaps it will peak by the May 2013 prediction though. Solar-GCR effects are superimposed upon the 60-year ocean cycle, while on shorter timescales there is the ENSO oscillation.
The 60-year ocean cycle’s impact appears on such as the high temperatures in the late 1930s-1940s then also more recently. One good example is http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif first for the arctic (showing temperatures then were comparably warm to more recent temperatures), and, secondly, for the average over the Northern Hemisphere as a whole when without dishonest revisionism of past temperature measurements, in http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg (original National Academy of Sciences graph before the political era) when combined with http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg as well as the other data referenced in my comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick
Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades. (That’s without trying to take into account the ENSO, though, so personally I wouldn’t count on single-year precision but just wager sometime between 2013 and 2016 as about the start, since the AMO will be going down too). We need the current solar cycle to peak first.
His estimate extends to:
“The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop [starting] in approximately 2014.” “The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
With that said, even though I would describe the past decade or so mostly as a plateau (and near the AMO oscillation index high point), temperatures have bordered on cooling since the 1997 albedo (cloud cover) change and the 1998 El Nino, as seen in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend for RSS satellite data while there is also what HenryP’s data shows.

tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Equating a two body problem…
And it is not a two-body problem. Rather a three-body problem as the astronaut is in free fall in the combined gravitational field of the Earth and the Moon. Or a four-body problem if you include the Sun, or a MANY-body if you include the 588618 asteroids, 3157 comets, 176 planetary satellites, 8 planets, and the [large] Sun known today. None of this matters, as it didn’t matter to Gravity-B http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Dr. Abdussamatov predicts cooling to start around 2014, with cooling rising over subsequent years and decades … http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
His prediction is based on [see his Figures 1 and 2] an assumed decrease of TSI during the last minimum. This decrease did not happen. It is an artifact due to the erroneous assumption that an instrument that is not exposed to solar radiation [but still in space] does not degrade. This assumption has been shown to be incorrect [and so is Abdussamatov]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf slides 31 and 33: “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008”.

E.M.Smith says:
August 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm
the oceans smear the process out over that flow pattern by about 1998 to 2055… But we’re past the hump and headed (slowly) down.
The issue is if we’ll cool by one degree in the next decade as Archibald speculates [due to the sun, there might be other reasons]. I think we’ll not cool that much due to lower solar activity, if you think otherwise and support Archibald, tell us.

In his announcement last year, Altrock said that the progress of the green corona emissions was 40% slower than the previous two cycles. All things being equal, that means that Solar Cycle 24 would be 40% longer than the previous two cycles, which makes it 17 years long. For all things not to be equal, it would have to either speed up or stop short of 10 degrees. Hell’s bells, from that 17 year figure, we even know the year of Solar Cycle 25 maximum, which is 2032. There is a 17 year period in the numbered solar cycles, from the maximum of Solar Cycle 4 to the maximum of Solar Cycle 5.
In other news, I am now a DC academic: http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/page/David-Archibald. The Institute of World Politics is a graduate school for all US intelligences agencies, the State Department and Department of Defense. Gail Combs please email me at david.archibald@westnet.com.au

If the Svensmark theory is correct, I think we should be looking at plots of cosmic radiation intensity for a clue on this issue. That should be the bottom line. In his video, ‘The Cloud Mystery,’ he shows a full cycle of close correlation between global cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity at about the 9:20 minute mark. For most other correlations used in ‘Climate Science’ our non-proxy observation window is less than a quarter of a cycle.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
One thing I seem to note is that there appears to be no clear comprehensive theory of water vapor condensation presented in basic meteorology texts. If condensation is controlled by cosmic radiation flux, then relative humidity depends on the cosmic ray intensity as clouds begin to form when the water vapor concentration is such that the rate of condensation exceeds the rate of evaporation at any given temperature and cosmic radiation controls the the rate of condensation. I think this would make the real moist adiabatic lapse rate dependent on the cosmic radiation flux.
My personal thought is that this effect may affect temperatures more by promoting thermal convection rather than by the equal opportunity cloud reflection of sunlight coming down and long-wave infra-red radiation going up from the Earth. The thermal time delay of this effect may, in part, be due to the time required for the atmosphere to respond to changes in environmental lapse rate forcing.

Dr. Abdussamatov’s data has cycles 22 and 23 being merely just 0.17 W/m^2 apart on average as seen in figure 2 of his paper at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
He is chief of solar research done through the Russian segment of the International Space Station, as in http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
The publication you linked, right after saying the difference between 1996 and 2008 minima in TSI was not measurable (because they were so similar in W/m^2) emphasizes “When assessing long term trends, allow for an uncertainty of at least 0.2 W/m2 for the 1996 solar minimum!” (Elsewhere, uncertainties of “typically 300 ppm (0.4 W/m^2)” are referenced in it). http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf
Even before getting into the topic of different instruments being referenced, that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.
Where matters get far more interesting, where Dr. Abdussamatov has major predictions in contrast, is for this current cycle 24 and beyond.
Like http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1995&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=08&endyear=2012&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on suggests, the magnitude of vastly more major difference between the last solar cycle 23 and this cycle 24 is striking.

Leif Svalgaard wrote:
“And it wouldn’t matter anyway. All the bodies are in free fall in their combined gravitational field [omitting tiny general relativity effects].”
Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.
The Moon, via interaction with the liquid parts of the Earth’s mass, takes energy from the spin of the earth and adds it to its orbital speed: the Moon moves further away and the days on Earth get longer. The interiors of the Jovian moons are heated and melted by the complex gravitational tugging within that system. The liquid interior of Jupiter is moved and heated by those moons, and we do not know enough to say how significant is the effect.
So the statement that the Sun is in free fall has no bearing on the possibility of it being internally affected in some way by the actions of the planets. The (solar system) centre of mass being inside and outside the variable liquid body of the Sun by 0.13 solar radius and 1.98 solar radius over a short period of years, is interesting enough to investigate any correlations of planetary positions and solar activity.
Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.

Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm
that is not disproving Dr. Abdussamatov’s data: His data has cycles 22 and 23 nearly identical in averages/minimum W/m^2, and so does their data within its stated margin of error.
His Figure 1 shows that the minimum value of TSI was significantly lower for the 23/24 minimum than for the previous minima. This difference is the basis for his extrapolation. Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.
PJF says:
August 13, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Being in free fall in their combined gravitational field does not preclude objects affecting other objects in ways other than orbital motion.
I carefully said ‘except for tidal forces’. The examples you mention are all due to tides. The magnitude of tides can be calculated, and the largest tidal bulge is that raised by Jupiter [the next one is by by Venus] and is less than one millimeter high.
Solar activity is clearly dominated by the Sun’s internal processes but that does not preclude outside effect being significant.
Outside effects are there, no doubt, but are of such low magnitude that they have no detectable effect. There are also the effect of Sirius-shine on the Sun. When Jupiter is between the Sun and the star Sirius, Sirius-shine is reduced. This is an indisputable fact, but when you put numbers on it, you will find such a vanishing variation that there is no detectable effect. As your comment shows, that does not deter people from believing weird stuff.

AJB wrote”
“Hard to tell with the south pole tipped away from us at the moment but do you really think it’ll take another year for it to switch? Looks to be happening fairly quickly.”
Oh darn. I hope it the southern hemisphere tips back towards us here in the northern hemisphere soon, so we’re both tipped in the same direction.

Ninderthana says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Look very closely at your following words since you are going to be eating them very soon…..
I think you have my motivation backwards here. I am in the business of predicting solar activity. Anything that can help with that, I would welcome. If planetary influence could be in fact observed and established, we could separate those from the internally generated causes and open a new window on the physics of the sun and stars. Unfortunately, no such elucidation has been forthcoming in the 150 years the hypothesis has been around. The subject has been hijacked by eager dilettantes pushing nonsense bordering on astrology and no progress has been made [except in their own minds – where anything goes]. Papers are from time to time published in second-rate journals [sometimes after repeated rejections by reputable journals – perhaps that is what you have stumbled upon], but there is none of what characterizes true science: quantitative analysis, sound physics, and building on a common, ever expanding body of knowledge.

Great job Professor Archibald, although you truly are [url=http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/tag/david-archibald/]hiding your light under a bushel.[/url]

When comparing SC24 with cycles before 1945 it is necessary to discount the Waldmeier factor and the increased speck ratio we experience today to compare apples with apples. David and Vuk have both made that mistake when using the SIDC values for SC24. When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
I see Leif is still peddling the same rhetoric, I remember statements he made in the past like, SC24 will not be part of a grand minimum and that SC25 was going to be a large cycle. His side of science can only guess. Based on sound data the current cycle and SC25 will be weak with a recovery during SC26. This makes this period weaker than the Dalton and much weaker than the Maunder, so perhaps don’t expect too much cooling.
Interesting that David is going for a 17 year length for SC24, I thought the Ed Fix model was predicting a very short cycle length?

Mike J says, August 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm
South pole will be max 7.25° inclined towards earth again on March 7th. Plenty of time to darn old socks.

EM Smith says
“We started cooling in 1998 (all down hill from there..”
Hmm, according to GISS, UAH and BEST we haven’t been cooling since 1998, we’ve been warming. But not so according to HadCRU3 and RSS (although updated HadCRU4 says yes to warming since 1998).
Ocean Heat Content (<750 meters or <2000 meters. take your pick) has warmed since 1998.
So it's not *all* downhill. Which data stream is the right one, EM?

Henry Clark says:
August 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Actually the data referenced in his paper implies the 23/24 minimum was around 0.26 W/m^2 less than the previous minimum. If you want, you can call that “significantly lower,” but you are trying to disprove the Russian data…
That is a quarter of the solar cycle variation so is significant. But there are no Russian data involved. He used the PMOD [of Froehlich] composite for his extrapolation. PMOD has now been shown to be wrongly compensated for instrument degradation [as I also showed long ago: http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf
So no long-term decline has been observed, hence the basis for the extrapolation has gone away.
Geoff Sharp says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:43 am
When the comparison is done correctly SC24 is very very close to SC5….so far.
Except that we have very little actual data for SC5. Here are the various attempts to reconstruct SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png so to claim that something is ‘very very close’ is meaningless.
tallbloke says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
“What did Wolff and Patrone say about Gough’s debunking of their paper”
They said they’d not had such a good laugh in a while and that there was no need to respond until Gough got his ‘criticism’ past peer review.
So, they [and you] chicken out. Perhaps you could copy us the email where W&P said that…
[still waiting for your response]

Leif, FWIW or not, several elderly farmers I’ve been talking to in Southern Illinois this past week have surprised me with their unusual unanimity in opinion about the coming Winter weather. They’re all more than 72 years of age. I talked to each one individually, and they offered their opinion without any prior solicitatoins from me for those opinions. They each said that they believed the cold weather is already showing signs in Nature for the coming Winter, and the Winter they believe is going to be an extraordinarily cold one. When i asked if there were any particular reasons why they were so convinced the Winter was going to be so cold, they responded by saying no. They all said it was just the feeling they had from the way the hot months of June and July and the cooling month of August felt so much like it did when they were young and it got bitter cold the following Winter. These are the same guys who normally cannot agree about much of anything, and especially about the weather in the coming season.

chickenlittle says: @ August 14, 2012 at 12:12 am
________________________
Use HTML tags see the bottom of Ric Werme’s Guide to Watts Up With That
(Or you can steal them from Joanne Nova’s site and even preview the comment before cut and past to here. )

Henry@Gail
Gail, I am not saying you are wrong or anything. I just want to know why you would say that you trust UAH. How do they do their calibration?

tallbloke says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:09 am
Which isn’t asking for copies of other people’s email. Which you won’t get.
I suspect that I won’t get it, because there isn’t any. Now, I know Charles so perhaps I just ask him. BTW, there have been six citations of W&P, five by Scafetta and one by Callebaut et al. who states “As an improvement to earlier research on this topic we reconsider the internal convective velocities and we examine several other effects, in particular those due to magnetic buoyancy and to the Coriolis force. The main conclusion is that in its essence: planetary influences are too small to be more than a small modulation of the solar cycle.”

D. Patterson, I trust old farmer’s bones more than I do any other source. I ain’t no farmer, but I grew up outdoors, working outdoors, gardening, growing, pruning, trimming, etc. The advent of August was a weird one, almost like it was late September instead. Could it be a shift in the seasons? Like the seasons are out of whack by a month? I know that sounds foolish, but I am a layman. I merely say that as contrast. I hate to sweat, but it’s better than shivering. I hope that ol’ sun keeps burning, baby!

Notice to moderators : On every thread relating to the Sun or Solar System on WUWT you might as well put up a notice
COMMENTS NOT PERMITTED – LEIF SVALGAARD KNOWS EVERYTHING
That would be more adept. And I though that my wife was the world champion in having the last word on any subject!! 🙂

REPLY: Dr. Svalgaard is a competent debater, and welcome here. Engage him at your own risk – Anthony

Venter says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:24 am
COMMENTS NOT PERMITTED – LEIF SVALGAARD KNOWS EVERYTHING
“In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king”

[snip – facts not in evidence]

Ulric Lyons says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:50 am
“It is simpler than that: solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades..”
That depends on which metric: http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/tmp/images/ret_30917.gif
I’m not though supporting Svensmark.
It really doesn’t. Svensmark claims cosmic rays are involved, and they follow closely solar wind B [inverted].

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Jim G says:
August 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
“stuff that only interacts gravitationally with other matter and energy and has been conveniently hypothesized to exist in order to explain why our other theories of mass and gravity, though ASSUMED to be correct and complete, are not proving out well based upon actual observations.
The theories about mass and gravity are not affected by the actual observations of dark matter and dark energy [are in fact used to detect those things]”
There has yet to be any “actual observations of dark matter and dark energy” only suppositions based upon present accepted theories of mass and gravity that cause believers, such as yourself, to think they have been “detected”. And it may well be so, but it might also NOT be so. True scientists need to open their minds to other possibilities or they will never be discovered if they do exist..

When will it start cooling??
Ah, It must just be my imagination then, I could have sworn that hundreds lost their lives earlier this year in Europe due to extreme cold and wintry conditions, and it brought chaos governments mobilized their armies and it effected hundreds of thousands right across Europe and Eurasia including freezing over canals and waterways for the first time in many years.
http://www.france24.com/en/20120205-death-toll-europe-deadly-chill-300-ukraine-london-heathrow-weather-cold-winter-snow
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9061221/Britain-on-snow-alert-as-Europe-freezes-over.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097292/Big-freeze-Europe-shows-signs-letting-Venices-famous-waterways-ice-over.html
Maybe I was just dreaming that tens of thousands of people had to queue in the freezing cold for water in Northern Ireland and the largest lake in the UK and Ireland (lough Neagh) froze over in 2010, did the big freeze even happen?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/29/northern.ireland.water/index.html
http://www.nightskyhunter.com/Extreme%20Lough%20Neagh%20Freeze%20-%20Page%201.html
And I must have imagined headlines like this from the US during February 2010; “Washington, D.C., is clobbered with snow again”
“The snowiest winter since records were first kept in the 1880s paralyzes the region, shutting down the federal government, airports and schools.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/nation/la-na-snow-washington11-2010feb11
2012 Johannesburg.
“The snowfall was the first in Johannesburg in five years and the heaviest since 1981.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9461564/Johannesburg-snow-fulfils-couples-white-wedding-dream.html
2009 Historic snow event in South America.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/historic-snow-event-in-south-america/
So, when will this cooling start for real?

Just for Leif,
Dark matter and dark energy were invented, or discovered, depending upon your point of view, to explain, respectively, why the orbital speeds of visible matter in other galaxies exceeded expectations given the amount of visible matter observed and why the expansion of the universe is accelerating when it would be expected to be slowing down due to gravitational effects. Einstein’s original equations for general relativity indicated an expanding universe which could not be detected by the technology available in his day. He then introduced a cosmological constant to bring his theory in agreement with observations available at that time which he later called his greatest mistake. Turns out, however, that there may well be a different correction factor need to explain an acceleration of the expansion, that being dark energy. Dark matter, on the other hand, seems to complicate this entire situation and cause many open minded serious scientists to question if there may be some finer points missing in the overall general theory of relativity.
Complicating all of this are questions as to the proper interpretation of the observed red shifts which give rise to the estimated of velocities and distances of far away objects as both the theories of dark matter and dark energy have their basis in these interpretations. Also, structures have been detected at distances, i.e. earlier in time, than theory says there should be such structures. This along with the inability to marry quantum physics with relativity has caused very notable scientists to question and attempt to explain what may be missing in relativity or quantum physics that might obviate the need for dark matter and/or dark energy. Being considered are theories of faster than light speed for systems of higher energy such as in the early universe and theories which “unzip” time from space/time that might obviate the need for dark matter and dark energy and avoid the infinities produced when trying to combine the theories of the very small with those of the very large.
Just as relativity replaced Newtonian physics it may be that there is another energy level at which one of these new theories may be more accurate than relativity. But it will take open minds, just like Einstein, who was at one point considered a heretic in his time.

Jim G says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm
cause many open minded serious scientists to question if there may be some finer points missing in the overall general theory of relativity
This has nothing to do with open-mindedness. All scientists dream about [and many try] proving Einstein wrong, but none have succeeded.

I give up on WordPress, here is my copy: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Jose-1965.pdf

Geoff Sharp says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:44 am
The cycles that Ed Fix’s model is showing up for Solar Cycle 24 are impossibly short. There is nothing wrong with his model – we are at the point where the system resets and then starts building momentum again. Re the length of Solar Cycle 24, just look at Altrock’s diagramme. He says it is 40% slower, I believe him, and then project it out. Solar minimum in 2026. You are right, of course, about the spot count thing.

Sparks says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm
As the warmers say, those are just localised events. Dr Spencer’s UAH graph is the standard.

David Archibald says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm
The cycles that Ed Fix’s model is showing up for Solar Cycle 24 are impossibly short. There is nothing wrong with his model – we are at the point where the system resets and then starts building momentum again.
So a failure of a theory is now called a ‘reset’.
Re the length of Solar Cycle 24, just look at Altrock’s diagramme. He says it is 40% slower, I believe him, and then project it out.
He said that a year ago, now he says maximum in the Northern hemisphere is already passed. You still believe him on that?
You are right, of course, about the spot count thing.
No, Geoff is dead wrong, the last decade or so we have been losing the small spots and undercounting, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Lefevre.pdf

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm
“Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:35 am
“So no long-term decline has been observed, hence the basis for the extrapolation has gone away.”
versus
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:14 am
“solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades”
To use a more reliable, consistent, and specific source of data instead, where observed variation greatly exceeds any measurement error (as opposed to distraction by a case where that is not so): http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi
Such illustrates how solar activity increased over cycles 20 to 21 and 22 (up to the early 1990s and contributing to warming on top of the ocean cycle). Then solar activity decreased a bit from cycle 22 to 23, and decreased more going from cycle 23 into the current cycle 24 (during which time temperatures reached a plateau to border on cooling, since the late 1990s through now, although the 60 year ocean cycle is as important as the moderate external forcing variations so far):
solar cycle 20, 1964/10 to 1976/6: 6181 average neutron count
solar cycle 21, 1976/6 to 1986/9: more solar activity, greater magnetic deflection of cosmic rays: 3.1% reduction in average GCR count (5991) compared to cycle 20
solar cycle 22, 1986/9 to 1996/5: the solar oven continuing at relative max setting so to speak, continued high deflection of cosmic rays: 3.1% reduction in average GCR count (5992) compared to cycle 20
solar cycle 23, 1996/5 to 2008/12: a significant relative decrease in solar activity from cycle 22, with less deflection of cosmic rays: within 0.5% of the average GCR count of cycle 20 (6214) instead of 3.1% less
And then the first 3 years and 8 months so far of solar cycle 24 have had significantly less solar activity than the first 3 years and 8 months of solar cycle 23, as illustrated by having less magnetic deflection with 2.5% more average GCR flux (as 6565 instead of 6407).
The preceding is the basic picture of solar activity: rising from the 1960s to be like an oven on max during the late 1970s through the early 1990s (with albedo decline as in reduced cloud cover http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ), then solar activity trends reversing to start to decline from the late 1990s through now (with albedo trends reversing to start to increase as in http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albedo.png ), although a fuller climate picture would include adding in such as http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1964/to:2013/mean:50 (AMO ocean cycle index) among other data.
Dr. Abdussamatov has some weaknesses, like he uses a common temperature dataset (unfortunately fudged by the CAGW movement) in one of the figures (rather than http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=43034_ScreenHunter_296_Apr._08_09.29_122_441lo.jpg plus http://hidethedecline.eu/media/PERPLEX/fig75.jpg and other data discussed before that shows more solar-temperature correlation than the fudged data, superimposed upon the 60-year ocean cycle and shorter ocean oscillations, which would support his observations even more).
But overall the preceding compares well enough to the general pattern of Dr. Abdussamatov’s illustrations at http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/sa_tsi_1600_en.jpg and http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/sa_eng.jpg
as part of http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
Off-topic, it is noteworthy how the very anti-CAGW page above is that of the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supported by the Russian government instead of an E.U. or Anglosphere government, illustrating as usual how publications supporting CAGW tend to be localized in both space and time to where and when the primarily-Western modern enviropolitical activist movement is strong.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Dr. A’s whole thesis is based on his Figure 1 and 2. On the change in TSI with time. His curve shows a downward trend. Do you see that?
To help you out here is the Figure 1: http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa1.png
Once you have answered this question we can go on.

What an amusing array of comments.
I really like the opening paragraph – “It hasn’t cooled yet and we’re three and a half years into the current cycle.”
Also I see that old favourite distortion of using 1998 as the baseline for claiming a cooling trend has made another appearance. Classic denier fantasy land. Go look at the global temperature charts – the best you could say is the rate of warming has slowed. That would be due to all those forcings that are supposed to be producing much cooler conditions……. but aren’t.
Oh, and cherry picking a few newsworthy cold weather events from the southern hemisphere, where it’s winter by the way, doesn’t mean anything.
REPLY: I should have snipped this, but decided otherwise. Mr. Hearndon, I’ll expect you to make the same complaint to the BBC when they talk about the next heat wave or record high temperature. – Anthony

Amos Batto says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:50 am
What solar cycle is David Archibald talking about? The solar cycle that climatologists generally talk about in terms of climate impacts is a 11 year solar cycle. We are currently in the start of a new cycle, so we can expect solar radiation to go up for the next 5 years, meaning slightly higher temperatures for the next couple years. See Figure 9 at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
I’m sorry, but I the NASA scientists do peer-reviewed research whose data and software algorithms are publically available. Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.
____________________________
HUH???
You really should do a bit of a search on the internet before posting.
You state: “We are currently in the start of a new cycle, so we can expect solar radiation to go up for the next 5 years…” While this is what NASA says:

NASA: Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2012/08/02)
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013…

You then say: “…Archibald will have a hard time convincing me when he is saying the exact opposite of James Hansen and the other top climatologists.
ERRR, the NASA scientists do not all agree with Hansen. Actually you do not even have the correct guy it is Dr. Hathaway who is the Solar Physicist.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records A study by Richard Feynman’s sister and others.
A. J. Strata, NASA Engineer Error Analysis of surface temperature data

NASA Data Confirms Solar Hibernation and Climate Change to Cold Era
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) announces today that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government, the media, and the public that we are heading into a new cold climate era with 20 to 30 years of record setting cold weather.
According to Director Casey,
“I’m quite pleased that NASA has finally agreed with my predictions which were passed on to them in early 2007. There is no remaining doubt that the hibernation of the Sun, what solar physicists call a ‘grand minimum’ has begun and with it, the next climate change to a prolonged cold era.
When I first called Dr. Hathaway and told him the NASA and NOAA estimates for the Sun’s activity were “way off” in both sunspot count and in which solar cycle the hibernation would begin (cycle 24 vs. cycle 25), he was polite but dismissive. Since that time both NASA and NOAA have been revising their sunspot estimates for solar cycle 24 lower every year and with each year their numbers have been getting closer
to mine and the few other scientists around the world who had similar forecasts. The January announcement by NASA is now virtually identical to mine made almost four years ago.”…

To put it bluntly they all have theories and some knowledge but none have a really solid grip on the “truth” about the sun or the climate. We are all still learning and that is why legislation about the climate is completely idiotic at this time.

Leif Svalgaard:
You had to skip over practically my entire prior post to aim to repeat the same loop. No thanks.

Henry Clark says: @ August 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm
…..Off-topic, it is noteworthy how the very anti-CAGW page above is that of the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supported by the Russian government instead of an E.U. or Anglosphere government, illustrating as usual how publications supporting CAGW tend to be localized in both space and time to where and when the primarily-Western modern enviropolitical activist movement is strong.
____________________________________
I am not surprise the Russians are not swallowing the CAGW crap. When it comes to a little (or big) ice age the Russians are not going to fool around with the facts because getting caught flat footed means starvation and death.

Peter says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm
the best you could say is the rate of warming has slowed.
Warming has STOPPED for over 10 years on all sets below except UAH.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to June)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:14 pm
“Because your entire post was irrelevant for the issue at hand.”
Inconvenient for you trying to get people to believe Dr. Abdussamatov was wrong in implying a decline in solar activity after cycle 22? Yes. Irrelevant? No.
I notice you repeatedly skip over:
1) the change in GCR count between cycles 22 and 23
2) the change in GCR count between cycles 23 and 24
3) the change in sunspot number between cycles 22 and 23
4) the change in sunspot number between cycles 23 and 24
5) the change in solar cycle length between cycles 22 and 23
All of those support the general picture of Dr. Abdussamatov. It is very telling that you end up resorting to the one and only measurement source (unlike all of the preceding) where Abdussamatov’s expected difference is smaller than the measurement error, smaller than the multiple tenths of a W/m^2 error stated by the authors in your publication.
Such as the 12.6 year duration of cycle 23 compared to 9.7 years for cycle 22 is not likely to be measurement error and not something which can be revised away later.
September 1986 to May 1996 does not equal May 1996 to December 2008.
Even if I believed cycles 22 and 23 were identical in TSI down to the last 0.01 W/m^2, that would just show decline in other aspects of solar activity (like the magnetic field affecting GCR flux and neutron count measurements) can start before TSI decline does: a mild curiosity not reversing the big picture.
I’m reminded of part of a post someone recently made on another topic in a different context, on August 13, 2012 7:46 pm in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/july-hottest-ever-but-u-s-tornado-count-lowest-since-1951-poisoned-weather-meme-falsified-by-nature/ . In that analogy, one berry does not distract from the non-berries if one realizes to watch out for the tactic. (You apparently figure the tactic works on skim readers, which unfortunately is likely so).
********************
The following from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi data gives the real picture of solar activity (inverted average GCR counts relative to cycle 20):
Rise in activity, from the 1960s through part of the 1990s, like an oven on max:
cycle 20: 1.000 for 1964-1976
->
cycle 21: 1.032 for 1976-1986
->
cycle 22: 1.032 for 1986-1996
Decline in activity (about fitting Dr. Abdussamatov’s paper, short of misleading nitpicking attempts):
->
cycle 23: 0.995 for 1996-2008
->
cycle 24 so far: 0.942 (where cycle 23’s figure would be 0.965 by this many months into it)
Later in this decade is the real test for whether Dr. Abdussamatov is right or not, as he is making major predictions for what will happen after cycle 24 peaks in the near future. But, after further illustration of what one of his top opponents is like in regard to bias, my opinion of how he compares has gone up.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
“In that way one can make progress through the swamp of obscurantism.”
I cross-check claims against such as the solar activity rise from 1.000 -> 1.032 -> 1.032 for the cycles from 1964 to 1996 A.D. seen in average relative inverted neutron counts, which was followed by decline to 0.995 and then, in this incomplete cycle, 0.942 so far.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
“Describe what you see.”
Particularly notably, a major decline in peak sunspot numbers between cycle 22 and cycle 23 (which correlates with other data on how relative solar activity, in the metric mentioned earlier, dropped from 1.032 in cycle 22 to 0.995 in cycle 23).