Guest post by David Archibald
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.
So when will it cool? As Nir Shaviv and others have noted, the biggest calorimeter on the plant is the oceans. My work on sea level response to solar activity (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/) found that the breakover between sea level rise and sea level fall is a sunspot amplitude of 40:
As this graph from SIDC shows, the current solar amplitude is about 60 in the run-up to solar maximum, expected in May 2013:
The two remaining variables in our quest are the timing of the sunspot number fall below 40 and the length of Solar Cycle 24. So far, Solar Cycle 24 is shaping up almost exactly like Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum:
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle has reached the level at which solar maximum occurs. It usually spends a year at this level before heading back down again:
Similarly, the solar polar field strength (from the Wilcox Solar Observatory) suggest that solar maximum may be up to a year away:
Notwithstanding that solar maximum, as predicted from heliocentric current sheet tilt angle and solar polar field strength, is still a little way off, if Solar Cycle 24 continues to shape up like Solar Cycle 5, sunspot amplitude will fall below 40 from mid-2013. Altrock’s green corona emissions diagramme (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/solar-cycle-24-length-and-its-consequences/) suggests that Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. That leaves twelve and a half years of cooling from mid-2013.
From all that, for Solheim’s predicted temperature decline of 0.9º C over the whole of Solar Cycle 24 to be achieved, the decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2º C on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle. No doubt the cooling will be back-loaded, making the further decline predicted over Solar Cycle 25 relative to Solar Cycle 24 more readily achievable.
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.
Lief, et al;
It seems to me that the reason it hasn’t been cooling of late is that we are at the peak of the cycle.
Set the equilibrium where you will, if we are in a ‘solar cycle cooling phase’, we are in the slowest part of that cooling phase.
That we are no longer warming at the peak of the cycle indicates that there is something happening. We were in the habit of warming both during the peaks and the troughs. I think if you assume that most solar energy is first absorbed by the oceans before being released to the atmosphere, this isn’t such a hard thing to understand; that the earth could warm, even during the inactive part of the solar cycle. When you realize that the oceans have many many times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, that isn’t such a difficult thing to believe. It may not be correct, but it would sure explain some things. I don’t know that we understand the climate system well enough to even understand and predict even that simple effect.
We are now at the peak of the solar cycle, weak though it is, and we aren’t warming. From what I see we are about to head into the trough of the current cycle. If cooling is going to happen as a result of changes to the solar cycle, it will happen during the trough before it happens at the peak. If it continues while we approach the peak of the next cycle . . . well I would take that as a very bad sign. If we had some way to know what future solar cycles have in store, that would be productive science.
As it is; I am too old to be very concerned about what happens after a couple more solar cycles.
Amos Batto says (on August 14, 2012 at 11:50 am): “…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.“
Amos, I’m very glad to hear that you know where NASA’s data and software algorithms can all be found. Will you please help me find them?
In particular, I’ve been trying, without success, to learn how and why, over the last ~12 years, NASA GISS and/or NCDC has added approximately 0.7 C of increased 1930s-to-1990s warming in revisions to their (old) USHCN temperature records for the 48 contiguous United States. I’ve also been trying, without success, to locate the unadjusted temperature data.
I am interested in the data depicted in the graph labeled “(a)” in this 1999 NASA article:
http://webcitation.org/63wGUTWt6
It is very strikingly different from current NASA GISS graphs of the U.S. 48-state surface temperature record. Compared to the 1999 version, recent versions show about 0.7 C of additional warming from the 1930s to the 1990s, comprised of a combination of increases in post-1965 temperatures and decreases in pre-1965 temperatures (especially in the 1920s and 1930s).
I’m aware of a paper discussing 0.29 C of adjustments, but no explanation for the rest.
Eyeballing this graph…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
…it appears to show the following 1930s vs 1990s adjustment effects:
TOBS (area adj & TOB adj): +0.34 F
MMTS (sensor change adj): + 0.04 F
SHAP (station history adj): +0.20 F
FILNET (missing data est): +0.02 F
FINAL (urban heat island adj): -0.06 F
———————-
sum: +0.53 F = 0.29 C
0.7 C is a very large increase to come from late adjustments to old data! It is about equal to the entire 20th century’s global warming!
Nick Schor told me that that Reto Ruedy at NASA GISS told him the difference is not due to adjustments made by NASA GISS, but rather due to adjustments made by NOAA NCDC “to accomodate siting and measuring biases,” before NASA received the data.
Based on the old version of the data, a page on nasa.gov said (circa 2000), “it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” But now NASA’s data shows 1934 as only 3rd-warmest year, and cooler than 1998. (This is all referring to U.S. 48-State temperatures, not global temperatures.) So what was “clear” to NASA in 2000 apparently is thought to be untrue, now.
(BTW, you’re not the first person I’ve asked; I stumped Prof. Scott Mandia of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team.)
Can you please help me to:
1. find the data which was graphed in that 1999 article, and any other extant pre-2007 versions of http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt, especially versions older than this one, which was archived by the late John Daly; and
2. find the the actual station lists and temperature and adjustment and weighting data used, for each of the stages of adjustment; and
3. understand the adjustments that were made, and why they should be trusted.
Thanks in advance!
BTW, my email address can be found on my web site:
http://sealevel.info/
Spector says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm
This is the force that Dr. Svensmark believes to be driving the climate. There would be no need to examine solar activity–just this data.
This is a typical case of cherry picking. It has proven difficult to pin down what the long-term cosmic ray record is. Different stations show different trends. See e.g. the third plot of http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitors-Real-Time.htm or http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png which do not show the increase Oulu has.
The plot represents cooling power which appears to be cyclicly decreasing until about 1995 and then cooling begins to increase from that point.
Yet the climate has warmed since 1995 and [more damning] cosmic rays may have gone up, but the low-level clouds [which were supposed to follow the cosmic rays] have gone down. This is the clear falsification of Svensmark’s theory. You can always ‘rescue’ the theory but postulating that perhaps it was not the low clouds after all, or that the data is bad or manipulated, or …
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.
The facts were not supposed to be in evidence, because it was only a jocular and cautionary jibe in principle and not in example. I’m currently and irritatingly due for the real surgery myself. It seems to be quite common in my age group in recent months. I’m told we most all get to this point where it’s needed. The One-Eyed King has to pay more than the other blind inhabitants who don’t need it in the Land of the Blind. 🙂
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 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm
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 am sure your attitude is similar to those who were skeptical of anything beyond Newtonian physics in Einstein’s time. Stuck in the box irrespective of evidence which would indicate there was more to be learned. It has everything to do with an open or closed mind.
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.
Henry Clark says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm
“Observations show no difference, hence his extrapolation is wrong.”
versus
“solar activity has been decreasing the past several decades”
Shows how one can twist things to support any point of view when guided by a firm belief.
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?
Once you have answered this question we can go on.
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.
HenryP says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:01 am
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….
___________________________
I trust them more than I trust the others. Here is some information (At least we do not have to sue for it)
How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced
Our Response to Recent Criticism of the UAH Satellite Temperatures
WUWT: How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced by Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD.
Review of Previous Climate Calibration Workshop
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
Jim G says:
August 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Stuck in the box irrespective of evidence which would indicate there was more to be learned. It has everything to do with an open or closed mind.
As I said, every physicist want to prove Einstein wrong and is totally open on this point. There is no box other than the hard constraints of observations. The problem is that when extending a theory to explain puzzling things one is constrained to still have the new version explain everything the old one could. That is the hard part. And nobody has succeeded in doing so, but everybody wish in his heart that he could. What physicists do not buy is the argument that there are some unknown unknowns that we can shove stuff onto. In the old days, it was called ‘magic’. We don’t believe in magic and we do not believe in the notion that all it requires is an open mind. I don’r know any scientist who would close his mind to a chance of proving Einstein wrong. There is ALWAYS more to be learned. The very notion of dark matter and dark energy are indeed things we have recently learned. You would exclude that hard won knowledge? I would say: how wonderful things we are learning that we never thought of before.
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:
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
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.
Gail Combs says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:55 pm
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
John Casey is a fraud, so no need to consider this any further.
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 5:39 pm
You had to skip over practically my entire prior post to aim to repeat the same loop. No thanks.<
Because your entire post was irrelevant for the issue at hand. And now that you see the writing on the wall you withdraw without learning anything so you can maintain your delusion. Your loss.
Henry Clark says: @ur momisugly 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.
Solar cycle 23 may not have ended when we thought it did.
We may have peaked in this cycle last month, so wait and wait some more:)
There are cycles of gradual climate change and abrupt climate change in the paleoclimate record. There are solar changes before and during the climate changes. (The papers below note the correlation.)
There has been significant progress made in resolving the mechanisms by which the solar magnetic cycle changes affect the planet’s climate. There is a physical reason why when there is an abrupt slow down in the solar cycle from a period of short active cycles to long cycles or an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle, there is a 10 to 12 year delay in the onset of cooling.
I would suggest we continue looking for anomalous solar observations and the onset of cooling. The past data and current observation appear to support the assertion that there will be a significant cooling event, a Heinrich event which it appears is predicated by a solar magnetic cycle interruption, followed by significant cooling due to increased GCR, and then when the magnetic cycle restarts a series of events that cause a geomagnetic excursion, which causes long term abrupt cooling.
List of Bond events
Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
• ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1) — roughly correlates with the Migration Period pessimum(450–900 AD)
• ≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) — roughly correlates with the Iron Age Cold Epoch (900–300 BC)[8]
• ≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) — correlates with the 4.2 kiloyear event
• ≈5,900 BP (Bond event 4) — correlates with the 5.9 kiloyear event
• ≈8,100 BP (Bond event 5) — correlates with the 8.2 kiloyear event
• ≈9,400 BP (Bond event 6) — correlates with the Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[9] as well as with a cold event in China.[10]
• ≈10,300 BP (Bond event 7) — unnamed event
• ≈11,100 BP (Bond event 8) — coincides with the transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal
Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://dept.kent.edu/geography/GEC/Reduced_solar_activity_as_a_trig.pdf
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.
Following the end of the Eemian, a large number of other sudden changes and short-term warm and cold alternations have been recognized; apparently many or all of these occurred on a global or at least a regional scale (Fig.3; Ice core record). The most extreme of these fluctuations are the warm interstadials and the cold Heinrich events. These are most prominent in the ice-core record of Greenland, deep-sea cores from the North Atlantic, and in the pollen records of Europe and North America, suggesting that they were most intense in the North Atlantic region (e.g., Bond et al., 1992; 1993).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379198000882
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”
Peter says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm
…… 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.
==================================
Well Mr. Hearndon, thank you for confirming the change in the first derivative of the temperature. As I noted in my other comment the effects on the climate is not in the absolute numbers but in the first derivative or RATE of change in the temperature.
Just as you would not expect to immediately change the ice volume in response to the Milankovitch cycles (changes in Solar Insolation), you would not expect an immediate change in temperature either. Graph
70% of the earth is ocean and a large amount of the high energy wavelengths enter the ocean to be absorbed at various depths (think in three dimensions) To actually overcome the inertia of the system requires time and a heck of a change in energy. Think about what it takes to break a railroad train or better yet an ocean liner. The response is going to be in terms of years and may only be seen as changes in ENSO, PDO, and AMO decades later because the oceans act as storage for large amounts of energy over time. Therefore a step change in the amount of energy (TSI) though small could be “integrated’ over time to give a surprisingly large effect.
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
William Astley says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm
an interruption in the solar magnetic cycle …
solar magnetic cycle interruption
Seems to be a favorite theme. So define what such a ‘interruption’ would be. How would we know one if it happened?
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.