Guest post by David Archibald
Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters. This is a link to a post about a German meteorologist who has seen the light. Eventually people will work their way back to where all the energy comes from. The amount and type of energy coming from the Sun varies on time scales up thousands of years. Now that we are somewhere near the peak of Solar Cycle 24, let’s see how things are progressing.
Figure 1: MF, TSI, F10.7 Flux and Sunspot Number 2009 – 2013
From Dr Svalgaard’s site, this figure shows that the F10.7 flux is hovering around 100, which is the breakover point between sea level rising and sea level falling. In turn that also means it is the breakover point between the planet warming and the planet cooling. Given that activity will drop once we pass solar maximum, cooling is in train from here.
Figure 2: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2012
The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle was at 70.6° as at November 2012. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.
Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2013
The Ap Index has fallen back below the levels of previous solar minima.
Figure 4: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2012
The solar wind flow pressure has also seen its peak for this cycle.
Figure 5: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2013
The neutron count is likely to trend sideways for another year before rising to a new peak for the instrumental record.
Figure 6: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1968 – 2013
The Interplanetary Magnetic Field appears to have peaked for this cycle.
Figure 7: Solar Cycle 24 Sunspot Number compared to the Dalton Minimum
This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 is tracking Solar Cycle 5 very closely.
Figure 8: Solanki Sunspot Number Reconstruction 9455 BC to 2035 AD
The data is from Solanki et al 2004 “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, courtesy of David Evans. A projection to 2035 is included based on Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of an amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7. The average annual sunspot number in Solanki’s reconstruction is 28.7. The average annual sunspot number for the second half of the 20th century is 72.
Figure 9: Solanki cumulative sunspot reconstruction
This graph takes the data from Figure 7 and is additive relative to the average sunspot number over the period of 28.7. It shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years at a time.
Figure 10: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction 7,362 BC to 2007 AD
Similarly, Steinhilber et al reconstruction TSI relative to 1,365.57 W/m2 with data courtesy of David Evans.
Figure 11: Steinhilber et al TSI reconstruction cumulative
This graph takes the data from Figure 9 and plots it cumulatively. It also shows that solar activity trends for thousands of years. The Steinhilber reconstruction does show the beginning of the Dark Ages cold period and the Little Ice Age quite accurately.
Thanks David Archibald
In the next ten years Temps are going to get real cold REAL COLD and if the next sunspot cycles are as low as 24 then we may have next ice age starting.
[snip . . the link is reporting the file doesn’t exist . . mod]
This is a daily Solar and quake report. A must watch. Check out his previous videos.
It seems to me that Figures 9 and 11 do not agree: http://www.leif.org/research/Solanki-Steinhilber-Disagree.png so perhaps one should draw hasty conclusions.
not draw hasty conclusions, of course
I would disagree with Dr. Archibald’s analyses to a degree, what matters it is the polarity of the solar magnetic cycle in relation to the Earth’s magnetic field variability.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Dr. Dr Svalgaard has closed a number of his presentations with “we’re in for interesting times.” Be it blessing or curse is yet to be seen.
In 2020 we will know how it all turns out.Everybody a little more patient.
OK I understand that the sun provides the energy to drive the climate system. but it appears complicated, looking above, so do we fullt understand it?
A few might but most still cling to the premis that it is all down to CO2, the sun provides but -18C (-49C if you believe the Trenberth AR4 graphic) to a flat earth. This is obviously total rubbish. Reality is far better coz its the SUN.
Finger trouble! Fully not fullt and it IS the SUN.
Sorry folks but time tells so many tales.
Looking forward to walking on the River Thames again ……. The last time was when I was 3 years old during winter of 1963 ….. Maybe when that happens again and all the daft wind turbines have frozen solid the British Government might get the picture that the climate is heading north not south .
@David A.: Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters
Colder that what?
By what measure? Give a link.
An interesting paper about regional cloud cover changes vs. solar activity by Voiculescu et al 2012:
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Voiculescu_ERL_2012.pdf
Verdict: Both CR count and UV intensity has significant effect on cloud cover over tropics. Total effect of solar minimum (higher CR count and lower UV intensity) is definitely causing cooling due to increased cloud cover.
Okay, this might be a really good time to ask “What is the Ap index?”
I know it is some derived index from magnetic fields, but could someone provide a brief, but meaningful, definition?
Thanks, in advance.
REPLY: The Ap planetary index for measuring the strength of a disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field. The index is defined over a period of one day from a set of standard stations around the world.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 6:30 am
what matters it is the polarity of the solar magnetic cycle in relation to the Earth’s magnetic field variability.
No, that matters not. Your ‘correlation’ is spurious.
Thanks you David, very useful compilations – much appreciate your work.
“The heliospheric current sheet tilt angle was at 70.6° as at November 2012. Solar maximum occurs when it reaches 74° – so a little bit further to go.”
Have we since hit it? http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif
The dark line in the above plot looks to have hit the 74 deg mark.
Politicians do not give up manipulative tools such as CAGW easily. Only when it is forced upon them. Job security is far more important than honest service, so after 15+ years of no significant heating it is time those of us who have a say, vote out ALL politicians involved in this scam to control energy and lives. I would push for prosecution of the offenders but for the feeling that most politicans are not bright enough to see the truth.
That helps! So the greater the disturbance, the greater the dip in the Ap index?
Dr. Svalgaard,
It seems you’re in disagreement wth the idea that cooling is postively correlated with solar activiity as measured by sunspots? IS that correct?
Slightly off topic.
Last night I watched the BBC programme ‘Wonders of Life’ prseneted by Professor Brian Cox (high energy particle physicist). He briefly mentioned the faint sun (ie., the sun in the early years of the formation of earth). He said that whilst the amount of photons emitted in the visible range were far less than today (I cannot recall whether he put a figure on it, he might have mentioned something like 70%), the sun was producing far more high energy photons in the UV range. He gave the impression that the sun was very active in that range, and far from the sun producing less energy, if anything it was producing more energy ( since UV photons have far more energy than IR photons).
He did not go into much detail, merely raising the point to suggest that conditions (high intensity of UV) was very inhospitable to life during the early years after earth aquired an atmosphere
I wonder whether this is fully taken account of in the so called faint sun paradox.
Stephen Rasey: see the link at the top of the post.
In relation to Figure 7
A German site “Die Kalte Sonne – The cold sun” has published a similar graph.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/frank1.gif
It compares the average of Solar Cycles 1-23 with Solar Cycle 5 and Solar Cycle 24 until January 2013.
I’ll believe were heading for a cold period when I see it. Until then, it’s just another prediction, like CAGW.
Leif, Why dont you go ahead and give a thoughtful critical analysis supporting or not the post by Archibald. That would be a lot better than you snipping at everyones comment about the post. Several things will happen if you do this. First, we can all learn more about the subjuct, two we dont have to scroll through a bunch of tripe between you and everybody else, three you make a prediction about the future and lay it all out just like Archibald thereby getting some skin in the game. If you could do this we could all benefit including you.
MC
A couple basic questions:
How do we square the record high temperatures — “hottest summer on record, etc.” — of the past decade with a cooling trend, or at least a no warming trend, over the same period?
And with the rise in Arctic temperatures and consequent loss of sea ice there?
Thanks!
Further to my last post,I merely wish to clarify that I was not suggesting that IR photons are within the visible range.
Professor Cox was saying that UV photons carry more energy than photons within the visible range and those within the IR range. He was suggesting that the sun was very energetic in the early years because it was producing more UV photons than it does today.
He also briefly touched upon the earth acquiring water. It may be the case that there was no water on earth during the faint sun epoch, and that water was aquired (by whatever mechanism) only later in earth’s history,
Professor Cox did not discuss whether the faint sun could maintain liquid water (perhaps due to the high energy UV photons which offset any reduced photonic activity in the visible spectrum), or whether water was aquired after the faint sun epoch so that there is in fact no paradox.
@John Marshall, do we fully understand any aspect of reality? N. N. Taleb and Benoit Mandelbrot have called reality “fractally complex”.
There is a recent paper, ‘Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse’, by Andreas Albrecht and Daniel Phillips, in which they “argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of probability.”
Connect the dots is an overused phrase. Imagine that one located a set of dots in a complex phase space and use them to inductively infer whatever, do the dots or their generating function contain a frumious Bandersnatch or a Black Swan?. Non-existence can be proven only by examining the entire Universe (multiverse).
Make of this what you will, &c
http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/sunspot-cycle.html
Sunspot cycles and activist strategy.
“During World War I, A. L. Tchijevsky, a Russian professor of Astronomy and Biological Physics who continued his studies at the war front, noticed that particularly severe battles regularly followed each solar flare during the sunspot peak period of 1916-17.”
Vidoe just relased by NASA 23 Feb
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=A_solar_flare__and_rain_on_the_sun_23_02_2013?ref=ccbox_homepage_topstories
Coronal Rain on the Sun.
Is it just my download or is 11 really missing?
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:15 am
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 6:30 am
what matters it is the polarity of the solar magnetic cycle in relation to the Earth’s magnetic field variability.
No, that matters not. Your ‘correlation’ is spurious.
====================================
With all due respect, two waves operating at closely the same frequency, and with inverted polarities will indeed have a negative effect. (even at ultra low frequencies of 1 cycle in 40+ seconds) wave canceling is also power robing…
@richard verney
>He also briefly touched upon the earth acquiring water. It may be the case that there was no water on earth during the faint sun epoch, and that water was aquired (by whatever mechanism) only later in earth’s history…”
Given that there is about twice as much water in the mantle of the earth as there is in the oceans, the mass gain involved would surely have affected the moon’s orbit and the earth’s orbit – no? Unless the orbital radius and speed are (literally) set by resonances and perturbed by no more than the energy needed to pull the planet into a correspondingly higher or slower orbit, wouldn’t something ‘fall down’?
I don’t have an answer here, but it seems the faint sun paradox is a real headache.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:33 am
AS long as the sun keeps turning, the magnetic rope holding the planets in their orbits remains strong and we dont get hit with something we will continue to be where we are… just like a yo yo on a string…
When solar activity and , global ocean SST are in sync and both are declining, the decline in global atmosphere temperatures will follow as they have for nearly a decade and a half and during other similar past periods.Global inland areas like Russia, Eastern Europe and Central North America will feel the cold first in the winter with the return to negative AO and eventually negative AMO. Global temperature altering strong El Nino’s will be fewer in numbers and will not be able to prevent a steady decline of surface temperatures for the next several decades.[like 1890-1910]
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:15 am
No, that matters not. Your ‘correlation’ is spurious
referring to the second illustration shown here
Sun has strong magnetic link with number of planets, the Earth happened to be the first in the line of action. Here is some more ‘spurious’ sun-Earth magnetic correlations, you may dislike
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm
One ‘spurious’ correlation’ may be an coincidence but three or more hardly so.
Correlations are there, ‘spurious’ or not, the solar and climate scientists should be looking into reasons for it.
Leif
You were only the third person to comment and Vuk was fifth. What was the matter with you two? We expect a quicker response when the word ‘solar’ is mentioned.
tonyb
The fact is that the ONLY variable that is changing in this climate AGW theory ongoing saga is the SUN. We can now safely assume that most of the “rise” in mean global earth temperature data “adjusted” by NASA GISS BOM or raw data lost by HADCRUT ect was essentially made up to suit the AGW theory and is false. However fortunately solar activity does not seem to have been tampered with and reliably shows a decline in SSN and geomagnetic activity etc which by past historic records equates to a cooling earth even if it takes a lag period. BTW it appears DA has been 100% spot on with his solar predictions and the supposed solar experts have been 100% wrong (just joking) LOL.
Quite professional.
There is no such thing as ‘global’ warming, its a regional thing, with some places warming and some cooling;
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Here in Britain we are certainly not seeing rising temperatrures-quite the reverse
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
TheHermit says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:23 am
The dark line in the above plot looks to have hit the 74 deg mark.
As one of the people who built the Wilcox Solar Observatory, I should comment that out polemost pixel covers everything from 55 degrees to the pole so that attaching any great significance to a couple of degrees of the tilt angle is really not warranted.
February 25, 2013 at 7:34 am
It seems you’re in disagreement with the idea that cooling is positively correlated with solar activity as measured by sunspots? IS that correct?
There is no good evidence for that. Solar activity varies too little compared to the regular output from the Sun. Perhaps this plot of TSI as observed [red curve] and the part related to solar activity [blue curve] will help: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE.png . The curves should really start from zero as in this one to get the correct perspective help://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20at%20Earth.png . Yet another way to show the variations is this plot that shows a separate curve for each of 10 years of TSI at a function of time of the year. All these curves fall on top of one another because there is so little variation. The little wiggles show the influence on TSO of solar activity. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
Why show TSI? that is where the energy is. All other solar output is about a million times weaker.
richard verney says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:42 am
I wonder whether this is fully taken account of in the so called faint sun paradox.
Yes, even if UV photons have more energy, there are a lot fewer of them than visible and IR photons. Here is what know about the ‘faint sun’
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
This may also be of interest:
No climate paradox under the faint early Sun, by
Rosing, Minik T.; Bird, Dennis K.; Sleep, Norman H.; Bjerrum, Christian J.
Nature, Volume 464, Issue 7289, pp. 744-747 (2010).
Abstract
“Environmental niches in which life first emerged and later evolved on the Earth have undergone dramatic changes in response to evolving tectonic/geochemical cycles and to biologic interventions, as well as increases in the Sun’s luminosity of about 25 to 30 per cent over the Earth’s history. It has been inferred that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 and/or CH4 compensated for the lower solar luminosity and dictated an Archaean climate in which liquid water was stable in the hydrosphere. Here we demonstrate, however, that the mineralogy of Archaean sediments, particularly the ubiquitous presence of mixed-valence Fe(II-III) oxides (magnetite) in banded iron formations is inconsistent with such high concentrations of greenhouse gases and the metabolic constraints of extant methanogens. Prompted by this, and the absence of geologic evidence for very high greenhouse-gas concentrations, we hypothesize that a lower albedo on the Earth, owing to considerably less continental area and to the lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei, made an important contribution to moderating surface temperature in the Archaean eon. Our model calculations suggest that the lower albedo of the early Earth provided environmental conditions above the freezing point of water, thus alleviating the need for extreme greenhouse-gas concentrations to satisfy the faint early Sun paradox.”
MC says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:49 am
Leif, Why don’t you go ahead and give a thoughtful critical analysis supporting or not the post by Archibald.
All your points are good, and I have done that several times in the past. The problem is that his posts are somewhat incoherent and there are often so many errors and so much sloppiness that critique is hard.
But we can say a few things:
1) Figure 2 is showing a ‘non-preferred’ curve. Here is a better one: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif [use the full curve, not the dashed one]. As noted above the values are not very precise [our pixel size is only 1/11 of the solar diameter]. This is also a general comment of the danger of drawing sweeping conclusions from shaky data.
2) In Figure 3 it is claimed that “The Ap Index has fallen back below the levels of previous solar minima”. It has not.
3) Figure 6 shows data from Oulu. Most other stations do not show a similar variation, e.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg [so some cherry picking]
4) Figure 7: solar cycle 24 tracking cycle 5 very closely. Our knowledge of the sunspot number for cycle 5 is very poor and DA uses the Group Sunspot Number which we now know has a calibration problem around 1885 [too low before that – slides 23-25 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard11.pdf ], so the comparison is not too meaningful.
5) I already commented on the discrepancy between Figures 9 and 11: http://www.leif.org/research/Solanki-Steinhilber-Disagree.png
Bill H says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:33 am
With all due respect, two waves operating at closely the same frequency, and with inverted polarities will indeed have a negative effect.
Assuming that both have an effect, which in Vuk’s case they do not.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:57 am
Sun has strong magnetic link with number of planets, the Earth happened to be the first in the line of action.
this your premise is already wrong as you assume the link is two-ways and it is not.
the solar and climate scientists should be looking into reasons for it.
We look into things that are plausible, meaningful, and make sense. Yours do not.
@Bill H “magnetic rope holding the planets in their orbits”
What are you talking about? The planets are held in their orbit by gravity, and the inverse square law.
“two waves operating at closely the same frequency” The earths magnetic frequency is DC. it changes like every 10thousand years. There is no frequncy. The sun’s field changes ever 12ish years, again, no frequency.
From Dr Svalgaard’s site, this figure shows that the F10.7 flux is hovering around 100, which is the breakover point between sea level rising and sea level falling. In turn that also means it is the breakover point between the planet warming and the planet cooling.
Really? How is it known that 100 in the F10.7 is the “breakover point”?
Jeff in Calgary says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
There is no frequency. The sun’s field changes ever 12ish years, again, no frequency.
Apart from that there is no coupling between the solar field and the main magnetic field of the Earth, generated in the core. The skin-depth of the Earth is too shallow to allow the [100,000 times weaker] solar field to penetrate to the generating region in the core.
The arctic sea ice melts from the bottom up. Its thickness can decrease 90% with no melt pools on the top to indicate that it is indeed melting. You actually have to measure it to tell that it’s melting.
So we have a chicken and egg problem. Is the ice melting because of the higher air temperatures or are the air temperatures higher because the sea ice is thinner and the ocean is warming the air?
If you doubt the influence of ocean currents on the thickness of sea ice, please explain polynyas to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya In any event, the arctic air temperature, per se, isn’t particularly strong evidence for global warming.
oops: “F10.7 flux”, not F10.7.
commieBob says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:35 am
the arctic air temperature, per se, isn’t particularly strong evidence for global warming.
But would [by most people here] be considered strong evidence for global cooling if the Arctic were cooling…
Leif, great feedback. Now, Archibald asserts affects by GCR rates (Svensmark) are correlated with global temp drop/rise. He also predicts a rise in GCR starting in a year, then rise to set a new instument record. He and others who propound this effect are projecting global temp decrease as the GCR rate increases. What is your prediction of GCR rates in the furure and if any what effect?
MC
Thanks, commie! I sort of get it. But I thought ***surface*** sea ice extent was declining and not just its thickness. I’m also still confused by the claim that we’ve had numerous “record high” temps this decade at the same time we’re experiencing an overall cooling or flat trend. Just random statistical flux?
Not trying to bait anyone. I’m skeptical about the extent of AGW and believe that natural cycles — ie, the colar cycle — likely control over anthropomorphic influences.
Leif,
Why do you discount the exchange of energy in both directions? Even on earth a minor weak radio station will disrupt a much larger one.. It can even shut down the transmitter due to the conflicting waves reentering the unit which causes an imbalance in the transmitter. We know this from actual experience. Competing waves can and do cause a reflective paradox. As i said before they also remove power from the advancing waves.
I believe its a bit too early to just ignore them and throw them aside with slight of hand.
MC says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:49 am
He also predicts a rise in GCR starting in a year, then rise to set a new instument record. He and others who propound this effect are projecting global temp decrease as the GCR rate increases. What is your prediction of GCR rates in the furure and if any what effect?
Archibald does not make valid predictions. Much of his temperature stuff relates to a single station in New Hampshire, if memory serves. GCRs will indeed start to rise when we begin to approach the next solar minimum. [this is not ‘his’ unique prediction, they always do that]. The link between GCR and temperature is debunked enough that there should be no need to beat a dead horse here [although many people still hold up the cadaver for further beating]. The GCRs will continue to modulate with the solar cycle as always, so you are really asking for what the prediction for the solar cycle is. I don’t think we can say that more than a cycle ahead [although some silly people claim they can predict the cycle with great precision 3000 years ahead]. During the Maunder Minimum, GCR modulation was even stronger than today, so even if a new MM would be looming, I don’t expect GCRs to be much different [again, many people would object to this as it will not fit with their agenda and beliefs – it is useless to try to get them off that idee fixe].
Jeff in Calgary says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
@Bill H “magnetic rope holding the planets in their orbits”
What are you talking about? The planets are held in their orbit by gravity, and the inverse square law.
“two waves operating at closely the same frequency” The earths magnetic frequency is DC. it changes like every 10thousand years. There is no frequncy. The sun’s field changes ever 12ish years, again, no frequency.
==============================================
Frequency is a rate of change no matter how slow.. Also the earths poles flucuate daily so the frequencey is actually in the realm of 40- 70 min. Hard changes to the poles happens infrequntely. I believe were missing a whole level of interaction..
Gravity is subjective to mass = magnatisim….
Eleven Figure numbers, only ten figures. Something is off around Figure 6.
Hi Moderator, Try this link if the first one didn’t work:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers?feature=watch
If that doesn’t work type “SuspiciousObservers” in your favourite search engine.
My admittedly primitive maths says that a difference in the sun’s output (TSI) of 1 watt/m2 at top of atmosphere should change the surface temperature by roughly 0.045°C before any GHE and 0.086°C with the present albedo and GHG parameters.
If this is correct it would take a substantial change in TSI to have any noticeable effect on climate.
All the same, I’m looking at David Archibald’s first chart above and see a huge TSI departure between periods 2011-54 and 2011-61. This gives a fascinating picture of a constantly varying sun that I haven’t seen in the annual averages I’m accustomed to.
Jeff in Calgary says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am
…..
Earth magnetic field has strong fluctuations superimposed on the long term ‘DC’ dipole.
Here is what NASA-JPL says:
“Although we do not observe the core directly, it’s amazing how much we can learn about Earth’s interior using magnetic field observations,” said Dickey.
……..
“The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2420
I looked into shorter periods (higher frequencies) and here is what I found:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EMFspectrum.htm
Quiet Professional – look at a sine wave pattern: You can be on a downward trend but still be close enough to the peak for the most recent measurements to be the highest you’ve measured.
Bill H says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:58 am
Why do you discount the exchange of energy in both directions? Even on earth a minor weak radio station will disrupt a much larger one
Even on Earth we observe that some radio waves cannot penetrate a plasma [they are reflected from the plasma in the ionosphere and the reflection makes long-distance radio communication possible].
But in general magnetic and electric [not electromagnetic – e.g. light – we can see the sun and the stars] changes cannot propagate faster in a plasma than the so-called Alfven speed. The solar wind moves ten times as fast as the Alfven speed for it [at planetary distances], so any magnetic effects will be swept downstream ten times faster than they can move upstream [to the sun]. If you sit in a small boat in a slow-flowing river and throw a pebble into to water you can see the ripples from the splash move away from the point of impact and eventually reach points on the bank upstream of you at the time you threw in the pebble. But if the river is flowing very fast the ripples are swept with the flow and cannot move upstream to reach the bank at a point further upstream that where you were when you threw the pebble. .
I believe its a bit too early to just ignore them and throw them aside with slight of hand.
So, you see there are good reasons for ignoring them, and you should not accuse me of sleight-of-hand [very bad style to do so]. Now, some people refuse to learn [or cannot], so pseudo-science blazes on regardless. Try not to be among those.
Quiet Professional,
TonyG is right. Here you can see that we’re over the hump.
And here you can see that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 10:40 am
“The oscillations originated at the boundary between Earth’s core and its mantle and traveled inward toward the inner core with decreasing strength. Four of these oscillations were robust, occurring at periods of 85, 50, 35 and 28 years.”
The oscillations occur by interaction between the flows in the core and they rub against the bottom of the mantle and have nothing to do with the Sun. Your quote is a good example of your lack of understanding of this [and you inability to learn].
Either way, there’s less insulation between the ocean and the air. 🙂 It’s more complicated though because of wave action and evaporation.
The weather isn’t uniform. In any normal year, you should get numerous record highs and lows. By themselves, they don’t mean much. For some reason, the record lows kind of get ignored.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/low-temperature-records-overwhelm-highs-in-the-usa-this-past-week-wheres-the-media-to-tell-us-how-this-should-be-viewed/
I think you could probably make a statistical argument about the number of expected highs and lows. The resident statistician around here is William Briggs. He has done many posts on his blog about the uses and abuses of statistics. Here’s an example: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5928
@pottereaton: 7:44 am.
That link didn’t work for me earlier. Now that it works, the link says
Speaking dispassionately, you can probably find a string of five colder-than-normal winters, summers, autumns, or springs, for some country in the world at any time.
Given the link, David Archibald’s sweeping opening sentence
Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters.
is a little short of the mark on statistical significance and causality.
I’d LOVE to tie sun spot solar cycles to climate change. I’d love to explain the geological record as in part a function of a mildly variable star. But we have to follow the data and not read more into the statistics that what is there.
“Solar Cycle 24 has already seen five consecutive colder winters – ”
in good correlation with the step function drop of the AP index.
Doug Danhoff says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:29 am
Politicians do not give up manipulative tools such as CAGW easily. Only when it is forced upon them. Job security is far more important than honest service, so after 15+ years of no significant heating it is time those of us who have a say, vote out ALL politicians involved in this scam to control energy and lives. I would push for prosecution of the offenders but for the feeling that most politicans are not bright enough to see the truth.
That’s all of them then ?
richard verney says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
Cox spends a lot of his time contradicting himself. It’s a requirement for keeping the BBC Travel Credit card that he so enjoys.
The classic words from him came when asked directly whether AGW was real. His response was ” well the consensus says so”. A scientist fighting with his honesty and the trough.
commieBob says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:35 am
“The arctic sea ice melts from the bottom up. Its thickness can decrease 90% with no melt pools on the top to indicate that it is indeed melting. You actually have to measure it to tell that it’s melting.”
Do you have a reference to back up this statement?
So, Hansen may be correct?, just 35 years off?
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:00 am
The oscillations occur by interaction between the flows in the core and they rub against the bottom of the mantle and have nothing to do with the Sun. Your quote is a good example of your lack of understanding of this [and you inability to learn].
Hi doc, let’s see:
a) Vukcevic: Oscillations of the Earth magnetic field induce currents in the ocean and the upper mantle
b) Dr.L. Svalgaard -: Variations of the observed field at the surface of the Earth are syncronized with solar activity. Variations are caused by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and induced in the oceans and upper mantle
(Dr. S. also said that these are too weak to have an effect, I am not so certain)
Vukcevic: If two of above (a & b, both electric currents induced in the ocean) are combined the result is:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
I favour the Arctic ocean currents (where both Earth magnetic field and geomagnetic storms are at their strongest) flowing south through Denmark Strait. Any oceanography scientist will confirm that these currents are critical components of the N.Atlantic’s subpolar gyre, the engine of the heat transfer across the N. Atlantic, the home of the AMO and the regulator of the natural variability in the Northern Hemisphere.
@jon
>>“The arctic sea ice melts from the bottom up. Its thickness can decrease 90% with no melt pools on the top to indicate that it is indeed melting. You actually have to measure it to tell that it’s melting.”
>Do you have a reference to back up this statement?
The Arctic ocean is warmer than the ice floating on top of it, wihchi s in turn warmer than the frigid air above that. When the cooling on top (losing heat to space) moderates in spring, the warmth that has been seeping through the ice all winter starts to melt it. Combined with spring sunlight, the surface melts from ‘both sides’.
This is not at all like the melting of a puddle or a skating rink in the mid latitudes where the sun and air temperatures overwhelm heat rising from below. I am not sure if you need a reference for this, the Arctic ocean is not colder than the ice above it. That why it remains liquid.
An ocean current (for example through the Bering Strait) carries a huge amount of heat with it and provides a cooling system for the planet. As you are probably aware teh whle premise of CAGW is that hte air heats up from additional CO2 which heats the oceans and melts the ice from above with its increased air temperature.
That is simply not how the Earth works. The oceans are the great stores of heat and transport it to the Arctic Ocean when the gyres or wind is right (note, 2007). There is no mechanism by which hotter air will warm the oceans. Oceans are heated by the sun (if it is not too cloudy) and to a tiny extent, by heat from the centre of the Earth.
Quiet Professional says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
A couple basic questions:
How do we square the record high temperatures — “hottest summer on record, etc.” — of the past decade with a cooling trend, or at least a no warming trend, over the same period?
And with the rise in Arctic temperatures and consequent loss of sea ice there?
QP, if you compare the estimated Solar Number Reconstruction with estimated Holocene temperatures, you will almost immediately note the similarity in the curves. What’s more interesting, there’s a clear “hockey stick” marking the present, which is comparable in magnitude to the estimated spike about 9,000 years BP. So, that curve literally “predicts” that the present should be hot based upon solar criteria alone.
That said, there are several other aspects that could bear additional analysis. The data used in Figure 8 is C-14 data from dendrochronological studies. Unlike estimating temperature based on tree-ring width, the methods used really should measure the relative amount of carbon/radiocarbon in the atmosphere as a tree ring forms. However that doesn’t offer anmy causal explanation for the change, just the fact. I would like to see a comparison of Be-10 data over that same span. Be-10 is, like C-14, a cosmogenic isotope, so that would offer a control on whether the fluctuations of C-14 are due to extraplanetary events or to for instance changes in the carbon cycle.
Stephen Richards says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:38 am
richard verney says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:07 am
Cox spends a lot of his time contradicting himself. It’s a requirement for keeping the BBC Travel Credit card that he so enjoys.
The classic words from him came when asked directly whether AGW was real. His response was ” well the consensus says so”. A scientist fighting with his honesty and the trough.
Reply:
Taken from the new statesman cox had this to say on global warming denial specifically
“Science is the framework within which we reach conclusions about the natural world. These conclusions are always preliminary, always open to revision, but they are the best we can do. It is not logical to challenge the findings of science unless there are specific, evidence-based reasons for doing so. Elected politicians are free to disregard its findings and recommendations. Indeed, there may be good reasons for doing so.”
He’s never had a problem with evidence based challenges to anything, it’s pseudoscience he has a problem with. He can be quite flippant about it. I believe he’s intellectually honest enough that if pressed and evidence was presented he would privately admit the IPCC over played it’s hand. I’d love to know what HE thinks about CO2 sensitivity which he surely would have to admit is where the real debate lies these days.
I’ve been directly asking over twitter these champions of rational thought, with whom I agree on a great many thinks as a limp wristed lefty liberal, that specific question “What do you think the sensitivity to CO2 is” to see whether I really disagree with them. I never get a response though.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm
b) Dr.L. Svalgaard -: Variations of the observed field at the surface of the Earth are syncronized with solar activity. Variations are caused by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and induced in the oceans and upper mantle
(Dr. S. also said that these are too weak to have an effect, I am not so certain)
That is your problem, you have no grip on the basic physics. ‘not so certain’ is just a euphemism for ‘having no idea’.
The solar induced currents are strong in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, but are much smaller in the ocean and the upper mantle. And as all induced current [dB/dt] are transient and short-lived. There is a useful concept called the ‘skin depth’. which is the depth to which a magnetic change will effectively induce a current. The depth depends on frequency and conductivity. For changes on a time scale of 1 hour the depth for upper mantle is 300 km, for the lower mantle 9 km, and for the core 0.043 km. For a time scale of a magnetic storm, the depths are 1500 km, 47 km, and 0.209 km, so there is no way any effect can influence the circulation in the core. So solar and core processes are completely decoupled. The core is effectively a super conductor and does not allow external magnetic field to enter.
The heating of the ocean from the tiny induced currents is unmeasurably small as any competent electrical engineer can easily verify. Show your competence and calculate it yourself.
With respect to Figure 8, the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th Century than it had been in the previous 11,000 years. Is it any wonder that the planet warmed in response to that?
Something I have been thinking about for some time. Gulf stream flow with lower oceans levels. The gulf stream with the last ice ages would of been almost be non existent and ice could build very fast in the northern Arctic and stay around until the sun goes into a warm phase. Higher sea levels is the reverse and faster Arctic ice melting with good gulf stream flows. The sun has to go through cycles that are much larger then we know of today. Our solar system is like a hurricane floating in space and it has to go through areas where the sun takes in more something to release more energy.over longer periods of time.
Also a large asteroid hit could hit changing everything from axis to time of day light. Just think if there was no sunlight at the Arctic at all for 1 million years while the southern hemisphere had sunlight all the time. Could of happened in the past until the Sun’s gravity put earth back on track. Even if the moon was in different placement from a good sized hit climate would be different. So many things.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Any oceanography scientist will confirm that these currents are critical components …
Study this http://www.leif.org/EOS/Ocean-Oscillations.pdf to learn what oceanographers can tell you about ocean oscillations and their cause. Read and learn [if possible]. I might quiz you on the contents, so pay attention to it.
One of the figures is missing. You have tags for Fig1-11, but I only see 10. One of them is missing, and I think Fig 6 is the one.
David Archibald says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm
With respect to Figure 8, the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th Century than it had been in the previous 11,000 years. Is it any wonder that the planet warmed in response to that?
No, that is simply not true. As I have shown many times, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm
………
You do go astray, in order to divert attention from the subject.
Point is that ocean currents in the Arctic are highly stratified (light fresh cold water is at the top, warm salty waters below)
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
Combination of the solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations produces correlation with the N. Hemisphere’s temperature which is beyond any doubt.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
Geomagnetic storms x Earth’s magnetic field > Arctic ocean currents > subpolar gyre > AMO > N. Hemisphere’s temperature natural variability:
Cause and consequence are fundamental tools of science.
Proclaiming ‘spurious’ and ‘coincidence’ are in the tools of an anxious detractor.
re Germany’s winters
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/
David was 100% correct
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
Total nonsense. The currents are of the order of 0.00001 A/m2. The resistance is 0.21 ohm m, now be an engineer and calculate the heating [hint: Q = i^2 R t].
Combination of the solar and Earth’s magnetic oscillations produces correlation with the N. Hemisphere’s temperature which is beyond any doubt.
You are vague on this. ‘Combinations’? ‘produce’ correlation is nonsense. True science doubt very much your spurious correlations. You have not even told us how you make up the data you claim to be correlated.
Cause and consequence are fundamental tools of science.
Then use those tools. You have not identified any cause and shown it is sufficient.
‘spurious’ and ‘coincidence’
Are the verdict of an experienced scientist [moi].
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm
“Study this http://www.leif.org/EOS/Ocean-Oscillations.pdf to learn what oceanographers can tell you about ocean oscillations and their cause.”
These models are highly theoretical … we find it hard enough to predict the weather!
Jon says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm
These models are highly theoretical … we find it hard enough to predict the weather!
The models explain the observed variations. What more can we expect? or is needed?
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm
“The Arctic ocean is warmer than the ice floating on top of it, wihchi s in turn warmer than the frigid air above that. When the cooling on top (losing heat to space) moderates in spring, the warmth that has been seeping through the ice all winter starts to melt it”
What a load of hog wash … warmth seeping through the ice in winter! Do you know what the water temperatures are below the ice in summer … in the areas I have worked in they are close to -1.8°C. Meanwhile the air temps are above freezing.
@David Archibald The suns activity is present in temperature records, I agree with the Idea that the Earth warms and cools in response to the Suns activity,
(If the sunspot number before 1957 is calibrated to Leif’s specification, the correlation becomes a bit tighter.)
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 2:51 pm
…….
vukcevic: Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
lsvalgaard The resistance is 0.21 ohm m, now be an engineer and calculate the heating [hint: Q = i^2 R t].
Heating ? another of your diversions. For ions and Lorenz forces see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_force.svg
You have not even told us how you make up the data you claim to be correlated.
One more diversion from the obscurant detractor
Anyone interested can google ‘vukcevic Geo-Solar oscillation’ or ‘vukcevic Geo-Solar cycle’
@lsvalgaard
Leif, I’m sure you know this, large magnetic fields can be effected by a body much smaller than the body producing the large magnetic field.
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Heating ? another of your diversions.
Ah, so now you have given up on that idea, and try to see what you can get out of the Lorenz force “causing interference within the termohaline layers”. What kind of interference? As a result of a force, stuff [water in this case] moves: acceleration = force / mass. So calculate the acceleration instead. A Lorenz force F = q(E+vxB) is indeed caused by water moving with velocity v across the Earth’s magnetic field B. The changes in B are minute dB/B of the order 1/1000 to 1/100, so the change is force will be correspondingly tiny. But, let us see first what you calculate the force to be. Faraday first explored this back in 1832.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Leif, I’m sure you know this, large magnetic fields can be effected by a body much smaller than the body producing the large magnetic field.
So? magnetic changes have to traverse the space between the bodies and if that space is filled with plasma moving away from the larger body with a speed much [10 times, in fact] exceeding the speed limit (the Alfven speed) then no changes can propagate from the small to the large body, right?
,
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm
“The models explain the observed variations. What more can we expect? or is needed?”
Oh please … the observed variations over millions of cubic km’s of ocean …. so where is the data. I’d be interested to know how large the database is! Are you suddenly an oceanographer???
If Svalgaard were as polite and restrained as Vukcevic, I would be inclined to believe him more. But as it is, he is his own worst enemy.
Leif, my comment isn’t directed at magnetic field interactions with each-other, I Understand that a small body can effect the magnetic field of a much larger body. this is true is it not?
Jon says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:44 pm
so where is the data. I’d be interested to know how large the database is! Are you suddenly an oceanographer???
Are you all the sudden? Try to read the paper, and follow the references [there are lots of them – and that is what they are there for] and discussion.
Tony McGough says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:53 pm
If Svalgaard were as polite and restrained as Vukcevic, I would be inclined to believe him more. But as it is, he is his own worst enemy.
It is easy to be restrained in face of my science-based physical arguments. When repeatedly confronted with nonsense and refusal to learn, some of the restraint wears thin.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Leif, my comment isn’t directed at magnetic field interactions with each-other, I Understand that a small body can effect the magnetic field of a much larger body. this is true is it not?
Whether it is true depends on the circumstances. So precisely which are those that you have in mind. Let me take an example where it is false: the much larger body Earth has a magnetic field. My little finger is a small body. I wiggle my little finger. That does not affect the magnetic field of the Earth to any measurable degree.
Leif, scale it up to a degree where it is measurable and describe that, I understand the physics behind this, as do you, If you’re uncomfortable discussing this, you can use my e-mail.
You are correct, wiggling your little finger about does not effect the magnetic field of earth to any measurable degree. If you meant that as a bit of intellectual humor at my expense, Ha Ha!
[Video] just [released] by NASA 23 Feb
This was a cool clip, thanks crispin, but i started to giggle because of the sound track…so that is what the sun sounds like; thanks NASA.
Wow hard to follow this thread, like alphabet soup, sheesh, i need a nap ’cause i don’t think GCR is Great Canadian Rebates and i don’t think MM is numbers and measure. I will try again tomorrow.
oh does anybody look at the spectrum of wavelengths emitted from the Sun, is this constant in at all times?
Do plants and algae and the like heat or cool their surroundings or does that not have an affect on the latent heat of oceans and/or land?
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Leif, scale it up to a degree where it is measurable and describe that
I’m not sure which circumstances you are referring to. Give me a specific example.
Kajajuk says:
February 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm
oh does anybody look at the spectrum of wavelengths emitted from the Sun
Yes, it is looked at all the time [and it does vary] … [not by much though, except at very short wavelengths which we cannot see on the Earth, [because] they are absorbed high in the atmosphere]: e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 7:28 pm
[Because I can sometimes figure it out, but “andores” ? “And or data varies” ? Mod]
Just got new keyboard 🙂 Fingers not trained yet. ‘And does vary’
vukcevic says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Lorenz forces are acting on every singular ion of salty water to a far greater extent than on the fresh water thus causing interference within the termohaline layers.
First of all, the surface water is not fresh, it is still almost as salty as deeper down [in the subtropics even saltier, because of evaporation]. And the conductivity depends so strongly on the temperature and the pressure that it is some 3 times larger for the warmer surface water than for the colder bottom water, just the opposite of what you claim. You really cannot do science without knowing the basics: the conductivity increases equally by a salinity increase of 1 gram per liter, a temperature increase of 1° C, or a depth (i.e. pressure) increase of 2000 m. But, let that slide for now, so you can calculate the Lorenz force for us and show us how that force ‘interferes’ with the circulation.
;
Thanks for the interesting article David Archibald. It’s too bad most of the comments turn into the same old arguments but I’ve just learned to skip and ignore some folks.. why feed the sun troll.
pkatt says:
February 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Thanks for the interesting article David Archibald. It’s too bad most of the comments turn into the same old arguments but I’ve just learned to skip and ignore some folks
Yes, indeed, it is easier to believe what you want to believe [even if wrong] and ignore the skeptics.
DA: The solar wind flow pressure has also seen its peak for this cycle. No,
Statistically, the flow pressure is at its minimum at solar maximum [after allowing for a long-term trend]: http://www.leif.org/research/Space-Climate-n-B-V-Flow.png so its peak is still to come.
pkatt: Thanks for the interesting article David Archibald. It’s too bad most of the comments turn into the same old arguments but I’ve just learned to skip and ignore some folks.. why feed the sun troll.
Not so. I asked a simple question that he declines to answer and he does not address the empirical claims made by Leif Svalgaard.
Leif, The outer mass (plasma) of the Sun, is effecting the magnetic field produced by its core, the relative physical mass to create this dynamo, you discuss is plausible, correct?
Therefor no-other physical interactions are possible? is this correct?
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Leif, The outer mass (plasma) of the Sun, is effecting the magnetic field produced by its core, the relative physical mass to create this dynamo, you discuss is plausible, correct?
Therefor no-other physical interactions are possible? is this correct?
The little body can obviously affect the magnetic field locally where the body is, but that is different from affecting the magnetic field globally, e.g. at its source in the large body. Whether it is possible to affect the global field or the field at the large body depends on many factors, one being the dynamics of the bodies and their environment. In case of the Earth and the Sun there is a plasma between the two moving away from the Sun faster than an Alfven wave [changing the magnetic field] can move towards the Sun. In this case, there can be no effect at the source. In the case of Jupiter and its moon Io, the magnetosphere around Jupiter is not moving away from Jupiter and plasma from Io can move along magnetic field lines and produce aurorae on Jupiter so can affect the field close to its source, albeit only very little. So it all depends on the particular circumstances.
Leif, Thanks, I think you know where I’m coming from and what I’m getting at, so to speak. Explore what we have touched upon, It will be interesting.
Sparks says:
February 25, 2013 at 10:54 pm
Leif, Thanks, I think you know where I’m coming from and what I’m getting at, so to speak. Explore what we have touched upon, It will be interesting.
I think I have said what there is to say about the subject. Is there anything specific you need to have clarified?
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 11:05 pm
I think I have said what there is to say about the subject. Is there anything specific you need to have clarified?
You have not gave a straight answer.
@lsvalgaard: I often am set back with the statement that the TSI is too small to affect our temperatures here on earth, with the explanation being that the TSI is where all the energy is and it changes too little. Are you suggesting that the other changes to the sun’s output do NOT or can NOT have any other affect which causes feedbacks?
I am not talking specifically of the cosmic ray theory or hypothesis, but it does come to mind. I often say, just because we do not find the smoking gun, doesn’t mean there is not one. You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
It is obvious that SC24 has almost reached it’s peak. So far Vukcevic is the only one on this blog that has predicted SC24’s max and I am confident that his prediction for SC25 will follow suit.
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
(vukcevic : Heating ? another of your diversions.)
Ah, so now you have given up on that idea
Hi Doc
Straying again, are we?
1. I never suggested that any significant heat is released by electric currents inductions. As you well know, what you imply is totally incorrect, and I am sure with your ‘inventiveness’ you can find more suitable counter-argument.
2. First of all, the surface water is not fresh, it is still almost as salty as deeper down [in the subtropics even saltier, because of evaporation].
I am talking about Arctic currents (see my link again)
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
Note the ice covered area and the currents vertical positioning, not much evaporation under the ice, is there?
Fresh water comes from the huge Siberian and Canadian rivers inflow. The only active factors there are magnetic fields (from both sun and the earth) and some geological activity. The long term variability of Earth’s field here (moving in step with the solar ) determines directly the temperatures of whole of the Arctic region:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.htm
Most likely cause is change in the balance of Arctic’s currents, the outflow via Denmark Strait and the AMO, the heart-beat of the N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Sun-Earth.htm
Dr. S. this ‘conversation’ makes sense only if one does not misinterprets the other, but even more importantly, without introducing non-existent attributions (e.g. ‘electric heating’).
I shall leave last word (right or wrong) to you, but do remember that one ‘spurious’ correlation may be coincidence but half a dozen only points to what the nature is the best at: cause and consequence.
Over and out.
Re Comment from Richard Verney about Brian Cox tv program
“He also briefly touched upon the earth acquiring water. It may be the case that there was no water on earth during the faint sun epoch, and that water was aquired (by whatever mechanism) only later in earth’s history”
Oldest sediments on the planet are in Greenland. 3.9 billion years old, so there was water around then. Plenty of sedimentary rocks found around 3.4 to 3.6 billion years old in North America , Africa and Australia. Possible fossils [still a bit of dispute here] from northern Western Australia are 3.5 billion years old.
The oldest minerals on the planet have been dated to around 4.2- 4.3 billion years so water was around early in the planet’s development and life started up fairly quickly.
The so called faint sun is used as a “cause” for a lack of warming much later in earth history during the Devonian [350Ma-420Ma] when CO2 was about 10 times current levels. Instead of warming there was glaciation. Interesting as well that ocean acidification didn’t seem to be a problem then.
Matthew R Marler says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm
Because it was such a simple question, Mr Marler. Logic dictates that there is a breakover point. Through my own research I have determined that the level is 100 in F10.7 flux. You are always free to determine the level yourself.
We should have a closer look to the TSI. See
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant, figure 5.
Minimum 20/21: 1365.496 W/m²
Min 21/22: 1365.579 W/m²
Min 22/23: 1365.493 W/m²
Min 23/24: 1365.253 W/m²
From May 2008 through March 2009 the average TSI was 1365.267 W/m². This low value must have its implications on earth.
I refer also to the paper of Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc, “The Sun Defines The Climate”, November 2008. (http://www.giurfa.com/abdu2009.pdf). He speaks of a drop in the value of TSI (and solar activity) which is accelerating, indicating the beginning of a decreasing phase in a 200 year solar cycle. He predicted a maximum of the sunspot number of 65 +/- 15 in the 24th solar cycle. We have to wait until 2014 to take definite conclusions.
In the subsequent cycles he predicts a further decrease of the SSN. If Penn & Livingston are right, no sunspots should be seen from the next cycle on.
Absussamatov expects the onset of the phase of deep minimum in the present 200-year cycle of cyclic activity of the Sun to occur at the beginning of solar cycle 27; i.e., tentatively in the year 2042 plus or minus 11 years, and potentially lasting 45-65 years.
Sunspot says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:11 am
…..
It is just straight forward extrapolation. If the SC25 does follow the trend, than the solar science has seriously to consider possible role of ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback.
Mosher Svaalgard etc..
All of above is nonsense re arctic, global ice melting and arctic temperatures rising
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php Arctic ice = NORMAL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Arctic Temperatures = BELOW anomaly haha
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png Antarctica ice =WAY ABOVE NORMAL
GLOBAL ICE = NORMAL
ALL FROM PRO AGW SITES LOL (maybe finally they have given up trying to “adjust” anymore as it aint going the way the want)
An appropriate quote from a totally different subject :
“Any discussion should have as its starting point the basic, axiomatic assumption that any one of us can know with certainty only a part, and that part is likely to be partially wrong.”
This is, I think, particularly relevant to the studies of the sun, climate, and man’s activities: so many variables, so little time, so little firmly known, so much feedback, both positive and negative…
Let us learn humbly from one another.
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 9:45 am
the arctic air temperature, per se, isn’t particularly strong evidence for global warming.
But would [by most people here] be considered strong evidence for global cooling if the Arctic were cooling…
But it’s almost per definition so, since the funny measure “global temperature” is, as a measure of global lower atmospheric heat content, very sensitive to Arctic temperature changes (since a degree higher or lower in the cold Arctic desert corresponds to a far smaller change in enthalpy than a degree higher or lower in warmer and more humid regions).
very interesting…….guess we will find out in the coming years.
REgarding the question as to whether ice melts top down or bottom up, a few considerations:
1. It is much easier to observe pooling than bottom melting.
2. The heat carrying capacity of water is 3 orders of magnitude greater than air.
3. Sea water melts ice at -2 degrees C.
4. Arctic sea ice begins melting in March, before appreciable insolation.
5. Ice is a good insulator.
It seems to me top melting is the easily visible exception to the rule, and that the thicker the ice, the more important bottom melting becomes. Of course in the case of ice bergs deep water does the melting. I suppose new sea ice in June melts top down, rather trivially. –AGF
You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
Not nonsense. And TSI does have an effect [of the order of 0.1 degree] via a well-established physical mechanism. The problem with all the other proposed effects is that their energy is on the order of a million times smaller and their mechanisms are either unknown or controversial. The observations are, however, as always what ultimately determine what is going on, and the data have not compelling to convince me. They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:48 am
I am talking about Arctic currents
Which are still salty, not fresh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temperature_and_salinity_profiles_in_the_Arctic_Ocean.svg
Not much lower than the usual average salinity of 35 promille.
Over and out.
And you still evade explaining how the Lorenz force would work, and even to calculate it. So, you have no mechanism. And you have still not explained how to make your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data. So it is understandable that you bow out.
David Archibald says:
February 26, 2013 at 1:37 am
Logic dictates that there is a breakover point.
No, it does not.
Rik Gheysens says:
February 26, 2013 at 1:56 am
From May 2008 through March 2009 the average TSI was 1365.267 W/m². This low value must have its implications on earth.
That low value is an artifact due to uncompensated degradation of the detector. There is no evidence of a lower value at the recent minimum.
I refer also to the paper of Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc, “The Sun Defines The Climate”
Since there was no lower value, extrapolating the non-existent lower minimum is wrong from the output. And Abdussamatov has already been falsified by subsequent evolution of TSI, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png In fact TSI right now [average 2013] is higher [1361.5] than it was in 2003 [1361.3].
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:24 am
It is just straight forward extrapolation. If the SC25 does follow the trend, than the solar science has seriously to consider possible role of ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback.
Extrapolation has no predictive power, and a low SC25 does not show possible ‘electro-magnetic’ feedback. Two problems even with you word: it is in quotes, so is not the usual physical concept, and there is a hyphen which also shows that it is not a recognized concept. Magnetic and/or electric changes cannot travel upstream to the Sun because of the Alfven speed limit, so no feedback is possible.
Leif provides an interesting link: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
I’m reading along about the sun and then this:
The natural greenhouse effect is the cause for global average temperatures above the freezing point of water over much of the Earth’s history, while the anthropogenic component resulting from the continuing emission of greenhouse gases by humanity is responsible for the observed global
warming since the 19th century [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007].
You can see that the warming theme has affected or should that be infected science at many levels, even in an otherwise good article about the sun.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
Which are still salty, not fresh
1. Read what experts in the field ( WHOI ) have to say, and get it right:
The present state of the Arctic Ocean and its influence on the global climate system strongly depend on the Arctic Ocean freshwater budget, because fluctuations in the freshwater export can significantly influence the depth and volume of deep water formation in the North Atlantic (NA) and ultimately the strength of the global thermohaline circulation.
2. And you have still not explained how to make your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data.
Again, read what I had to say, and get it right:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/solar-update-february-2013/#comment-1232606
‘electro-magnetic’ feedback. ….and there is a hyphen which also shows that it is not a recognized concept.
Absolute tosh !
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc1.html
At the rate you are going, even on the matters that you speak with undoubted authority readers will start ignoring, which would be a great pity.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
You seem to be sure that (maybe I am projecting) it’s nonsense to think that all climate effects from the sun can only be measured by TSI –period. Am I correct in my assumptions here?
Not nonsense. And TSI does have an effect [of the order of 0.1 degree] via a well-established physical mechanism. The problem with all the other proposed effects is that their energy is on the order of a million times smaller and their mechanisms are either unknown or controversial. The observations are, however, as always what ultimately determine what is going on, and the data have not compelling to convince me. They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.
There is roughly 20 years of data that shows close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until roughly 1995 at which there is suddenly a reduction in low level planetary cloud cover.
There is in the paleoclimatic record cycles of warming followed by cooling that correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by changes in greenhouse gases. The sun appears to be driver of past climate cycles.
The 20th century warming was not evenly distributed; the tropics and the southern hemisphere did not warm. If the 20th century warming was due to rise of CO2 in the atmosphere the warming would have been evenly distributed with majority of the warming occurring in the tropics.
As I noted there are unexplained very large and very rapid geomagnetic changes in the paleo record. The geomagnetic field changes (both intensity and sudden changes in the tilt of the geomagnetic field) are too large and too rapid for a core based cause. The geomagnetic field changes correlate with abrupt and cyclic climate change.
There are burn marks on the surface of the earth, throughout the Northern Hemisphere, that correlate with Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event and there is a geomagnetic excursion that correlates with the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change.
Hi lsvalgaard: Thank you for your reply: “They may convince you or other people, but that does not do much for me.”
You always make such cogent points based on your expert interpretation of the facts. I’m still not convinced that there is not a relationship. Considering the total amount and type of energy rising and falling (from the sun), and all the lags of stored and released energy in the oceans, the complex interactions between our atmosphere, land, and space, and observed weather – I think there is a certain link which is far greater than could be caused by only looking at TSI in terms of watts/m2.
Just looking at the ENSO process and how cloud formation and weather patterns affect El Nino and La Nina for example puts solar cycles and weather into the spot light for me.
I think climate is more complex than even Macro Economics… and no one can tell you if the market will go up or down tomorrow with certainty (except people pulling the strings perhaps…) That said, I’ve played the market exceptionally well for the past 15 years… hardly every losing and always taking the rides up.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:49 am
1. Read what experts in the field ( WHOI ) have to say
All that is well and good. But your quote of this is typical for pseudo-science: quoting something correct and then misusing it. The difference in salinity is so small that it makes almost no difference to the Lorenz force. And you still evade to explain your Lorenz-mechanism, here.
2. And you have still not explained how to make up your [as you put it] ‘confidential’ data.
Again, read what I had to say, and get it right:
All you said was ‘One more diversion from the obscurant detractor’
The various other attempts of illumination fall short.
Absolute tosh
Again you do not know what you are talking about, The link talks about ‘Those are electromagnetically induced currents, originally discovered by Faraday’. The dumbing down to electro-magnetic might be suitable for your level. The induction is the production of a voltage across a conductor when exposed to a varying magnetic field. So it comes down to communicating a change of the magnetic field back to the Sun, which is not possible due to the supersonic solar wind.
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:12 am
There is roughly 20 years of data that shows close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until roughly 1995 at which there is suddenly a reduction in low level planetary cloud cover.
This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.
The geomagnetic field changes (both intensity and sudden changes in the tilt of the geomagnetic field) are too large and too rapid for a core based cause.
And how you do deduce that? and what would explain those too large changes if not changes in the core?
Mario Lento says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:23 am
I think climate is more complex than even Macro Economics
And yet, the solar enthusiasts claim the solar connection is clear and simple.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 7:46 am
Since there was no lower value, extrapolating the non-existent lower minimum is wrong from the output. And Abdussamatov has already been falsified by subsequent evolution of TSI, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png In fact TSI right now [average 2013] is higher [1361.5] than it was in 2003 [1361.3].
Leif,
How can be explained the difference between the TSI values we find in http://www.pmodwrc.ch (1365.) and your TSI values (1361.)?
Rik Gheysens says:
February 26, 2013 at 10:26 am
How can be explained the difference between the TSI values we find in http://www.pmodwrc.ch (1365.) and your TSI values (1361.)?
See, e.g. slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/10S1_0616_GKopp.pdf
By a design defect that allows a bit of scatted light to enter the detector and thus gives a TSI that is too high.
– – – – – – – –
I do not see the ‘breakover’ basis of Archibald.
In a similar vein, I do not see compelling evidence that we are entering a solar variation similar to the MM, but if we are then the conclusion there will be another LIA resulting from it does not reasonably follow.
The timing of the MM with respect to the LIA does not support MM causation of the LIA.
Also, consider the order of magnitude comparison of the estimates of the delta energies from the sun during the MM versus the estimates of delta energies of the earth-atmospheric system during the LIA. The comparison does not support MM causation of the LIA.
* * * * * * *
Now A Little Intellectual Excursion for Fun:
After numerous excellent solar post discussions in comments here at WUWT, I do a Feynman type informed ‘guess’ as follows. => At best the MM may have augmented and extended an already deep cooling that was caused by other phenomena. The total effect being the LIA.
Now in Feynman tradition I deduce some current behavior of our earth-atmospheric system that should be related to my guess So, for our current situation we have a relatively weak solar cycle activity period which I assume may extend to being similar to a MM; that will provide overall relatively small reductions in solar energy and thus a corresponding small cooling. That cooling will augment a slight cooling from a oceanic phenomena variation. We will have a relatively moderate period of cooling. The length of the cooling period will be approximated by both the length of continuing relatively low solar activity periods and by the length the cooling inducing oceanic phenomena .
Finally, in Feynman tradition I will sit back and observe if my guess is correct.
NOTE: Conspicuous by its absence is an AGW significance. Just like its absence of significance during the MM and LIA.
End of my Little Intellectual Excursion
¿Critiques? . . .
John
Hi John
As it happens there are some temperature records (CET)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
during the MM. If you plot the annual values (last column) against SSN for the period, it may help along with your Little Intellectual Assumption (LIA)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Are we on the way to seeing all year round ice in the Antarctic?We seem to be at the summer minimum and only one previous year had more sea ice at this time.
@lsvalgaard: Mario Lento says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:23 am
I think climate is more complex than even Macro Economics
And yet, the solar enthusiasts claim the solar connection is clear and simple.
+++++
I agree it is NOT simple 🙂 But there is ample enough correlation to consider that there is a tendency of solar variations to have notable affects on earth beyond just the TSI. So many things are changing that obscure the clarity, but that does not mean mechanisms do not exist; it means we have not perfected our understanding or ability to discern the relationships well enough.
We’ll soon see if the climate tends to cool over the remainder of sc 24. That will not be proof, but it will be interesting, as you say in some of your earlier posts. My bet is there will be a net cooling… the energy budget of the oceans will wane, and the atmosphere will follow. I think there is a much better than 50% chance of cooling. I’m usually right –based on a “hunch”… I know I know… hunches are not science, but I’m just saying…
donald penman says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Are we on the way to seeing all year round ice in the Antarctic?We seem to be at the summer minimum and only one previous year had more sea ice at this time.
++++
Uhm… there is always all year round ice in the Antarctic… Am I missing something here?
“lsvalgaard on February 26, 2013 at 9:54 am
This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.”
And there we have CAGW summarised in a single sentence*
*I apologise for the lack of /sarc I am am still awaiting funding for my bogies caused by Co2 thesis
GingerZilla says:
February 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm
“This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.”
And there we have CAGW summarised in a single sentence … I apologise for the lack of /sarc
No need for a \sarc as you are absolutely correct: the CO2 correlation also seems to have broken down, it worked for a while, but is now failing. Very astute of you to notice.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image2.png
Ap (a proxy measurement of solar wind changes, day average) at the so called peak of the solar cycle has fallen to a level that is lower than the lowest level of the solar cycle 23/24 minimum.
Ak is a better proxy measurement of the solar wind bursts (3 hour average comparing different locations on the planet).
Both Ap and Ak are caused by solar wind bursts. Solar wind burst create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions from specific latitudes on the earth.
Solar cycle 24 is an interrupted to the solar magnetic cycle (if I understand the mechanisms). The solar wind density and wind speed will continue to drop, as will the solar polar large scale magnetic field. It appears solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle rather than a Maunder minimum.
There is a 10 to 12 year delay in planetary cooling when there is a change from a series of very active solar magnetic cycles to a Maunder minimum.
Sharpest reversal of direction ( not the polarity ! ) for the polar magnetic field in the recent years
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
“sun is a messy place” – Dr.S.
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Both Ap and Ak are caused by solar wind bursts. Solar wind burst create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions from specific latitudes on the earth.
No, that is not correct. Read here what Ap and friends are: http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf or a shorter version http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Solar cycle 24 is an interrupted to the solar magnetic cycle (if I understand the mechanisms). The solar wind density and wind speed will continue to drop, as will the solar polar large scale magnetic field. It appears solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle rather than a Maunder minimum.
You do not understand the mechanism. What do you mean by ‘interruption’? I have asked you many times, but you refuse to answer.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Sharpest reversal of direction ( not the polarity ! ) for the polar magnetic field in the recent years
What you plot is the difference between North and South which is on a short time scale somewhat meaningless as the two hemispheres operate rather independently, so no particular conclusion of any significance should be drawn. A correct plot would be http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png . Again you pontificate on things you do not understand.
Solar cycle 24 rules. We would be paying a global carbon tax right now if not for the exaggerated solar minimum of cycle 24. I hope we can come to a consensus and somewhat reliable climate change effect as a matter of solar activity, so we can adapt accordingly. I’m getting tired of counting the high body bag numbers from global freezing conditions.
The expert I put my money on is Piers Corbyn for his good track record.
The Greenest Event – Piers Corbyn
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 2:55 pm
What you plot is the difference between North and South which is on a short time scale somewhat meaningless
It appears you do it too
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
(right hand graph)
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:54 am
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 9:12 am
There is roughly 20 years of data that shows close correlation of GCR and planetary cloud cover up until roughly 1995 at which there is suddenly a reduction in low level planetary cloud cover.
This is typical for spurious correlations: they work for a while, then fail.
William: There is a third mechanism. The solar cycle change is removing ions from the earth’s ionosphere and from the other planets in the solar system.
The geomagnetic field changes (both intensity and sudden changes in the tilt of the geomagnetic field) are too large and too rapid for a core based cause.
And how you do deduce that? and what would explain those too large changes if not changes in the core?
The sun is causing what is observed. It is physically not possible for a earth core change to cause what is observed in the paleo magnetic record. There are burn marks on the surface of the planet that have been dated to 12,900 years BP (Younger Dryas abrupt climate change event and geomagnetic excursion) and around 40,000 years (another geomagnetic excursion) before present. The 40,000 before present burn marks (the Caroline Bay burn marks) all point in the North-west direction, are elliptical, and overlap showing evidence of restrike. There are roughly a million Caroline Bay burn marks. Accepting the earth based evidence of what has happened in the past it appears there is no other explanation.
The largest geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
I have hundreds of papers that provide astronomical observational evidence to support what I am stating. There are anomalies in field upon field that not explained and that are logically connected when a mechanism is added to explain what is observed. I looked for the alternative hypothesis which is connected with the ignored anomaly and then worked with it to develop the explanation.
Large stars form about the core of collapsed matter, super nova cores and ejected condensed matter from large collapsed objects. Collapsed matter is not stable. It evolves in a manner to resist the collapse. The same phenomenon explains the rotation anomaly of spiral galaxies. Large stars are a subset of each spiral galaxy.
For example there is 25 years of quasar observations that shows the quasar pulsates monotonically increasing in amplitude. The process stops when there is an ejection from the quasar.
A classical black hole does not form when massive objects collapse. I would assume most people have heard about ejected collapse matter ejections from super massive objects at the center of galaxies. The observed (quasar) phenomenon depends on the stage in the quasar cycle. The objects ejected from the super massive object in the center of each galaxy form galaxies. There is an observed evolution of spiral galaxy properties as the process proceeds.
If what is stated above is correct there will solar observation data to support it.
vukcevic says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:20 pm
It appears you do it too
Of course, but I don’t make silly comments on it. As long as the poles both have sizable fields, their difference is a reasonable approximation to a ‘global’ dipole. When the North Pole [as now] has no field left, the difference just shows the South pole [which still has not reversed] and does not have its usual meaning. If anything your plot shows an increasing falsification of your ‘formula’. You should learn to argue less and learn more. There are many good things here at WUWT. I suggest you [as tallbloke and Sharp] set up your own blog to attract a band of admiring sycophants instead of diluting the quality of WUWT.
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image4.png
lsvalgaard says:
February 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm
“It is easy to be restrained in face of my science-based physical arguments. When repeatedly confronted with nonsense and refusal to learn, some of the restraint wears thin.”
You are very arrogant, which at times clouds your reasoning … I remember the whisky barrel vs oil production argument you tried to make some time ago. Instead of thinking critically about what the author was saying, you took his word for it (bad science) … if you’d done some research you would have found that a lack of whicky barrels was not the problem … there were cooperages popping up all over the place. But instead of accepting or even debating this, you replied “take it up with the author” … a refusal to learn???
David Archibald: Through my own research I have determined that the level is 100 in F10.7 flux.
Could you provide a link, or summarize the research? Have you always been correct in the past, so that we can believe everything that you write? Of course not, so this bald assertion is no more worthwhile than the unsubstantiated postings of anybody.
I just want to know: is it going to get cooler or warmer?
Mike says:
February 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm
I just want to know: is it going to get cooler or warmer?
—————————————————————
Yes, it is going to get cooler or warmer!
Matthew R Marler says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Consider that WUWT is the repository of all climate data worth knowing on the planet. To find what you seek, simply type in “Archibald sea level F10.7 flux” in the search function on the upper right.
Jon says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:21 pm
I remember the whisky barrel vs oil production argument you tried to make some time ago.
I don’t, but you could be right [since I don’t remenber, and don’t consider it important.
Instead of thinking critically about what the author was saying, you took his word for it (bad science)
One usually do when it is outside of one’s knowledge base (especially in science). The default assumption is that the author is right, unless you know positively that he is wrong..
William says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm
The sun is causing what is observed…There are roughly a million Caroline Bay burn marks. Accepting the earth based evidence of what has happened in the past it appears there is no other explanation.
The sun leaves burn marks?
The largest geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle restart.
since you have not explained what an ‘interruption’ is, the ‘restart’ does not make sense. And, in any event the Sun does not cause large, permanent geomagnetic changes. They come from the core.
Large stars form about the core of collapsed matter, super nova cores and ejected condensed matter from large collapsed objects.
No, they don’t. They form from contraction of interstellar gas.
Collapsed matter is not stable.
It is very stable. White dwarfs and black holes virtually live forever [longer than the age of the Universe so far]
A classical black hole does not form when massive objects collapse.
Yes, they do. That is how nature works.
If what is stated above is correct there will solar observation data to support it.
But since all of the above is not correct, we cannot expect solar data to support it.
BORIS MOHAR says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum?
Because the Heliospheric Current Sheet http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html is rather flat at solar minimum allowing cosmic rays unhindered access to the solar system, while at solar maximum the ‘warps’ you can see extend to the poles and cosmic rays have to cross many warps [each warp reflects some cosmic rays back out of the solar system because the solar wind is compressed and turbulent near the current sheet].
BORIS MOHAR says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Why is the Neutron flux highest at minimum?
Because the Heliospheric Current Sheet http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html is rather flat at solar minimum allowing cosmic rays unhindered access to the solar system, while at solar maximum the ‘warps’ you can see extend to the poles and cosmic rays have to cross many warps [each warp reflects some cosmic rays back out of the solar system because the solar wind is compressed and turbulent near the current sheet].
Elizabeth, is your last name Goddard?
if you want to understand the ice, look at volume
For other folks, understand that there is a bottom melt season and a top melt season.
Data freaks can go look at the arctic bouy data to see real time recordings of the water temp under the ice. Interesting things happen when you have open water and big storms.. there even is a special name for the type of pumping that goes on.
And its always good to see Leif hold court. You folks are lucky to have a great scientist and good man answer your questions. he has the patience of job when it comes to folks who refuse to learn.
Thanks. Here’s a good one: http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2008B.htm
David Archibald: To find what you seek, simply type in “Archibald sea level F10.7 flux” in the search function on the upper right.
OK. I got 388,000 returns. I have been following your solar activity projections/predictions for several years now. You don’t seem to have been accurate.
Here I was working my way through this collection of comments and links (quite well I thought) until I got to the “burn marks” issue as something “showing evidence of restrike.” (and stirke, too, I suppose)
For what it is worth (?), here is the link to the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay#Theories_of_Origin
An “impact event” is mentioned and dismissed. No burn marks, though.
lsvalgaard says:
February 26, 2013 at 4:00 pm
If anything your plot shows an increasing falsification of your ‘formula’.
Well, science needs to know the cause, if ‘formula’ fails, I am out.
I came across numbers which would suggest that the auroral electro jet’s power varies from about 400 to1000 GW
Couldn’t find numbers for the equatorial electrojet, any ideas?
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 11:08 am
Well, science needs to know the cause, if ‘formula’ fails, I am out.
It failed for the past…
I came across numbers which would suggest that the auroral electro jet’s power varies from about 400 to1000 GW
From 0 to 100 GW would be more accurate. Values above 100 GW are extremely rare. Typical value is around 25 GW for rather active periods. For the past several years the input has been smaller, like 10 GW or smaller, e.g. see http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf or http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/Intro.html
Couldn’t find numbers for the equatorial electrojet, any ideas?
There is difference between the strength of a current and its power. If the current is not dissipated into a medium there is no power, for example the current that powers a 100 Watt light bulb does not dissipate 10 Watt unless it is passed through the filament [the ‘load’] in the bulb. So it is not a meaningful question to ask what power the equatorial electrojet carries. A simple answer would be close to 0 GW. For the auroral electrojet the situation is different because there are actually particles precipitating into the ionosphere.
for example the current that powers a 100 Watt light bulb does not dissipate 100 Watt unless it is passed through the filament
So it is not a meaningful question to ask what power the equatorial electrojet carries.
Thanks.
Including the electromagnetic induction in the hydro- and litho- spheres from each set of currents, any numbers ?
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Including the electromagnetic induction in the hydro- and litho- spheres from each set of currents, any numbers ?
Well, I gave you typical values for the current, i, and for the resitivity, R, so you can calculate the energy from Q = i^2 * R * t, or the power Q/t = i^2 * R over any crossection you prefer for sea water. Now, the Lorenz force has two parts: charge*electric field and charge*velocity X magnetic field, so you can calculate those forces for any configuration you want. Since the ocean and lithosphere are loads there will be a power input. People have done that [and you can do it too] and the power is very small. But try yourself. If necessary read up on electric currents, power, and resistivity, lots of good stuff on the internet, or in any textbook on electricity.
Hi Mr. Mosher,
I am not aware of a balanced position of yours to the arctic sea ice debate, as I don’t recall any mention of the 40% volume loss about 70 years ago, of the AMO or black carbon, which combined may leave little room for other contributors.
I also don’t see support for your pet culprit CO2 by Leif Svalgaard’s excellent contributions .
Why don’t you use your outstanding intellect and knowledge of so many things to do some real science, such as confirming Anthony Watt’s new station siting study or investigating Frank Lansner’s observation of the deviation of land measured temperatures from sea surface data since the 1980s, though these trends never diverged before, nor do in satellite data.
lsvalgaard says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:59 pm
…….
Not calculating Lorenz, thanks, that is simple, done it. Need difference in the total 11 year energy input of about 2x10E20 Joules between the rise and fall time (green line in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm ) to justify appearance of 22 year component in the Earth’s field. (which is probably a very small fraction of the total electromagnetic input in the polar caps)
Leif, RE: The dynamo on the Sun, are you saying the outer mass is enough to create currents that effect the Magnetic field of the core?
michaelwiseguy says:
February 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm
“Solar cycle 24 rules. We would be paying a global carbon tax right now if not for the exaggerated solar minimum of cycle 24. I hope we can come to a consensus and somewhat reliable climate change effect as a matter of solar activity, so we can adapt accordingly.”
When you say ‘climate change’, I take it that you mean long term Natural Variability of cooler and warmer periods? If so, I agree.
Matthew R Marler says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:32 am
Don’t be daunted by the task you have taken on, oh seeker after truth. Read all 388,000 returns. You will be much wiser for the experience.
vukcevic says:
February 27, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Not calculating Lorenz, thanks, that is simple, done it.
Good, so you know that it is totally ineffective.
Need difference in the total 11 year energy input of about 2x10E20 Joules between the rise and fall time (green line in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SGMF.htm ) to justify appearance of 22 year component in the Earth’s field.
You are not clear: there is a tiny 22-year variation in geomagnetic activity [about 3 nT, see Figure 23 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf ]. This is about 1/8 of the total variation of activity, so if the average power input is, say, 16 GW [in a good year] you can take 1/8 of that [2 GW] and integrate over 11 years from solar max to solar max [not min] yielding 7E17 Joule. But this is an external variation. The internal part would be about half. If you consider the variation is Dst [ring-current] similar fractions apply. There is no other 22-year variation.
(which is probably a very small fraction of the total electromagnetic input in the polar caps)
It is incorrect to talk about ‘electromagntic input’.
Sparks says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Leif, RE: The dynamo on the Sun, are you saying the outer mass is enough to create currents that effect the Magnetic field of the core?
The dynamo does not operate in the core, but in [or near] the outer convection zone, and the movement of the plasma [a tiny fraction of the total mass] there is responsible for [and sufficient to] create the currents that generate solar activity.
Leif, You are saying YES.
Leif, that does not add up ‘sufficiently’, the sun’s core is the source of it’s magnetic field. Are you therefor saying that the mass surrounding the core is enough to effect it’s field?
mario lento
Uhm… there is always all year round ice in the Antarctic… Am I missing something here?
at the antarctic maximum last year when antarctic sea ice was very high we were being told by the experts that antarctic sea ice melted out totally every summer and therfore it was not important.
donald penman says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm
you wrote “at the antarctic maximum last year when antarctic sea ice was very high we were being told by the experts that antarctic sea ice melted out totally every summer and therfore it was not important.”
I think you might be talking about the Arctic, but no that ice has not melted out every summer either… I don’t know what you are talking about. The Antarctic ice never melts out… never in human lifetime that I know of.
Sparks says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:34 pm
the sun’s core is the source of it’s magnetic field.
No, it is not. The magnetic field is generated and maintained in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun.
lsvalgaard, thanks for the info.
After my extended nap it occurred to me that the faint Sun paradox is mute if the Sun is older than predicted. The Earth has a pre-history beyond what we can see presently. The Sun is a billion years older than deduced thus far.
Consider the Earth coalescing from the early solar system and is a giant dirty snow ball with a slowly evolving inner core. A billion years of accrued may, estimated at some 100 billion tons (likely more in the early solar system), creates an increase of heat and pressure on the inner Earth as well as crusting the outer ice with sedimental dust that changes the absorption of heat from the faint Sun. At some point the outer core swells and fractures the early dirty ice surface, ice melts and the early continents are formed from excreted magma. This is the 4.5 billion or so years that we can “see”. The proto-moon’s impact later shatters the early continent(s) and starts the tectonic drift and starts the Earth spinning very fast, much faster that a 24 hour cycle. Now the stronger Sun’s luminescence is shone on much more surfaces than before. Life started at the hydrothermal vents and evolved to the now liquid oceans, i.e. the Sun is now “bright” enough to keep the melt water from freezing again and provide energy to evolving bacteria from the depths.
Kajajuk says:
February 28, 2013 at 11:33 am
After my extended nap it occurred to me that the faint Sun paradox is mute if the Sun is older than predicted. The Earth has a pre-history beyond what we can see presently. The Sun is a billion years older than deduced thus far.
Unfortunately, we can measure [and compute] the ages of the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and the Meteorites by widely differing methods, and they all agree within a 100 million years [even the differences are largely understood] with 4.6 billion years, so they do all have about the same ago. The theory of stellar evolution is very well established [we have billions of stars to test it on], so there is no escape from the paradox that way.
Acknowledged, thanks.
lsvalgaard says:
February 27, 2013 at 11:01 pm
“No, it is not. The magnetic field is generated and maintained in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun.”
The magnetic field is observed ‘in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun’ obviously there is disagreement on the generation of the suns magnetic field, I’m okay with your version of the suns workings, but it’s not carved on stone with me. Have you done a speculative posts Leif? I’d like to hear/read some other potential theories and ideas on the subject.
Sparks says:
March 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm
The magnetic field is observed ‘in the rarefied outer layers of the Sun’ obviously there is disagreement on the generation of the suns magnetic field,
Not among scientists who know anything about this. To create and maintain the observed field it is generally accepted that a ‘shear’ layer must be present to ‘wind up’ the magnetic field. There are shear layers in the outer convection zone, but not in the stable radiative interior. This is why we deduce that the dynamo works in the outer layers and not in the interior.
lsvalgaard says:
March 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm
An appeal to authority does not make a scientific argument. E=mc2 is the only reason for the magnetic field, it is not a dependent of the outer layers of the sun, in fact what you are suggesting theoretically is; that if we took the outer layers of the sun away, the core will not have enough mass to maintain a magnetic field.
Sparks says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm
An appeal to authority does not make a scientific argument.
If you are going to have open heart surgery, you would want to have a doctor who knows what he is doing, no?
E=mc2 is the only reason for the magnetic field, it is not a dependent of the outer layers of the sun, in fact what you are suggesting theoretically is; that if we took the outer layers of the sun away, the core will not have enough mass to maintain a magnetic field.
The magnetic field is not generated in the core, but in the outer layers.