The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it appears as if the slow downside from what looks like the solar max for cycle 24. Though, it is still possible we could see a second small peak like is visible at the upper left in cycle 23.
The 10.7cm radio flux continues downward:
The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, being at the same value as it was in November 2006. We’ve had over 6 years now of a lower than expected (for solar max) Ap index.
From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles:
Another indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has happened.
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page.
In other news, Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 4/1/13. Perhaps he thinks a double peak might be in the cards:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
========================================================
UPDATE: From: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80572
Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Having read with interest the exchanges between Dr Svalgaard and others, it is worth recalling an ancient bit of English common sense. Ockam’s (sometimes Occam’s) Razor. What it boils down to is this:
All other things being equal (and I’d submit with all the uncertainty, inadequacy and sheer lack of meaningful data about everything in play on this thread – we cannot even predict solar cycles with any degree of skill), the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely the correct one.
It’s the Sun. The Sun is the massively predominant source of heat and light energy for Earth (across all wavelength spectrums). A quiet Sun (whatever “quiet” means) equates to cooler climate; active Sun (whatever that means) equate to warmer climate.
How the ionosphere, atmosphere, oceans, landmasses (possibly including tectonics and volcanism to some extent) etc react to Solar activity or lack thereof, what time lags or other cyclical phenomena might already be, or are set in motion, is immaterial “noise” at the end of the day – study them by all means, but realise they are not the ultimate drivers.
The Sun is. I’m jus’ saying y’all, as simple kinda guy….
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 9:26 pm
William Astley says:
April 9, 2013 at 8:48 pm
This paper notes it is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf
Yet you claim that “Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993″.
So it must have been easy back then. You are not being consistent.
Palle measured planetary cloudiness by changes in the brightness of the moon. You appear to have not read a single paper on the subject. I have read Palle’s paper’s and all published public access papers on the sun-climate connection, and participated in a public discussion of the issues in measuring cloud cover with Palle at Realclimate and with Shiva at Realclimate concerning his work on long term GCR changes as the solar system passes through the galaxy plane and planetary ice epochs.
As I said, it difficult to get funding and to continue to get funding if one does not stay on ‘message’ that the 20th century warming has primarily caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. In the last 5 years there have started to be ‘on message papers’ to dispute the sun-climate connection.
Do you agree there were past climate changes (warming followed by a cold period of 75 to 150 years) and the past climate changes do correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes?
The following is the Greenland Ice sheet data that shows the D-O cycle from Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The paper you quote noted that is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover, the paper you quoted for reasons which I can only guess, provide no analysis to disprove the hypothesis that solar wind bursts and changes to the solar heliososphere modulate planetary cloud cover. You make the vague unsubstantiated claim that the papers I quote are ‘out dated’.
The fact is there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record. Those cycles of warming and cooling correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The summary ‘The Sun-Climate Connection” by John Eddy is only one of hundreds of papers that have noted that fact. What researchers have been struggling with is how the sun causes the large cyclic temperature changes.
Your comments ak appear to be intended to confuse and are not germane to the issue how did solar changes caused planetary temperature change in the past. The fact is solar changes did cause past climate change cycles.
If you disagree with that assertion perhaps you can quote a paper and provide some logic to support the counter mechanism. The paper I quoted ‘Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov specifically explain why the sunspot index does not correlate to planetary temperature in the 20th century.
Unfortunately, we will have an opportunity to see if the planet does cool due to the current solar magnetic cycle change. We will have a chance to see if there is a sun-climate connection. If you are incorrect, you have a responsibility to assist with addressing the issue of planetary cooling.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
The real terrestrial impact of the different solar drivers depends not only on the average geoeffectiveness of a single event but also on the number of events. Figure 5 presents the yearly number of CHs, CMEs and MCs in the period 1992-2002. On the descending phase of the sunspot cycle, the greatest part of high speed solar wind streams affecting the Earth comes from coronal holes (Figure 5), in this period their speed is higher than the speed of the solar wind originating from other regions, and their geoeffectiveness is the highest. Therefore, when speaking about the influence Fig. 4. Solar cycle variations of the average geoeffectiveness of solar wind from CHs, MCs and CMEs.
Fig. 5. Yearly number of CHs, MCs and CMEs.of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity
The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868-1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001). According to Echer et al. (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity.
The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.
I agree with dr Leif Svalgaard when he states that solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks. I too cannot follow the assumptions of Pesnell (“peak in late 2013 and another in 2015”).
Also it is obvious that the word “maximum” is an ill-defined thing. I even question if it is a meaningful concept if applied to the total SSN.
The solar activity has to be examined separately on the two hemispheres.
– Concerning SC14 and SC24: see http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
– Concerning the solar cycles 21-23: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Immagine-E.jpg
– I made an update concerning the current SC24: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/SC24_4_13.jpg
What is important is the maximum of the hemispherical solar activity. In this view the maxima of the SC14 were around Nov 1905 (north) and the beginning of 1908 (south). Transposed to our current solar cycle, this should mean about Nov 2012 and the beginning of 2015.
The northern polar field reversed already in June 2012 (http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html). This is half a year earlier in comparison with SC14. Some months ago, Leif assumed that the south pole was reversing around December 2012- January 2013. This reversal did not happen! We see only that the solar activity of the south at this moment is tied with the activity of the north. I cannot predict when the reversal of the southern polar field will happen.
The current solar cycle is not finished at all. Only within about two years we will see how it has evolved.
There is some predictability, but you won’t find it normally in government resources. They already said I was in left field by myself, but I have predicted since Spring of 2008 and my brother can confirm this, when NASA was saying the cycle would be over a 100 count at peak, I said it wouldn’t get over 60 at best. It finished at 57.5.
Where to I get that being an amateur? I knew Al Gore was lying and I was going to get to the bottom of it. Several years of research is now in my own web site for the “Joe, The Plumber” types who want to know what is going on.
http://sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com If you don’t want to read my Blah! Blah! Blah!, jump to the charts in the back of my papers
I am one of three people I know up who have correlated sunspot activity to Accumulated Cyclone Energy . One of those invited me to his hurricane conference. I am returning this year to hear Dr. Mann speak.
I add to the first page and that is, the Sun spins at about 26.5 days. If there is sunspot activity, we may only feel the affect if it is aimed at us.
Paul Pierett
I only blinked for a second and it’s gone. Perhaps those Russian scientists are correct.
The following article says that there is a link between solar variability and climate through changes in the ITCZ
http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Poore_GRL04.pdf
Any comments?
lsvalgaard says:
Almost everything has effect. The question is ‘how much’. If the answer is ‘very very little’ the effect is not of interest.
Agree with that one. To move climate in the N. Hemisphere, it is sufficient to move polar jet stream . There are two sources of energy that regularly do that.
The first one is described
here
The second one is described here
The first one is correlated to solar activity, the second one appear to be random but it has a strong link with the PDO.
Combine that with the central Pacific tectonics to move the ENSO, all important elements are there to understand the natural variability.
To confirm all the correlations there are solar- and geo- magnetic fields data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
To consider or dismiss above, it is a choice open to all.
Most discount the effect of changes in the sun’s output because insolation changes are small ~0.1%. However, I think most are also unaware of how strong the response of climate can be to small changes. Two examples come to mind:
(A) Northern Tanzania is within 3-5 degrees south of the equator. Because of the earth’s tilt, the sun lies overhead in the winter solstice at ~13 degrees south and in the summer solstice ~10 degrees N. These small angles produce two rainy seasons, the “short” season (Vuli) October to December and the “long” rains (or “Masika) March to May. Moreover, because they start 2-3 months before they reach the extremes of the swing, the actual variation required to cause this “climate change” is ~ half this number of degrees N and S – the tangent of the sun angle is essentially ~0.1 to change from dry to the rains. Of course, the rains mean clouds, so the change in albedo because of these changes makes for much reduced insolation. (would someone like to calculate the difference in insolation per m^2 between the overhead sun and the sun ~10 degrees off overhead?)
B) Even more remarkable, perhaps, was Willis Eschenbach’s piece on the light wind that is created by the “heat” from a full moon:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/24/sailing-on-the-moon-wind/
Even knowing of the Tanzanian double rains, the moon wind blew me away!! Please keep in mind that this climate engine is not an iron locomotive. It is an extremely sensitive and responsive thing and 0.1 makes a difference.
IanH says:April 10, 2013 at 3:45 am
The following article says that there is a link between solar variability and climate through changes in the ITCZ
Makes sense to me at first glance. Thanks for posting that.
To be clear: the maximum of the hemispherical SSN has to be distinguished from the reversal of polar fields.
As far as I know:
– the (temporary?) maximum of the SSN in the northern hemisphere took place in September 2011;
– the reversal of the northern polar fields took place in June 2012;
– a very temporary maximum of the SSN in the southern hemisphere happened in April 2012.
We are awaiting the reversal of the southern polar fields.
SolTer conference
End of last year, I started talking to a few people about a “solar-terrestrial” conference to be held in 2014. However, after speaking to a few people, the reality began to dawn on me that such a conference would be extremely difficult without the cooperation of some academics – largely because Universities charge an arm and a leg for suitable conference facilities. It all became catch 22 … no one was going to commit to a conference until it was booked, but I personally couldn’t afford to book the conference until people committed to attending.
But, I’m still interested in the idea, I just can’t see a practical way forward. But just in case anyone is interested, I will give the website address: SolTer.org.uk
Leif
you may consider a process that is non-predictable to be random [this is the definition of random]. Since we cannot really predict the climate, the climate qualifies as a random process.
This is rather wrong and misleading. Predictability has not much to do with randomness – determinism has.
The Lorenz system (forced convection) is described by a perfectly deterministic system of equations. So it is not random. However for certains values of parameters it becomes chaotic and unpredictable.
As this system is ergodic, it can be shown that there is an invariant probability distribution for the future states. So this system is deterministic and the probability distribution can be predicted even if individual prediction is impossible. It simulates a sort of randomness with a well defined PDF while being deterministic.
But then you have non ergodic systems and one you should know – the 3 body problem.
It is deterministic and chaotic. It is also unpredictable beyond a time of some 10 millions years for the Earth.
However there is no invariant probability distribution so you can’t even predict the probabilities of future states.
Saying that the future states are “random” just because you can’t know what they will be would mean to equate randomness with ignorance about everything (even about the fact whether well defined probabilities exist) what would be very dangerous.
As for the climate it is not known to which of the 2 categories it belongs – ergodic like the Lorenz system or non ergodic like the Solar system ?
The only thing you can be sure is that it is deterministic and chaotic. Certainly not “random”.
He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.
It’s more like a smaller version of Cycle 16!
Someone here posted this study earlier — after reading, it gives some, IMO, plausible mechanisms for D/O, Heinrich, and Bond events — which relate to glacial/interglacial changes. Key is — North Atlantic thermocline circulation changes. It states there are three modes of the N Atlantic circulation — warm mode (like today), cold mode (where the circulation moves well south of NW Europe) and no-flow mode (like the LGM period ~20k yrs ago). Like Dr S says, complex stochastic system changes without the need for intrinsic solar changes (Milankovitch orbital cycles are NOT intrinsic solar changes):
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rapid.pdf
Leif,
You may be introducing a bit of confusion on this simple issue of a “double peak” solar cycle, your graph on cycle 14 shows 9 spikes of sunspot numbers above 60, these spikes are not what is meant by a “double peak” during this cycle the magnetic field on the Northern hemisphere is progressing ahead of the magnetic field on the Southern hemisphere, this has led to northern hemisphere to peak asymmetrically before the Southern hemisphere, the term “double peak” fits this observation perfectly well.
I’m happy with the observations being made during this cycle, the asymmetrical magnetic activity is encouraging for understanding the Planetary Attraction of the Suns Large Magnetic Field, one very important observation I’ve made is the recent gravitation perturbation of Neptune on the orbit of Uranus which Began to occur around 1996, If you understand the how and when Neptune was discovered, you’ll understand that at the time and recently before Hershel’s announcement of Neptune’s discovery there was a similar gravitation perturbation of Uranus approximately around 1817 this has also coincided with Solar Cycles 5,6 and 7 being weaker, it’s not hard to conclude from this observation a link between asymmetrical magnetic activity observed on the surface of the sun and both of these separate gravitational perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, this asymmetrical magnetic activity may last for 2 maybe 3 cycles.
Fig1. Uranus and Jupiter attracting the suns magnetic field
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/solar-system-1.jpeg
The basic principle of what is happening is; the Suns Large Magnetic Field is attracted to the planets, the two main players are Uranus and Jupiter, the Large Magnetic Field attracted to Uranus holds back the suns polar regions and appears to slow them down, The Large Magnetic Field is also attracted Jupiter, its orbit will travel with the Large Magnetic Field attracted to it and along with the rotation of the Sun itself will begin the interaction between the magnetic polarities, when the field becomes wound around the entire surface of the sun the field “short circuits” to form the dark areas or sunspots, as the overlapping magnetic polarities (the large magnetic directional flow of the field) gradually move into close proximity of each other blocking the flow of radiant surface energy in these areas of the photosphere, limiting the amount of radiant surface energy flowing outward, as a result the temperature within the sunspots are at a lower temperature than that of the surrounding layer of the photosphere.
Fig1. Uranus and Jupiter attracting the suns magnetic field
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/solar-system-2.jpeg
During Cycles of asymmetrical magnetic activity, the Suns Large Magnetic Field being Attracted to Uranus is disturbed by the gravitation perturbation of Neptune on the orbit of Uranus which in turn has the effect where the timing separation or misalignment of the Large Magnetic Field causes less frequent interaction of magnetic polarities (the large magnetic directional flow of the field) forming less sunspots during the progression of a solar cycle producing an overall weaker solar.
This isn’t a gravitational process directly on the sun as when the planets travel around a star, their elliptical planetary orbits produce gravitational (tidal) forces that give our sun a barycentric motion. It is a Large Solar Magnetic Field attracted to planetary bodies, the planetary bodies are gravitationally perturbed by each-other which effects the Suns Large Magnetic field.
Leif,
We can also fairly accurately reconstruct the timing of Solar cycles going back thousands of years to the earliest observations made by the Chinese and beyond using the planetary gravitation perturbations and know the state of the Large Solar Magnetic Field and the condition of the sun during these times.
I produced a Jupiter and Uranus Heliocentric showing a 13.8 year step from 1/9/2010 – 14/3/1183 AD. You Can also notice when the Neptune and Uranus gravitation perturbations occur during this time frame.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/jupiter-uranus-2010-1183-13-8-year-step.gif
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:21 am
“There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.”
Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?
What was the energy transfer rate? because that rate of change per second squared over an 11 year cycle amounts to more than 0.1 degrees C.
If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
I don’t get this. We’ve already had a peak, haven’t we? Shouldn’t it be a peak in 2012, a valley in 2013, and another peak in late 2013 or 2014.
Sparks says:
April 10, 2013 at 7:02 am
Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?
It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dS/S = dT/T/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C – same thing].
Sparks says:
April 10, 2013 at 7:02 am
Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?
It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dT/T = dS/S/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C – same thing].
Gary Pearse says:
April 10, 2013 at 5:09 am
“…most are also unaware of how strong the response of climate can be to small changes (e.g. in solar radiation at the earth’s surface).”
In the comment above, I invited someone to calculate the difference in watts/sq m that causes annual shifts between two dry seasons and two rainy seasons in northern Tanzania (located ~3-5 degrees south of the equator). I actually overestimated above the minimum swing in sun angle necessary to switch from dry to the beginning of a rainy season. With the location in question at 4S, the maximum swing south at 12S, the rainy season beginning ~ 1/3 the way to the maximum, say, 3 degrees shift in sun angle causes the onset of one of the rainy seasons.
Assuming insolation on a clear day with the sun directly overhead at (near) the equator of 1000W/m^2, the change to the beginning of one of the wet seasons results with a shift of 3 degrees, the cosine of which is 0.9986 (or 998.6 W/m^2) a change of
-0.14% in solar radiation. This itself is not the minimum change required. Since there is no mention on the internet that these rainy seasons don’t occur at peak solar in the cycle (every 11 years – although this would be an interesting piece of research to see if the solar cycle has a signature in the Tanzania/Kenya rainfall records), it would seem that <0.1% change could be sufficient to drive the alternating dry and rainy seasons there – along with the formation of clouds to further reduce the insolation. It would seem that 0.1% change does make a difference.
lsvalgaard says:
April 10, 2013 at 8:13 am
It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dS/S = dT/T/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C – same thing].
Thanks Lief,
I don’t have a Issue with the math it looks close enough, TSI isn’t a major issue to me, What I was wondering about is the sample rate of energy being measured, would a higher sample rate from say a monthly to a daily or even an hourly rate increase the percentage of change of T?
IanH says
http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Poore_GRL04.pdf
Henry says
To quote here from note 11:
Changes in solar irradiance are small (0.1%) and it is
likely that amplification of changes in solar output are
required to force Earth’s climate (see discussion in Lean
and Rind [1999]). Recent modeling studies suggest that solar
variability may be amplified by a variety of processes
including changes in ozone photochemistry and abundance,
changes in upper stratospheric winds and changes in oceanic
thermohaline circulation [e.g., Schindell et al., 1999].
end quote
Henry@Ian
I like this. There is a slight discrepancy in my time for the cycles (88 years versus 100 years) but I can live with that. Earth itself also produces heat which can either delay or quicken the cycles.
There is indeed a variety of causes that amplifies the current cooling.
I have been saying this all along.
In my earlier post I already alluded to the fact that there is more cloud formation at lower latitudes and less cloud formation at higher latitudes, naturally, causing less insolation…..which amplifies the cooling effect.
The date of ozone depletion started around 1950. It started increasing again in 1995 (Confirmed both on the NH and on the SH). There are some other HxOx and NOx compounds also formed there by the EUV, on TOA, which presumably also started decreasing and increasing around these dates. In effect this leads to more back radiation of FUV – this is probably the main factor that is causing the cooling effect and the cooling climate as it affects the amount of energy going into the oceans (water absorbs in the UV region).
The 1950 and 1995 dates are confirmed by my own a-c wave….a warming cycle started in or around 1950 and a cooling round began in or around 1995.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
So there you got it, Ian.
We agree.
There is some climate change.
But it all happens naturally.
Hoser says:
April 9, 2013 at 11:56 pm
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:39 am
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:24 am
Pesnell is dead wrong.
REPLY: Care to explain why? – Anthony
The correct statement he should have made is “solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks”.
When one peak is due to spot counts reaching a maximum in the northern hemisphere and the second peak is due to spot counts in the southern hemisphere reaching their maximum at a different time, then the double peak observation is clearly not due to a smoothing artifact.
======================================================================
Now I have a question, if two peaks separated quite faraway like the last cycle, does it mean we will have a long cycle 24?
Following this article, I emailed a number of posters suggesting a conference on climate and solar activity. I’ve now heard that roger tattersall is organising a conference along these lines in Leeds in September. Rather than go back through the list I thought it would be easier to post this information here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/inaugural-conference-2013-the-solar-system-dynamic-theory-of-climate/