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.
Henry@Sunspot
It is true that continuous temperature readings (every second) with automatic recording started in most weather stations only towards the middle of seventies. So before that it depended on people taking hourlly or four hourly readings.
Frequently there were gaps in readings….
Effect of charged particles on the weather of Saturn.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-130&cid=release_2013-130
“They surmised that charged water particles from the planet’s rings were being drawn towards the planet along Saturn’s magnetic field lines and were neutralizing the glowing triatomic hydrogen ions. This leaves large “shadows” in what would otherwise be a planet-wide infrared glow. These shadows cover some 30 to 43 percent of the planet’s upper atmosphere surface from around 25 to 55 degrees latitude. This is a significantly larger area than suggested by images from NASA’s Voyager mission. “
William Astley says:
April 11, 2013 at 3:19 am
It should be noted that Shaviv measured the magnitude of the change in GCR and the timing of the change in GCR by analyzing meteoroid fragments.
Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.
The paper you linked has a second logical point, it states that planetary temperature does not correlate with GCR, 2009, which is correct. It did however prior 1993 and did for a period of 20 years. If the paper you linked to was interested in solving a scientific problem, they would have noted the 20 years of correlation and then noted the correlation suddenly breaks in the 1990’s.
That correlations break down when new data becomes available is the standard result of correlations that were spurious [i.e. not representing physical reality] to begin with. The paper makes that point well.
The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.
That paper and I [for that matter] contest that strongly. Of course, true believers cannot contest anything that is contrary to their beliefs.
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.
The Earth rings just prior to every solar minimum, see slides 17 and 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf
All your ranting about electroscavenging is just desperate attempts to rescue a failed correlation. “Solar bursts” occur all the time and not just the last two decades.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
April 11, 2013 at 6:39 am
But you didn’t provide any explanation of the departure up, so it is what I’m suspicious about.
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf slide 7 shows the situation last year, now we can add the data for 2013 and sure enough they confirm the discrepancy.
But nothing overtly important obviously when we talk about 0.23W/m2 different monthly values in the set with ~2W/m2 scatter at the peak sides (if I don’t count the obvious anomalies) and if we don’t have similarly accurate uninterrupted record before 2003 for really reliable comparison useful for the trend analysis
In a yearly average the scatter is very much reduced. You can compare the fit for SC23 and note how little scatter they is in yearly averages. Now, the shoe should be on the other foot: all the people that claims that the solar influence influence is ‘uncontested’ suffer the same problem that trends are not well-defined, yet choose to gloss over that
“There is no difference between the two ‘beginnings”
But it doesn’t mean there’s no trend, the solar cycles aren’t symetrical.
What it means is that there is no trend in the minimum values, regardless of asymmetry of the cycle.
I think it indicates also the changes in the solar spectra, which in my opinion can have some relevance for the climate changes, including the slight changes of the average surface temperature.
These changes have been considered and only very small effects [less than 0.1 degrees] were the result, e.g. slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Sorry for the rant I couldn’t help myself
Ranting is a sign of emotional attachment to a viewpoint and as such is understandable [c.f. William’s desperate rants], but does not further understanding and science.
Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta says:
April 11, 2013 at 7:06 am
Effect of charged particles on the weather of Saturn.
No, effect on Saturn’s ionosphere. This is not ‘weather’ anymore than the aurorae on Earth is.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 11, 2013 at 9:26 am
William Astley says:
April 11, 2013 at 3:19 am
William said:
It should be noted that Shaviv measured the magnitude of the change in GCR and the timing of the change in GCR by analyzing meteoroid fragments.
lsvalgaard said:
Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.
William: Reference? Shaviv’s paper provide analytical data to support the assertion there is agreement in time of occurrence (There is an increase in GCR when each ice epoch occurred, there is not a reduction in atmospheric CO2 when one of the ice epochs occurs, so there is no counter hypothesis) and estimates the increase in GCR to be 30% based on the meteoroid analysis. You ignore the logical point that Shaviv’s mechanism is required to explain the faint sun paradox. The faint sun paradox is the solar output was roughly 30% less than current 4.5 billion years ago yet there is unequivocal evidence of that there was liquid water on the earth. The solution to the faint sun paradox is that solar winds were stronger for the young sun which reduced GCR. Reduced GCR resulted in less planetary clouds which compensated for the 30% less TSI.
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html
Reconstructing cosmic ray fluxes
Moreover, independent evidence in the Iron meteorite data, based on comparison of different exposure dating methods, clearly shows that the CRF over the past 10 Ma must have been 30% higher than was the average over the past 1000 Ma [Lavielle et al. 1999]. If it was variable recently, it is unlikely that it was constant before. Plus, the astronomical understanding of the origin and diffusion of cosmic rays in the galaxy predicts that the CRF should be variable. It is therefore not surprising that it is observed, as predicted, in the meteoritic data
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477.pdf
Towards a Solution to the Early Faint Sun Paradox: A LowerCosmic Ray Flux from a Stronger Solar Wind by Nir Shaviv
lsvalgaard said:
All your ranting about electroscavenging is just desperate attempts to rescue a failed correlation. “Solar bursts” occur all the time and not just the last two decades.
William: Please sir, do not attempt to use Ad hominem to substitute for logic and data. You and I are both gentlemen. I quoted papers that outline the electroscavenging mechanism and papers that provide observation data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused initially by higher GCR and then later in the cycle by an increase in high speed solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycles. Yes, solar wind burst have occurred in other cycles. The question is the magnitude and number of the solar wind bursts and the period when the strong solar wind bursts occur. Normally at the end of the solar cycle as the heliosphere weakens which results in higher GCR, planetary clouds would increase and the planet would cool. Now if there are exceptionally strong solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycle, the solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions which is called by the specialists in the field of sun-climate mechanisms ‘electroscavenging’. You state that solar wind bursts occur in other cycles which is true, but not relevant to this discussion, as I did not state solar wind bursts do not occur in other cycles. The question is how to quantify the magnitude, number, and time of occurrence of the solar wind bursts.
I note that you are ignoring the paper that I quote which shows there is tight correlation of changes in planetary temperature and the occurrence and magnitude of solar wind bursts. Everyone plots the number of sunspots vs changes in planetary temperature to try to prove or disprove the sun-climate connection. The paper I quoted ‘Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by K. Georgieva et al. noted sunspot number misses the very important number and magnitude of solar wind bursts. The analysis goes in circles if the electroscavenging mechanism is ignored.
That paper shows that there is very tight correlation of planetary temperature changes to the number and magnitude of solar wind bursts for the period of time 1856 to 2000, a 144 year period! That is astonishing. Surely it is not a coincident that planetary temperature changes (up and down) correlated to the magnitude and number of solar wind bursts for 144 years?
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
(Sorry, you must copy and paste the above link in to your browser to see this paper.)
From the paper ‘ Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by K. Georgieva et al.
“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 decade. So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.
Fig. 6. Global temperature anomalies T (solid line) and ak index of geomagnetic activity (broken line) for the period 1856-2000; climatic normals.”
You quote one paper that states it is difficult to measure cloud cover. The paper you quote ends with the conclusion that the majority of the 20th century warming was therefore due to increase in atmospheric CO2. I provided a link to two different papers that both support the assertion that the 20th century warming was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover. The first paper noted that short wave radiation reflected off into space decreased in the 20th century, based on satellite measurement. The second paper by Palle noted that the brightness of the moon which is determined by the amount of radiation that reflected and emitted off the earth decreased which is also consist with a reduction in planetary cloud cover.
The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
“ The major change in albedo occurred between the early measurements and those that are the most recent. For the 1994/1995 period, we obtain a mean albedo of 0.310 0.004, while for the more recent period, 1999/2001, the albedo is 0.295 0.002. The combined difference in the mean A between the former and latter periods is of )0.015 0.005, assuming the 1994/1995 and 1999/2001 uncertainties are independent. This corresponds to a 2% decrease in the albedo between the two periods.”
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
William said:
We and everyone else agrees the planet warmed in the 20th century. The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.
lsvalgaard said:
That paper and I [for that matter] contest that strongly. Of course, true believers cannot contest anything that is contrary to their beliefs.
William: You and the paper you quote may contest the assertion but you ignore the multiple papers that provide specific observational data and analysis to support the assertion that there is a very strong sun-climate connection. As I said in a formal debate and if the scientist is interesting in solving a problem it is necessary to address and explain all of the observations. The paper you quoted states it is difficult to measure cloud cover and ignores the electroscavenging mechanism which explains why planetary temperature does not correlate to GCR intensity for a period of the analysis.
I do not understand how anyone can contest the fact that the ‘Little Ice Age’ correlates with the Maunder minimum and the past warm periods correlate with high periods of solar magnetic cycle activity as noted in the paper by John Eddy. The fact that there is correlation of cosmogenic isotope changes over and over with past warming events which are followed by cooling events is astonishing. The sun is causing the climate changes. The sun is a serial climate changer. What other specific mechanism explains the observations? Why is there cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every warming and cooling period?
Look at the Greenland ice core data from Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
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 years8.
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.
William Astley says:
April 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.
William: Reference?
Wieler et al. (2011) showed from meteorite data that in the last 10 Ma the GCR intensity has not varied by more than 10%.
Wieler, R. Beer, J. and Leya, I. ’The Galactic Cosmic Ray Intensity over the past 10^6 to 10^9 years as recorded by Cosmogenic Nuclides in Meteorite and Terrestrial Samples’ Space Sci. Rev., DOI 10.1007/s 11214-011-9769-9 (2011)
You ignore the logical point that Shaviv’s mechanism is required to explain the faint sun paradox.
Not ‘required’, There are other explanations, e.g. GHG. For more on the ‘paradox’: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
“[106] It has been hypothesized that a decrease in the cosmic ray flux due to the stronger solar wind of the young Sun would decrease cloudiness and thus provide additional warming to early Earth [Shaviv, 2003]. For the present-day climate, however, the cosmic ray hypothesis could not be verified using satellite observations of cloud cover [e.g., Kristjánsson et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2010]. [107] The most comprehensive assessment of the effects of clouds on the early Earth’s climate has recently been undertaken by Goldblatt and Zahnle [2011]. They find that removing all low clouds (which increases the albedo, but not the greenhouse effect) yields a forcing of DF =25W/m2 and thus only about half the climate forcing required to offset the faint early Sun (DF ≈ 60 W/m2 and DF ≈ 40 W/m2 for the Early and Late Archean, respectively), while more realistic reductions of low cloud cover result in
forcings of DF =10–15 W/m2”
I quoted papers that outline the electroscavenging mechanism and papers that provide observation data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused initially by higher GCR and then later in the cycle by an increase in high speed solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycles.I did not state solar wind bursts do not occur in other cycles. The question is how to quantify the magnitude, number, and time of occurrence of the solar wind bursts.
It is ranting because the arguments do not hang together.
I note that you are ignoring the paper that I quote
And for good reasons as it is particularly bad and full of misconceptions [which you seem to share, e.g. about ak]. For example it is a deadly sin to compute correlations using smoothed values as they do for Figure 6.
You quote one paper that states it is difficult to measure cloud cover. The paper you quote ends with the conclusion that the majority of the 20th century warming was therefore due to increase in atmospheric CO2.
It does not make sense to count up the number of papers on either side of the debate and determine the outcome by comparing counts. The quality of the papers count, and as Einstein said “it only takes one to prove me wrong”.
The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.
Here is someone who contests that: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/ “Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend”.
Now, there is a subtlety here: the temperature DOES correlate with the solar cycle, but at the 0.1 degree level. This is presumably not what you liked to refer to.
The paper you quoted states it is difficult to measure cloud cover
Yet, you claimed a 94% correlation for 1976-1994 [or so]. So you accept that the data is good enough.
ignores the electroscavenging mechanism which explains why planetary temperature does not correlate to GCR intensity for a period of the analysis.
Since the cosmic ray variations and the ‘solar bursts’ occur in all solar cycles you cannot with good conscience claim that they only apply when the correlation fails.
I do not understand how anyone can contest the fact that the ‘Little Ice Age’ correlates with the Maunder minimum and the past warm periods correlate with high periods of solar magnetic cycle activity as noted in the paper by John Eddy.
That you cannot understand something does not mean that it has to be false [or true]. At the time of Eddy’s 1976 paper it was thought that TSI could vary 1-2% [based on Abbot’s measurements] and that could give a temperature effect of about 1 degree. When it turned out that the variation in TSI was ten times smaller, the causal effect just went out the window, as Eddy pointed out in the after-dinner talk as a conference in 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/Dec03ScienceMeeting.html
The fact is that there is very little good evidence of the Sun being a major driver of climate. Lots of wishful thinking [good for funding too] and about 2000 papers claiming this since Riccioli’s in 1651. But that is just like claiming that smoking is healthy because so many people do it.
Thank you Leif and William Astley for your comments re: spiral arms and GCR.
Leif,
You said, “The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”
When I read about the Maunder Minimum, it states that low sun spot activity was the cause. I think I’m missing an important fact here — are you saying the above that the sun spot activity does not have much impact on our client?
Nick says:
April 11, 2013 at 8:19 pm
are you saying the above that the sun spot activity does not have much impact on our client?
Essentially yes. http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Solen link
If you are interested in watching the anomalous solar cycle 24 unfold real time, this site provides an interesting summary.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
As noted in this paper the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly for some unknown reason.
http://www.solarspots.net/Documenti/teoria_LP.pdf
As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots weaken, they are starting to be torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone.
The resulting sunspot group includes pores (small short lived sunspots) or is composted of only pores. The site above has pictures of each sunspot group which is an overlay of the magnetic anomalies and visual as it is no longer possible to visually see the sunspots as the due to reduction in temperature difference between the sunspot and solar surface.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/livingston-penn_sunspots4.pdf
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
As the papers provided note, based on top of the atmosphere radiation measurement (reflected short wave radiation), direct measurement of cloud cover by radar (Palle’s paper link to above notes the change in the radar data), and by indirect measurement of changes in the earth’s albedo planetary cloud cover abruptly reduced by 1% mid-1994. The reduction in planetary cover is in addition the normal solar cycle modulation of the planetary cover changes in the solar heliosphere that modulate GCR and solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions via the mechanism electroscavenging.
The abrupt and continual reduction in planetary cloud cover is the physical reason why the planet has not cooled due to solar cycle 24 changes.
Mid-1990s there was an abrupt unexplained change to the north geomagnetic pole movement. For the last 150 years the north geomagnetic pole has moved 10 to 15 km/year in a more or less random pattern. Starting in mid-1990s the north geomagnetic pole movement increased by a factor of 4 to 5 to 50 km/year and is now moving more or less in a straight line towards Siberia. There is of course a physical reason why there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover of 1% and why the north magnetic pole movement suddenly increased by a factor of 4 to 5. The North geomagnetic pole movement is starting to decelerate, again for an unknown reason. When the geomagnetic pole movement returns to 10 to 15 km/year the planet will abruptly cool.
What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/abstract
“During the 1990s the NMP drift speed (William: NMP is an abbreviation for North Magnetic pole drift) suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers per year by the decade’s end. This acceleration was all the more surprising given that the NMP drift speed had remained less than 15 kilometers per year over the previous 150 years of observation. Why did NMP drift accelerate in the 1990s?
Answering this question may require revising a long-held assumption about processes in the core at the origin of fluctuations in the intensity and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field on decadal to secular time scales, and hints at the existence of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic.”
Comment: The hypothesis of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic is not correct. An observation to support that assertion is that North magnetic pole movement will stop.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
April 11, 2013 at 9:26 am
Let’s continue our discussion when there is more solar data. It will be interesting to see if Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decay linearly.
As noted in other threads at this site there is the first signs of observed cooling. The coldest March in 100 years in Europe and the temperature in the high Arctic are colder than the historic mean.
If the mechanisms noted in the papers linked to above are correct there will be significant unequivocal cooling. The question is not if but when the cooling will occur.
Obviously if and when there is significant cooling the public will request an explanation and there will be public outrage when there are shown the Greenland ice sheet graph that shows cycles or warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and when they find that is 15 years of research supporting the assertion that sun serially modulates planetary climate and was responsible for 100% of the 1850 to 1920 warming and 75% of the 1920 to 2013 warming.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
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 years8.
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.
William Astley says:
April 12, 2013 at 3:24 am
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy:
“Based on this assumption of an increase in the amplitude of irradiance variations that accompany slower changes in solar activity, about half of the documented rise in global surface temperature in the period from about 1900 to 1940 can be ascribed to solar changes. In the remaining years of the century the fraction falls to about one fourth of the total rise in temperature, with the remainder attributed to ever increasing greenhouse warming. But it must be emphasized, once again, that the larger-amplitude, slower changes in solar irradiance on which these deductions are founded have yet to be observed.”
And that is precisely the point. In the ten years since Eddy’s paper, the assumption has crumpled and there is no good evidence of these longer periods in TSI. There are even some hints of TSI being higher during grand minima [since there are no dark spots to decrease TSI].
Leif says
some hints of TSI being higher during grand minima
henry says
that is why…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that current cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.
I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes…please.
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 9:23 am
Even the ancients knew about this.
They also knew there were just seven heavenly bodies…
leif says
They also knew there were just seven heavenly bodies…
henry says
I live in Africa
I say you would not even recognize an elephant if it were right in front of you……
I think polar bears are white.
You are not a racist, as well, are you?
henry@leif
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this blog – if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) I have shown to you what my own results show:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle. I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this.
“as well” means:”if you do not agree with that”
Have a happy cooling off time.
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 10:09 am
I live in Africa. I say you would not even recognize an elephant if it were right in front of you……
Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 10:31 am
I think polar bears are white.
The skin is actually black for very good reasons [have to do with temperature regulation].
The bear looks white because is fur consists of almost transparent hair that scatter sunlight [which is white], so the bear looks white, but isn’t. A good example of what happens when you base something on appearance without understanding the physics behind it.
You are not a racist, as well, are you?
‘as well’ what?
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 11:02 am
“as well” means:”if you do not agree with that”
‘Racist’ is a very derogatory term. Are you trying to say that not agreeing with you is just as bad?
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern
Same argument as for believing polar bears are white.
leif says
‘Racist’ is a very derogatory term. Are you trying to say that not agreeing with you is just as bad?
henry says
no,
it was you who asked
“Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?”
but,
pray, do tell,
what has the colour of skin to do with anything whatsoever?
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 11:11 am
“Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?” but, pray, do tell,
what has the colour of skin to do with anything whatsoever?
To show you that appearance can be deceptive. Just because something looks a certain way does not mean that it actually is that way. Just because you see a pattern does not guarantee that the pattern is a physical real entity and will continue in future.
leif says
Just because you see a pattern does not guarantee that the pattern is a physical real entity and will continue in future.
henry says
Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
the best fit seemed to me to be a binomial (correlation coefficient: 0.997!!!)
When I first saw that curve, I realized that I was looking at degrees C/ t (years) square
God had thrown me a curved ball. Namely, this indicates to me a natural process. Cooling follows on warming. Thankfully, someone pointed me to the fact that this could also be an a-c curve as the binomial would lead to such an amount of cooling as has not seen before.
henry@leif
Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
the best fit seemed to me to be a binomial (correlation coefficient: 0.997!!!)
When I first saw that curve, I realized that I was looking at degrees C/ t (years) square
God had thrown me a curved ball. Namely, this indicates to me a natural process. Cooling follows on warming. Thankfully, someone pointed me to the fact that this could also be an a-c curve as the binomial would lead to such an amount of cooling as has not seen before.
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 11:43 am
God had thrown me a curved ball.
Beware of such, they are no good, regardless of which authority throws them. Perhaps upon more reflection you might learn something. It is a common human trait to stop looking once a desired result has been reached.
leif says
It is a common human trait to stop looking once a desired result has been reached.
henry says
if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, or Edison, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness? quite literally, at night, I think!
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus. Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory of man made global warming… Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring) facts. Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm
if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, or Edison, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?
But you are no Newton or Edison [except perhaps in your own eyes]
this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen
Perhaps he is also a Newton or Edison. There seems to be many of those around. WUWT is crawling with them.
Science is not by consensus.
It is only science when performed right. Actually, Edison does not qualify. He was a tinkerer.
Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory of man made global warming
Sounds like sour grapes to me…
Leif says
Actually, Edison does not qualify. He was a tinkerer.
Henry says
well, without him we would all still be crawling around in the darkness,
at least at night,
would we not?
HenryP says:
April 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm
well, without him we would all still be crawling around in the darkness, at least at night,
would we not?
I don’t think so. Candles were in use to suck up the dark long before Edison, were they not?
And if we can’t have bread, let us eat cake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode
. LEIF SAYS
Candles were in use to suck up the dark long before Edison, were they not?
Henry says
well before you get that candle lit in the dark,
you might have to stumble around a bit in the darkness?
https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbible.cc%2Fpsalms%2F119-105.htm&ei=6HRoUYabD4rxhQfwlICIBA&usg=AFQjCNGSkZwXW1eqPRHYZ67hrsTfrNW5mg&bvm=bv.45175338,d.ZG4