Denmark gets a dose of global cooling in major newspaper

I had been told by one of my detractors, where I post my skeptic articles, that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.
I look forward to shoving things like this in his face.

The deep sea warming meme can simply be falsified. It’s assessed that the thermohaline current brings the thermal energy down, for instance when it sinks in the Nordic Sea. But it sinks because it cooled down due to evaporation and due to the resultant increased salinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
As the surface waters get denser it sinks. If it doesn’t cool so much because of global warming, then it simply won’t sink. You cannot convect heat downwards.

Otter says:
I had been told . . . that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.

“Reactionary” – an interesting word; the kind of word that tells you a lot more about the people using it than the people it is applied to.

Sorry please read : some sity years ago, the weather was very hot during the hay period (july ….°

But if the sun is causing a little ice age, that could be used to explain the current lack of warming. The Warmistas can argue that the CO2 warming is there as predicted but masked out by the change in solar activity. This could get the CAGW gravy train right back on track, they can predict global boiling as the new LIA finishes at some point conveniently in the future.

How does the heat get to the deep oceans? By those mysterious and pesky ‘warmion’ particles quantum tunnelling their way from the land surface to the Mariana Trench. 🙂

@Robin Hewitt
Yes and no. Remember that human activities could indeed have a warming effect yet the planet cool and vice versa. The sheer forces at play are potentially capable of confounding it all. This, however, is a disaster to CAGW whiners because they claim all other factors have been accounted for and dismissed. The science is settled and all that bull. Thus, the heat-in-my-pants theory of deep ocean whodunits.

lgl says:
“Why is it so hard to understand the 0-2000m will always lag the 0-700m layer since the ocean is warmed from the top?
LOL, you’re also saying the 0-700m layer should warm first.

‘The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“ ‘
—
When they did that, this led to several murder attempts against people affiliated with the newspaper. Let’s see what the fundamentalist response will be like this time.

William Astley [August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am] says:
The warmists have left themselves no way out after announcing the science is settled and demanding that trillions of dollars must be spent on green scams to avoid catastrophic warming.

That’s so very well put. Kudos!
P.S. I see a preview option on WordPress for the first time! Unfortunately it isn’t functional on Opera version 11. Darn.

Alan Watt: Point is, WE are not doing the counteracting–it is a newspaper who has been part of the Warmista propaganda machine that’s doing it–primarily as a consequence of system changes in both solar output and temperature declines.
So this is something relatively new–they are indeed acquiring “integrity or diligence previously lacking” (which, we don’t know) but whatever their driving force, they seem to be aware of current trends and are willing to do a news piece that doesn’t bode well for the Warmistas.
And once the Warmista meme has been dismantled, it won’t be long before insane policies pushed by the EU and other countries will be dismantled also. I predict that soon we’ll start to see such news items in newspapers across the globe, which will forever destroy the “Climate by CO2” fiction.
This is a whole new ballgame–and a welcome one at that.

lgl says:
August 10, 2013 at 4:33 am

John
Yes, didn’t it?

Are you claiming the warming of the 0-700m layer was caused by an increase in CO2?
Is that what you believe to be the cause of the “0.5 W/m2 since the 70s” heat source?

From the full article:
The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who says these consequences could be dramatic: ” It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age….”
More could be / may be scare stories, now going the other way.
Dalton minimum solar conditions is probably realistic but that does not mean we will experience D.M. temperatures in view of where temeratures are currently.

@lgl
Water with a temperature of 4C is the most dense. That’s why the temperature at the bottom of the sea will be roughly that. And that is why the missing heat will not be in the deep sea. Warm water is less dense so it will not go down in a body of water. Any currents that go down in the ocean are COLD currents, since they are more dense.

ozspeaksup says: August 10, 2013 at 5:08 am
Here in WA there is much anger and angst among those who bought solar panels, as the state Government has just passed the budget which includes dropping the ‘feed-in’ tariff from 0.40c Per Kw/hr to 0.20c – the supply price to the rest of us is .23c per kw/hr.
Federal Election on the 7th Sept should dump the LoonyLabor govt of the incompetent and the Liberal party Leader (Tony Abbott) is on record that “The science behind the Co2 scare is crap’ and the election manifesto includes the repeal of the Carbon Tax immediately on taking office.
One might say the clouds are still thick but rays of sunlight are beginning to poke through at last
[For the rest of the world, WA is West Australia? 8<) Mod]

Otter says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:32 am
“I had been told by one of my detractors, where I post my skeptic articles, that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.”
Be assured that it exists in Germany. The state media will only portrait it as a few crazy crackpots. We are used to that; and there is no love lost between us and the state media; which we are forced to fund to the tune of 7 bn EUR a year; a lavish payment for lardass pro-EU apparatchiks.
They have to smear so many different small movements these days their news turns into a hatefest every day.

***
Scarface says:
August 10, 2013 at 6:02 am
@lgl
Water with a temperature of 4C is the most dense.
***
The ocean is saltwater, not distilled water.

The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

Maybe the historians of the future will call the last few decades the Obama Warm Period. There’s otherwise little else to remember him for.

It all falls apart when actual science is applied. Falsified I think is the word to describe it. We need more real science.

@beng
That is true. I immediately started looking for the temperature at which salt water is the most dense. I couldn’t find it, but this made me feel pretty sure that cold salt water will be at the bottom of the ocean:
_____
Density of Ocean Water
The density of pure water is 1000 kg/m3. Ocean water is more dense because of the salt in it. Density of ocean water at the sea surface is about 1027 kg/m3.
There are two main factors that make ocean water more or less dense than about 1027 kg/m3: the temperature of the water and the salinity of the water. Ocean water gets more dense as temperature goes down. So, the colder the water, the more dense it is. Increasing salinity also increases the density of sea water.
Less dense water floats on top of more dense water. Given two layers of water with the same salinity, the warmer water will float on top of the colder water. There is one catch though! Temperature has a greater effect on the density of water than salinity does. So a layer of water with higher salinity can actual float on top of water with lower salinity if the layer with higher salinity is quite a bit warmer than the lower salinity layer.
The temperature of the ocean decreases and decreases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. So, the density of ocean water increases and increases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. The deep ocean is layered with the densest water on bottom and the lightest water on top. Circulation in the depths of the ocean is horizontal. That is, water moves along the layers with the same density.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html
_____
So, ocean water gets more dense as temperature goes down and the temperature of the ocean decreases and decreases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. I still think that there will be no missing heat hiding at the bottom of the ocean. Agree?

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am
The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.
……………..
How could that be if the TSI is responsible for only 0.1 C pp?
Or alternatively, is there another unknown solar ‘agent’ effective at work here?
Isn’t science advanced enough to discover its complicity?
Or alternatively, the ‘agent’ is well known to the well informed, but it would be against the interest of the climate establishment to revel its identity and its modus operandy?

Mike M says: @ August 10, 2013 at 8:17 am
Correct but if we rely on government for the science of global cooling we will likely get the same response we are getting for global warming, people giving the answers they believe will best insure their jobs/grants into the future. More and more it seems that our government is the LAST entity we should be trusting for honest information. If not them then WHO?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A lottery for grants?
Some one mentioned using an ancient method of ‘Democracy’ where random people off the street were added to the legislature to prevent the ‘Capture’ by the moneyed elite.
Unfortunately the moneyed elite seem to be able to capture anything and everything from activists to governments.

I don’t think we are heading for another Little Ice Age. If that were true, CO2 and methane and black carbon would have to have very little effect.
I agree that the IPCC has overestimated climate sensitivity — I’ve thought that for quite a while, just following temperature trends — and now we have a number of peer reviewed article suggesting that the IPCC was on the high side.
But just because I think that we aren’t going to warm as much as the IPCC thinks, doesn’t mean that all of a sudden, CO2 and such won’t cause any warming.
The LIA was about 1.5 degrees C cooler than today, worldwide average; let’s say that about 0.5 degrees of that is due to human influences of all kinds, the other 1 degree due to solar.
Suppose we double CO2 and equivalents, and that produces (everything else equal) only 2 degrees C warming, which is around where the new climate sensitively calculations coalesce. Now suppose we also go back to the Little Ice Age due to 70 years of a cooler sun (they couldn’t find sunspots for 70 years, during the Maunder Minimum). Subtract one degree C (cooling) from 2 degrees C (warming, from doubling CO2 and equivalents) and you get one degree warmer than today around 2070. More CO2, more plant growth, and a slightly warmer world.
No Little Ice Age, but reduced warming and lots of food.

Scarface says: @ August 10, 2013 at 8:30 am
…. Density of Ocean Water…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yo also have the effect of freezing and evaporation on ocean water. The icebergs are relatively fresh water while the remaining water becomes more salty.

….As sea water evaporates the salt remains behind, only the freshwater is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, hence a region of excess evaporation, such as the subtropics (Fig. 14) tend to become salty (Fig. 15), while the areas of excess rainfall become fresher. The tropical belt, or Intra-tropical Convergence Zone is such an area. Ocean circulation acts to move lower salinity seawater into evaporative regions, and more saline water into humid regions, this is part of the hydrological cycle.
The relative freshness of the Pacific Ocean surface water contrasted sharply with the surface salinity of the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 15). Excess evaporation of the Atlantic and excess precipitation of the Pacific are balanced to some measure by an atmospheric flux of water vapor over Central America, amounting to 0.35 Sv. The Arctic Sea is very fresh, due to the enormous amount of river water that drains into it from the northern continents.
In the polar regions seawater freezes (Fig. 16). Southern ocean ice exhibits lots of seasonal variability, and is generally only 0.5 meters thick. Arctic sea ice is thicker, ranging from 2 to 3 meters. The sea ice contains only part of the seawater salt, about 0.5% (5 ppt), hence ice formation like evaporation, concentrates salt in the remaining body of seawater. This causes very dense water (cold), which in some regions in the Southern Ocean leads to deep reaching convection forming a water mass that spreads along the sea floor well into the northern hemisphere. This water mass is called Antarctic Bottom Water (see below). The very low salinity of the Arctic prohibits the development of deep reaching convection in the Arctic Sea…..
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_strat.html

You can then add in Drakes Passage which has been modeled and Bob Tisdale on ENSO.
From what I can tell the constriction through Drakes Passage sends some of the Antarctic cold water up along the coast of South America. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is driven by wind and therefore the strength of those winds may have something to do with the formation of El Nino/La Nina. (SWAG)

…The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is the most important current in the Southern Ocean, and the only current that flows completely around the globe. The ACC, as it encircles the Antarctic continent, flows eastward through the southern portions of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans….
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current’s eastward flow is driven by strong westerly winds. The average wind speed between 40°S and 60°S is 15 to 24 knots with strongest winds typically between 45°S and 55°S. Historically, the ACC has been referred to as the ‘West Wind Drift’ because the prevailing westerly wind and current are both eastward.
Without the aid of continental reference point, except for the Drake Passage, where by convention, all flow through the Passage is the ACC, the current’s boundaries are generally defined by zonal variations in specific water properties of the Southern Ocean (Gordon et al., 1977). Variations in these properties have been used to classify regions whose edges are defined by fronts, where there is rapid changes in water properties which occur over a short distance. North of the ACC is the Subtropical Convergence or Subtropical Front (STF), usually found between 35°S and 45°S, where the average Sea Surface Temperature (SST) changes from about 12°C to 7 to 8°C and salinity decreases from greater than 34.9 to 34.6 or less…..
The southern boundary of the ACC is approximately at 65°S in most of the Indian and Pacific Ocean, from 50°E to the dateline; moves northward to 60°S, east of the dateline to 140°W; is near 70°S by 120°W and moves northward to 60°S, east of the Drake Passage; and northward to 55°S at 10°E. Northward displacement of the southern boundary of the ACC are in the areas of gyres with clockwise surface circulation in the Weddell Sea and in the Ross Sea.
Strong, nearly zonal, westerly winds force a large, near-surface, northward Ekman transport and a northward pressure gradient. The ACC current is in approximately geostrophic equilibrium, so that inclined layers of constant density slope towards the surface poleward across the ACC to balance the current’s northward sea surface height elevation. The alignment between the prevailing winds and the resulting geostrophic current intensifies the ACC. Because stronger gradients give rise to stronger flow, the majority of the ACC transport is associated with the fronts within the current….
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/southern/antarctic-cp.html

Last you can add in ozone.

…Scientists have linked the ozone hole that forms each Antarctic spring high above Earth to changes in the fierce band of westerly winds that swirls around Antarctica. Those winds, closer to the continent’s surface, have grown stronger and moved poleward over the past several decades. And now a new study suggests that the ozone hole has an even broader reach. It finds evidence those shifting winds are speeding circulation patterns in polar waters….
“The models were indicating there could be some change in ocean circulation (caused by ozone depletion), but there was a lot of debate about whether what the models were saying was actually happening,” said lead author Darryn Waugh, a climate scientist at Johns Hopkins University.
His research, published Thursday in the journal Science, bears those models out. It was published alongside a separate study, from researchers at Pennsylvania State University, that affirms the ozone hole has been the main driver of the changes in Antarctica’s winds, dwarfing the role played by climate change…..
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ozone-holes-shifting-winds-may-be-sapping-major-carbon-sink-15530

And the last link is the changes in the amount of solar UV and E-UV wave lengths as well as the solar winds changing the Cosmic Ray flux.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ozone/ozone_2.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/ozone-depletion-trumps-greenhouse-gas-increase-in-jet-stream-shift/

Leif Svalgaard says:
“The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.”
————————
Correct Sir, “kan” translate to “can” as in Obama’s “Yes we Can” as in “if You put your mind to it”
“I CAN make a comment on WUWT, but My arguments MAY fail”

The Danes are probably concerned the first real climate refugees will be their neighbors to the north and east. Check your maps. That would represent a lot of fellow EU citizens looking for a warm place to hang their hat and some sweet pastries. It would not be the first time the Swedes came to town to kick the snow off their boots (Scanian war). The LIA was especially hard on the Fins and Estonians as well, and surely they will not sit quietly by and freeze to death this time.
The LIA was the last important glacier building period, too, and we can expect a repeat of that should LIA II come to pass, and quaint alpine villages will surely be crushed under glaciers thought to be in their death throes in a more naive time. The very expensive glass houses at Mauna Kea and Haleakala in Hawaii would also be at risk. Hawaii once had glaciers, too.
Time will tell, but it is certainly true that climate change is the greatest threat we face. Depending on what the climate changes to. It may be a good time to duffel up the seed cache at Svalbard and move it to a safer place.

Kelvin Vaughan says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:25 am
CO2 is innocent – release CO2. Witnesses were lying!
And, furthermore, it was convicted in a kangaroo court, with neither witnesses nor lawyers for the defence.

BTW, southern Summit County, Colorado (near Breckenridge) had mid day snowfall down to 13000 ft on Aug. 7. 2013
http://i44.tinypic.com/25koqz9.jpg
Subject: Pacific Peak, Crystal Peak, Peak 10 (Left to Right) Aug 7, 2013.
The snow didn’t last 24 hrs. I can’t prove snow this early is unusual,
but here is a link from Rocky Mtn News Aug 13, 2008
And this: “Snow in August, You Betcha!” from Aug 17, 2008.

1.August 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm
2.
Leif Svalgaard, is in a dream wolrd when it comes to what is currently taken place on the sun and the future climatic implications.
3.
Leif has no regard for past history which lends support that the sun is much more variable then what he keeps trying to convey and that the solar conditions during the MAUNDER MINIMUM were very weak(aa index near 0 ,solar wind 200km/sec) and how this correlated to the very cold conditions at that time. In addition he keeps trying to down play the significance of how very very weak solar cycle 24 is and will be going forward.
4.
This flip is nothing like a normal flip and I would not be surprised (as the prolonged solar minimum continues due to angular momentum exerted by the planets on the sun, which Leif also says is not correct) that this may be the last flip , or at the very least the future flips are going to be even less pronounced then even this one.
5.
Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.
6.
This cycle could be weaker then solar cycle 5, and is much weaker then solar cycle 14 . Layman sunspot counts and graphs which are correct show this clearly to be the case.
7.
The AP index and solar flux going forward will end this debate, and as of today we have solar flux around 105 at the maximum ! It should be north of 150.
8.
Also since Oct 2005 the AP index has been extremely low and I expect sub 5 will be the rule in the not to distant future, at least post 2015.
9.
Once the solar parameters hit the levels I have been saying (see below) I list the potential secondary effects which could take place as a result.
10.
1. solar flux sub 90 but better sub 72, less UV light less ozone more meridional atm. circulation ,more clouds,snow cover and precip.,higher albedo ,colder temp. N.H.
11.
2. precipitation patterns changing can impact the thermohaline circulation perhaps slowing it down if precip increases substancially and adds more fresh water to the system.
12.
3. solar wind sub 350 km/sec but better sub 300 km/sec, more cosmic rays more clouds ,higher albedo, colder temp. more geological activity especially in high latitudes.the geo magnetic field weakening of earth promoting this even more.
13.
4. solar irradiance off .015% less visible light ocean heat content subsides
14.
5. ap index 5 or lower with isolated spikes will cause the plates to be more unstable, more volcanic activity and earthquake activity. more shocks to the magnetosphere.
15.
6. low solar in addition to being correlated with an increase in major volcanic activity and earthquakes in and around the solar minimums also can be tied to a cold pdo/amo. a cold pdo translates to more la ninas versus el ninos the result global cooling.
16.
7. low solar actiivty having severe impacts to the Thermosphere and Ionopsphere.
Thermosphere will contract and cool substancially during a prolonged solar minimum which will inter act with all the other layers of the atmosphere.
17.
This explanation is the ONLY explanation that can explain the many past abrupt climatic changes of the past both up and down. There are no other explanations from Milankovitch Cycles, to the Thermohaline circulation shutting down, to extra terrestrial impacts,to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases like methane or co2 etc etc.
18.
The explanation above shows how the climate could be brought to thresholds if the solar parameters change in degree of magnitude strong enough and for a period of duration long enough following a sufficient number of years of sub- solar activity in general, which no other explanation is able to show.
19.
Thresholds have to be met to flip the climate from one climatic regime to another. When the climate is in the same climatic regime changes are gradual and slow and always stay within particular boundaries.
20.
I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.
21.
22.
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here…

1.Salvatore Del Prete says:
2.
August 10, 2013 at 10:35 am
3.
I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.
4.
The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.
5.
If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.
6.
The biggest fault I have with many of the climatic outlooks is almost all of them fail to take into account possible thresholds that exist in our climatic systen(therefore none can address the abrupt climate changes of the past that have occurred on a regular basis) andmany of them are always trying to fit the climate into a neat regular rythmic cycle.
7.
It does not work that way due to the following:
8.
1. The beginning state of the climate has much to do with how the climate will change even if the same forcings are applied.
9.
2. The climatic system is non linear which means the same forcings can produce a completly different result.
10.
3. Even if one and two were not correct the location, the degree of magnitude of the forcings and the duration of time of the forcings and how many different forcings are phased into a cold regime or a warm regime at the same time would cause major differences in the evenual climatic outcome.
11.
That is why these percise climatic outlooks like Henry is trying to do are estimates.
12.
I can say with confidence that the temperature trends are going to be down at least until 2040 or so due to the very weak prolonged solar minimum and what past history has shown to be the climatic reaction to this type of an event.
13.
However I don’t know the degree of magnitude or duration of time, the prolonged solar minimum will be, how much of an impact the weakening geo magnetic field will have,don’t know exactly how much volcanic activity may or may not be taken place going forward or the location, cosmic ray increases and their effects on clouds, and UV light decline impacts on ozone, and how meridional the atmospheric circulation may become and how long it may be sustained, or how this this circulation pattern may, or may not effect the thernmohaline circulation.
14.
Let’s not forget a decline in solar visible light and how that will play upon ocean heat content going forward.
15.
Then if this were not bad enough you have thresholds which are out there, which might be reached or may not be reached.
16.
This is why( aside from co2 being a non climatic leader but rather a climatic result) the AGW model forecast are essentially uselss.
17.
Nevertheless, through past evidence and current studies on solar/climatic relationships I can confidently conclude that the temperature trend will be down due to the prolonged solar minimum which started in earnest in late 2005.
18.
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years) for minor temp decline are as follows:
19.
solar flux sub 90
20.
solar wind sub 350 km/sec
21.
ap index 5-8
22.
solar irradiance off .1 %
23.
UV light off up to 25%
24.
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years,which started in year 2005) for major temperature declines and even possible thresholds to come about are as follows:
25.
solar flux sub 72 or lower
26.
solar wind sub 300 km/sec or lower
27.
ap index sub 5
28.
solar irradiance off .2% or more
29.
uv light emissions off upwards of 50%
30.
None of the above has happened since the solar Dalton Minimumon a sustained basis following many years of sub solar activity.
This decade with the first prolonged solar minmium since the Dalton Minimum offers us an opportunity to see just how much or how little of an impact certain solar parameters will have on the climate in general.
31.
Again because of the reasons given earlier the exact impacts are impossible to quantify.
32.
33.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Enter your comment here…

Leif there is very good evidence that solar variations and climatic responses correlate.
Your insistence to this not be the case is absurd.

For Otter @ 2:32am
Otter, tell your detractor if he has the courage of his convictions, he can come here and “educate” us. We’ll see if he can do any better than Jai Mitchell.

I stand corrected on my previous post, you were repyling to someone else that thought tsi and the ap index ran counter.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:38 am
One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
It looks as you could be wrong, this graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap-n.htm
shows that the evidence is overwhelming
It is worth remembering that not all CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetosphere.
On the other hand it is correct to say that longer term smoothed Ap would follow to some extent smoothed TSI, which may lead to a conclusion that the Ap is made of two variables. I leave that to your ‘scientific curiosity instinct’ to ponder, since my knowledge isn’t up to resolving the issue.

Leif it does not hold up because the degree of magnitude and duration of time of ALL the solar activity/variations since the Dalton Solar Minimum has not been pronounced enough. The sun has featured a more or less steady 11 year sunspot rhymic cycle since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended and any solar effects with the sun behaving in this manner are going to be compensated for by climatic random changes happening here on earth such as volcanic activity, enso, the pdo /amo phase etc etc. Earth climatic random changes will mask any solar effects, when weak because the sun has to reach a certain degree of magnitude change /duration of time in order to exert an influence on earthly climatic random changes. You don’t understand this.
I have long held the view that solar activity since the end of the Dalton accomplished one thing bringing the climate from Dalton conditions to post Dalton conditions, and nothing more since, the sun displayed a pattern of high activity which featured a steady 11 year sunspot cycle with lulls and peaks all of which will accomplished NOTHING when it comes to the sun having a major impact on the climate.
You need EXTREME solar changes, and duration of time has to be sufficiently long, otherwise the inherent negative feedbacks in the earth climatic system are going to overwhelm small solar effects.
That is what you do not understand.
However the present prolonged solar minimum I think will have the extreme solar changes and duration of time necessary to bring about climatic change this time, following enough sub solar years of activity..

Leif that is why so many of the correlations you look for don’t really hold up or if they do hold up for a while they don’t stand the test of time. I think I am right ,think about it.
My opinion of your knowlege Leif is high even though I disagree with you on solar /climatic relationships. Still you know your astronomy that is for sure, but the climate part I think is where you are weak. Just my opinion..

With a Polar jet swinging from the north and the south,then we can expect a very changeable climate. With large swings between hot/cold and wet/dry rather then a large amount of cooling.
The big chill starts when a “ice age pattern” starts to form over a number of years.
Where there is a southern tracking Polar jet that goes zonal over a large area of the NH and a lot of weather activity over the poles. This set up allows large broad areas of high pressure to form a band around the Arctic circle. Which in winter would cause bitter cold weather over large areas of the NH.

I can go with believe in contrast to think. In my earlier post I wish you would read the one I sent at 11:44am and read points 8 through 13, and then you might see my angle in all of this,and why I say what I say to you when it comes to solar/climate relationships.
If it is not extreme changes on the sun, what else is it?. What other mechinisim changes back and forth enough times and in a period of time short enough to explain all the the abrupt climatic changes on earth other then the sun?
There is nothing else for other things take to long, are one time events, or only work on a regional basis
I can’t think of any climatic events originating on the earth that would flip back and forth in a degree of magnitude strong enough and often enough to cause all the abrupt past climatic changes here on earth.
It has to be an extra terrestrial source,that source being the sun. The sun is the engine that drives the atmospheric/oceanic circulations therefore any changes if significant enough(on the sun) must affect those circulations in my opinion.

Leif I must rather converse with someone that does not agree with me, [than] does. I like it even though it is frustrating.

I agree two solar cycles is 22 years. The big questions are how weak will the next 22 years be, and how weak do they have to be to have a big impact on the climate?
I hope we can find out one way or the other.I rather be wrong then not know.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I do the weather for a living. Also did it in the military, studied it in college.
Although weather is not climate, one might argue that average weather is climate. Back in the 1970s, research into Sun/Weather/Climate [SWC] was effectively dead as the various correlations people have been claiming ever since solar activity was first linked to weather/climate [in 1659] has all failed with the passage of time. Then in the early 1970s colleagues [among them Walter Orr Reoberts – Founder of NCAR – National Center for Atmospheric Research http://ncar.ucar.edu/ ] and I revived the entire field and for about a decade SWC was considered a valid research field, until the correlations we had uncovered also failed. The effort back then is aptly summarized in this NASA Special Publication #426 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf The text says: ” We are especially indebted to Dr. Ray Wexler, Dr. John M. Wilcox, Dr. S.J. Bauser, and Dr. Leif Svalgaard for reading several complete draft and revisions” so apparently my peers at the time did value my expertise, so your silly claim that I ‘have no clue’ seems misplaced. You may read section 2.5 about my work on the solar sector structure and its possible effect on atmospheric circulation. And section 4.2.3 about our breakthrough [as it was described at the time] work on solar sector influence on atmosphere vorticity and low-pressure systems. Elaborated more in section 4.3.
The whole book deserves to be read. If you do, you will find that there has been no progress in the field since the book was published in 1977. Correlations that were heralded as secure has fallen by the wayside, and the field had once again fallen into disrepute, where it lingers to this day
Finally in 1976, the Nixon Administration sent me as a special US-envoy with expertise in this field to the USSR [the Soviet Union]. to report on progress in the US on SWC and to hear about what work was done in the USSR.

Bruce Cobb says:
August 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Leif’s apparent belief that climate is random and/or driven by things like volcanoes is simply wishful thinking on his part. His modus operandi as always is the old river-in-Egypt tactic, and heaping helpings of abuse.
Abuse goes where abuse is due, like in your case. You regularly surface with nonsense like this and deserve no better. Attack the science, not the man to avoid being paid back in kind.

Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there? The proposed mechanism seems capable of amplifying and being damped.
=============

kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there?
Provide me a [non-paywalled] link to the article to spare me the trouble of hunting for it.

All I have is the abstract. I was sure you’d read it, as it might be the Holy Grail.
===================

kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm
OK, thanks, Leif. Now I have to read it, and believe me, the abstract was tough enough for me.
If you get it, send me a copy, and I’ll take a look.

kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Hah, Leif, called my bluff. You are far more likely to get the paper, read it, and understand it than I am. Your H&S conjecture satisfied me, but what if they didn’t use that reconstruction?
Scafetta http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.2812.pdf says they did…

vukcevic says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:57 pm
2.One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
They both show the solar cycle variation. Nobody would assume that they vary in direct proportion to each other and that was not meant.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and
http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php
4.I and any scientist in the field have known this for decades.
At best ambiguous, don’t you think so?
No

For those who think that simply demolishing the ACGW meme is enough to get the .gov to stop spending money on ridiculous “alternative” energies or trying to pass tax scams like a carbon tax, consider the fact that until a few short years ago we here in the US were still paying a federal tax on our phone bills that was passed to fund…….wait for it……….the Spanish-American war.
Once embedded, .gov agencies and policies are almost impossible to defund or get rid of entirely.

Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm
What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
They meet a solar ultraviolet photon, become ionized and caught by the solar wind and swept back out of the heliosphere, and have no impact on climate.

lgl says: @ August 10, 2013 at 11:11 am
….. One argument could be that rising sea level can be a problem, but I think it will happen to slowly to become a serious problem, and a colder planet is a bigger problem than a warmer planet…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At least we can all agree on that. Cold does a real tap dance on the food supply. A lot of our grain producing areas are in ‘Marginal’ climates like Canada, Russia and China.
Koppen World Map map with classification key link
This is the real I gottcha. map link
It shows the Koppen climate boundaries by decade in the US midwest grain belt. For the state of Kansas the boundary moves three quarters of the state north from 1970 to 1980/1990. That is ~ 150 miles (240 k) or more.

dp says:
August 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm
….If the above circulation means the oceans are warming by absorbing heat from the air above then I’d like to see the data and a model of the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can take a look at my silly wild donkey guess at comment
I think you are looking at not one factor like just the TSI of the sun but several factors all working together.
Speaking of SWAGs.
Here are a couple others link 1 and link 2 and a paper link 3

This article is pretty tough going for me Dr.S.
Modulation of neutral interstellar He, Ne, O in the heliosphere.
Survival probabilities and abundances at IBEX
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4463.pdf
Astronomy & Astrophysics July 18, 2013
M. Bzowski1, J. M. Sokół1, M. A. Kubiak1, and H. Kucharek2
1 Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland,
2 Space Science Center and Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire,
Durham NH, USA
…Neutral interstellar species enter freely the heliosphere from the LIC and flow towards
the Sun. While direct sampling of NIS atoms at Earth’s orbit is ideologically simple,
interpretation of the measurements to infer the abundances in the LIC requires
taking into account ionization losses and modifications of the flux by
solar gravitational accretion.
This is usually referred to as the heliospheric filtration.
As discussed by a number of authors (Izmodenov et al. 2004; Müller & Zank 2004),
this filtration is a complex, 2-step, species-dependent process. The first step is the
filtration through the heliospheric interface region, the second is extinction due to
the ionization inside the termination shock (TS), i.e., within the supersonic solar wind.
Upon entry into the heliospheric interface region, neutral interstellar gas first passes
through the outer heliosheath (OHS) just outside the heliopause, which may
be regarded as a bow wave in the interstellar gas. Until recently it was believed that
due to the supersonic speed of the heliosphere in the LIC the outer boundary of this
region is a bow shock, but recent findings by Bzowski et al. (2012); Möbius et al. (2012)
suggest that this velocity is significantly lower, which prompted McComas et al.
(2012) to propose that the bow wave is not a shock and its exact nature depends
on a number of parameters whose values are not precisely known.
Regardless, however, of the exact properties of the heliospheric bow wave,
the plasma flow decouples from the neutral component flow in the OHS.
Consequently, charge exchange reactions between the neutral interstellar atoms
and ions in this region lead to the creation of another population of neutral
atoms, the so-called secondary population (Izmodenov et al.2001)….

I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..
Based on our current solar polar fields strength and squashed heliospheric bubble.. which one of the images would you select that might more closely resemble our solar system?
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010906/D2-Astrospheres.jpg
So much stuff going on .. I didn’t know this was out there.
Check out this far-out new solar image of the suns magnetic field carpet.
New and Remarkable Details of Sunspots Now Available from NJIT’s Big Bear Observatory
http://www.njit.edu/news/2013/2013-262.php
NEWARK, Aug 6 2013
Researchers at NJIT’s Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in Big Bear, CA have obtained new and remarkably detailed photos of the Sun with the New Solar Telescope (NST). The photographs reveal never-before-seen details of solar magnetism revealed in photospheric and chromospheric features.
“With our new generation visible imaging spectrometer (VIS),” said Wenda Cao, NJIT Associate Professor of Physics and BBSO Associate Director, “the solar atmosphere from the photosphere to the chromosphere, can be monitored in a near real time. One image was taken with VIS on May 22, 2013 in H-alpha line center. The lawn-shaped pattern illustrates ultrafine magnetic loops rooted in the photosphere below.” ..

William Astley says:
August 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm
There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.
I hope you’ll accept the verdict when it is in.
You are assuming that there cannot be significant cooling of the planet.
Nonsense, the planet has cooled many times in the past.
We understand that based on your paradigm the ‘solar lukewarm paradigm’ solar magnetic cycle changes cannot ‘theoretically’ significantly change planetary temperature.
My position is not based on theory, but on the lack of evidence [not of claims, mind you] that all cooling episodes are caused by the Sun.
I believe however that that paper is not correct.
Beliefs are not high on my list
The warming will reverse.
Assertion with no justification
We will over the next few years determine by observation whether the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycles changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not correct.
You are stuck on the idea that solar activity and CO2 are the only possible causes for climate variability.
Observational evidence will unequivocally resolve the issue.
Nonsense. Whatever happens can be considered the sum of two contributions [sun and CO2] and you will not be able to say how much of each. Like 8 is the sum of 1 and 7, 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, but if you have 8 you cannot tell which of the four possibilities gave you the 8.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle change.
Meaningless statement. If there are 100 cooling/warming episodes and just 2 of them correlate, the statement would be true.
denying the fact that there is a major solar magnetic cycle change underway
You forget that I am one of the foremost proponents for a major qualitative change. You got that idea from me and my work, summarized in http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf

Leif Svalgaard said on August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am:

The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

“Mommy, can I poke my eye out with this pencil?”
“The pencil is sharp, your arms and hands work just fine. Yes dear, you can poke your eye out with that pencil.”
“Mommy, may I poke my eye out with this pencil?”
“No you may not! The iPhone factory pays less for one-eyed children!”
I think there are nuances of meaning here greater than strength of possibility.

William Astley says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:57 am
f there is no cooling observed in the next few years, observations will have proven that hypothesis to be incorrect.
Unfortunately that will not work. It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun. That will be the argument Warmistas will use, so nothing will be decisive.

HenryP says:
August 11, 2013 at 7:43 am
after x many years and tears at WUWT, you still believe in the carbon dioxide nonsense?
No, but believers will say that if no cooling happens that CO2 has won out over the Sun, so the issue may not be resolved in “the next few years”.

On ~107 year cycle
Dr. Svalgaard and I had lot of disagreements on that one starting exactly four years ago (August 2009), more details here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
origins of which appear to be of planetary inter-modulation, it is present in the sunspot cycle (including grand minima), SSN hemispheres asymmetry, Earth’s magnetic field and the global temperatures.

henry@vukcevik
in your last graph there we are looking at temp. anomaly
but from which data set?
I prefer looking at maxima as it gives less noise and shows exactly what energy is coming in

Pamela Gray says:
August 11, 2013 at 8:13 am
……..
Getting close to the North Atlantic’s contribution
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
but solar link is in there too.

On the issue of a little ice age coming: It is of course possible that certain factors, like an incidental extraordinary large shift of cloud formation more towards the equator simultaneous with an extraordinary coverage of large areas with snow, mostly NH, could trap us, amplifying the cooling due to less insolation. In 1940/1 there was a particular large amount of snow in Europe.
However, I am counting on mankind using its ingenuity to be able to reverse that trap, should such a situation occur (usually what would happen is that there would be no spring or summer)
For example, sprinkling carbon (!!) dust on the snow could trap radiation, rather than reflect it back to space.
But alI I am seeing now, is that we will nicely paddle back on our cycle to where we were in 1950…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
@pamela
if it were not to be the planets that seem to switch the power of the sun from positive to negative every so often, (see above graph) , then what is it?

Pamela Gray says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:42 am
Vuk your solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set. Meaning that something far more powerful drives these trends.
‘’’’’’’’’’’
Let’s see noise or something more powerful.
I think you are very familiar with loaded shotgun and its triggering mechanism.
1. Well, the Arctic is a loaded gun, which goes of intermittently either with powerful earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. It is most lava productive volcanic area on the globe, since 1600 had only 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava output. So tectonic pressures are produced by magma not gasses. At temperatures above melting various compounds are highly conductive (easy movement of electrons) and susceptible to good electric currents inductions.
2. Arctic is constantly exposed to electric currents
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Image1.gif
and the most strongly during solar storms.
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules.
And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Now lets remember that is electric current and is of equal strength in any part of a closed circuit (it has to be closed else there wouldn’t exist).
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up occasionally, possibly randomly unless there is occasional push on the trigger by those powerful currents,
Dr. S will tell you that geomagnetic storms (as measured by Ap index) occur at sunspot cycle rate (most often on declining slope of the cycle)
4. Hence we have the mysterious links
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
And what next?
Remember: 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava
then you can read notes on the
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
There you are: sun, energy, tectonics, lava, blockage of critical passage way, ocean currents, SST and natural temperature variability.
No “solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set.”, but sheer power of the tectonics triggered by powerful electric currents.
But of course you are entitled to your opinions, even to rubbish others without knowing the relevant facts.

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
No, not at all. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feeds energy into the tail away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].
Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current. This is old hat.
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
The current does not flow through Iceland at all.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
No, not the way it works. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feed energy into the tail of the magnetosphere away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].
Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. An average huricane releases 100,000 times that amount of energy in a day. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current in a substorm. This is old hat: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
The current does not flow through Iceland at all.
P.S. the preview didn’t help me [if I don’t look]

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
No, not at all. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feeds energy into the tail away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].
—
As long as we are ‘blowing up’ the Earth, magneto tail. Maybe we should blow up Jupiter’s, magneto tail, at a time when Earth is located within close proximity to it. Talk a bout the possibility of some more ACR entering the halo region..

Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:57 am
Maybe we should blow up Jupiter’s, magneto tail, at a time when Earth is located within close proximity to it.
We are never in ‘close proximity’ to it. It is at least 660 million km away.

The PT theorists may or may not like this. But is related to my comment above about a blowin up a Jovian magnetotail.
Cassini observation of Jovian anomalous continuum radiation
Sheng-Yi Ye1, D. A. Gurnett1, J. D. Menietti1, W. S. Kurth1,
G. Fischer2, P. Schippers1, G. B. Hospodarsky1
12 APR 2012
[1] Jovian anomalous continuum is a narrowband electromagnetic radiation near 10 kHz that can escape from Jupiter’s magnetosphere to interplanetary space. One possible source mechanism is the magnetosheath re-radiation of the Jovian low frequency radio emissions such as the quasiperiodic (QP) radio emissions, broadband kilometric radiation (bKOM) and non-thermal continuum. Jovian anomalous continuum was consistently observed by the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument from 2000 to 2004, right before the Saturn orbit insertion, which means the radiation can be detected as far as 8 AU away from Jupiter. An analysis of intensity versus radial distance shows that the Jovian anomalous continuum has a line source rather than a point source, consistent with the theory that the emission is radiated by the whole length of the magnetotail. The emissions are modulated at the system III period of Jupiter and are unpolarized. Since the lower cutoff frequency of the anomalous continuum is related to the plasma frequency in the magnetosheath of Jupiter, which is a function of solar wind density, the recurrent variations of the lower cutoff frequency can be used as a remote diagnostic of the solar wind condition at Jupiter. We propose that the frequency dispersion, a unique characteristic of the anomalous continuum, is likely a comprehensive effect of both the slow group velocity near the local plasma frequency and the refraction/scattering of the waves by density structures as they propagate in the magnetosheath.

Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Cassini observation of Jovian anomalous continuum radiation
You don’t seem to realize how weak radio emission is. The total energy received by all radio telescopes ever since the first one in the 1930s is less that the kinetic energy of a single snow flake falling to the ground…

henry@ulric lyons
IMO a quadrant (2 single solar cycles) is a quarter of the 88 year gleissberg cycle (=11 normal single solar cycles)
seems to me the saturn-uranus synodic cycle is the strongest in showing a direct correlation, of
the 4 quadrants of 22/23 years (av) that I am seeing and predicting.
If this be true we could expect to hit rock bottom (max. speed global cooling) in 2016
which is exactly as I had already predicted from my own data….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
If the other planets have no influence…?

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm
So now we have induced currents, don’t we?
As I have told you many times.
Not if Iceland was floating in the air, but Iceland and surrounding seas are floating on just 15-20 km thick crust with highly conductive (high gravity coefficient –metal rich) magma
No, the magma is not particularly conductive. The induced currents are placed at about 500-700 km depth where the conductivity is 50-500 times higher than that of the magma.
High latitudes volcanic activity from Iceland to Alaska is triggered by geomagnetic storms as measured by Ap index or another ‘mysterious’ coincidence?
They are not. Not enough energy, and no convincing evidence. Many people have looked at this, but no evidence found.

Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm
<i.The Greenland vortex dump and I think there is another on the opposite side.
Have you checked out the Bermuda Triangle?

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle
If you believe that then you might enjoy the ultimate theory on this [explaining everything]:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf
—
Yes, well talk about accumulations of mass, Jupiter and Saturn are ranked high as a duo system, within this solar system.
But the Jupiter magnetotail blow up you misunderstood?
If the Jupiter magnetosphere is impacted by a solar event, (CME or) and the magnetotail releases some of that energy into space, the particles it is said, “become accelerated to ACR levels.”
Depends on which angle, cause they think maybe we are getting some of our anomalous cosmic rays ACR from Jupiter.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm
<i.The Greenland vortex dump and I think there is another on the opposite side.
Have you checked out the Bermuda Triangle?
—
Um.. no. Not lately, used to be associated with unusual atmospheric phenomenom.

Vukcevic : High latitudes volcanic activity from Iceland to Alaska is triggered by geomagnetic storms as measured by Ap index or another ‘mysterious’ coincidence?
Dr. Svalgaard:: They are not. Not enough energy, and no convincing evidence. Many people have looked at this, but no evidence found.
Iceland and the Arctic are unique, there continental plates are spreading out. Magma pouring out to the surface is directly from the Mantle’s convection cell (thermal circulation all the way from outer core- liquid iron & nickel to the Earth’s surface).
In most of other volcanic areas magma is product of tectonic plates subduction process, with no direct link with convection cells.
Evidence is there if you look in the right place, and I did
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
first posted on WUWT one year ago, almost to a day.

vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Iceland and the Arctic are unique, there continental plates are spreading out.
So what, the plates are spreading all along the mid Atlantic ridge [from] North to South. and many other places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif nothing unique about Iceland, and no induced currents as the conductivity is too low: resistivity of the magma ~100 Ohm meter compared to some 5 Ohm meter at depth of ~500 km.

William Astley says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:26 pm
A sunspot’s life time is roughly one complete solar rotation
You are confusing sunspots with active region. A typical spot only lives a couple of days and even more than half of active regions [groups] live less than 2 days.
people will be surprised when there are suddenly pore less days early 2014.
I will be very surprised if there will be pore less days if spots are turning into pores. What are you going to do if your prediction does not come to pass?